HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix EIR APPENDIX EIR – ECR/C DRAFT AND FINAL EIR Executive Summary This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the environmental effects of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, hereafter referred to as the proposed Plan, and the associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments. The City of South San Francisco is the "lead agency" for this EIR, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As the lead agency, the City is required to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed Plan, which is presented in this EIR. An EIR is intended to inform decision-makers and the general public of the potential significant environmental impacts of a proposed project. No feasible mitigations are identified. Impacts have either been addressed through policies in the existing General Plan or new policies in the proposed Plan, or are identified as significant and unavoidable. The EIR also evaluates reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that may reduce or avoid one or more significant environmental effects. These alternatives must include a "No Project" alternative that represents the result of not implementing the project and a reasonable alternative to the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.l Based on the alternatives analysis, an environmentally superior alternative is identified. This EIR is a program EIR that examines the potential effects resulting from implementing designated land uses and policies in the proposed Plan. The impact assessment evaluates the proposed Plan as a whole and identifies the broad effects that may occur with its implementation. As a programmatic document, this EIR does not assess site-specific impacts. In order to implement the proposed Plan, the City is concurrently amending the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and Map to be consistent with the policies of the proposed Plan and are therefore reflected in this EIR. Any future development project made possible by the proposed Plan will be subject to individual, site-specific environmental review, as required by State law. Project-level environmental review will need to focus on project-scale impacts. Cumulative and citywide impacts (such as traffic) would not need to be evaluated, provided the data and assumptions used in this EIR remain current and valid. PROPOSED PROJECT The City of South San Francisco is located on the west shore of the San Francisco Bay, in northern San Mateo County. The city is built upon the Bay Plain and the northern foothills of the Coastal Range. The city is strategically located along major transportation corridors and hubs, including U.S. 101, 1-280, 1-380, and the San Francisco International Airport. The Planning Area is located in the geographic center of South San Francisco, west of Downtown South San Francisco. The Planning Area encompasses approximately 98 acres along El Camino Real, from Southwood Drive to just north of Sequoia Avenue. The majority of the area is situated between El Camino Real and Mission Road. The right-of-way for the underground BART line runs through the length of the site. To the north of the Planning Area I CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(a) Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Executive Summary is the South San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station along with newer high- density development, major commercial establishments such as Costco, and Kaiser Hospital. To the south of the Planning Area is the South El Camino Real Area, and City of San Bruno, including the San Bruno BART station. KEY FEATURES OF THE PROPOSED PLAN The core of the area is currently vacant, and used to be formerly owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, with ownership in the past few years transferred to the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Outside of this core area are a variety of uses, majority of them single-story commercial operations, as well as major facilities such as the Kaiser Hospital and the City's Municipal Services Building (where City Council meetings are held). The proposed Plan aims to transform the Planning Area into a new walkable, distinctive, mixed-use district at the heart of South San Francisco. A network of open spaces will form the armature of new development. New streets and pedestrian connections will extend through the area, enabling easy movement on foot. The BART right-of-way that extends through the length of the Planning Area will be transformed into a linear park and a pedestrian-oriented "Main Street", lined with restaurants, cafes, public gathering spaces, and outdoor seating in a portion of the right-of-way. Development will be at high densities, reflecting adjacent transit access. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS Adoption of the proposed Area Plan will include amendments to the Land Use; Planning Sub- Areas; Transportation; and Parks, Public Facilities, and Services elements of the existing General Plan to ensure consistency. Land Use The General Plan High Density Residential land use classification would be amended to allow higher density development under the High Density Residential land use classification within the Planning Area. In addition, the proposed Plan introduces two new land use classifications: El Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity and El Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity. In addition to these, the Plan applies the existing General Plan Public, and Park and Recreation land use classifications to sites in the Planning Area. In addition to land use classifications and designations, amendments will also be made to the General Plan to allow for increased building height within the Planning Area. Amended and proposed land use designations follow. High Density Residential This designation, as it applies to the 4.S-acre former San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) parcel between Mission Road and the Colma Creek canal, allows higher densities than elsewhere in the city, reflecting the area's close proximity to the South San Francisco BART Station. Up to 120 units per acre are permitted and a minimum density of 80 units per acre is required. Maximum density may be increased to 180 units per acre for development meeting specified criteria. E-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Executive Summary El Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity This designation is intended to accommodate high-intensity active uses and mixed-use development. Retail and department stores; eating and drinking establishments; hotels; commercial recreation; financial, business, and personal services; residential; educational and social services; and office uses are permitted. The minimum FAR for all uses, exclusive of structured parking, shall be 0.6, of which a minimum 0.3 FAR shall be active uses. Active uses are those that are accessible to the general public, generate walk-in pedestrian clientele and contribute to a high level of pedestrian activity. Such uses include retail shops, restaurants, bars, theaters and the performing arts, commercial recreation and entertainment, personal and convenience services, hotels, banks, travel agencies, childcare services, libraries, museums, and galleries. Within this designation, the ground floor frontage of a site along El Camino Real, Chestnut Avenue and Oak Avenue is required to be devoted to active uses. The maximum FAR for all uses, inclusive of residential but exclusive of structured parking, shall be 2.0, with increases to a maximum total FAR of 3.0 for development meeting specified criteria. Residential density (included within the overall FAR) is limited to a maximum of 80 units per acre, with increases to a maximum of 110 units per acre for development meeting specified criteria. El Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity This designation is intended to accommodate high-intensity active uses and mixed-use development. Retail and department stores; eating and drinking establishments; hotels; commercial recreation; financial, business, and personal services; residential; educational and social services; and office uses are permitted. The minimum FAR for all uses, exclusive of structured parking, shall be 0.6, of which a minimum 0.3 FAR shall be active uses. Active uses are those that are accessible to the general public, generate walk-in pedestrian clientele and contribute to a high level of pedestrian activity. Such uses include retail shops, restaurants, bars, theaters and the performing arts, commercial recreation and entertainment, personal and convenience services, hotels, banks, travel agencies, childcare services, libraries, museums, and galleries. Within this designation, the maximum FAR for all uses, inclusive of residential but exclusive of structured parking, shall be 1.5, with increases to a maximum total FAR of 2.5 for development meeting specified criteria. Residential density (included within the overall FAR) is limited to 40 units per acre, with increases to a maximum of 60 units per acre for development meeting specified criteria. Other Elements Policies have been added to the Planning Sub-Areas, Transportation, and Parks and Parks, Public Facilities, and Services elements to include references to the proposed Plan as the guiding policy document for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area. New policies in the Transportation and Parks, Public Facilities, and Services elements incorporate transportation improvements and additional parkland policies included in the proposed Plan. E-3 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Executive Summary ZONING AMENDMENTS Adoption of the proposed Area Plan will include amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to ensure consistency between the Zoning Ordinance and amended General Plan and proposed Area Plan. The Zoning Map will also be amended to reflect the changes in Zoning designations. The proposed Plan includes an amendment to Division III: Specific and Area Plan Districts of the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment includes a new chapter, Chapter 20.270 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan District, for Division III. The new El Camino Real/Chestnut District (proposed District) includes the following three sub-districts: El Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed Use, High Density (ECR/C-MXH), El Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed Use, Medium Density (ECR/C-MXM), and El Camino Real/Chestnut Residential, High Density (ECR/C-RH). The proposed District establishes the use regulations, standards and development review procedures needed to implement the proposed Plan. In addition, the proposed District includes development standards such as lot size and width, FAR, density, height, yards, building form, open space, active frontage, and parking and loading that will apply to development within the Planning Area. ESTIMATED BUILDOUT OF THE PROPOSED PLAN Full development under the proposed Plan is referred to as "buildout." Although the proposed Plan horizon is to the year 2030, the Plan does not specify or anticipate when buildout will actually occur, nor does the designation of a site for a certain use necessarily mean the site will definitely be developed with that use by 2030. This section describes the implications of the projected additional buildout with the proposed Plan in terms of future population, housing units, and jobs. Table ES-l summarizes buildout of the proposed Plan Table ES-I: Buildout of Proposed Plan Existing Proposed Plan Increase Population and Housing Population I 400 4,800 +4,400 Housing Units 132 1,587 + 1,455 Households2 125 1,223 +1,098 Non Residential and Jobs Retail and Services (sf) 250,900 426,300 + 175,400 Office (sf) 304,800 377,800 +73,000 Public/Institutional (sf) 60,500 110,500 +50,000 Jobs] 1,900 2,500 +600 Employed Residents4 200 2,400 +2,200 Jobs/Employed Residents 8 1.0 I Buildout population was calculated assuming 3.04 persons per household; totals are rounded to the nearest hundred. 2 Households are estimated as 95 percent of the total housing units, assuming a 5 percent vacancy rate. ] Jobs at buildout rounded to the nearest hundred. Jobs projected under the proposed Plan exclude any expansion of Kaiser that may result in the future. 4 Employed residents at buildout were calculated using the ratio of employed residents to total population as pro- jected for 2030 in the City of South San Francisco by ABAG (50% of total population). Sources: ABAG Projections 2009; Dyett & Bhatia 20 I O. E-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Executive Summary Residential Buildout Buildout Population and Residential Development As shown in Table ES-1, the proposed will accommodate a population of approximately 4,800 people at buildout. This growth represents a population increase of 4,400 and 1,455 additional housing units in the Planning Area. Non-Residential Buildout Table ES-1 shows that the proposed Plan accommodates 914,600 square feet of non-residential development. The additional non-residential development is projected to generate approximately 600 jobs. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PLAN The following alternatives are described and evaluated in this EIR: • Housing Center Alternative. The Housing Center Alternative assumes the same amount of redevelopment potential as the proposed Plan. It also assumes that future development will be more residential compared to the proposed Plan. The Housing Center Alternative assumes 580,500 square feet of non-residential development, which results in 1,500 jobs. The rest of the non-residential development projected in the pro- posed Plan is assumed to be residential. This results in 1,950 housing units and a buil- dout population of 5,800. Compared with the proposed Plan, the Alternative would re- sult in 1,400 more housing units, but 700 fewer jobs at buildout. • No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative assumes continuation of land use development under the 1999 General Plan. Buildout of the No Project Alternative would result in 250 residential units and 780,100 square feet of non-residential space. The No Project Alternative will accommodate a total population of 700 in 2030. Com- pared with the proposed Plan, the No Project scenario would result in 1,337 fewer housing units, 4,100 fewer residents, and 400 fewer jobs, at buildout. Table ES-2 summarizes key characteristics of the resident and worker populations at buildout (2030) under the proposed Plan and each of the EIR alternatives. A detailed comparison of alternatives and associated impacts is provided in Chapter 4: Alternatives of this EIR. E-5 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Executive Summary Table ES-2: Buildout Comparison of Alternatives No Project Proposed Plan Housing Center Alternative Population and Housing Population I 700 4,800 5,800 Housing Units 250 1,587 1,950 Households2 238 1,223 1,852 Non Residential and Jobs Retail and Services (sf) 328,200 426,300 92,200 Office (sf) 391,400 377,800 377,800 Public/Institutional (sf) 60,500 110,500 110,500 Jobs] 2,100 2,500 1,800 Employed Residents4 350 2,400 2,900 Jobs/Employed Residents 6.0 1.0 0.6 I Buildout population was calculated assuming 3.04 persons per household; totals are rounded to the nearest hundred. 2 Households are estimated as 95 percent of the total housing units, assuming a 5 percent vacancy rate. ] Jobs at buildout rounded to the nearest hundred. Jobs projected exclude any expansion of Kaiser that may result in the future. 4 Employed residents at buildout were calculated using the ratio of employed residents to total population as pro- jected for 2030 in the City of South San Francisco by ABAG (50% of total population). Sources: ABAG Projections 2009; Dyett & Bhatia 20 I O. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS & ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Table ES-3 presents the summary of the proposed Plan impacts identified in the EIR and the proposed Plan policies that reduce these impacts. Because many of the proposed Plan's policies are designed to avoid or minimize impacts, the proposed Plan is self-mitigating with respect to all impacts identified in the EIR with feasible mitigation measures. The significance of each impact with implementation of the proposed Plan policies is also shown in Table ES-3. The level of significance is determined by comparing the impact to the significance criteria described in Chapter 3. Based on the comparative analysis in Chapter 4 of this Draft EIR, and setting aside the No Project alternative (as provided by CEQA), the Housing Center Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative. Nonetheless, the proposed Plan does a better job at achieving its purpose. In particular, the proposed Plan focuses establishing a high intensity, mixed-use, and pedestrian oriented district. It would also achieve the greatest jobs/housing balance in the Planning Area of all alternatives. Since all new development under the proposed Plan and all alternatives would be in the form of infill development-the redevelopment of existing sites-each alternative expects development on the same set of sites. Therefore, impacts are no different for many issue areas, including cultural resources; aesthetics and visual resources; land use and housing; geology, soils, seismicity, hydrology and flooding, and all of the environmental factors included in the impacts not potentially significant section. E-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Executive Summary Table ES-3: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact # Impact 3.1 Traffic and Circulation 3.1-1 3.1-2 Future development under the proposed Plan, along with regional population and employment growth, would cause an increase in traffic and would cause intersection LOS standard established by the General Plan to be exceeded. Future development under the proposed Plan, along with regional population and employment growth, would cause an increase in traffic and would cause roadway LOS standards established by the county congestion management agency to be exceeded. 3.2 Air Quality 3.2-1 3.2-2 3.2-3 New development under the proposed Plan would not increase YMT at a faster rate than population and would not be inconsistent with air quality con- trol measures in the 20 I 0 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. New development under the proposed Plan may result in the location of new sensitive receptors near existing sources of TACs. New development under the proposed Plan may create odors affecting a substantial number of people. 3.3 Energy and Greenhouse Gases Proposed Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact Policies C-I, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-S, C-6 Policies LU-I, LU-3, LU-6, LU-7, LU-8, UD-7, C-I, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-S, C-6, P-I, P- 2, P-6, P-7, P-9, P-I I Significance Significant and Unavoidable Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Mitigation All feasible mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed Plan. The remaining mitigation measures were found to be in contravention to the proposed Plan and other planning efforts within the Planning Area, as well as economically and technologi- cally infeasible, indicating that the impact re- mains significant. None Required None Required None Required None Required E-7 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Executive Summary Table ES-3: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact Proposed Plan Policies # Impact that Reduce the Impact Significance Mitigation 3.3-1 New development under the proposed Plan would Policies LU-7, LU-I 0, Less than None Required not result in wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary UD-7, UD-13, UD-13, Significant consumption of energy. UD-16, UD-29, UD- 30, UD-31, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-S, P-I, P-2, P-6, P-II, P-12 3.3-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan would result Policies LU-I, LU-2 Less than None Required in a ratio of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions LU-6, LU-7, LU-8, LU-Significant to service population that would not exceed 4.6 10, UD-I, UD-2, UD- MTC02e. 4, UD-7, UD-13, UD- 16, UD-20, UD-24, C- 2, C-3, C-4, C-S, P-I, P-2, P-6, P-7, P-I I 3.3-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not Less than None Required conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regula-Significant tion adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. 3.4 Cultural Resources 3.4-1 Future development under the proposed Plan may Less than None Required have the potential to adversely affect historic re-Significant sources that appear on State historical inventories or may be eligible for inclusion on such lists. 3.4-2 Future development under the proposed Plan may Less than None Required have the potential to adversely affect undiscovered Significant archaeological resources and human remains. 3.4-3 Future development under the proposed Plan may No Impact None Required adversely affect paleontological resources. 3.S Noise E-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Executive Summary Table ES-3: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact Proposed Plan Policies # Impact that Reduce the Impact Significance Mitigation 3.S-1 New development under the proposed Plan may Less than None Required potentially expose existing noise-sensitive uses to Significant construction-related temporary increases in am- bient noise. 3.S-2 Future development under the proposed Plan, Less than None Required together with regional growth, may contribute to Significant a noticeable increase in the ambient noise level along EI Camino Real, Mission Road, and Chestnut Avenue, which would impact nearby existing and proposed sensitive receptors. 3.S-3 The proposed Plan may result in the siting of Less than None Required noise-sensitive receptors in close proximity to Significant major sources of transportation noise. 3.S-4 New development under the proposed Plan may Less than None Required result in the exposure of persons to, or genera-Significant tion of, excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. 3.6 Parks and Recreation 3.6-1 While future development under the proposed Policies UD-13, UD-Less than None Required Plan may result in increased demand for and use of 14, UD-IS, UD-16, Significant existing parks, proposed parks will meet level of UD-17, UD-18, UD- service standards. 19, UD-22, UD-34 3.6-2 Future development under the proposed Plan may Policies LU-4, LU-S Less than None Required increase the use of existing recreation and public Significant facilities and increase the demand for such facili- ties, requiring the expansion of facilities that may have a negative impact on the environment. 3.7 Public Services and Utilities 3.7-1 Future development under the proposed Plan may Less than None Required increase the demand for school facilities. Significant E-9 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Executive Summary Table ES-3: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact Proposed Plan Policies # Impact that Reduce the Impact Significance Mitigation 3.7-2 Future development under the proposed Plan may Less than None Required require additional fire and police protection ser-Significant vices, but would not exceed the capacity of exist- ing facilities. 3.7-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not Less than None Required require additional water supply beyond that avail-Significant able from existing entitlements and resources, as planned for in the Urban Water Management Plan, or cause an exceedance of distribution capacity. 3.7-4 Future development under the proposed Plan Less than None Required would not cause wastewater treatment capacity of Significant the WQCP to be exceeded and would not require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of facilities. 3.7-5 Future development under the proposed Plan will Less than None Required be served by a landfill with adequate permitted Significant capacity and would not fail to fully comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 3.8 Aesthetics and Visual Resources 3.8-1 Future development under the proposed Plan Policies UD-6, UD-8, Beneficial None Required would improve the existing visual character of the UD-9, UD-I I, UD-20, Planning Area. UD-21, UD-22, UD- 23, UD-24 3.8-2 Future development under the proposed Plan may Policies H-I, H-2, H-3, Less than None Required affect scenic views of Sign Hill and the San Bruno UD-9 Significant Mountains. 3.8-3 Future development under the proposed Plan Less than None Required could result in increased light and glare. Significant 3.9 Land Use and Housing E-IO Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Executive Summary Table ES-3: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact # 3.9-1 3.9-2 3.9-3 3.9-4 Impact The proposed Plan makes substantial changes to the types of land uses in an area which may divide an established community. Implementation of the proposed Plan may displace substantial numbers of existing housing, popula- tion, or jobs. The proposed Plan may conflict with the City General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Plan may conflict with height limits established for the San Francisco International Airport airspace. 3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity 3.10-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan may expose people or structures to the rupture of a known earthquake fault. 3.10-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan may expose people or structures to seismic hazards such as ground shaking or liquefaction. 3.10-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan may expose people or structures to geologic hazards, including expansive soils and erosion. 3.1 I Hydrology and Flooding 3.1 I-I Future development under the proposed Plan may result in the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Proposed Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact Policies LU-I, LU-S, LU-7, LU-8, LU-I 0, UD-I, UD-2, UD-3, UD-4, UD-S, UD-6, UD-8 Policies LU-3, LU-6, LU-7, LU-8 Significance Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Mitigation None Required None Required None Required None Required None Required None Required None Required None Required E-II Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Executive Summary Table ES-3: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact # Impact 3.1 1-2 Future development under the proposed Plan may substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner which would result in sub- stantial erosion, siltation or runoff resulting in flooding. 3.11-3 3.11-4 3.12 3.12-1 3.12- I-I 3.12-2 3.12- 2-1 3.12- 2-2 3.12- 2-3 E-12 Future development under the proposed Plan may substantially create or contribute to runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or degrade water quality. Future development under the proposed Plan may expose people and structures to flooding hazards. Impacts Not Significant Agriculture and Forest Resources Future development under the proposed Plan may affect agriculture and forest resources. Biology Future development under the proposed Plan may affect candidate, sensitive, or special-status plant or animal species. Future development under the proposed Plan may affect federally protected wetlands or migratory wildlife corridors. The proposed Plan may conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, re- gional, or state habitat conservation plan. Proposed Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Mitigation None Required None Required None Required None Required None Required None Required None Required Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Executive Summary Table ES-3: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact # Impact 3.12-3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.12- 3-1 3.12- 3-2 3.12- 3-3 3.12- 3-4 3.12- 3-5 3.12- 3-6 Future land uses proposed by the proposed Plan may involve the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. Future land uses in the proposed Plan may emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Future development may be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 ("Cortese List"). Future development may be located within an airport use, which may result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in area. The proposed Plan may impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Future development under the proposed Plan may expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. 3.12-4 Mineral Resources 3.12- 4-1 Future development under the proposed Plan may affect mineral resources. Proposed Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact Significance No Impact No Impact No Impact Less than Significant No Impact No Impact No Impact Mitigation None Required None Required None Required None Required None Required None Required None Required E-/3 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Executive Summary This page intentionally left blank. E-14 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... E-I Proposed Project ...................................................................................................................................................... E-I Alternatives to the Proposed Plan ........................................................................................................................ E-S Summary of Impacts & Environmentally Superior Alternative ....................................................................... E-6 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... I-I 1.1 Purpose of this EIR ........................................................................................................................................ I-I 1.2 EIR Process ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Approach to the EIR ...................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Scope of The EIR ............................................................................................................................................ 1-4 1.5 Other Relevant Plans and Environmental Studies .................................................................................. 1-5 1.6 Organization of this EIR ................................................................................................................................ 1-5 2 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Regional Location and Local Setting .......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Purpose and Objectives of the Proposed plan ........................................................................................ 2-4 2.3 Proposed Plan ................................................................................................................................................. 2-4 2.4 Buildout .......................................................................................................................................................... 2-17 2.5 Key Guiding Principles ................................................................................................................................ 2-20 2.6 Area Plan Implementation .......................................................................................................................... 2-21 3.0 Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 3.0-1 3.1 Traffic and Circulation ................................................................................................... 3.1-1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................................................... 3.1-1 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 3.1-18 3.2 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 3.2-1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................................................... 3.2-1 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 3.2-15 3.3 Energy and Greenhouse Gases ...................................................................................... 3.3-1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................................................... 3.3-1 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Table of Contents Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 3.3-23 3.4 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 3.4-1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................................................... 3.4-1 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 3.4-11 3.5 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 3.5-1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................................................... 3.5-1 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 3.5-13 3.6 Parks and Recreation .................................................................................................... 3.6-1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................................................... 3.6-1 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................... 3.6-4 3.7 Public Services and Utilities .......................................................................................... 3.7-1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................................................... 3.7-1 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 3.7-13 3.8 Aesthetics and Visual Resources ................................................................................... 3.8-1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................................................... 3.8-1 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................... 3.8-6 3.9 Land Use and Housing ................................................................................................... 3.9-1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................................................... 3.9-1 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................... 3.9-6 3.10 Geology, Soils and Seismicity .................................................................................... 3.10-1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................................................................... 3.10-1 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 3.10-7 3.1 I Hydrology and Flooding ............................................................................................... 3.1 I-I Environmental Setting ......................................................................................................................................... 3.11-1 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 3.11-9 3.12 Impacts Not Potentially Significant .......................................................................... 3.12-1 3.12-1 Agriculture and Forest Resources .................................................................................................. 3.12-1 3.12-2 Biological Resources .......................................................................................................................... 3.12-3 3.12-3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................... 3.12-10 3.12-4 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................................... 3.12-17 4 Analysis of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 4.1 ii Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Table of Contents 4.1 Background on Development of Alternatives ......................................................................................... .4.1 4.2 Description of Alternatives .......................................................................................................................... 4.2 4.3 Comparative Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 4.3 4.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative ..................................................................................................... 4.20 5 CEQA Required Conclusions .............................................................................................. 5.1 5.1 Growth Inducing Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 5.1 5.2 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................................................................ 5.4 5.3 Significant Environmental Effects ................................................................................................................. 5.6 5.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Change ......................................................................................... 5.6 6 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 6.1 7 Report Authors .................................................................................................................... 7. I APPENDICES Appendix A: Notice of Preparation Appendix B: Traffic Impact Analysis Report Appendix C: Northwest Information Center Letter iii Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Table of Contents List of Tables Table ES-I: Buildout of Proposed Plan ................................................................................................................... ES-4 Table ES-2: Buildout Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................................... ES-6 Table ES-3: Summary of Impacts and Proposed Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact .............................. ES-7 Table 2.3-1: Summary of Standards for Density and Development Intensity ................................................ 2-6 Table 2.3-2: Summary of Proposed General Plan Amendments ...................................................................... 2-12 Table 2.3-3: Summary of Existing and Proposed Zoning Designations ........................................................... 2-14 Table 2.4-1: Population and Housing Units at Buildout in Planning Area ...................................................... 2-18 Table 2.4-2: Non-Residential Development and Jobs at Buildout in Planning Area .................................... 2-18 Table 2.4-3: Citywide Population and Jobs ............................................................................................................ 2-20 Table 3.1-1: Level of Service Definition ................................................................................................................ 3.1-3 Table 3.1-2: Level of Service Definitions for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections ........................... 3.1-4 Table 3.1-3: Freeway Level of Service ................................................................................................................... 3.1-4 Table 3.1-4: Existing Condition Intersection Level of Service Analysis ........................................................ .3.1-5 Table 3.1-5: Existing Condition Freeway Level of Service Analysis ................................................................ 3.1-5 Table 3.1-6: Project Trip Generation .................................................................................................................. 3.1-22 Table 3.1-7: Intersection Level of Service Summary ........................................................................................ 3.1-29 Table 3.1-8: Summary of Intersection Impacts .................................................................................................. 3.1-30 Table 3.1-9: Freeway Level of Service Summary ............................................................................................... 3.1-33 Table 3.2-1: Summary of Ozone Data for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (1999 _ 2009) ........... 3.2-2 Table 3.2-2: Summary of Data for Particulate Matter in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (1999 -2009) ......................................................................................................................................................... 3.2-3 Table 3.2-3: Air Quality Data Summary for the Project Area (2005-2009) ................................................. 3.2-4 Table 3.2-4: Proposed Plan Population and VMT Increase ............................................................................. 3.2-18 Table 3.2-5: TCMs in the Bay Area Ozone Strategy to be Implemented by the Proposed Plan and General Plan Policies ........................................................................................................................................... 3.2-19 Table 3.2-6: Daily Traffic Volumes Along EI Camino Real and Mission Road ............................................ 3.2-25 Table 3.2-7: BAAQMD-Recommended Buffer Zone Distances for Potential Odor Sources ............... 3.2-27 Table 3.3-1: Energy Use in the City of South San Francisco, 2003-2006 ...................................................... 3.2-2 Table 3.3-10: Qualifying Mitigating Proposed Plan Policies ............................................................................... 3.3-8 Table 3.3-2: 2007 Bay Area C02e Emissions by Pollutant ................................................................................ 3.3-6 Table 3.3-3: 2005 South San Francisco Community Emissions ....................................................................... 3.3-8 Table 3.3-4: Growth Indicators (Percent Growth from 2005) ..................................................................... 3.3-25 Table 3.3-5: Annual BTU Use Projections for Residential and Commercial/Industrial ........................... 3.3-27 Table 3.3-6: Transportation Energy Use in BTUs ............................................................................................. 3.3-28 Table 3.3-7: BAAQMD Mitigation Measures for GHG Emissions ................................................................ 3.3-33 Table 3.3-8: 2020 South San Francisco Community Emissions (Metric Tons of C02e) .......................... 3.3-35 Table 3.3-9: 2030 South San Francisco Community Emissions (Metric Tons of C02e) ......................... 3.3-36 Table 3.4-1: Cultural Resources In and Around the Planning Area ................................................................ 3.4-4 Table 3.5-1: Typical Construction Phase Noise Levels ................................................................................... 3.5-15 Table 3.5-2: Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment ................................................................ 3.5-16 Table 3.5-3: Increase in Noise Levels in 2030 with Proposed Plan .............................................................. 3.5-18 Table 3.6-1: New Parkland Needed ....................................................................................................................... 3.6-5 iv Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Table of Contents Table 3.6-2: Existing and Proposed Parks ............................................................................................................. 3.6-5 Table 3.7-1: South San Francisco Existing School Enrollment and Capacity 2009-10 ................................ 3.7-1 Table 3.7-2: Distribution and Demand of Services for the South San Francisco District (2005) ........... 3.7-5 Table 3.7-3: Historic Average Day Demand ........................................................................................................ 3.7-5 Table 3.7-4: Waste Diversion Programs in South San Francisco .................................................................... 3.7-7 Table 3.7-5: UWMP Population Projections for the South San Francisco District .................................. 3.7-19 Table 3.7-6: Population Projections for Service Area with Project .............................................................. 3.7-20 Table 3.7-7: Wastewater Generated with Project ........................................................................................... 3.7-21 Table 3.12-1: Agriculture And Forest Resources ............................................................................................. 3.12-1 Table 3.12-2: Biological Resources ....................................................................................................................... 3.12-3 Table 3.12-3: Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................. 3.12-1I Table 3.12-4: Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................... 3.12-18 Table 4.2-1: Comparison of Alternatives at Buildout ........................................................................................... 4-2 Table 4.3-1: Trip Generating Potential Comparison ............................................................................................. 4-4 Table 4.3-2: Alternatives Comparison for Population and VMT Growth ........................................................ 4-5 Table 4.3-3: Daily Traffic Volumes Along EI Camino Real and Mission ............................................................ 4-5 Table 4.3-4: Annual BTU Use for Residential and Commercial/lndustrial. ...................................................... 4-7 Table 4.3-5: Transportation Energy Use in BTUs .................................................................................................. 4-8 Table 4.3-6: 2020 Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................. 4-9 Table 4.3-7: 2030 Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................ 4-10 Table 4.3-8: Increase in Noise Levels in 2030 Comparison .............................................................................. 4-12 Table 4.3-9: New Demand for Parks Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................. 4-13 Table 4.3-10: New Demand for Public Schools Comparison of Alternatives ............................................... 4-14 Table 4.3-1 I: South San Francisco Water Service Area Population Projection .......................................... .4-15 Table 4.3-12: Wastewater Generation Comparison of Alternatives .............................................................. 4-16 Table 4.3-13: Solid Waste Generation Comparison of Alternatives .............................................................. 4-17 Table 4.3-14: Buildout Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................................ 4-18 Table 5.1-1: Projected Population for the City of South San Francisco ........................................................... 5-2 Table 5.1-2: Projected Jobs for the City of South San Francisco ....................................................................... 5-2 Table 5.1-3: Jobs per Employed Residents: Planning Area Ratios ...................................................................... 5-3 v Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Table of Contents List of Figures Figure 2.1-1: Regional Location .................................................................................................................................. 2-2 Figure 2.1-2: Planning Area .......................................................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2.3-1: Existing General Plan Map ................................................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2.3-2: Proposed General Plan Map ............................................................................................................... 2-8 Figure 2.3-3: Existing Special Area Height Limitations .......................................................................................... 2-9 Figure 2.3-4: Proposed Special Area Height Limitations .................................................................................... 2-10 Figure 2.3-5: Area Plan Height Limitations ............................................................................................................ 2-1 I Figure 2.3-6: Existing Zoning Designations ............................................................................................................ 2-15 Figure 2.3-7: Proposed Zoning Designations ........................................................................................................ 2-16 Figure 3.5-1: Typical Sound Levels .......................................................................................................................... 3.5-2 Figure 3.5-2: Noise Contours .................................................................................................................................. 3.5-7 Figure 3.5-3: Existing Noise Contours .................................................................................................................. 3.5-8 Figure 3.5-4: Projected Noise Contours ............................................................................................................. 3.5-17 Figure 3.9-1: Airport Height ................................................................................................................................... 3.9-12 Figure 3.1 I-I: Flood Zones .................................................................................................................................... 3.11-2 Figure 3.12-1: Special Status Species .................................................................................................................... 3.12-5 List of Charts Chart 3.3-1: Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector, as a Percent of Total Emissions ............. 3.3-6 Chart 3.3-2: Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trends by Sector ........................................................... 3.3-7 vi I Introduction This Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared on behalf of the City of South San Francisco in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This chapter outlines the purpose of and overall approach to the preparation of the EIR on the proposed El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan (proposed Plan). The City of South San Francisco is the lead agency responsible for ensuring that the proposed Plan complies with CEQA. 1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS EIR The proposed Plan consists of policies to guide the future growth within the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Planning Area, as described in Chapter 2: Project Description. This EIR evaluates the potential impacts of the adoption and implementation of the proposed Plan (through associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments). This EIR will also be used as a reference document during subsequent environmental review processes associated with infrastructure improvements, impact fees, and development proposals within the Planning Area. The EIR for the proposed Plan has three purposes: 1. Satisfy CEQA requirements for analysis of environmental impacts by including a com- plete and comprehensive programmatic evaluation of the physical impacts of the pro- posed Plan and its alternatives. 2. Inform property owners, residents, tenants, members of the City Council, and mem- bers of the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Plan prior to the Commission and Council tak- ing action on the proposed Plan. The information presented in this EIR will assist City officials in reviewing and adopting the proposed Plan. 3. Provide a basis for the review of subsequent development projects and public im- provements proposed within the Planning Area. Subsequent environmental documents may be tiered from this EIR. CEQA requires that the agency with the primary responsibility over the approval of a project (the lead agency) evaluate the potential impacts of the project, which is presented in this EIR. The City is required to conduct environmental review on the proposed Plan in order to provide decision-makers with an informational document for use in evaluating the proposed Plan. After adoption of the proposed Plan, the EIR will serve the additional function of providing direction to the City in implementation of the proposed Plan. No mitigations are identified; impacts have either been addressed and minimized through existing General Plan policies or new policies in the proposed Plan, or are found to be significant and unavoidable. The "No Project Alternative" discusses the result of not implementing the proposed Plan or the Housing Center Alternative. An environmentally superior alternative is also identified as part of the alternatives analysis to inform decision-makers on this project. Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter I: Introduction 1.2 EIR PROCESS The EIR process includes several steps: publication of Notice of Preparation of an EIR (NOP); EIR public scoping meeting; publication of a Draft EIR for public review and comment; preparation of responses to general public and other agency comments on the Draft EIR; and certification of the Final EIR. The NOP for the EIR was published on July 5,2010 (see Appendix A for the published NOP). The NOP and public comment period were advertised and a public scoping meeting was held July 16, 2010 to gather public input on the scope and content of the EIR. Written comments were also received during the public comment period (See Appendix A). This Draft EIR will be used by South San Francisco residents, elected officials, and City staff during the public review process. The Draft EIR and Final EIR, which includes responses to public comments received during the 45-day comment period, will be certified by the South San Francisco City Council prior to consideration of the proposed Plan. CEQA mandates that lead agencies adopt mitigation monitoring and reporting programs for projects identified as having significant impacts where mitigation measures have been identified. Mitigation monitoring and reporting programs are intended to ensure compliance during project implementation. These programs provide the additional advantages of providing staff and decision-makers with feedback as to the effectiveness of mitigation measures, as well as the experience and information to shape future mitigation measures. No mitigation measures are identified in this EIR. If significant and unavoidable impacts remain after all feasible mitigation measures have been identified and the City Council elects to proceed with the proposed Plan despite these impacts, the City Council would be required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations prior to adoption of the proposed Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments. The statement of overriding considerations must explain how the benefits of the proposed Plan would outweigh any significant impacts identified. 1.3 APPROACH TO THE EIR APPROACH This Program EIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with complete build-out of the proposed Plan. A Program EIR is defined in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 as: " ... an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: (1) geographically; (2) as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions; (3) in connection with the issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or (4) as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental impacts which can be mitigated in similar ways." A Program EIR can be used as the basic, general environmental assessment for an overall program of projects proposed over the approximately 20-year planning horizon. A Program 1-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter I: Introduction EIR has several advantages. First, it provides a basic reference document to avoid unnecessary repetition of facts or analysis in subsequent project-specific assessments. Second, it allows the lead agency to look at the broad, regional impacts of a program of actions before its adoption and eliminates redundant or contradictory approaches to the consideration of regional and cumulative impacts. As a Program EIR, this document focuses on the overall effects of the proposed Plan in the Planning Area. Individual development projects will continue to require project level environmental assessment. The project-level environmental review will need to focus on project-scale impacts; cumulative and citywide impacts (such as traffic), would not need to be evaluated, provided the data and assumptions used in this EIR remain current and valid. The proposed Plan and the EIR have been prepared concurrently, and the policies presented in the proposed Plan consider the discussion of impacts and mitigation measures identified in the EIR. The proposed Plan is intended to be self-mitigating, in that the policies and programs of the proposed Plan and existing General Plan are designed to mitigate environmental impacts. This EIR demonstrates how the impacts of future development in the Planning Area will be mitigated through implementation of the policies and programs of the proposed Plan and existing General Plan. Any residual impact after implementation of these proposed policies and programs is measured against the significance criteria established for each impact area. The significance criteria is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative, or performance level thresholds and are based on the suggested criteria provided in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. ASSUMPTIONS This EIR represents the best effort to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed Plan given its long-term planning horizon. It can be anticipated that conditions will change; however, the assumptions used are the best available at the time of preparation and reflect existing knowledge of patterns of development and travel patterns. This EIR is based on the following assumptions: • Full Implementation. The EIR assumes all policies in the proposed Plan would be fully implemented, and all proposed Planning Area development would be consistent with the proposed Plan Land Use Diagram (see Chapter 2: Project Description) and other land use controls, such as building heights and floor area ratios. Key elements of the proposed Plan include the designation of a significant part of the Planning Area as a mixed-use area and enhanced livability through improvements to pedestrian connec- tivity and pedestrian oriented retail. • Buildout in 2030. This EIR assumes that buildout of the proposed Plan will occur by 2030. It is understood that development under the proposed Plan will be incremental and timed in response to market conditions. For a full explanation and projection of buildout, see Chapter 2: Project Description. • Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts are defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 as " ... two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are con- siderable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." CEQA Guide- lines permit the use of either a "list" or "projections" approach for definition of area- wide conditions for use in the cumulative analysis. That is, either a list of all past, 1-3 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter I: Introduction present and reasonably foreseeable future projects that could collectively contribute to significant cumulative impacts, or regional growth projections from adopted planning documents relevant to the project, to define an area-wide set of future conditions for cumulative analysis. The proposed Plan is a planning document; therefore, regional growth projections are considered more appropriate for a program-level cumulative impact analysis. APPLICABILITY As a Program EIR, this document focuses on the overall effects associated with adoption and implementation of the proposed Plan; the analysis does not examine the effects of potential site-specific projects that may occur under the overall umbrella of this program in the future. When specific development proposals for the Planning Area are submitted to the City, the City will determine whether the environmental effects of the proposed projects have been adequately addressed by this EIR. If the City finds that the proposals would not result in any additional potentially significant adverse environmental impacts beyond those considered in this EIR, no new environmental analysis will be required. If the City determines that a project could create potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that have not been studied in this EIR, or if the City determines that environmental conditions have changed substantially since the EIR was prepared, the City may require further environmental review to determine appropriate revisions to the project, conditions of approval, or additional mitigation measures. 1.4 SCOPE OF THE EIR Information gathered about the environmental setting is used to define relevant planning issues, determine thresholds of significance, and evaluate potential impacts. Based on the initial analysis of environmental setting and baseline conditions, and comments on the NOP, the following issues are analyzed in this EIR: 1-4 • Traffic and Circulation • Air Quality • Energy and Greenhouse Gases • Cultural Resources • Noise • Parks and Recreation • Public Services and Utilities • Aesthetics and Visual Resources • Land Use and Housing • Geology, Soils, and Seismicity • Hydrology and Flooding • Impacts Not Potentially Significant Agriculture and Forest Resources Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter I: Introduction Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Each potential impact is addressed in Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. 1.5 OTHER RELEVANT PLANS AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES The following documents are most closely relevant to the proposed Plan and this EIR, and are available from the City for review: • City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco General Plan, October 1999. http://www.ci.ssf.ca.us/depts/ ecd/planning/ generaLplan.asp • City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco General Plan Update Draft Environ- mental Impact Report, June 1999. • City of South San Francisco, South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft En- vironmental Impact Report, November 2009. 1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THIS EIR The Draft EIR is organized into the following chapters, plus appendices: Executive Summary. The executive summary summarizes the EIR by providing an overview of the proposed Plan, the potentially significant environmental impacts that could result from the project, the mitigation measures identified to reduce or avoid these impacts, alternatives to the project, and identification of the environmentally superior alternative. 1. Introduction. This chapter introduces the purpose for the EIR; explains the EIR process and intended uses of the EIR; the assumptions critical to the environmental analysis; and overall EIR organization. 2. Project Description. This chapter includes a detailed description of the proposed Plan. Project location, objectives, the Land Use Diagram, the proposed land use classification system, key policies and buildout estimates are presented. 3. Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. This chapter analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed Plan. Impacts are organized by major topic. Each topic area includes a description of the environmental setting, significance criteria, and impacts. The existing conditions serve as the baseline for the analysis of potential program-level environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Plan. The environmental analysis examines construction and operational impacts and identifies mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts. Cumulative impacts from the implementation of the proposed Plan are analyzed for certain environmental topics in this Chapter, as appropriate. Policies in the proposed Plan that would avoid or reduce the impacts are discussed. Feasible measures, capable of avoiding or minimizing impacts of the proposed Plan, have been incorporated into the proposed Plan as 1-5 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter I: Introduction 1-6 policies. No additional mitigation measures have been identified in this EIR. Section 3.12 discusses all impact areas with no impact or no potential significant impacts. 4. Analysis of Alternatives. This chapter presents a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, provides discussion of environmental impacts associated with each alternative, compares the relative impacts of each alternative to those of the proposed project and other alternatives, discusses the relationship of each alternative to the project objectives, and identifies the environmentally superior alternative. 5. CEQA Required Conclusions. This chapter provides a summary of significant environmental impacts, including growth-inducing, cumulative impacts, unavoidable significant effects, and irreversible effects. 6. Report Authors. Identifies EIR consultants and subconsultants, persons and organizations consulted during EIR preparation, and lists persons who contributed to report preparation. 7. Bibliography. A list of documents used during EIR preparation. 8. Appendices. Technical appendices include the NOP and compilation of agency and public comments received on the NOP, as well as other technical appendices related to transportation. 2 Project Description The project analyzed in this EIR is the proposed El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, hereafter referred to as the proposed Plan. The El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan proposes updated and new land use designations to allow for transit -oriented residential and mixed-use development for the area located south of the South San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station in South San Francisco, California. The project includes the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, as well as the associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments needed to implement the Plan and make it consistent with existing plans and regulations. The General Plan amendment will include changes to Land Use; Planning Sub-Areas; Transportation; and Parks, Public Facilities, and Services elements. The Zoning Ordinance amendment will include a new chapter to Division III: Specific and Area Plan Districts and an amendment to the Zoning Map. This project description provides the basis for the environmental analysis in Chapter 3. This chapter provides background information regarding the regional location and boundaries of the Planning Area, as well as objectives, and key themes and components of the proposed Plan. Additional details are provided in the Plan itself. 2.1 REGIONAL LOCATION AND LOCAL SETTING REGIONAL LOCATION The City of South San Francisco is located on the west shore of the San Francisco Bay, in northern San Mateo County. The City is built upon the Bay Plain and the northern foothills of the Coastal Range. The City is strategically located along major transportation corridors and hubs, including U.S. 101, 1-280, 1-380, the Southern Pacific Railroad, and the San Francisco International Airport. The regional location of the city is shown in Figure 2.1-1. LOCAL SETTING As shown in Figure 2.1-2, the Planning Area is located west of Downtown South San Francisco. The Planning Area encompasses approximately 98 acres along El Camino Real, from Southwood Drive to just north of Sequoia Avenue. The majority of the Planning Area is situated between El Camino Real and Mission Road. The right-of-way for the underground BART line runs through the length of the site. A Focus Area has also been illustrated which identifies opportunity sites within the Planning Area. These opportunity sites, which include vacant and underutilized sites, as well as sites owned by the City of South San Francisco, present the greatest development opportunities within the Planning Area, and are the focus of the proposed Plan. North of the Planning Area is the South San Francisco BART Station along with newer high- density development, major commercial establishments such as Costco, and Kaiser Hospital. To the south of the Planning Area are the South El Camino Real sub-area and the City of San Bruno. Figure 2.1-1: Regional Context "',,( '" IIIIIIIIIIII~'\ EI Camino Reali PACIFICA L:I:J O ___ IE!4==~1!2 ______ ~==========~ QD MILES BART Canal "............ Planning Boundary Focus Area o 100 -EB 500 1000 I FEET Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 2: Project Description 2.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED PLAN The proposed Plan consists of policies and proposals to guide the future growth within the Planning Area. The proposed Plan establishes a transformative vision for the area, which emerged through a collaborative process that engaged City officials and staff, developers, property owners, regional agencies, and residents. The vision builds on the regional Grand Boulevard Initiative that calls for El Camino Real-the original Mission Trail that was first paved into a highway in South San Francisco nearly 100 years ago-to be transformed into a boulevard, highlighted by nodes of higher intensity mixed-use development. The plan includes a complete set of goals, policies, and critical implementation strategies, as well as design and development standards and guidelines, that will help achieve the desired vision. The proposed Plan provides an overall vision for the area in terms of land use, urban design and circulation, and emphasizes the creation of a vibrant and viable activity center in South San Francisco. 2.3 PROPOSED PLAN The proposed Plan aims to transform the Planning Area into a new walkable, distinctive, mixed-use district at the geographic center of South San Francisco. A network of open spaces will form the armature of new development. New streets and pedestrian connections will extend through the area, enabling easy movement on foot. The BART right-of-way that extends through the length of the Planning Area will be transformed into a linear park and a pedestrian-oriented "Main Street", lined with restaurants, cafes, and outdoor seating in a portion of the right-of-way. Development will be at high densities, reflecting adjacent transit access. The proposed Plan envisions a new neighborhood of up to 4,400 residents housed in low-to high-rise buildings. It will provide a range of commercial uses; walking access to everyday amenities; new civic uses, potentially including a new City Library; and parks, plazas, and gathering spaces for the entire South San Francisco community. Taller residential buildings will have townhouses at the lower level with individual entrances oriented to streets, particularly key pedestrian routes. Parking will be below grade or in structures, enabling efficient use of land. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS An area plan is adopted as an amendment to a city's General Plan. 1 The proposed Area Plan's, goals, objectives, and policies must be consistent with the City of South San Francisco General Plan. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Area Plan will include amendments to the Land Use; Planning Sub-Areas; Transportation; and Parks, Public Facilities, and Services elements of the existing General Plan to ensure consistency. The proposed Plan includes amendments to the existing General Plan land use classifications. Figure 2.3-1 shows the existing General Plan Land Use Diagram. The General Plan High Density Residential land use classification would be amended to allow higher density development under the High Density Residential land use classification within the Planning Area. In addition, the proposed Plan introduces two new land use classifications: El Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity and El Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium 1 Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State of California General Plan Guidelines, 2003. 2-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 2: Project Description Intensity. In addition to these, the Plan applies the existing General Plan Public, and Park and Recreation land use classifications to sites in the Planning Area. Table 2.3-1 summarizes the density and development intensity standards for these new and amended land use designations. Figure 2.3-2 shows the proposed amendments to the General Plan Land use Diagram. In addition to land use classifications and designations, amendments will also be made to the General Plan to allow for increased building height within the Planning Area. Figure 2.3-3 shows the existing Special Area Height Limitations while Figure 2.3-4 shows the proposed amendments to the Height Limitations diagram. Figure 2.3-5 shows the proposed height limits in the Planning Area. Proposed land use designations follow. High Density Residential This designation, as it applies to the 4.5-acre former San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) parcel between Mission Road and the Colma Creek canal, allows higher densities than elsewhere in the city, reflecting the area's close proximity to the South San Francisco BART Station. Up to 120 units per acre are permitted and a minimum density of 80 units per acre is required. Maximum density may be increased to 180 units per acre may be achieved for development meeting specified criteria. El Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity This designation is intended to accommodate high-intensity active uses and mixed-use development. Retail and department stores; eating and drinking establishments; hotels; commercial recreation; financial, business, and personal services; residential; educational and social services; and office uses are permitted. The minimum FAR for all uses, exclusive of structured parking, shall be 0.6, of which a minimum 0.3 FAR shall be active uses. Active uses are those that are accessible to the general public, generate walk-in pedestrian clientele and contribute to a high level of pedestrian activity. Such uses include retail shops, restaurants, bars, theaters and the performing arts, commercial recreation and entertainment, personal and convenience services, hotels, banks, travel agencies, childcare services, libraries, museums, and galleries. Within this designation, the ground floor frontage of a site along El Camino Real, Chestnut Avenue and Oak Avenue is required to be devoted to active uses. The maximum FAR for all uses, inclusive of residential but exclusive of structured parking, shall be 2.0, with increases to a maximum total FAR of 3.0 for development meeting specified criteria. Residential density (included within the overall FAR) is limited to a maximum of 80 units per acre, with increases to a maximum of 110 units per acre for development meeting specified criteria. El Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity This designation is intended to accommodate high-intensity active uses and mixed-use development. Retail and department stores; eating and drinking establishments; hotels; 2-5 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 2: Project Description commercial recreation; financial, business, and personal services; residential; educational and social services; and office uses are permitted. The minimum FAR for all uses, exclusive of structured parking, shall be 0.6, of which a minimum 0.3 FAR shall be active uses. Active uses are those that are accessible to the general public, generate walk-in pedestrian clientele and contribute to a high level of pedestrian activity. Such uses include retail shops, restaurants, bars, theaters and the performing arts, commercial recreation and entertainment, personal and convenience services, hotels, banks, travel agencies, childcare services, libraries, museums, and galleries. Within this designation, the maximum FAR for all uses, inclusive of residential but exclusive of structured parking, shall be 1.5, with increases to a maximum total FAR of 2.5 for development meeting specified criteria. Residential density (included within the overall FAR) is limited to 40 units per acre, with increases to a maximum of 60 units per acre for development meeting specified criteria. Table 2.3-1: Summary of Standards for Density and Development Intensity Residential Density Floor Area Ratio (units/net acre) (residential and non-residential uses combined) Land Use Designation Min Max. Max. with Min Base Bonuses Total Max. Discretio-Max. with Discre- nary Ap-Bonus Bonus Attain-tionary Ap- proval and Attaina-able with proval and State-ble with Other Speci-Incentive- Mandated TDM fled Design Based Bonus- Bonus Program Standards es High Density Resi-80 120 180 ----- dential I EI Camino Real Mixed Use North EI Camino Real -80 110 0.6 1 2.0 0.5 0.5 3.0 Mixed Use North, High Intensity EI Camino Real -40 60 0.6 1 1.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity . . .. I A minimum 0.3 FAR of the required 0.6 FAR shall be active uses. The requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of active uses does not apply to projects where 30% of the units are restricted and affordable to low-or low-moderate- income households. Dyett & Bhatia, 20 I O. 2-6 \ . \ '£:i\ ~ · } · · c=J Low Density Residential c=J Medium Density Residential c=J Hi gh Density Residential c=J Downtown Low Density Residential c=J Downtown Medium Density Residential _ Downtown Hi gh Density Residential Downtown Commercial -Community Commercial c=J Business Commercial c=J Coastal Commercial c=J Office c=J Mixed Industr ial c=J Business and TechnologyPark -Tr ansportation Center c=J Public c=J Park and Recreation c=J Open Space c:J Loft Overlay Distr ict EI Camino Real Mixed Use ~~O.£~~Q' f \ Existing Reg ional/ Arterial/Collector Proposed Street l J Interchange/Intersection Study Area ~ 1/4 1/2 MILES San iJruno Alol/ntaln County Park II~~---,,-··-··-··-··-·' San Francisco Bay 11o---ftflJi~~"""\.-.~--_----lJ~-~--"""··-··-··- international A/{port Figure 2.3-1: Existing General Plan Land Use Diagram \ . \ '£:i\ ~ · } · · c=J Low Density Residential c=J Medium Density Residential c=J Hi gh Density Residential c=J Downtown Low Density Residential c=J Downtown Medium Density Residential _ Downtown Hi gh Density Residential Downtown Commercial -Community Commercial c=J Business Commercial c=J Coastal Commercial c=J Office c=J Mixed Industr ial c=J Business and TechnologyPark -Tr ansportation Center c=J Public c=J Park and Recreation c=J Open Space c:J Loft Overlay District -EI Camino Real Mixed Use EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan _ EI Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity c=J EI Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity ~~2~~Q' Existing Regional/Arterial/Collector Proposed Street I \ l ) Interchange/Intersection Study Area ~ 1/4 1/2 MILES San iJruno Alol/ntaln County Park If~~---".-··-··-··-··-·' San Francisco Bay international A/{port Figure 2.3-2: Proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram Height Limits San Bruno Base Height Limit/ Height Limit with Discretionary Approval Note: Building height limitations for areas shown on this map shall be as indicated here, regardless of the underlying use. For areas outside of the areas shown on this map, building heights shall be in accordance with the development regulations for the use in the City's Zoning Ordinance. For areas subject to airport -related height limitations, building heights must be in accordance with the limits indicated in the most recently adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. MILES San Bruno Mountain ColintyPark EB San francisco International Airport ~~=~~d... •• _ •• _ •• San Francisco Bay .~_~....;o;-=-_ .. _ .. _ Figure 2.3-3: Existing Special Area Height Limitations Dalr'" City Height Limits Base Height Limit/ Height Limit with Discretionary Approval EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan See Plan for Height Limitations San Bruno Mountain ColintyPark San Bruno Note: Building height limitations for areas shown on this map shall be as indicated here, regardless of the underlying use. For areas outside of the areas shown on this map, building heights shall be in accordance with the development regulations for the use in the City's Zoning Ordinance. For areas subject to airport -related height limitations, building heights must be in accordance with the limits indicated in the most recently adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. San francisco International Airport 1/2 MILES San Francisco Bay '-'""~~....;;;--.. -.. - Figure 2.3-4: Proposed Special Area Height Limitations lxx/xxi Base Height Limit/ Height Limit with Discretionary Approval _ 120/160 Feet _ 80/120 Feet D 40 Feet o 100 -E9 500 1000 FEET Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 2: Project Description Table 2.3-2: Summary of Proposed General Plan Amendments Land Use Designation Uses Height Limitationsl Minimum Active Use Requirement Minimum FAR Maximum FAR Minimum Density (dulac) Maximum Density (dulac) Existing Business Commercial Community Commercial EI Camino Real Mixed Use High Density Residential Office Mixed use only allowed within EI Camino Real Mixed Use 50 feet EI Camino Real Mixed Use: 80 feet, 120 feet2 EI Camino Real Mixed Use: 0.3 FAR of the required 0.6 FAR shall be active uses EI Camino Real Mixed Use: 0.6 for sites larger than 20,000 square feet Business Commercial: 0.5, 1.02 Community Commercial: 0.5, 1.02 EI Camino Real Mixed Use: 2.5, 3.52 Office: 1.0, 2.5 2 High Density Residential: 18.1-30, 37.52 EI Camino Real Mixed Use: 60, 802 Proposed Plan EI Camino Real Mixed Use North High Density Residential Mixed use allowed in EI Camino Real Mixed Use North EI Camino Real Mixed Use North (East of Colma Creek between Grand and Ever- green Drive): 40 feet EI Camino Real Mixed Use North: 80 feet, 120 feet2 High Density Residential: 120 feet, 160 feet2 EI Camino Real Mixed Use North: 0.3 FAR of the required 0.6 FAR shall be active uses EI Camino Real Mixed Use North: 0.6 EI Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity: 2.0, 3.02 EI Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity: 1.5, 2.52 High Density Residential: 80 High Density Residential: 120, 1802 EI Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity: 80, 1102 EI Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity: 40, 602 I For areas subject to airport-related height limitations, building heights must be in accordance with the limits indi- cated in the most recently adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. 2 Maximum permitted with Incentives, Bonuses and/or Discretionary Review. Dyett & Bhatia, 20 I O. 2-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 2: Project Description In addition, policies have been added to the Planning Sub-Areas, Transportation, and Parks and Parks, Public Facilities, and Services elements. New policies in the Planning Sub-Areas chapter include references to the proposed Plan as the guiding policy document for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area. New policies in the Transportation and Parks, Public Facilities, and Services elements incorporate transportation improvements and additional parkland policies included in the proposed Plan. No additional amendments are required to ensure consistency between the General Plan and proposed Area Plan. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS When a General Plan amendment results in inconsistency between the General Plan and zoning, the zoning must be amended to re-establish consistency.2 In addition, as zoning is one of the tools used to implement an area plan, the Zoning Ordinance must also be consistent with the proposed Area Plan. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Area Plan will include amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to ensure consistency between the Zoning Ordinance and amended General Plan and proposed Area Plan. The Zoning Map will also be amended to reflect the changes in Zoning designations. Figures 2.3-6 and 2.3-7 show existing and proposed Zoning designations within the Planning Area. The proposed Plan includes an amendment to Division III: Specific and Area Plan Districts of the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment includes a new chapter (Chapter 20.270 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan District) for Division III. The new El Camino Real/Chestnut District (proposed District) includes the following three sub-districts: El Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed Use, High Density (ECR/C-MXH), El Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed Use, Medium Density (ECR/C-MXM), and El Camino Real/Chestnut Residential, High Density (ECR/C-RH). The proposed District establishes the use regulations, standards and development review procedures needed to implement the proposed Plan. The proposed land use regulations establish permitted, permitted after review and approval of a Minor Use Permit by the Chief Planner, and permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission uses within the Planning Area. In addition, the proposed District includes development standards such as lot size and width, FAR, density, height, yards, building form, open space, active frontage, and parking and loading that will apply to development within the Planning Area. In addition, figures showing maps will be amended in Chapter 20.250 Transit Village Plan District to exclude the area which will be part of the proposed District. In addition, Section 20.300.012 will be amended to clarify electrical equipment and the definition of active uses will be added to Chapter 20.360 Terms and Definitions. Table 2.3-3 shows a summary of existing zoning designations and proposed zoning designations within the Planning Area. 2 Ibid. 2-13 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 2: Project Description Table 2.3-3: Summary of Existing and Proposed Zoning Designations Existing Zoning Designations Business Commercial (BC) Community Commercial (CC) EI Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX) High Density Residential (RH-30) Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) Transit Village Commercial (TV-C) Transit Village Residential, High Density (TV-RH) Transit Village Residential, Medium Density (TV-RM) Dyett & Bhatia, 20 I O. 2-14 Proposed Zoning Designations EI Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed Use, High Density (ECR/C-MXH) EI Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed Use, Medium Density (ECR/C-MXM) EI Camino Real/Chestnut Residential, High Density (ECR/C-RH) Figure 2.3-6: Existing Zoning Designations INDIO DR -'!()'-'! IItE:S-,! DR :J '" Q I- 0 ~'< G~ RH: High Density Residential* CC: Community Commercial BC: Business Commercial TV-C: Transit Village Commercial TV-RM: Transit Village Medium Density Residential TV-RH: Transit Village High Density Residential PQP: Public/Quasi Public PR: Parks and Recreation ECRMX: EI Camino Real Mixed Use *Numerical designators denote the maximum density allowed in each sub district. o 100 -E9 FEET 1000 ECR/C-MXH: EI Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed Use, High Intensity ECR/C-MXM: EI Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed Use, Medium Intensity ECR/C-RH: EI Camino Real/Chestnut Residential, High Density E9 o 100 500 1000 -FEET Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 2: Project Description 2.4 BU I LDOUT Full development under the proposed Area Plan is referred to as "buildout." Although the Area Plan horizon is to the year 2030, the Plan does not specify or anticipate when buildout will actually occur, nor does the designation of a site for a certain use necessarily mean the site will definitely be developed with that use by 2030. This section describes the implications of the projected buildout in the Planning Area in terms of future population, housing units, and jobs. AREA PLAN BUILDOUT Methodology The proposed Plan creates a land use and regulatory framework that calls for a minimum of 800 housing units and 100,000 to 200,000 square feet of additional regional and neighborhood- serving commercial uses. In order to estimate buildout, the proposed Plan makes several assumptions. Approximately 70 percent of the Planning Area is projected to be redeveloped. The site that is proposed for High Density Residential is projected to redevelop at approximately 108 density units per acre. Sites that are proposed as El Camino Real Mixed Use North (High Intensity or Medium Intensity) are projected to redevelop at an average FAR of 2.1. Projected buildout of individual sites may result in an FAR higher or lower than 2.1 due to site limitations such and the desired relationship between built form and public open spaces. As the proposed Plan states, a development project does not have to be consistent with the illustrative vision and massing and detailed block by block projections to be consistent with the Plan. For the purposes of estimating building and determining the probable environmental impacts of the proposed Plan, an average FAR of 2.1 was used as a reasonable estimate of redevelopment that can be expected under the proposed Plan. This analysis assumes a distribution of uses with El Camino Real Mixed Use North of roughly 80 percent residential and 20 percent non-residential. Residential Buildout Table 2.4-1 summarizes total Planning Area buildout by population and housing units. The proposed Plan includes a policy that limits buildout to a maximum of 1,500 units in the Planning Area, but calls for a minimum of 800 housing units. The Area Plan will accommodate approximately 4,800 people at buildout, a 92 percent increase over existing conditions. As shown in Table 2.4-1, approximately 132 housing units currently exist in the Planning Area. The proposed Area Plan is intended to accommodate over 1,455 housing units, resulting in approximately 1,587 housing units at buildout in the Planning Area. 2-/7 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 2: Project Description Table 2.4-1: Population and Housing Units at Buildout in Planning Area Existing (20 I 0) Bui/dout (2030) Increase Percent Change (%) Population 1,2 400 4,800 +4,400 Housing Units Householdsl 132 125 I Buildout population rounded to nearest hundred. 1,587 1,223 2. Buildout population was calculated assuming 3.04 persons per household. + I ,455 +1,098 l. Households are estimated as 95% of the total housing units, assuming a 5% vacancy rate. Sources: US Census, 2000; Dyett & Bhatia, 20/0. Non-Residential Buildout 92 92 90 As shown in Table 2.4-2, the Planning Area will accommodate approximately 2,500 jobs at buildout, an increase of approximately 24 percent. The projection represents the sum of existing jobs, the loss of jobs due to redevelopment, and the net new jobs expected as a result of new development. Table 2.4-2: Non-Residential Development and Jobs at Buildout in Planning Area Land Use Type Existing (20 I 0) Bui/dout (2030) Increase Percent Change (%) Retail and Services (sf) 250,900 426,300 + 175,400 Office (sf) 304,800 377,800 +73,000 Public/Institutional (sf) 60,500 110,500 +50,000 Jobs ' 1,900 2,500 +600 Employed Residents2 200 2,400 +2,200 Ratio Uobs/Employed Residents) 8 1.0 I Jobs at buildout rounded to the nearest hundred. Jobs projected under the proposed Plan exclude any expan- sion of Kaiser that may result in the future. 41 19 45 27 92 2 Employed residents at buildout for the proposed Plan were calculated using the ratio of employed residents to total population projected for 2030 in the City of South San Francisco by ABAG (50% of total population). Sources: Califomia Department of Finance, 20 I 0; California Employment Development Department, 20 I 0; Dyett & Bhatia, 2010. CITYWIDE BUILDOUT WITH AREA PLAN Adoption of the Area Plan will result in an increase in population, housing, and jobs citywide. It is anticipated that the proposed Plan will increase housing by 727 units and population by 2,300 residents, beyond what has been projected for the City of South San Francisco by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).3 It is also anticipated that the proposed Plan j ABAG Projections, 2009. 2-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 2: Project Description will result in an additional 600 jobs Citywide, beyond what has been projected for the City of South San Francisco by ABAG.1 Methodology ABAG is responsible for making long-term forecasts or population, housing, and employment for the nine-county Bay Area. As the Area Plan buildout year (2030) goes beyond the South San Francisco General Plan buildout year (2020), ABAG projections were used for the 2030 Citywide buildout condition. The 2030 Citywide with proposed Plan buildout assumes that approximately half of the population and housing units projected under the proposed Plan have been accounted for in ABAG's projections. However, the 2030 Citywide with proposed Plan buildout assumes that the ABAG projections have not accounted for the additional job growth in the Planning Area. These assumptions are made based on ABAG's forecast methodology, as described below. The Projections forecast is not a simple build out of local plans, but considers larger economic and demographic trends. These larger trends now include regional policy assumptions regarding growth. Since 2003, ABAG has been producing "policy-based" population, household and job projections, as opposed to traditional "trend-based" projections. This means, in addition to the demographic and economic assumptions used to develop Projections, regional policy objectives are now a component of the assumptions. Regional growth policies call for more housing to be built in the region than current shorter-term local plans can anticipate. In other words, the amount of housing anticipated in the region is more reflective of the amount of housing the region needs in order to meet is policy goals, rather than what is anticipated to occur under "business as usual". To adequately reflect regional policies in the development of Projections, ABAG assumes that more growth will occur in areas with transit, in existing communities and where there are jobs and services -namely in the inner Bay Area and in infilliocations. 5 The Planning Area is near transit and located is in an existing community where jobs and services are located, so it is reasonable to assume that ABAG projected more growth would occur in the Planning Area, more than what was anticipated to occur under a "business as usual" buildout under the General Plan. Therefore, it is assumed that the development potential for Blocks A, B, C, and half of D has been accounted for in the ABAG Projections as that site is currently designated as a Housing Element site, and is vacant and currently owned by the City of South San Francisco, which increases the feasibility of development. In addition, it is also assumed that the development potential on Block I has been accounted for in the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment and has therefore been incorporated into the ABAG Projections. This results in a Citywide population of 77,500 in 2030 with the proposed Plan. This assumption is supported by population projections contained in the 2009 South San Francisco Housing Element (Housing Element), which projects citywide population to be 73,900 in 2030 which is less than what is projected for the City by ABAG (75,200). The I Ibid. o Paul Fassinger and Christy Riviere, ABAG, Memo: Linking Performance Targets to Policy Assumptions in Projections 2009, January 9,2008. 2-/9 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 2: Project Description Housing Element identifies four housing opportunity sites within the Planning Area totaling 549 housing units, which results in a population of approximately 1,669. The proposed Plan accommodates for an additional population of 4,400, which is approximately 2,731 beyond what is projected for in the Planning Area by the Housing Element. Adding this additional population to the 2030 Citywide projection of 73,900 results in a new 2030 Citywide population projection of 76,631, which is less than the 2030 Citywide population projection with proposed Plan (77,500) used in this EIR. The ABAG population projection, as described above, is used instead of the Housing Element projection to ensure a consistent data source for population projections in this EIR. Due to a slight discrepancy in the number of jobs in 2010 between ABAG and the Revised Market Overview for South San Francisco El Camino Real Specific Plan Memorandum,6 ABAG's job growth rate was applied to the number of jobs provided in the Memorandum. This results in a more conservative analysis, as the resulting 2030 jobs projection is 59,800, which is higher than what is projected by the Housing Element (56,720). As with the population projections, approximately half of the additional jobs projected under the proposed Plan were added to the total citywide jobs projected for 2030. Citywide Population and Jobs Table 2.4-3 shows the projected citywide population with and without he proposed Plan. The proposed Plan will increase the 2030 citywide population by 2,300 residents and increase 2030 citywide jobs by 600. Table 2.4-3: Citywide Population and Jobs Existing 2030 Increase % Change 2030 with Increase % Change Proposed Plan Population 65,872 75,200 +9,328 14.2 77,500 +11,628 17.7 Jobs 43,080 59,800 + 16,720 30.8 60,100 + 17,020 39.5 Sources: California Department of Finance, 20 10; ABAG, 2009; Dyett & Bhatia, 20 I O. 2.5 KEY GUIDING PRINCIPLES The key guiding principles of the proposed Plan are listed below. Implementation policies are included in the Plan itself. All policies are incorporated by reference into this project description and analyzed in this EIR. Land Use • Create a vital center for South San Francisco, with a variety of commercial, office, resi- dential, and civic uses. • Create a commercial district that acts as a citywide and regional destination, yet pro- vides adequate neighborhood-serving establishments for residents. (, Bay Area Economics, Revised Market Overview f(lr South San francisco El Camino Real SpecifiC Plan Memorandum, May 4, 2009. 2-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 2: Project Description Building Heights • Provide high-intensity development, capitalizing on the area's proximity to BART and location at the geographic center of the city. Urban Design and the Public Realm • Maximize active frontages along key streets and open space connections in the Plan- ning Area. • Develop the area with an overall character and urban design scheme that promotes li- vability and sustainability. • Establish an open space plan that serves as a framework. This includes continuous green space along Centennial Way as well as along the BART right-of-way. • Create a distinct, well-defined public realm with enhanced streetscape improvements, public plazas, open spaces, and pedestrian connections. Circulation and Parking • Provide enhanced linkages within the Planning Area. Pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connections should be established through new development to maximize the accessi- bility of open space, commercial amenities, and transit. • Create efficient parking solutions that optimize sharing of resources between various uses. 2.6 AREA PLAN IMPLEMENTATION The proposed Plan provides specific policy guidance for implementation of its initiatives and establishes a basis for coordinated action by the City. The policies in each section of the Plan provide details that will guide program development. The Implementation chapter describes the responsibilities for implementation. It also outlines specific implementation actions that will be initiated after adoption. The Implementation Program will be updated as often as deemed necessary to ensure that it reflects the City's strategic priorities. POLICY AND REGULATORY IMPLEMENTATION The project includes the proposed Plan, as well as the associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments needed to implement the Plan and make it consistent with existing plans and regulations. The General Plan amendment will include changes to Land Use, Sub- Areas, Transportation, and Parks, Public Facilities, and Services elements. Implementation of the proposed Plan will also include amendments the City of City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance and Map to include a new district. PHYSICAL IMPLEMENTATION Area Wide Infrastructure A series of area-wide infrastructure improvements will take place to accommodate residential and mixed use development; improve circulation, and provide open space amenities. Most of the Focus Area is undeveloped and requires the most public infrastructure. Implementation of the Area Plan will require the following infrastructure improvements: 2-21 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 2: Project Description Circulation • Mid-block pedestrian connections • Streetscape improvements • Enhanced pedestrian crossings • East -West Pedestrian/Bicycle Connections Parks and Open Space • Public plazas • Newpark Other Infrastructure • Extension of water mains • Potential relocation of the PG&E transmission line and overhead electrical lines in An- toinette Lane • Relocation of existing sewer lines The following projects are assumed to be completed during the implementation of the proposed Plan: • Oak Avenue Extension FINANCING To fund projects and improvements, a combination of private investment and public funds and financing mechanisms will be needed. The following mechanisms offer potential funding sources: • Capital Improvements program • Development Impact Fees • Developer Contribution • Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing • City Contributions • Special Assessment Districts • Grants and Loans RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES Implementing the proposed Plan will involve the City Council, the Planning Commission, other City boards and commissions, and City departments. The City will also need to consult with San Mateo County departments, adjacent cities, and other public agencies, such as BART and Caltrans, about implementation proposals that affect their respective areas of jurisdiction. 2-22 3 Settings, Impacts & Mitigation Measures INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR contains a discussion of potential environmental effects as a result of the implementation of the proposed Plan. Chapter 3 includes information related to existing conditions for each issue area, method of analysis, summary of impacts, and detailed analyses of the type and magnitude of individual and/or cumulative environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines require that this draft EIR include a description of the physical environmental con- ditions in the vicinity of the project, with special emphasis placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to the region and that would be affected by the proposed Plan. ORGANIZATION OF THE CHAPTER Sections 3.1 through 3.11 cover issue areas that were determined to have impacts that were po- tentially significant and therefore required further analysis in this Draft EIR. These issue areas include: Traffic and Circulation; Air Quality; Energy and Greenhouse Gases; Cultural Re- sources; Noise; Parks and Recreation; Public Services and Utilities; Aesthetics and Visual Re- sources; Land Use and Housing; Geology; and Hydrology. Section 3.12 includes the following topics that were determined to have impacts that were not potentially significant: Agriculture and Forest Resources; Biological Resources; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; and Mineral Resources. Section 3.12 includes the initial evaluation of these topics based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. FORMAT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Physical Setting This describes the existing physical environmental conditions in the Planning Area to provide the baseline condition against which project-related impacts are compared to. Regulatory Setting This includes general and regional plans or local, State or federal agency regulations applicable to the proposed Plan. This section only includes plans and regulations related to the identified impacts and does not include a comprehensive list of all the plans and regulations that pertain to each environmental issue area addressed within the Planning Area. IMPACT ANALYSIS This includes analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Plan. The impact analysis in this EIR assumes implementation of the proposed Plan through 2030 and does not include an analysis of interim development phases. Significance Criteria Thresholds of significance, beyond which impacts are considered to be significant, are estab- lished for each environmental issue analyzed. The thresholds of significance are based on gen- Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures erally accepted standards for environmental review, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. While the criterion for determining significant impacts is unique to each environmental topic, the classi- fication of the impacts is uniformly applied in accordance with the following definitions: No Impact -Impact does not apply to the projects like the one involved. Less Than Significant Impact -Impact would not result in a substantial and adverse change in the environment or does not surpass thresholds of significance, and would not require mitiga- tion. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation -Impact may result in a substantial or poten- tially substantial, adverse change in the environment; the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce the potentially significant impact to a less than significant level. Significant and Unavoidable Impact -Impact may result in a substantial or potentially sub- stantial, adverse change in the environment, which cannot be reduced to a less than significant level even with implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Cumulatively Significant Impact, Project Contribution Less than Considerable -Impact that exceeds the defined threshold of cumulative based on projected growth for the region; however, analysis indicates that the project's contribution to the impact is less than considera- ble. Methodology & Assumptions This subsection identifies the methodology and major assumptions used to analyze potential environmental impacts. Summary of Impacts This subsection summarizes the analysis and finding of significance for each issue area. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Each impact includes the numbered impact statement followed by the ultimate finding of sig- nificance in parentheses. The level of significance is determined by considering the predicted magnitude of the project's potential for significant impacts in each area. Policies in the pro- posed Plan that would avoid or reduce impacts are also discussed for purposes of assessing im- pacts. Following the discussion of each stated impact, feasible mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce the severity of identified impacts are identified as appropriate. If an impact is not identified for specific significance criteria listed in the section, a brief explanation is pro- vided within the Summary of Impacts section. Citations for this chapter are contained within the relevant discussion. 3.0-2 3.1 Traffic and Circulation This section evaluates the potential traffic and circulation impacts due to the proposed Plan in the City of South San Francisco. The transportation analysis represented in this study incorporates data provided by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn) in February, 2011. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PHYSICAL SETTING The following section presents a basis for level of service standards and an analysis of the existing conditions of various transportation system components. Roadway Network Regional Access The City of South San Francisco is connected to several regional highways, including 1-280, 1- 380, and US 101. 1-280 is an eight -lane freeway that provides regional access to San Francisco, the Peninsula, and San Jose. 1-380 is a six -lane freeway that provides access to the San Francisco International Airport, 1-280, and US 101. US 101 is an eight-lane freeway that provides regional access to San Francisco, and the Peninsula. US 101 is a major north-south highway connecting Southern and Northern California. Local Access The Planning Area is within the South San Francisco city limits and consists of arterials, collectors, and local streets. The following describes the roadways in the vicinity of the Planning Area. El Camino Real (SR-82) is a six-lane Major Arterial with a raised, landscaped median. The median has openings for left-turn pockets at all intersections and some major driveways. On- street parking is allowed on some segments on the roadway. It is classified as a Class III bike route in the City's General Plan. The speed limit is 40 miles per hour. Several Sam Trans bus routes operate along the segment of El Camino Real within the Planning Area. Gaps in the sidewalk system occur on El Camino Real on the west side between Arroyo Drive and BART Road. Mission Road is a four-lane Minor Arterial with no median or center turn lane, except from Oak Avenue to Chestnut Avenue where a raised median exists. The speed limit is 30 miles per hour. Mission Road does not have a sidewalk on the west side of the street between Oak Avenue and Grand Avenue. Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue is a four-lane Major Arterial with a raised median west of Mission Road. The speed limit is not posted on the street in the area of the project, but is posted at 45 miles per hour to the west of Camaritas Avenue and is posted at 30 miles per hour to the east of Mission Road. In the vicinity of the project area Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue has sidewalks on both sides of the street. Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Arroyo Drive is a two-lane Collector with a double yellow centerline, except for a short segment with a raised median near El Camino Real. There are two pedestrian crossings with ladder-style markings between Camaritas Avenue and El Camino Real. On the south side of Arroyo Drive between Camaritas Avenue and El Camino Real, in front of the City's municipal building, the on-street parking is angled. The speed limit is 25 miles per hour. Arroyo Drive has a sidewalk on both sides of the street within the Planning Area. West of Camaritas Avenue this street is designated as a Class III bike route. Camaritas Avenue is classified as an Other Street in the City's General Plan. It is four lanes between Arroyo Drive and Westborough Road, otherwise it is two lanes. Over the four-lane section, on-street parking is allowed in the southbound direction. North of Arroyo Drive on- street parking is allowed in both directions. The four-lane section is designated as a Class III bike route. The four-lane section does not have a posted speed limit. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street on Camaritas Avenue. Oak Avenue is a two-lane Collector with a double yellow centerline. It has a two-way left-turn lane east of Commercial Avenue. It has on-street parking on both sides of the street, and the posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. This street is proposed to be extended to El Camino Real. Level of Service Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative term describing operating conditions a driver will experience while traveling on a particular street or at an intersection during a specific time interval. It ranges from LOS A (very little delay) to LOS F (long delays and congestion). Table 3.1-1 provides a definition for each level of service category. Table 3.1-1: Level of Service Definition Level of Service A B c D E F Description Free flow with no delays. Users are virtually unaffected by others in the traffic stream. At signalized intersections, turning movements are easily made and all queues clear in a single signal cycle. Stable traffic. Traffic flows smoothly with few delays. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized. Drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles. Stable flow but the operation of individual users becomes affected by other vehicles. Modest delays. Major approach phases fully utilized. Backups may develop behind turn- ing vehicles. Approaching unstable flow. Operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by other vehicles. Delays may be more than one cycle during peak hours. Queues may develop but dissipate rapidly, without excessive delays. Unstable flow with operating conditions at or near the capacity level. Long delays and vehicle queuing. Forced or breakdown flow that causes reduced capacity. Traffic demand exceeds the capacity. Stop and go traffic conditions. Excessive long delays and vehicle queuing. Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2000, National Research Council, 2000; Kimley-Horn, 2011. 3.1-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Signalized Intersections Signalized intersection level of service is measured as the average control delay in seconds per vehicle. Control delay is the portion of the total delay experienced by drivers at intersections that is attributable to traffic signal operation. It includes the delay for decelerating to a stop at a signal, moving slowly in a queue of vehicles, stopped delay, and acceleration after the signal turns green. Table 3.1-2 summarizes the relationship between the level of service rating and control delay for signalized intersections. To evaluate signalized intersections, the operations method of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2000 was utilized. Unsignalized Intersections Un signalized intersection level of service evaluation also utilized the HCM 2000 operations methodology. This methodology determines the LOS based on delay. Similar to signalized intersections, the measure of effectiveness of an unsignalized intersection is measured in average control delay; however, the delay is reported for the worst-case approach of the intersection. The LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections are summarized in Table 3.1-2. Table 3.1-2: Level of Service Definitions for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Signalized Intersection Control Unsignalized Intersection Control Delay Delay (seconds/vehicle) (seconds/vehicle) A ~ 10 o to 10 B > 10 -20 > 10 to 15 C > 20 -35 > 15 to 25 D > 35 -55 > 25 to 35 E > 55 -80 > 35 to 50 F > 80 > 50 Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2000, National Research Council, 2000; Kimley-Horn, 2011. Freeway Segments Performance measures such as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience are used to describe freeway operation conditions. These measures are related to the density of traffic and volume to capacity ratio and LOS is a quality measure describing operation conditions within the stream of traffic during the peak hours. The 2000 HCM defines six LOS grades for each type of facility. LOS is designated from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. For this study, the LOS for a basic freeway segment is based on the volume to capacity ratio, assuming that one freeway travel lane has a capacity of 2,200 vehicles per hour. Table 3.1-3 describes the relationship between freeway LOS, density, and volume to capacity. 3.1-3 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.1-3: Freeway Level of Service Freeway LOS Density Range (pc/milln) Volume to Capacity Ratio A 0-II 0.30 B > II -18 0.50 C > 18 -26 0.71 D >26 -35 0.89 E >35 -45 1.00 F > 45 > 1.00 Source: Kimley-Horn, 2011. Existing Intersection Operating Conditions Intersection turning movement counts were collected on a typical weekday between 7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM at all of the Planning Area intersections. The traffic counts were conducted on November 3 and November 4,2010. A field visit was also conducted to observe intersection geometry, intersection control, pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, and queue lengths. The existing intersection geometry and traffic control is illustrated Appendix B. The existing conditions traffic volumes are also shown in Appendix B. Observations were made of traffic conditions within the Planning Area during a typical mid- week PM peak hour. A few intersections, particularly along El Camino Real, were noted to become congested during peak traffic conditions. At the intersection of El Camino Real and Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue, delays were observed to be fairly high for the northbound, southbound and westbound approaches, with substantial vehicle queuing. Westbound queues at the closely-spaced intersection of Camaritas Avenue/West Orange Avenue extended into the El Camino Real intersection at times, which impacted westbound thru and northbound left-turn movements and resulted in queues within the intersection. The intersection of El Camino Real and McLellan Drive had moderate congestion during the PM peak hour, with higher vehicle demand in the northbound and westbound directions. A large share of vehicles going in the northbound direction were in the far left lane in anticipation of turning left onto Hickey Boulevard towards 1-280. Peak-hour congestion was not observed to be occurring on Mission Road or Arroyo Drive. Table 3.1-4 summarizes the 2010 existing intersection levels of service for the AM and PM peak hours. As Table 3.1-4 illustrates, all of the study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours, meeting the current City LOS standard of LOS D, with the exception of Westborough Boulevard/I-280 Northbound On Ramp/Junipero Serra Boulevard during the PM peak hour and J unipero Serra Boulevard/Arroyo Drive during the AM and PM peak hours. Table 3.1-5 shows the existing I -280 freeway segment levels of service for the AM and PM peak hours. As Table 3.1-5 indicates, the freeway segments currently operate at LOS D or better. 3.1-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.1-4: Existing Condition Intersection Level of Service Analysis Existing Intersection Control AM Peak PM Peak Delay I EI Camino Real/Hickey Boulevard Signal 35.9 2 EI Camino Real/McLellan Boulevard Signal 31.2 3 EI Camino Real/Arroyo Drive/Oak Extension Signal 19.8 4 EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Signal 39.7 5 EI Camino Real/Orange Avenue Signal 29.6 6 Mission Road/Grand Avenue AWSC 13.2 7 Chestnut Avenue/Grand Avenue Signal 29.0 8 Mission Road/Oak Avenue TWSC 15.4 9 Mission Road/Chestnut Avenue Signal 24.4 10 Junipero Serra Boulevard/Arroyo Drive TWSC 47.8 II Westborough Boulevardll-280 SB Off Ramp Signal 15.8 12 Westborough Boulevard/I-280 NB On Signal 41.3 Ramp/Junipero Serra Boulevard AWSC All-Way Stop-controlled (Delay reported for worst case approach) TWSC Two-way Stop-controlled (Delay reported for worst case approach) LOS Delay LOS D 38.5 D C 30.5 C B 15.9 B D 38.1 D C 29.8 C B 12.4 B C 29.0 C C 12.2 B C 22.5 C E 62.6 F B 41.9 D D 78.0 E Level of service based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual signalized and unsignalized operations analysis methods. Source: Kim/ey-Horn, 2011. Table 3.1-5: Existing Condition Freeway Level of Service Analysis Existing Conditions Freeway Segment Capacity # Total AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour per lane Lanes Capacity Volume Volume (veh/hr) VIC LOS (veh/hr) VIC LOS 1-280 NB 2,200 Avalon to Westborough 4 8,800 4,722 0.537 C 7,327 0.833 D 1-280 NB 2,200 4 8,800 5,056 0.575 C 7,091 0.806 D Westborough to Hickey 1-280 SB 2,200 4 8,800 5,708 0.649 C 6,214 0.706 D Hickey to Westborough 1-280 SB Westborough to Avalon 2,200 4 8,800 6,305 0.716 D 5,155 0.586 C Source: Kim/ey-Horn, 2011. 3.1-5 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Operations Transit Network Public transportation is provided by BART and the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans). BART connects the San Francisco Peninsula with Oakland, Berkeley, Fremont, Walnut Creek, Dublin/Pleasanton and other East Bay cities via above-and below-ground heavy rail. From the project area, BART provides service to the north to San Francisco and across the bay. BART also provides direct access to San Francisco International Airport. SamTrans operates fixed-route bus, community-based shuttles, paratransit, and BART commuter shuttles within San Mateo County. A number of bus routes and shuttles operate through South San Francisco and the project vicinity. The Planning Area is also served by Caltrain, a commuter rail system connecting Gilroy to San Francisco with a station located approximately two miles from the Planning Area, just to the east of US-lO 1 near the Grand Avenue interchange. Transfers between the Caltrain and the BART system can occur at the Millbrae BART station. Access from the Planning Area is provided to Caltrain via BART or a number of SamTrans bus routes. BART The South San Francisco BART station is located just to the north of the Planning Area. Its primary drop-off area and parking garage are accessed from BART Road via El Camino Real or Mission Road. Pedestrian access is provided via El Camino Real, Mission Road or McLellan Drive. Additional pedestrians and bicycles access is proposed via Centennial Way Linear Park. The South San Francisco BART station opened in 2003 as part of the BART extension from Colma to San Francisco International Airport/Millbrae. It operates underground in the project vicinity, bisecting the project area. It takes 20 minutes via BART to travel from the South San Francisco station to the Civic Center station in San Francisco and 36 minutes via BART to travel to the 12th Street Station in Oaldand. Ridership at the South San Francisco station has more than doubled since it first opened in 2003. There was an average of 2,837 exits from the South San Francisco BART in 2008, compared to 1,198 in 2003. Station counts from 2008 show there were an average of 2,996 daily exits from the South San Francisco station. Sam Trans Bus routes in the project vicinity are operated by SamTrans. A number of Sam Trans fixed bus routes and BART commuter shuttles provide local and regional service to the South San Francisco BART station. As a result, bus stops within or adjacent to the Planning Area are served by multiple bus routes. Fixed Route Bus Service Route 122 travels between San Francisco and the South San Francisco BART station, providing service to the Colma BART Station, San Francisco State University and a number ofretail and medical centers along the way. On weekdays, it operates with 20 minute headways during the peak hours and approximately 30 minute head ways for the rest of the day, from 6 AM to 9 PM. It operates on weekends and holidays with 30 minute headways. In the project vicinity, it 3.1-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures travels on El Camino Real and Arroyo Drive. On school days the route also provides service during school start and dismissal times to Baden High School, located west of El Camino Real and south of Westborough Boulevard. In 2006, Route 132 averaged 2,580 weekday riders (36.9 passengers per trip). Route 130 travels between the Daly City BART station and the intersection of Airport Boulevard & Linden Avenue in South San Francisco. It also provides service to the Colma BART and South San Francisco BART stations. On weekdays, it operates with 20 minute headways during the peak hours and approximately 30 minute headways for the rest of the day, from 5:30 AM to 11 PM. It operates on Saturdays with 30 minute headways and on Sundays and holidays with 60 minute headways. In the project vicinity it travels on Mission Road and Grand Avenue. In 2006, Route 130 averaged 1,991 weekday riders (24.9 passengers per trip). Route 132 travels in a loop around South San Francisco. Points on the route include the South San Francisco BART station, the Airport Boulevard & Linden Avenue intersection, City Hall, the City Library and other shopping centers. On weekdays, it operates in each direction on weekdays with 30 minute headways during the peak hours and 60 minute headways for the rest of the day, from 5:30 AM to 7:30 PM. It operates on Saturdays with 60 minute headways and does not operate on holidays or Sundays. The route travels on El Camino Real, Arroyo Drive, Camaritas Avenue, and West Orange Avenue within the project area. It also operates two morning busses and one afternoon bus on school days only that provide service to Buri Buri Elementary School and the surrounding neighborhood west of El Camino Real, north of Westborough Boulevard. In 2006, Route 132 averaged 452 weekday riders (10.5 passengers per trip ). Route 133 travels between the South San Francisco BART station and the intersection of Airport Boulevard & Linden Avenue. It also stops at the Serramonte Shopping Center, the Tanforan Shopping Center and the San Bruno BART station. On weekdays, it operates with 30 minute headways during the peak hours and 60 minute headways for the rest of the day, from 6 AM to 6:30 PM. On Saturdays it operates with 60 minute headways and does not operate on holidays or Sundays. The route travels on El Camino Real, Camaritas Avenue and West Orange Avenue with the project vicinity. It also operates one morning and one afternoon bus on school days only that provides service to Alta Lorna Junior High School. In 2006, Route 133 averaged 771 weekday riders (19.3 passengers per trip). Route 390 travels between Daly City BART station and the Palo Alto Caltrain station via El Camino Real. Along the route it connects with the South San Francisco BART station, the Millbrae Intermodal Station, and various Caltrain stations, regional shopping centers and hospitals in the cities of Daly City, Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno, Millbrae, Burlingame, San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, Redwood City, Atherton, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto. On weekdays, it operates with 30 minute headways during the peak hours and 60 minute headways for the rest of the day, from 5:30 AM to 11:30 PM. It operates with 30 minute headways except late evening on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. This route and Route 391 experience the highest ridership demand on the SamTrans system. In 2006, Route 390 averaged 6,288 weekday riders (87.3 passengers per trip). Route 391 travels between Daly City and Redwood City via El Camino Real. During peak periods on weekdays it continues to the north to the intersection of Mission Street & 1 st Street in downtown San Francisco, providing access to the San Francisco Transbay Terminal. It 3.1-7 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures provides service to the Colma BART station, the South San Francisco BART station, the San Bruno BART station, the Millbrae Intermodal Station and various Caltrain stations, regional shopping centers and hospitals in the cities of Daly City, Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno, Millbrae, Burlingame, San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, and Redwood City. On weekdays, it operates with 30 minute headways throughout the day, from 4 AM to 1 AM. It operates with 30 minute headways except late evening on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. This route and Route 390 experience the highest ridership demand on the SamTrans system. In 2006, Route 391 averaged 5,822 weekday riders (71.9 passengers per trip). Routes 35/36 provide community service from several South San Francisco neighborhoods to Evergreen Drive & Mission Road, adjacent to the South San Francisco BART station. It does not provide service to the project area at any closer points than the BART station. This service only operates three AM loops (one via Route 35 and two via Route 36) and four PM loops (one via Route 35 and three via Route 36). The service is only provided on school days. In 2006, route 35 averaged 79 weekday riders (19.9 passengers per trip) and Route 36 averaged 103 weekday riders (17.2 passengers per trip). Paratransit Service In addition, SamTrans operates demand-responsive paratransit service within the project area. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Network The main bicycle network that serves the Planning Area includes a Class I Multi-Use Path along Centennial Way Linear Park which runs to the east of and parallel to El Camino Real. The Class I Multi-Use Path provides a completely separated right of way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflow minimized. This bike path connects the South San Francisco BART station to the San Bruno BART Station. The Centennial Way Linear Park can be accessed from the Planning Area by Class III Bicycle Routes located on Chestnut, West Orange, and South Spruce avenues. A Class III Bikeway is a "bike route" that provides shared use between bicyclists and motor vehicle traffic and is identified only by signing on roadways. Bike parking is located along the Centennial Trail bike path as well as at South San Francisco and San Bruno BART station. Sidewalks along El Camino Real in the Planning Area range from five to eight feet in width. There are limited street trees along El Camino Real. In addition, there is a break along the sidewalk network as there is no sidewalk along the frontage of South San Francisco High School and Cortez Avenue to Francisco Drive. REGULATORY SETTING State and Regional California Department of Transportation Caltrans recommends a target LOS at the threshold between LOS C and LOS D for their facilities. If the location under existing conditions operates worse than the appropriate target LOS, then the existing LOS should be maintained. 3.1-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Regional Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) The majority of federal, state, and local financing available for transportation projects is allocated at the regional level by the MTC, the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for the nine-county Bay Area. The current regional transportation plan, known as Transportation 2035: Change In Motion, was adopted by MTC on April 22, 2009. Transportation 2035 specifies how some $218 billion in anticipated federal, state and local transportation funds will be spent in the nine-county Bay Area during the next 25 years. Bay Area Air Quality Management District The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional agency with the authority to develop and enforce regulations for the control of air pollution throughout the Bay Area. The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) is BAAQMD's plan for reducing the emissions of air pollutants that lead to ozone. BAAQMD has also published CEQA Guidelines for the purpose of evaluating the air quality impact of projects and plans. One of the criteria that the Guidelines describe is that plans, including general plans, must demonstrate reasonable efforts to implement control measures included in the CAP that identify local governments as the implementing agencies. The CAP is further discussed in chapter 3.2: Air Quality. Local Regulations Cityl County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (CICAG) C/CAG acts as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for San Mateo County. As the CMA, C/CAG is charged with the development, adoption, and updating of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) for the county. The purpose of the CMP is to develop a procedure to alleviate or control anticipated increases in roadway congestion and to ensure that comprehensive strategies to address transportation needs are developed and implemented. The most recent version of the CMP is the Final Congestion Management Program for 2009, which includes the following standard relevant to the Planning Area: • A standard of LOS D for 1-280 roadway segments near the Planning Area. The CMP does not establish LOS standards for any intersections along El Camino Real in the Planning Area. South San Francisco General Plan (1999) Chapter 4: Transportation The Transportation Element of the General Plan establishes traffic operations and Level of Service (LOS) standards: 4.2-G-8 Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections, and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours. 4.2-G-9 Accept LOS E or F after finding that: • There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and 3.1-9 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • The uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit. Other policies in the Transportation Element seek to reduce vehicle miles traveled and total trip generation, develop comprehensive and integrated pedestrian and bicycle systems, improve access to and use of public transportation, increase the use of shuttle operations and other employer based initiatives, and implement transportation demand programs. Key policies include: 4.2-G-5 Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the arrangement of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle-miles traveled. 4.2-G-6 Coordinate local actions with regional agencies, and undertake active efforts to undertake transportation improvements. 4.2-G-IO Exempt development within one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART station, or a City-designated ferry terminal, from LOS standards. 4.2-1-2 Undertake street improvements identified in figures 4-1 and 4-2. [of the General Plan] (Amended by City Council Resolution 31-2002, April 24, 2002) Improvements [applicable to the Planning area] identified include: • Connection between Hillside Boulevard and El Camino Real near the BART station (see Chapter 3 for policies for pedestrian-oriented nature of the segment near the BART station). • Arroyo Drive/Oak Avenue connection. This short connection will relieve pressure off the Chestnut Avenue/El Camino Real intersection. Signal coordination will help to en- sure that El Camino Real traffic flow is not impeded. • Mission Road extension from Chestnut Avenue to South Linden Avenue extension. This will be on the BART right-of-way. The General Plan proposes additional uses for the right-of-way-a bikeway and a linear park as well-a coordinated design strategy and joint efforts by the Public Works and Parks and Recreation departments will be needed. Alternative Transportation Systems 4.3-G-I Develop a comprehensive and integrated system of bikeways that promote bicycle riding for transportation and recreation. 4.3-G-2 Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers. 4.3-G-3 In partnership with employers, continue efforts to expand shuttle operations. 4.3-G-4 In partnership with the local business community, develop a transportation systems management plan with identified trip-reduction goals, while continuing to maintain a positive and supportive business environment. 3.1-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3-1-10 Undertake efforts to promote the City as a model employer and further alternative transportation use by City employees by providing: • A designated commute coordinator/manager; • A carpoollvanpool match program; • Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools at City Hall; • Secure bicycle storage facilities; • On-site shower facilities at City Hall for employees; • A commitment to future shuttle service to BART stations; • Guaranteed ride home program; • Transit subsidies; • On-site transit pass sales; and • Incentives/ educational program. 4.3-1-1 Prepare and adopt a Bikeways Master Plan that includes goals and objectives, a list or map of improvements, a signage program, detailed standards, and an implementation program. 4.3-1-2 As part of the Bikeways Master Plan, include improvements identified in Figure 4-3 [in the General Plan] and identify additional improvements that include abandoned railroad rights-of-way and other potential connections. 4.3-1 -3 Make bikeway improvements a funding priority by: • Continuing to consider financing bikeway design and construction as part of the City's annual construction and improvement fund; • Incorporating bikeway improvements as part of Capital Improvement Program; and • Pursuing regional funding and other sources for new bikeways to the extent possible under federal and State law. 4.3-1-4 Require provision of secure covered bicycle parking at all existing and future multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, and office/institutional uses. 4.3-1-8 Adopt a TDM program or ordinance which includes, but is not limited to, the following components: • Methodology to determine eligibility for land use intensity bonuses for TDM programs identified in the Land Use Element; • Procedures to ensure continued maintenance of measures that result in intensity bo- nuses; • Requirements for off-site improvements (such as bus shelters and pedestrian connec- tions) that are directly necessary as a result of development; 3.1-11 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • Exemptions or reductions in any transportation impact fee that may be established in the future for projects that meet specific trip-reduction goals; and • Reduced parking requirements for projects in proximity to fixed-guideway transit or those with demonstrated measures that would reduce trip generation. In addition, several polices in the Land Use Element support transit oriented development and implementation of the TDM program. Key policies include: 2-G-7 Encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office development in centers where they would support transit, in locations where they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and vitality. 2-G-8 Provide incentives to maximize community orientation of new development, and to promote alternative transportation modes. 2-1-4 Require all new developments seeking an FAR bonus set forth in Table 2.2-2 to achieve a progressively higher alternative mode usage. The requirements of the TDM Program are detailed in the Zoning Ordinance. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001, Adopted September 26, 2001). Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (2001) Section 20.120 of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code details the requirements for a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. The purpose of a TDM Program is to reduce the number of vehicle trips by increasing access to and use of alternative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycling, and walking. A TDM Program is required for all nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips or projects seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus. The program requires that a minimum of 28% of all trips must be made through alternative mode use. Some mandatory provisions for encouraging alternative transportation uses include bicycle parking spaces, free parking for carpools and vanpools, shuttle programs, and direct routes to transit. Some residential projects in South San Francisco have included TDM measures such as shuttles, bike parking, direct routes to transit, and passenger loading zones, as part of their project approval. South San Francisco El Camino Real Master Plan (2006) The South San Francisco El Camino Real Master Plan analyzed the almost three-mile length of El Camino Real within the City of South San Francisco. The document analyzed existing conditions, identified opportunities for improvements and existing constraints, and developed concept plans and streetscape standards. Two of the El Camino Real segments analyzed in the Master Plan are within the Planning Area -Kaiser Hospital Area (BART to Arroyo Drive) and Buri Buri Center Area (Arroyo Drive to West Orange Avenue). Opportunities identified for the Kaiser area include providing a sidewalk along the east and increased landscaping. Opportunities identified for the Buri Buri Center area include improving pedestrian safety and increased landscaping. The Master Plan noted the costly nature of infrastructure and utility relocation as constraints. 3.1-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures The El Camino Real Master Plan proposes the following improvements to El Camino Real in the Planning Area: Kaiser Hospital Area • Provide a new sidewalk on the eastside from the Greenridge stairs to Arroyo Drive. This will improve pedestrian circulation and safety for those parking on the eastside and crossing over to Kaiser Hospital. • Provide pedestrian barrier to prevent pedestrian crossings. • Remove parking from BART to the north entrance of Kaiser to allow for a wider side- walk and street trees. • Provide sidewalk bulb-outs at the Kaiser crosswalk to reduce crossing length and im- prove pedestrian safety at the bus stop. • Encourage Kaiser to re-vegetate planting area. • Create plaza with significant art piece along the El Camino Real frontage road. Buri-Buri Center Area • Provide street trees and low screen fence along the Buri-Buri Center parking lot. • Provide pedestrian barrier to prevent pedestrian crossings. • Provide street trees along the west of side from West Borough to 1st Avenue. • Provide new four-way signalized intersection at 1st Avenue and El Camino Real to im- prove pedestrian circulation and safety. • Provide sidewalk bulb-outs on the east side of the 1 st Ave. intersection and West Orange intersection to calm traffic and reduce pedestrian crossing length. • Widen sidewalk and provide street trees on the west side from 1st Avenue to the mid- dle of the block. • Encourage lot reconsolidation and the widening of sidewalks. • Remove billboard to improve views. • Provide new bus shelter at the corner of West Orange Avenue. • Develop new monument for service club signage. City of South San Francisco Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan (November 2010) The City of South San Francisco currently has a draft of Bicycle Transportation Plan. The draft Bicycle Transportation Plan includes goals, policies, and implementation measures for the bicycle network in South San Francisco. They are as follows: Goall: Promote and Encourage Bicycle Transportation • Policy 1.1: Integrate bicycle facility and planning into all of the City's planning review and construction activities, legitimizing bicycling as a transportation mode. Implementation Measures: 3.1-13 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • 1.1-1 All development projects shall be required to conform to the Bicycle Transporta- tion Plan goals, policies and implementation measures. • 1.1-2 All public and private street projects shall incorporate bicycle improvements as identified on the Bikeways Map. • Policy 1.2: Reduce reliance on travel by single occupant passenger vehicles. Implementation Measures: • 1.2-1 All major developments shall be required to establish and maintain a Transporta- tion Demand Management Plan as prescribed in the South San Francisco Municipal Code Tide 20 Zoning Regulations. • 1.2-2 All developments with approved Transportation Demand Management Plans shall be required to prepare periodic reports as prescribed in the SSFMC Zoning Regu- lations. • 1.2-3 As part of the review of the Bicycle Plan stated in Goal 6, the Bicycle and Pede- strian Advisory Committee (BPAC) shall review and make recommendations on the effectiveness oflocal TDM Plans in supporting bicycling as a transportation mode. • Policy 1.3: Encourage residents and employees to use bicycles for journeys to work, shop- ping, school and recreation. Implementation Measures: • 1.3-1 Sponsor and / or support at least one local annual event promoting bicycling such as Bike-To-Work Day. • 1.3-2 Work with the South San Francisco Unified School District and private schools to implement programs and events to support bicycling including regular bike-to-school contests, and challenging students to bicycle to school. • 1.3-3 Develop and implement incentive based bicycle programs to encourage and in- crease bicycling. • 1.3-4 Maintain, update, and publish a City Bike Map. Goal 2: Improve Bicycle Safety • Policy 2.1: The BP AC and City staff shall continually seek to improve bicycling safety. Implementation Measures: • 2.1-1 City staff, assigned to support the BP AC, shall establish and maintain a current bicycle data base. The data base shall include, but not be limited to, an annual bicycle user count, analysis of bicycle collision rates and locations, and a review of facility con- ditions. • 2.1-2 City staff shall establish and maintain a BP A C webpage to disseminate bicycling information and elicit community input. 3.1-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • 2.1-3 The BPAC shall annually review efforts to improve bicycling safety and make recommendations for improving bicycling safety, maintaining existing bicycle facilities, and constructing new bicycle facilities. • Policy 2.2: Enforce bicycle related traffic laws to maintain and improve traffic safety. Implementation Measures: • 2.2-1 The Police Department should enforce the vehicle code for bicyclists. • 2.2-2 The BPAC webpage shall be utilized to provide public information pertaining to laws regarding bicycling on public roads. • Policy 2.3: Provide security on bicycle paths. Implementation Measure • 2.3-1 The city shall establish and maintain a security program for remote paths includ- ing the Bay Trail, Centennial Way path and future conversion of former rail spur tracks. • 2.3-2 Expand the Police Department Bike Patrol to include bicycle paths and evaluate other methods to improve security such as establishing a Citizen Bike Patrol, installing cameras and lighting on bicycle paths. Goal 3: Improve Bicycle Access • Policy 3.1: The city shall expand the existing bikeway network and improve access throughout the community with a special emphasis on connections to places of work, tran- sit, commercial centers and community amenities. Implementation Measure: • 3.1-1 Construct bicycle facilities in accordance with a prioritized list of facilities. • Policy 3.2: Bicycle parking facilities should be provided at schools, parks and transit stops, and shall be required to be provided at private developments including places of work, commercial shopping establishments, parks, community facilities and other bicyclist desti- nations. Implementation Measure: • 3.2-1 Amend the City's Zoning Regulations to require public and private developments and facilities to provide both long-term and short-term bicycle parking and support fa- cilities, such as shower and changing facilities. • 3.2-2 Work with transit agencies to provide bicycle parking at stations and key transit connections and provide bicycle racks and/or storage areas on buses and trains. • 3.2.3 Work with the South San Francisco Unified School District and private schools to provide and improve bicycle parking facilities at schools and provide safe access to schools. 3.1-15 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • Policy 3.3: Install bicycle way finding and destination signage on public paths. Implementation Measures: • 3.3-1 Develop a hierarchy of signs providing a uniform and consistent appearance pro- viding clear orientation and direction for bicyclists. • 3.3-2 Install bicycle way finding and destination signage on all public paths and require that privately sponsored path projects implement the same type of signage. Goal 4: Identify Funding Sources to Construct and Maintain Bicycle Facilities • Policy 4.1: City sponsored bicycle facilities shall include, to the extent feasible and available, Federal, State and/ or local grant funding to augment city funding. Implementation Measures: • 4.1-1 City staff shall establish and maintain a data base of funding sources to support planning, design, construction and maintenance of bicycling facilities. • 4.1-2 Bicycle improvement and maintenance projects shall be included in the City's Capital Improvement Plan. GoalS: Maintain Community Bicycle Facilities • Policy 5.1: Maintain bicycle routes, lanes and paths as a high priority. Implementation Measures: Implementation Measures: • 5.1-1 Maintain the city's street sweeping program to keep the streets, including bicycle routes and lanes, free and clear of debris. • 5.1-2 Establish a regular maintenance program including sweeping, pavement, signs, pavement markings and lighting to keep bicycle paths in good condition. • Policy 5.2: The BP AC shall conduct regular evaluations of the bicycle facilities. Implementation Measures: • 5.2-1 Conduct an annual review of the bikeways maintenance program and make rec- ommendations to improve maintenance. • 5.2-2 The BPAC, with the assistance of city staff, shall conduct and document an an- nual review of all bikeways surface condition. • Policy 5.3: Keep the City's pavement Management Plan relevant to bicycle transportation. Implementation Measure: • 5.3-1 The city staff shall revise the City's Pavement Management Plan to include bike- ways, pavement marking, signage and lighting maintenance as a high priority. Goal 6: Periodically Review the Bicycle Plan and Keep It Relevant 3.1-/6 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • Policy 6.1 Maintain the Bicycle Plan and the implementation schedule and keep the plan current and relevant. Implementation Measures: • 6.1-1 The BP AC shall conduct an annual review of the Bike Plan, including achieve- ment of the goals and policies, effectiveness of the implementation measures, the progress of implementation and the efficient use of local resources. • 6.1-2 The BPAC shall make recommendations to improve the plan, to achieve the goals and policies, and improve implementation. • 6.1-3 As part of the annual review, the BPAC shall prioritize bicycle improvements and identify external funding sources. • 6.1-4 The BP A C shall make recommendations to undertake periodic bicycle planning studies to update the plan and achieve greater effectiveness. • Policy 6.2 Maintain a focus on bicycle issues. Implementation Measures: • 6.2-1 The BPAC shall adopt an annual work program to guide its efforts to improve bi- cycling and to focus on bicycle issues, programs and projects, and the progress of im- plementation. • 6.2-4 The BP AC shall make recommendations to the City Council on all public and privately sponsored bicycle projects. Goal 7: Encourage Public Participation and Stay Informed • Policy 7.1 Promote public awareness of bicycling and increase public participation. Implementation Measure: • 7.1-1 Establish and maintain a BPAC webpage to disseminate information and elicit community input. • 7.1-2 Notify the community of the BPAC meetings and encourage public attendance at its meetings through various media including the city website. • Policy 7.2 Develop an outreach plan to establish and maintain contact with local residents, external agencies and interest groups. Implementation Measures: • 7.2-1 Establish and maintain a community data base of BPACs, interested residents, and organizations. • 7.2-2 Establish and maintain contact with BPACs within San Mateo County, bicycle organizations, SamTrans, BART, Caltrain and FHW A, interested citizens and busi- nesses. • 7.2-3 The BPAC shall conduct a periodic joint meeting with the neighboring com- munities, including Daly City, Colma, Brisbane, Pacifica and San Bruno BP AC's, and 3.1-17 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures local bicycle groups to review establishing better connections between bikeways and programs to improve bicycling, coordinating improvements and co-sponsoring joint projects. • 7.2-4 The BPAC shall propose joint meetings with the C/CAG and all local community BPACs within San Mateo County to discuss bicycling issues including coordinating bi- cycle projects and have more voice in bicycling issues. • 7.2-5 The BPAC shall work with other City Boards and Commissions to coordinate ef- forts to implement the plan and improve bicycling facilities. • Policy 7.3 The BPAC shall take a proactive approach to stay informed. Implementation Measure • 7.3-1 Participate in regional bicycle conferences and increase awareness, knowledge and technical bicycle expertise. On an annual basis, attend at least one public event in- cluding bicycling fairs and/or conference to establish and maintain connections with the larger bicycling and transportation planning communities. Attend regional and na- tional bicycle related conferences, such as the California and US Bike-Walk Confe- rence. • 7.3-2 Take an active leadership role by directing the planning, implementation and maintenance of bicycling improvements and programs. • 7.3-3 Monitor and review bicycle demonstration and cutting edge projects and pro- grams in other communities. • 7.3-4 The BPAC shall keep current on advancements, bicycle information and new and pending Federal and State bicycle legislation. Grand Boulevard Initiative (2008) The Grand Boulevard Initiative is a broad federation of private and public parties united to improve the performance, safety and aesthetics of El Camino Real. The City of South San Francisco adopted a resolution in support of the Grand Boulevard Initiative in 2008. This Initiative challenges communities to rethink the corridor's potential for housing and urban development, balancing the need for cars and parking with viable options for transit, walking and biking. In April 2007, the Grand Boulevard Taskforce adopted 10 guiding principles and identified potential strategies for future development along El Camino Real. The Grand Boulevard Initiative, in conjunction with Sam Trans and the C/CAG, has initiated a multi- modal corridor study for El Camino Real. A draft of the Grand Boulevard Multimodal Transportation Corridor Plan has been released which covers corridor improvements, multimodal access strategies, and street design guidelines. IMPACT ANALYSIS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The significance of potential traffic and circulation impacts are based on general thresholds identified within Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and specific criteria established by local jurisdictions. Transportation impacts are considered significant if the proposed Plan would result in any of the following: 3.1-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • Cause an increase in traffic, resulting in intersection LOS that exceeds LOS D, as estab- lished by the existing General Plan. • For freeways currently in compliance with the adopted LOS standard:l Cause the freeway segment to operate at a level of service that violates the standard adopted. Cumulative impacts that indicate that the combination of the proposed project and future cumulative traffic demand will result in the freeway segment to operate at a level of service that violates the standard adopted and the proposed project increas- es traffic demand on the freeway segment by an amount equal to one percent or more of the segment capacity, or causes the freeway segment volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio to increase by one percent. • Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or change in location that result in substantial safety risks; • Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses; • Result in inadequate emergency access; • Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transporta- tion. METHODOLOGY & ASSUMPTIONS Kimley-Horn was retained to prepare a traffic study for the proposed Plan. The analysis concentrated on the proposed Plan's projected impacts to intersection and freeway operations, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and the transit network. A full copy of the Traffic Impact Analysis report is contained in Appendix B. Below is a list of intersections and freeway segments that were studied. This list of study intersections and freeway segments was reviewed and approved by Caltrans in October, 2010. Study Intersections • El Camino Real!Hickey Boulevard • El Camino Real!McLellan Boulevard • El Camino Real! Arroyo Drive/Oak Extension • El Camino Real!Chestnut Avenue • El Camino Real!Orange Avenue • Mission Road/Grand Avenue • Mission Road/Oak Avenue • Mission Road/Chestnut Avenue I City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG). Policy on Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) To Determine Traffic Impacts on Congestion Management Program (CMP) Roadway Network Resulting From Roadway Changes, General Plan Updates, and Land Use Development Projects, August 10,2006. 3.1-/9 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • Chestnut Avenue/Grand Avenue • Westborough Boulevard/I -280 NB On Ramp/J unipero Serra Boulevard • Westborough Boulevard/I-280 SB Off Ramp • J unipero Serra Boulevard/Arroyo Drive Intersections have been evaluated for the following traffic scenarios: • 2010 Existing Conditions: Existing traffic volumes obtained from current weekday peak hour traffic counts. • 2010 Existing Conditions Plus Project without Improvements: Existing traffic vo- lumes obtained from counts plus additional vehicular trips generated by the land uses proposed in the Area Plan. This scenario does not include the proposed improvements in Policy C-6 of the proposed Plan. • 2010 Existing Conditions Plus Project with Improvements: Existing traffic volumes obtained from counts plus additional vehicular trips generated by the land uses pro- posed in the Area Plan. This scenario includes the proposed improvements in Policy C- 6 of the proposed Plan. • 2030 Cumulative No Project: Estimated traffic volumes for the year 2030 based on growth factors derived from the City/County Association of Governments of San Ma- teo County (C/CAG) travel forecasting model. • 2030 Cumulative Plus Project without Improvements: 2030 No Project volumes plus additional vehicular trips generated by the land uses proposed in the proposed Plan. This scenario does not include the proposed improvements in Policy C-6 of the pro- posed Plan. • 2030 Cumulative Plus Project with Improvements: 2030 No Project volumes plus ad- ditional vehicular trips generated by the land uses proposed in the proposed Plan. This scenario includes the proposed improvements in Policy C-6 of the proposed Plan. Because the CMP does not establish LOS standards for the study intersections, intersection analysis evaluates impacts on intersection LOS with the standard established in the South San Francisco General Plan by Policy 4.2-G-8 which establishes the LOS at D, where feasible. Study Freeway Segments: • 1-280 between Avalon Drive and Westborough Boulevard • 1-280 between Westborough Boulevard and Hickey Boulevard Freeway segments have been evaluated for the following traffic scenarios: • 2010 Existing Conditions: Existing traffic volumes obtained from current weekday peak hour traffic counts. • 2010 Existing Conditions Plus Project: Existing traffic volumes obtained from counts plus additional vehicular trips generated by the land uses proposed in the Area Plan. 3.1-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • 2030 Cumulative No Project: Estimated traffic volumes for the year 2030 based on growth factors derived from the City/County Association of Governments of San Ma- teo County (C/CAG) travel forecasting model. • 2030 Cumulative Plus Project: 2030 No Project volumes plus additional vehicular trips generated by the land uses proposed in the proposed Plan. The CMP establishes the LOS standard for the study freeway segments. The LOS standard for both segments is D. The CMP sets the LOS standards for the freeways within the County, including the segments analyzed as part of this study. For freeway segments, a project is considered to have an impact if the trips generated by the project cause a freeway segment to operate at a level of service that does not meet the CMP standard. If the freeway segment does not currently meet the CMP standard, the project is considered to have an impact if the trips generated by the project add one percent or more of the freeway capacity or the volume to capacity ratio increases by one percent. The project will also cause an impact if the future cumulative analysis shows that the addition of background traffic and project traffic result in the freeway segment not meeting the CMP standard and the project traffic increases demand on the freeway by one percent or the volume to capacity ratio increases by one percent. Anticipated Changes in Travel Patterns It is anticipated that the Oak Avenue extension from its current terminus at Mission Road to El Camino Real at Arroyo Drive will be constructed to alleviate traffic congestion in the area. Existing vehicle trips were redistributed to account for this new roadway segment. Project Trip Generation The Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th Edition, was used to estimate daily and peak-hour trip generation that can be attributed to the proposed Plan development. Trip generation rates are the number of trips generated by a particular land use per an independent variable of dwelling units, employees, or square feet. These rates are developed through many studies conducted throughout the country and, therefore, the rates represent a national average for similar land use types. Trip generation rates can vary depending on where the studies were conducted, and ITE provides a range of rates. A trip is defined in Trip Generation as a single or one-directional vehicle movement with either the origin or destination at the project site. In other words, a trip can be either "to" or "from" the site. In addition, a single customer visit to a site is counted as two trips (i.e., one to and one from the site). For purposes of determining the worst -case impacts of traffic on the surrounding street network, the trips generated by a proposed development are typically estimated between the hours of 7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM. While the project itself may generate more traffic occurring some other time of the day such as around noon, the peak of "adjacent street traffic" represents the time period when the uses generally contribute to the greatest amount of congestion, with the PM peak commonly being the greatest congestion period. Although the trips generated by the project may be greater during certain hours of the day, the background volumes on the street network would be relatively low compared to weekday peak traffic volumes. For this reason, the Traffic Impact Analysis Report focused on the weekday AM and 3.1-21 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures PM peak hours. This methodology is in harmony with typical City of South San Francisco practice in the preparation of other traffic impact studies. Net new proposed land uses were used to calculate the potential trip generation of the Area Plan. Trip generation was calculated based on the proposed development for each individual block and then added together to estimate the overall Plan's trips. Table 3.1-6 presents the total trip generation for the site on a per block basis. Additional trip generation calculations are provided in Appendix B. As noted in Table 3.1-6, the net new development, compared to existing conditions, within the Area Plan will generate approximately 864 new AM peak hour trips and 1,143 new PM peak hour trips. Table 3.1-6: Project Trip Generation Block Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total Block A 2,343 36 144 180 141 77 218 Blocks B & C 1,078 15 49 64 52 32 84 Blocks D & E 3,784 57 100 157 141 III 252 Blocks F & G 3,778 112 21 133 37 III 148 Blocks H, I, & J 1,716 26 123 149 115 57 172 Outside Focus Area 3,768 57 124 181 157 112 269 TOTAL 16,467 303 561 864 643 500 1,143 Source: Kimley-Horn, 20 I O. Internal Capture With multi-use development, there is the potential for interaction among uses within the site. These types of trips are considered internal to the site and are "captured" within the site. Internal capture reductions for each use on the development blocks were calculated separately based on data published in ITE's Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition. Internal capture reductions reasonably range from 5.5 percent to 14.3 percent based on ITE data for individual uses and were applied. Additional internal capture calculations are contained in Appendix B. Project Transit Trip Reduction Developments constructed in close proximity to an existing BART station outside central business districts have lower trip generation due to transit use. The following transit trip reductions were taken to the land uses in the project as follows: • Residential: 15 percent • Office: 15 percent • Retail: 5 percent 3.1-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Project Trip Pass-By Pass-by trips represent trips already on the road which stop as they pass by the site as a matter of convenience on their path to another destination. These trips enter and exit the site at the driveways but are not new trips to the Planning Area. The most complete source of data regarding average pass-by rates for various land uses is found in Trip Generation Handbook. Project Trip Distribution and Assignment Because of the nature of the development, the majority of customers to the project are expected to travel from nearby locations throughout South San Francisco and neighboring cities. Project distribution was developed based on existing traffic count information, traffic volumes in the CICAG travel demand model, and the general orientation of similar land uses to the site and population and employment sources to the stud area. Level of Service (LOS) Calculation The traffic analysis of the study intersections was conducted in accordance with the requirements from Appendix B of the CICAG's Congestion Management Plan for 2009. This requires that the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) or the Transportation Board's Circular 212 methodology be used to calculate levels of service. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS Overall, the proposed Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to intersection LOS; and less than significant impacts to freeway LOS. The proposed Plan would have no impact on the remaining criteria. Cumulative Increase in Traffic and Impact on LOS Standards 2010 Existing Condition Under existing conditions, 10 study intersections are operating at an acceptable Level of Services (LOS D or better) during the AM and PM peak hours. Intersection 12: Westborough Boulevard/l-280 On Ramp/Junipero Serra Boulevard is operating at LOS E during the PM peak hour and Intersection 10: J unipero Serra Boulevardl Arroyo Drive is operating at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour. The 1-280 freeway segments are operating at acceptable Levels of Service during both of the peak hours. 2010 Existing Condition Plus Project without Improvements Under the existing plus project condition, nine intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. Intersection 10: J unipero Serra Boulevardl Arroyo Drive would continue to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour. However, no project trips are assigned to this intersection so there are no impacts as a result of the proposed Plan. LOS at Intersection 1: El Camino Real/Hickey Boulevard and Intersection 12 Westborough Boulevard/l-280 NB On Ramp/Junipero Serra would both be below LOS D in the PM peak hour. 3.1-23 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 2030 Cumulative No Project Nine intersections during the AM peak hour and seven intersections during the PM peak hour would operate at unacceptable LOS. As shown in Table 3.1-7, for the AM and PM peak hours five of the 12 analyzed intersections would operate at LOS F. Three freeway segments would operate at LOS E during PM peak hour, which exceeds the LOS standard of D for this freeway and existing conditions. 2030 Cumulative Plus Project without Improvements Ten intersections during the AM peak hour and eight intersections during the PM peak hour would operate at unacceptable LOS. Six intersections would operate at LOS F. For Junipero Serra Boulevard/Arroyo Drive, no project trips are being added to this intersection; therefore, there are no project impacts to this intersection. Although impacts vary by intersection, as shown in Table 3.1-8, total wait time would increase under the proposed Plan, and because this increase indicates a worsening of already significant conditions, the proposed Plan is determined to have a considerable contribution to the significant impact, despite the threshold being exceeded in the No Project scenario. Although the proposed Plan includes roadway improvements that would mitigate the proposed Plan's considerable impacts at certain intersections, mitigations necessary to reduce other intersection impacts to less than significant levels are incapable of being accomplished, given economic, environmental, legal and technological factors, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts. The same 1-280 freeway segments would operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour, exceeding the LOS standard of D and existing conditions. However, the proposed Plan increases demand by less than one percent when compared to the No Project, resulting in less than significant impacts. Mitigation Measures In order to achieve LOS D at all of the intersections with unacceptable LOS, the widening of approaches and additional receiving lanes would be needed, which would require additional right-of-way, relocation of utilities, and the possible relocation of buildings. Given the proximity to existing development and the expense involved in acquiring the necessary right- of-way, these mitigations are economically and technologically infeasible, and contrary to the purpose of the proposed Plan, and other planning efforts, to create a more pedestrian and walkable environment in the Planning Area. Since the widening of approaches is contrary to the proposed Plan and economically and technologically infeasible, there is no feasible mitigation capable of avoiding or minimizing the impact to a less-than-significant level; the impact is therefore determined to be unavoidable. Other Impacts The proposed Plan would not change any air traffic patterns nor would it change the location of the San Francisco International Airport. Therefore there will be no impacts on air traffic. 3.1-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures The proposed Plan would not increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. The proposed Plan would increase the design quality of the Planning Area through policies and design guidelines. Key guiding principles include maximizing active frontages along key streets; developing the area with an overall character and urban design scheme that promotes livability and sustainability; enhanced streetscape improvements, public plazas, open spaces, and pedestrian connections; and enhanced linkages within the Planning Area. The proposed Plan would not introduce any hazardous design features. The proposed Plan would not change emergency vehicle access routes to the Planning Area. Police and Fire Stations are located within the Planning Area, resulting in a response time of five minutes or less. The proposed Plan would facilitate the Oak Avenue extension, creating easier circulation from Police and Fire Stations to the Planning Area and emergency access to the Planning Area would remain the same, indicating that there would be no impact on emergency access. The proposed Plan supports the use of alternative transportation in numerous ways and would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The proposed Plan would help provide enhanced linkages within the Planning Area by establishing pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connections through new development to maximize the accessibility of open space, commercial amenities, and transit. As discussed previously, the proposed Plan would complement the El Camino Real Master Plan, and will assist in creating a pedestrian-friendly realm which will encourage more walking. The proposed Plan will also support strategies in the Grand Boulevard Initiative by placing residential uses near existing transit and retail services to encourage alternative transportation methods. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.1-1 Future development under the proposed Plan, along with regional population and employment growth, would cause an increase in traffic and would cause intersection LOS standard established by the General Plan to be exceeded. (Significant and Unavoidable) South San Francisco General Plan Policy 4.2-G-8 establishes intersection LOS at D, where feasible. Table 3.1-7 shows the delay and intersection LOS for conditions listed below (as described under the methodology section of this Chapter). The bolded text in Table 3.1-7 indicates instances where the LOS standard has been exceeded. • 2010 Existing Conditions • 2010 Existing Conditions Plus Project without Improvements • 2010 Existing Conditions Plus Project with Improvements • 2030 Cumulative No Project. • 2030 Cumulative Plus Project without Improvements • 2030 Cumulative Plus Project with Improvements 3.1-25 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.1-8 summarizes the impact at each intersection and lists the improvements in Policy C- 6 of the proposed Plan that mitigate the impacts at certain intersections. Below is a discussion of the impacts at each intersection, organized by level of impact. No Impact Intersection 10: Junipero Serra Boulevard/Arroyo Drive. No project trips are added to this intersection; therefore there is no impact at this intersection as a result of the proposed Plan. Less than Significant Intersection 7: Chestnut Avenue/Grand Avenue. In 2010 Existing Plus Project without Improvements, intersection LOS in the AM and PM peak hours is C, which does not exceed LOS standard D established by the General Plan. In the 2030 Plus Project without Improvements, intersection LOS is D in the AM peak hours and C in the PM peak hours. Therefore, in the year 2030, with the implementation of the proposed Plan, the LOS will not exceed D, resulting in a less than significant impact. Less than Significant with Improvements Intersection 3: El Camino Real/Arroyo Drive/Oak Extension. In 2010 Existing Plus Project without Improvements, intersection LOS in the AM and PM peak hours is C, which does not exceed LOS standard D established by the General Plan. In 2030 Plus Project without Improvements, intersection LOS in the AM peak hours is E, which exceeds the LOS standard, while intersection LOS in the PM peak hours is D. The improvement included in Policy C-6 of the proposed Plan to restripe the westbound shared throughlright turn lane to shared left turn/throughlright turn lane improves the LOS E impact in the AM peak hours to LOS D. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact with the improvement. Intersection 6: Mission Road/Grand Avenue. In 2010 Existing Plus Project without Improvements, intersection LOS in the AM and PM peak hours is B, which does not exceed LOS standard D established by the General Plan. In 2030 Plus Project without Improvements, intersection LOS in the AM peak hours is F, which exceeds the LOS standard, while intersection LOS in the PM peak hours is B. The improvement included in Policy C-6 of the proposed Plan to restripe the southbound shared left turn/through lane to dedicated left turn lane and, if warranted in the future, signalize the intersection improves the LOS F impact in the AM peak hours to LOS C. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact with the improvement. Cumulatively Significant, Project Contribution Less than Significant Intersection 11: Westborough Boulevard/I-280 SB Off Ramp. In 2010 Existing Plus Project without Improvements, intersection LOS in the AM peak hours is B and LOS in the PM peak hours is D, which does not exceed the LOS standard D established by the General Plan. In 2030 Plus Project without Improvements, intersection LOS is D for the AM peak hours and LOS F for the PM peak hours. The impact is cumulatively significant because the LOS in 2030 Plus Project without Improvements is LOS F, which exceeds the LOS standard D established by the General Plan. The project contribution is less than significant because in 2010 Existing Plus 3.1-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Project, LOS does not exceed D and in 2030 Plus Project with Improvements, the increase in delay is less than one second compared to 2030 No Project. Cumulatively Significant, Project Contribution Less than Significant with Improvements Intersection 1: El Camino Real/Hickey Boulevard. In 2010 Existing Plus Project without Improvements, intersection LOS in the AM peak hours is D and LOS in the PM peak hours is E, which exceeds the LOS standard D established by the General Plan. In 2030 Plus Project without improvements, intersection LOS is F for both the AM and PM peak hours. The improvement in Policy C-6 of the proposed Plan to modify signal operations to include an eastbound right turn overlap phase would improve LOS in 2010 Existing Plus Project to LOS C and would improve LOS in 2030 Plus Project to LOS D in the AM peak hours and LOS E in the PM peak hours. The impact is cumulatively significant because the LOS in 2030 Plus Project with the improvement in the PM peak hours is LOS E, which exceeds the LOS standard D established by the General Plan. The project contribution is less than significant because in 2010 Existing Plus Project with Improvements, the delay is less than the delay in 2010 Existing Condition and in 2030 Plus Project with Improvements, the delay is less than 2030 No Project. Intersection 12: Westborough BoulevardlI-280 NB On RamplJunipero Serra Boulevard. In 2010 Existing Plus Project without Improvements, intersection LOS in the AM peak hours is D while intersection LOS in the PM peak hours is F, which exceeds the LOS standard D established by the General Plan. In 2030 Plus Project without Improvements, intersection LOS in the AM and PM peak hours is F. The improvement in Policy C-6 of the proposed Plan to stripe the westbound right turn lane and restripe the existing westbound shared throughlright turn lane to a through only lane, and to stripe the eastbound right turn lane and restripe the existing eastbound shared throughlright turn lane to a through only lane will improve intersection LOS in the PM peak hour to E as shown in 2010 Existing Plus Project with Improvements. Intersection LOS will remain F in 2030 Plus Project with Improvements. The impact is cumulatively significant because the LOS in 2030 with Improvements in the AM and PM peak hours will remain at F. The project contribution is less than significant because in 2010 Existing Plus Project with Improvements, the delay during the PM peak hours is less than the delay in 2010 Existing Conditions, and in 2030 Plus Project with Improvements, the delay in the AM and PM peak hours is less than the delay in 2030 No Project. Significant and Unavoidable The impacts at the following intersections are significant and unavoidable: • Intersection 2: El Camino Real/McClellan Boulevard • Intersection 4: El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue • Intersection 5: El Camino Real/Orange Avenue • Intersection 8: Mission Road/Oak Avenue • Intersection 9: Miss Road/Chestnut Avenue In 2010 Existing Plus Project without Improvements, all five intersections do not exceed LOS D. In 2030 Plus Project without Improvements, intersections 2,4, and 5 are operating at LOS F in the AM and FM peak hours. Intersection 8 is operating at LOS F in the AM peak hours and 3.1-27 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures at LOS E in the FM peak hours in 2030 Plus Project without Improvements. Intersection 9 is operating at LOS E in the AM peak hours and LOS D in the PM peak hours. The improvements required to reduce the delay in 2030 Plus Project below 2030 No Project levels are not feasible, which are discussed in the Mitigation section below. Therefore, impacts are significant and unavoidable. Overall Traffic Impact As Table 3.1-8 shows, the impacts at each intersection under the proposed Plan will vary. However, as total wait time would increase in 2030 Plus Project without Improvements at almost half of the intersections, compared to the 2010 Existing Condition and 2030 No Project, and because this increase indicates a worsening of already significant conditions, the proposed Plan is determined to have a considerable contribution to the significant impact, despite the threshold being exceeded in the No Project scenario. Although the proposed Plan includes roadway improvements that would mitigate the proposed Plan's considerable impacts at certain intersections, as shown in Table 3.1-8, mitigations necessary to reduce impacts to less than significant levels at other intersections are incapable of being accomplished, given economic, environmental, legal and technological factors, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts. 3.1-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.1-7: Intersection Level of Service Summary 20 I 0 Existing 20 I 0 Existing 2030 Plus 2030 Plus 20 I 0 Existing Plus Projea w/out Plus Project w/ Project w/out Project w/ Condition Improvements Improvements 2030 No Projea Improvements Improvements Interseaion Peak Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS AM 35.9 D 40.5 D 24.6 C 152.3 F 178.8 F 53.6 D I EI Camino Real/Hickey Boulevard PM 3S.5 D 58.8 E 22.9 C 187.6 F 230.3 F 78.2 E AM 31.2 C 32.4 C --73.5 E 86.1 F --2 EI Camino Real/McLellan Boulevard PM 30.5 C 33.0 C --103.5 F 142.1 F -- AM 19.5 B 29.7 C --46.4 D 59.7 E 47.1 D 3 EI Camino Real/Arroyo Drive/Oak Extension PM 15.9 B 26.1 C --36.3 D 47.4 D 37.3 D AM 39.7 D 44.7 D --144.5 F 173.7 F --4 EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue PM 3S.1 D 43.9 D --138.5 F 173.2 F -- AM 29.6 D 33.2 C --118.9 F 123.9 F --5 EI Camino Real/Orange Avenue PM 29.S C 33.9 C --153.9 F 162.8 F -- AM 13.2 B 14.9 B --40.9 E 58.3 F 26.1 C 6 Mission Road/Grand Avenue PM 12.4 B 14.0 B --12.4 B 14 B 21.7 C AM 29.0 C 29.3 C --50.9 D 54.4 D --7 Chestnut Avenue/Grand Avenue PM 29.0 C 29.3 C --43.4 D 46.0 C -- AM 15.4 C IS.4 C --67.1 F 91.9 F --8 Mission Road/Oak Avenue PM 12.2 B 16.0 C --22.2 C 41.6 E -- AM 24.4 C 24.5 C --62.5 E 72.4 E --9 Mission Road/Chestnut Avenue PM 22.5 C 23.7 C --36.4 D 45.9 D -- AM 47.8 E 47.8 E --1005.7 F 1005.7 F --10 Junipero Serra Boulevard/Arroyo Drive PM 62.6 F 62.6 F --1710.9 F 1710.9 F -- AM 15.S B 15.9 B --34.3 C 35.3 D --II Westborough Boulevard/I-2S0 SB Off Ramp PM 41.9 D 43.0 D --214.6 F 215.1 F -- Westborough Boulevard/I-2S0 NB On AM 41.3 D 49.4 D 42.1 D 193.8 F 216.3 F 172.5 F 12 Ramp/Junipero Serra Boulevard PM 78.0 E 97.3 F 73.3 E 355.5 F 382.6 F 322.1 F Source: Kimley-Horn, 20 II. 3.1-29 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.1-8: Summary of Intersection Impacts Intersection 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 EI Camino Real/Hickey Boulevard EI Camino Real/McLellan Boulevard EI Camino Real/Arroyo Drive/Oak Extension EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue EI Camino Real/Orange Avenue Mission Road/Grand Avenue Chestnut Avenue/Grand Avenue Mission Road/Oak Avenue Mission Road/Chestnut Avenue Junipero Serra Boulevard/Arroyo Drive Westborough Boulevard/I-280 SB Off Ramp Westborough Boulevard/I-280 NB On Ramp/Junipero Serra Boulevard Source: Kimley-Horn, 20 II; Dyett & Bhatia, 20 II. 3.1-30 Impact Cumulatively Significant, Project Contribu- tion Less than Significant with Improve- ments Significant and Unavoidable Less than Significant with Improvements Significant and Unavoidable Significant and Unavoidable Less than Significant with Improvements Less than Significant Significant and Unavoidable Significant and Unavoidable No Impact. No project trips are being add- ed to this intersection; therefore, there is no impact at this intersection as a result of the proposed Plan. Cumulatively Significant, Project Contribu- tion Less than Significant. Cumulatively Significant, Project Contribu- tion Less than Significant with Improve- ments Improvements that Mitigate Project Impact Modify traffic signal operations to include an eastbound right turn overlap phase. Infeasible Restripe westbound shared through/right turn lane to shared left turn/through/right turn lane. Infeasible Infeasible If warranted in the future, signalize intersection. Restripe southbound shared left turn/through lane to dedicated left turn lane. None Required Infeasible Infeasible None Required None Required; Increase in delay < one second with proposed Plan. Stripe westbound right turn lane and restripe existing westbound shared through/right turn lane to a through only lane. In addition, stripe eastbound right turn lane and restripe existing eastbound shared through/right turn lane to a through only lane. Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact C-I Ensure that transportation improvements are executed concurrently with associated and/or adjacent development, as described in Section 5.3: Phasing and Initial Development Steps. C-2 Ensure that a continuous pedestrian and bicycle connection is provided along Centennial Way between Chestnut Avenue and the proposed Oak Avenue extension. C-3 Emphasize linkages to Centennial Way with east-west pedestrian/bicycle connections from new development and surrounding neighborhoods. These linkages will also help to break up larger blocks and development sites. C-4 Encourage pedestrian-oriented connections through development between Chestnut Avenue and the planned Oak Avenue extension. C-5 Enhance pedestrian/bicycle connectivity to key destinations, including Kaiser Hospital, the potential library and other civic uses, such as Orange Memorial Park and the Municipal Services Building. C-6 Undertake the following street improvements: • EI Camino Real!Hickey Boulevard. Modify traffic signal operations to include an east- bound right turn overlap phase. • EI Camino Real! Arroyo Drive/Oak Extension. Restripe westbound shared throughlright turn lane to shared left turn/throughlright turn lane. • Mission Road/Grand Avenue. If warranted in the future, signalize intersection. Re- stripe southbound shared left turn/through lane to dedicated left turn lane. • Westborough Boulevard/I-280 NB On Ramp/Junipero Serra Boulevard. Stripe west- bound right turn lane and restripe existing westbound shared throughlright turn lane to a through only lane. In addition, stripe eastbound right turn lane and restripe exist- ing eastbound shared throughlright turn lane to a through only lane. Mitigation Measures The following improvements are required in order to mitigate the project's impact at the following intersections: • El Camino Real/McLellan Boulevard. Construct third southbound lane along El Cami- no Real. This mitigation would require the widening of I Camino Real and would re- quire the taking of residential land on the west side of El Camino Real. There exists a significant grade difference between the homes and the sidewalk along El Camino Real. • El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue. Construct second eastbound right turn lane and second eastbound left turn lane. This mitigation would require an additional two lanes along Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. This mitigation would require the taking of property from a gas station and would result in loss of parking for Pacific Su- permarket. 3.1-31 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • El Camino Real/Orange Boulevard. Construct second westbound right turn lane and restripe eastbound approach to a left turn lane and a shared through lanelright turn lane. This mitigation would require the taking of property from Mr. Pizza Man. • Mission Road/Oak Avenue. The westbound approach could be mitigated by removing several on street parking spaces and striping a dedicated left turn lane and a shared throughlright turn lane. A traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted at this intersec- tion, but the projected AM and PM peak hour volumes do not meet the peak hour war- rant analysis; therefore, a traffic signal is not a practical mitigation. It is possible for an un signalized intersection to not meet signalization warrants while having one or more movements not meeting the City LOS standard. The signal warrant considers a bal- ance between major street and minor street delays, and may indicate an overall benefit of long delays for the minor street if the major street experiences no additional delays. At this intersection, while the lower volume traffic along Oak Avenue may experience long delays, there would not be an overall benefit if the higher volume traffic along Mission Road is stopped in favor in of the Oak Avenue traffic. Additional travel lanes would have to be constructed at this intersection to result in an acceptable level of ser- vice, which would require additional right -of way. • Mission Road/Chestnut Avenue. Construct eastbound right turn lane. This mitigation would require additional right of way from park land or existing residential develop- ment. The mitigations necessary to reduce impacts to less than significant levels are incapable of being accomplished, given economic, environmental, legal and technological factors. The Planning Area and adjacent area is an urbanized area that is already fully developed with operating businesses. The acquisition of such property for additional travel lanes would be prohibitively costly given the expense associated with acquiring the land, costs of relocating businesses, and payment for loss of business good will. The widening of streets directly conflicts with the project's vision, which is to make the area into a walkable, distinctive, mixed-use district. Also, additional travel lanes conflict with the El Camino Real Master Plan, which focuses on expanding pedestrian facilities, and the Guiding Principles adopted by the Grand Boulevard Task Force as part of the Grand Boulevard Initiative, which aims to transform El Camino Real into a smart growth corridor. The mitigation would conflict with General Plan Policy 3.4-G-5 Encourage the implementation of the Guiding Principles of the Grand Boulevard Initiative as adopted by the Grand Boulevard Task Force in April of 2007. These mitigations would be contrary to the purpose of the proposed Plan, which is to create a vibrant, mixed use neighborhood that is pedestrian oriented and walkable. The LOS standard used in this analysis relates only to vehicular traffic and only takes into account the transportation system experience of automobile drivers. Widening approaches to increase LOS would benefit automobile drivers but often result in overly-wide streets and intersections that are difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross, and could result in narrowing of sidewalks. These changes would potentially result in worsened conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users. 3.1-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Given that the mitigation measures are in contravention to the proposed Plan and other planning efforts, as well as economically and technologically infeasible, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. Impact 3.1-2 Future development under the proposed Plan, along with regional population and employment growth, would cause an increase in traffic and would cause roadway LOS standards established by the county congestion management agency to be exceeded. (Less than Significant) Under the existing condition, all the 1-280 study freeway segments are operating at acceptable LOS during both of the peak hours, as shown in Table 3.1-9. Back-up traffic analysis calculation is included in Appendix B for review. The 1-280 freeway is part of the CMP's Roadway System and C/CAG has set the 1-280 LOS standard to D or better for the study segments. Table 3.1-9 shows LOS under the 2010 Existing Condition, 2010 Existing Plus Project, 2030 No Project, and 2030 Plus Project. The text in bold indicates instances where the LOS standard has been exceeded. Table 3.1-9: Freeway Level of Service Summary 2010 VIC increase 20 I 0 Existing Existing Plus 2030 2030 between Condition Project No Project Plus Project 20 I 0 Existing and 2030 Peak VIC LOS VIC LOS VIC LOS VIC LOS Plus Project 1-280 NB AM 0.537 C 0.540 C 0.678 C 0.682 C 0.005 Avalon to Westborough PM 0.833 D 0.840 D 0.930 E 0.938 E 0.008 1-280 NB AM 0.575 C 0.581 C 0.838 D 0.844 D 0.006 Westborough to Hickey PM 0.806 D 0.811 D 0.914 E 0.920 E 0.006 1-280 SB AM 0.649 C 0.652 C 0.727 D 0.731 D 0.004 Hickey to Westborough PM 0.706 D 0.713 D 0.960 E 0.967 E 0.007 1-280 SB AM 0.716 D 0.723 D 0.826 D 0.832 D 0.006 Westborough to Avalon PM 0.586 C 0.591 C 0.754 D 0.759 D 0.005 Source: Kimley-Horn, 2011. Freeway segments on 1-280 would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS in 2010 Existing Plus Project. Freeway segments on 1-280 would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS in 2030 Plus Project with three exceptions. Based on the results, 1-280 between Westborough to Hickey will operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour in the 2030 No Project and 2030 Plus Project scenarios. 1-280 northbound between Avalon to Westborough will operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour in the 2030 No Project and 2030 Plus Project scenarios. The criteria for freeway segments in the CMP states that a project will be considered to have an impact if the cumulative analysis indicates that the combination of the proposed project and future cumulative traffic demand will result in the freeway segment to operate at a level of service that violates the standard adopted and the proposed project increases traffic demand on 3.1-33 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures the freeway segment by an amount equal to one percent or more of the segment capacity, or causes the freeway segment volume-to-capacity (vic) ratio to increase by one percent. As shown in Table 3.1-9, in three of the cases that the LOS exceeds the LOS threshold, increase in traffic demand is less than one percent when compared to the No Project, resulting in less than significant impacts. Mitigation Measures N one Required. 3.1-34 3.2 Air Quality ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PHYSICAL SETTING Regional Air Quality Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutants. California's coastal regions have a temperate climate, with relatively cool temperatures and a pattern of onshore/offshore airflow. Both of these factors favor relatively good air quality. 1 The Planning Area is located in South San Francisco and is within the boundaries of the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area) Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Basin encompasses the nine-county region including all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Francisco, San Mateo, Marin and Napa counties, and the southern portions of Solano and Sonoma counties. The climate of the Bay Area is determined largely by a high-pressure system that is almost always present over the eastern Pacific Ocean off the West Coast of North America. During winter, the Pacific high-pressure system shifts southward, allowing storms to pass through the region. During summer and fall, emissions generated within the Bay Area can combine with abundant sunshine under the restraining influences of topography and subsidence inversions to create conditions that are conducive to the formation of photochemical pollutants, such as ozone and secondary particulates, such as nitrates and sulfates. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) operate a regional monitoring network that measures the ambient concentrations of six criteria air pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (N02), sulfur dioxide (S02), particulate matter (PM), and lead. Table 3.2-1 shows trends in regional exceedances of the federal and state ozone standards. Because of the number of exceedances, ozone is the pollutant of greatest concern in the Bay Area. Bay Area counties experience most ozone exceedances during the period from April through October. The San Francisco Bay Area Basin is also currently designated as a nonattainment area for State PM-I0 and PM-2.S standards but is listed as unclassified under federal PM-I0 and PM-2.S standards.2 Table 3.2-2 shows trends in regional exceedances of the federal and state particulate matter standards. The standards for CO, N02> S02> and lead are being met in the Bay Area. Transportation, including automobiles, trucks, transit buses, and other modes, is a major contributor to regional air pollution. Although stationary sources were once important contributors to both regional and local pollution, their role has been substantially reduced in recent years by pollution control programs and decline of heavy manufacturing in the Bay Area. Further progress in air quality improvement now focuses heavily on transportation sources. I California Air Resources Board (ARB). The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality, 2009, p. 1-6. California Air Resources Board (ARB). The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality, 2009. Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.2-1: Summary of Ozone Data for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (1999 -2009) Number of Day Standard Exceeded' Ozone Concentrations2 (ppm)3 Year State State Federal Federal Maximum Maximum I Hour 8 Hour I Hour 8 Hour I Hour 8 Hour Standard 0.09 0.070 0.12 0.075 (ppm) 2009 II 13 0 8 0.12 0.095 2008 9 20 2 12 0.14 0.111 2007 4 9 0 2 0.12 0.091 2006 18 22 17 0.13 0.106 2005 9 9 0 5 0.12 0.090 2004 7 13 0 7 0.11 0.085 2003 19 20 12 0.13 0.101 2002 16 19 2 15 0.16 0.106 2001 15 21 13 0.13 0.102 2000 12 17 3 9 0.15 0.115 1999 20 28 3 18 0.16 0.123 I This table summarizes the data from all of the monitoring stations within the Bay Area. 2. Values shown in bold type are in excess of applicable standard. J ppm = parts per million. Source: California Air Resources Board, 20 I 0; Air Quality Trend Summaries, http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/trends/trends I.php. 3.2-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.2-2: Summary of Data for Particulate Matter in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (1999 -2009) PM 2.5 PM 10 Estimated Estimated Estimated High 24-Days Days Days High 24- Year State Hour Exceeding Exceeding Exceeding State 3-Hr Annual National Federal Federal State year National Average Average Standard Standard Standard Average Average Standard2 (ug/m3), 12 35 20 150 2009 10.1 45.7 5.4 0 6.5 24 51.7 2008 13.7 60.3 7.1 0 18.3 24 78.2 2007 13.3 57.5 12.1 0 24.2 35 72.9 2006 12.4 75.3 8.6 0 77.3 35 103.9 2005 11.8 54.6 16.2 0 23.2 26 78.1 2004 12.7 73.7 14.4 0 24.5 26 62.8 2003 11.7 56.1 10.6 0 18.2 28 58.3 2002 14.0 76.7 27.3 0 24.4 30 79.8 2001 12.9 107.5 18.2 0 47.6 30 108.9 2000 13.6 67.2 31.0 0 42.4 30 76.1 1999 * 90.5 27.3 0 36.8 30 119.2 I ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 2. Values shown in bold type are in excess of applicable standard. Source: California Air Resources Board, 20 I O. Air Quality Trend Summaries, http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/trends/trends I.php. South San Francisco Northwest winds are most common in South San Francisco, reflecting the orientation of wind gaps within the mountains of the San Francisco Peninsula. Winds are lightest on average in the fall and the winter. The persistent winds in South San Francisco result in relatively low potential for air pollution. Even so, in fall and winter there are periods of several days when winds are very light and local pollutants can build Up.3 Existing and probable future levels of air quality in South San Francisco can generally be inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted by BAAQMD at its nearby monitoring stations. The monitoring stations closest to the Planning Area are in Redwood City and on Arkansas Street in San Francisco. Table 3.2-3 shows a five-year summary of monitoring data for ozone, respirable particulate matter (PMIO), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) from J City of South San francisco, 550 Gate Way Boulevard Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, October 2008. 3.2-3 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures these stations. The table also compares these measured concentrations with federal and State air quality standards. Table 3.2-3: Air Quality Data Summary for the Project Area (2005-2009) Monitoring Data by Year' Pollutant Standard2 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Ozone -San Francisco -Arkansas Street Highest I-hour Average (ppm)J 0.058 0.053 0.060 0.082 0.062 Days over State Standard 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 Highest 8-hour Average (ppm) 0.055 0.046 0.053 0.066 0.055 Days over State Standard 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 Days over National Standard 0.075 0 0 0 0 0 Ozone -Redwood City Highest I-hour Average (ppm) J 0.084 0.085 0.077 0.082 0.078 Days over State Standard 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 Highest 8-hour Average (ppm) J 0.062 0.063 0.070 0.70 0.064 Days over State Standard 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 Days over National Standard 0.075 0 0 0 0 0 PM 10 -San Francisco -Arkansas Street Highest 24-hour Average (ug/m3)J 46.4 61.4 69.8 41.3 60.6 Estimated Days over State Standard 50 0 17.3 12.0 0 0 Estimated Days over National Standard 150 0 0 0 0 0 State Annual Average (ug/m3)J 20 20.1 22.9 21.9 22.0 18.6 PM 10 -Redwood City Highest 24-hour Average (ug/m3)J 80.8 69.9 55.8 41.0 * Estimated Days over State Standard 50 10.2 10.2 6 * * Estimated Days over National Standard 150 0 0 0 * * State Annual Average (ug/m3)J 20 20.9 19.8 19.6 * * PM2.5 -San Francisco -Arkansas Street Highest 24-hour Average -National 44.2 54.3 45.2 39.2 35.5 (ug/m3)J Estimated Days over National Standard 35 6.4 3.1 5.1 * * State Annual Average (ug/m3)J 12 9.5 9.7 8.9 11.7 * 3.2-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.2-3: Air Quality Data Summary for the Project Area (2005-2009) Pollutant PM2.5 -Redwood City Highest 24-hour Average -National (ppm)l Estimated Days over National Standard State Annual Average (ug/m3)l Standard2 35 12 I Values shown in bold type are in excess of applicable standard. 2005 48.4 o 8.8 Monitoring Data by Year' 2006 75.3 2.6 9.6 2007 45.6 2.9 8.3 2008 36.0 o o 2009 31.7 o * 2 Generally, state standards are not to be exceeded and federal standards are not to be exceeded more than once per year. l ppm = parts per million; ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. * There was insufficient (or no data) available to determine value. Source: California Air Resources Board Website, http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam Accessed August 24, 20 I O. Criteria Air Pollutants As required by the federal Clean Air Act passed in 1970, the U.S. EPA has identified six criteria air pollutants that are pervasive in urban environments and for which state and national health-based ambient air quality standards have been established. EPA calls these pollutants criteria air pollutants because the agency has regulated them by developing specific public health-and welfare-based criteria as the basis for setting permissible levels. Additionally, in April 2009, EPA released an Endangerment Finding that greenhouse gases (GHGs) significantly contribute to air pollution, likely triggering the process under the Clean Air Act for developing National Ambient Air Quality Standards for GHGs and establishing emissions standards for stationary and mobile sources. GHGs are addressed in greater length in Chapter 3.3: Energy and Greenhouse Gases. Ozone. Short-term exposure to ozone can irritate the eyes and cause constriction of the airways. Besides causing shortness of breath, ozone can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. Ozone is not emitted directly into the atmosphere, but is a secondary air pollutant produced in the atmosphere through a complex series of photochemical reactions involving ROG and NOx. ROGs and NOx are known as precursor compounds for ozone. Significant ozone production generally requires ozone precursors to be present in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight for approximately three hours. Ozone is a regional air pollutant because it is not emitted directly by sources, but is formed downwind of sources of ROGs and NOx under the influence of wind and sunlight. Ozone concentrations tend to be higher in the late spring, summer, and fall, when the long sunny days combine with regional subsidence inversions to create conditions conducive to the formation and accumulation of secondary photochemical compounds, like ozone. Carbon Monoxide (CO). Ambient CO concentrations normally are considered a local effect and typically correspond closely to the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. Wind speed and atmospheric mixing also influence CO concentrations. Under inversion conditions, CO concentrations may be distributed more uniformly over an area that may extend some distance from vehicular sources. When inhaled at high concentrations, CO 3.2-5 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures combines with hemoglobin in the blood and reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. This results in reduced oxygen reaching the brain, heart, and other body tissues. This condition is especially critical for fetuses and people with cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung disease, or anemia. CO concentrations have declined dramatically in California due to existing controls and programs, and most areas of the state have no problem meeting the carbon monoxide state and federal standards. CO measurements and modeling were important in the early 1980s when CO levels were regularly exceeded throughout California. In more recent years, CO measurements and modeling have not been a priority in most California air districts, including the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, due to the retirement of older polluting vehicles, fewer emissions from new vehicles, and improvements in fuels. Nitrogen Dioxide (N02). N02 is a reddish brown gas that is a by-product of combustion processes. Automobiles and industrial operations are the main sources of N02. N02 may be visible as a coloring component of a brown cloud on high pollution days, especially in conjunction with high ozone levels. N02 poses an air quality concern because it acts as a respiratory irritant and is a precursor of ozone. It is a major component of the group of gaseous nitrogen compounds commonly referred to as NOx. NOx are produced by fuel combustion in motor vehicles, industrial stationary sources (such as industrial activities), ships, aircraft, and rail transit. Typically, nitrogen oxides emitted from fuel combustion are in the form of nitric oxide (NO) and N02. NO is often converted to N02 when it reacts with ozone or undergoes photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Therefore, emissions of N02 from combustion sources are typically evaluated based on the amount of NO x emitted from the source. Sulfur Dioxide (S02)' S02 is a combustion product of sulfur or sulfur-containing fuels such as coal and oil, which are restricted in the Bay Area. S02 is also a precursor to the formation of atmospheric sulfate and particulate matter, and it contributes to potential atmospheric sulfuric acid formation that could precipitate downwind as acid rain. Its health effects include breathing problems and may cause permanent damage to lungs. Particulate Matter (PMlO and PM2.5). PMIO and PM2.5 consist of particulate matter that is 10 microns or less in diameter and 2.5 microns or less in diameter, respectively. (A micron is one-millionth of a meter). PMIO and PM2.5 represent fractions of particulate matter that can be inhaled into the air passages and the lungs and can cause adverse health effects. Some sources of particulate matter, such as wood burning in fireplaces, demolition, and construction activities, are more local in nature, while others, such as vehicular traffic, have a more regional effect. Very small particles of certain substances (e.g., sulfates and nitrates) can cause lung damage directly, or can contain adsorbed gases (e.g., chlorides or ammonium) that may be injurious to health. Particulates also can damage materials and reduce visibility. Large dust particles (diameter greater than 10 microns) settle out rapidly and are easily filtered by human breathing passages. This large dust is of more concern as a soiling nuisance rather than a health hazard. The remaining fraction, PMIO and PM2.5, are a health concern particularly at levels above the federal and state ambient air quality standards. PM2.5 (including diesel exhaust particles) is thought to have greater effects on health, because these particles are so small and thus, are able to penetrate to the deepest parts of the lungs. Scientific studies have suggested links between fine particulate matter and numerous health problems including asthma, 3.2-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures bronchitis, acute and chronic respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath and painful breathing. Recent studies have shown an association between morbidity and mortality and daily concentrations of particulate matter in the air. Children are more susceptible to the health risks of PM 1 0 and PM2.5 because their immune and respiratory systems are still developing. Mortality studies since the 1990s have shown a statistically significant direct association between mortality (premature deaths) and daily concentrations of particulate matter in the air. Despite important gaps in scientific knowledge and continued reasons for some skepticism, a comprehensive evaluation of the research findings provides persuasive evidence that exposure to fine particulate air pollution has adverse effects on cardiopulmonary health (Dockery and Pope, 2006). The ARB has estimated that achieving the ambient air quality standards for PMIO could reduce premature mortality rates by 6,500 cases per year (ARB, 2002). Lead. Leaded gasoline (currently phased out), paint (houses, cars), smelters (metal refineries), and manufacture of lead storage batteries have been the primary sources of lead released into the atmosphere. The phase-out of leaded gasoline in California resulted in decreasing levels of atmospheric lead. Lead has a range of adverse neurotoxic health effects; children are at special risk. Some lead-containing chemicals cause cancer in animals. Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) TACs are non-criteria air pollutants that are airborne substances that are capable of causing short-term (acute) and/or long-term (chronic or cancer causing) adverse human health effects (i.e., injury or illness). TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. T ACs may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, and painting operations. The current California list of TACs includes approximately 200 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel- fueled engines. Odorous Emissions Though offensive odors from stationary sources rarely cause any physical harm, they remain unpleasant and can lead to public distress generating citizen complaints to local governments. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on the nature, frequency and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of receptors. Generally, increasing the distance between the receptor and the source will mitigate odor impacts. Sensitive Receptors Some persons are considered more sensitive than others to air pollutants. Reasons for heightened sensitivity may include pre-existing health problems, proximity to emissions source, and duration of exposure to air pollutants. Land uses such as schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be relatively sensitive to poor air quality because the very young, the old, and the infirm are more susceptible to respiratory infections and other air- quality-related health problems than the general public. Residential areas are also sensitive to poor air quality because people usually stay home for extended periods of time. ARB identifies sensitive land uses as residences, schools, day care centers, playgrounds and medical facilitates. Existing sensitive receptors in the Planning Area include Kaiser Medical Center and existing residential units. 3.2-7 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures REGULATORY SETTING Federal The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) was enacted in 1970 and was last amended in 1990 (United States Code Title 42, Chapter 85). Legislation passed since then has made several minor changes. The FCAA requires the u.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or national standards) to protect public health and welfare. National standards have been established for all the criteria air pollutants described above. Table 3.2-3 shows current national and State ambient air quality standards and provides a brief description of principal sources for each pollutant. Pursuant to the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (FCAAA), the EPA classifies air basins (or portions thereof) as "attainment" or "nonattainment" for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the NAAQS had been achieved. The FCAA requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The FCAAA added requirements for states containing areas that violate the NAAQS to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is a living document that is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of air basins as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them. The EPA has responsibility to review all state SIPs to determine if they conform to the mandates of the FCAAA and will achieve air quality goals when implemented. If the EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, it may prepare a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the nonattainment area and may impose additional control measures. Failure to submit an approvable SIP or to implement the plan within mandated timeframes can result in sanctions being applied to transportation funding and stationary air pollution sources in the air basin. State The EPA has delegated the authority to implement many of the federal programs to the states while retaining an oversight role to ensure that the programs continue to be implemented. In California, the California ARB manages air quality, regulates mobile emissions sources, and oversees the activities of county Air Pollution Control Districts and regional Air Quality Management Districts. ARB develops and manages the California SIP, securing approval of this plan from u.S. EPA, and identifying TACs. (A notable exception exists for radioactive air contaminants as the EPA has retained its authority to enforce National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants [NESHAP] requirements.) ARB establishes and reviews State ambient air quality standards and vehicle emissions standards. California has adopted ambient standards that are more stringent than the federal standards for criteria air pollutants. Under the California Clean Air Act, patterned after the Federal Clean Air Act, areas have been designated as attainment or nonattainment with respect to the State standards. Local and regional air districts are required to prepare and adopt air quality attainment plans if the district violates the state standards. Thus, areas in California have two sets of attainment/non-attainment designations: one set with respect to the national standards and one set with respect to the state standards. The Bay Area is currently designated "non-attainment" for state one-hour and eight-hour ozone standards, the national eight-hour ozone standard and for the state PMI0 and PM2.5 standards. The Bay Area is classified as a "marginal" nonattainment area for the federal eight- 3.2-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures hour ozone standard. The Bay Area is "in attainment" or "unclassified" with respect to the other ambient air quality standards. Table 3.2-4 also shows the attainment status of the Bay Area with respect to the national and state ambient air quality standards for different criteria pollutants. Table 3.2-4: Ambient Air Quality Standards and Bay Area Attainment Status Bay Area Bay Area Attainment Attainment Status for Federal Status for Averaging State California Primary Federal Pollutant Time Standard Standard Standard Standard Major Pollutant Sources Formed when ROG and 0.07 Non-0.075 Non-NOx react in the 8 hours attainment attainment presence of sunlight. ppm ppm ROG sources include any source that Ozone burns fuels, (e.g., gasoline, I hour 0.09 Non-natural gas, wood, oil) ppm attainment solvents, petroleum processing and storage and pesticides. 8 hours 9.0 ppm Attainment 9 ppm Attainment Any source that burns fuel such as automobiles, Carbon trucks, heavy Monoxide I Hour 20 ppm Attainment 35 ppm Attainment construction equipment, farming equipment and residential heating. Annual 0.03 0.053 Attainment Any source that burns Average ppm ppm fuel such as automobiles, Nitrogen trucks, heavy Dioxide 0.18 0.1 construction equipment, I Hour Attainment Unclassified farming equipment and ppm ppm residential heating. 24 Hours 0.04 Attainment 0.14 Attainment Coal or Oil Burning Sulfur ppm ppm Power Plants and Dioxide 0.25 0.075 Industries, Refineries, I Hour Attainment Attainment Diesel Engines. ppm ppm Road Dust, Windblown Annual 20 Non-Dust (Agriculture) and Particulate Arithmetic Construction Mean flg/m3 attainment (Fireplaces) Also formed Matter (PM 10) from other pollutants (acid rain, NOx, SOx, 24 Hours 50 Non-150 Unclassified organics). Incomplete flg/m3 attainment flg/m3 combustion of any fuel. 3.2-9 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.2-4: Ambient Air Quality Standards and Bay Area Attainment Status Bay Area Bay Area Attainment Attainment Status for Federal Status for Averaging State California Primary Federal Pollutant Time Standard Standard Standard Standard Major Pollutant Sources Annual 12 Non-15 Fuel Combustion in Arithmetic flg/m3 attainment flg/m3 Attainment Motor Vehicles, Mean Equipment and Industrial Particulate Sources, Residential and Matter Agricultural Burning. (PM2.5) 35 Non-Also formed from 24 Hours flg/m3 attainment reaction of other pollutants (acid rain, NOx, SOx, organics). Calendar 1.5 Attainment Metal Smelters, Quarter flg/m3 Resource Recovery, Lead Leaded Gasoline, 30 Day 1.5 Attainment Deterioration of Lead Average flg/m3 Paint Note: ppm=parts per million; and f-Lg/m3=micrograms per cubic meter Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status, available at: http://hank.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambiencair_quality.htm; California Air Resources Board, accessed December 20 I 0; ARB Fact Sheet: Air Pollution Sources, Effects and Control, available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/fs/fs2/fs2.htm. page reviewed December 2009, accessed August 20 I O. Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) California State law defines TACs as air pollutants having carcinogenic effects. The State of California's regulatory efforts regarding the identification and control of toxic air contaminants are embodied in AB 1807, the Tanner Bill (effective 1984). A total of 243 substances have been designated T ACs under California law. The Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588) seeks to identify and evaluate risk from air toxics sources; however, AB 2588 does not regulate air toxics emissions. T AC emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized. ARB identifies the most important toxic pollutants by considering risk of harm to public health, amount or potential amount of emissions, manner of usage of the substance, its persistence in the atmosphere, and its concentration in the outdoor air. In August of 1998, ARB identified particulate emISSIOns from diesel-fueled engines (diesel particulate matter, or D PM) as T ACs. ARB subsequently developed the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles (ARB, 2000). The document represents proposals to reduce diesel particulate emissions, with the goal of reducing emissions and associated health risks by 75% in 2010 and by 85% in 2020. The program aims to require the use of state-of-the-art catalyzed diesel particulate filters and ultra low sulfur diesel fuel on diesel-fueled engines 3.2-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Dry Cleaning Program In 1991, the Air Resources Board (the Board or ARB) identified Perchoroethylene (Perc) as a TAC under California's Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Program (Health and Safety Code section 39650 et. seq.). Subsequently, in 1993, the Board adopted the Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of Perc from Dry Cleaning Operations (Dry Cleaning ATCM) and the Environmental Training Program for Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Operations (Environmental Training Program). The Dry Cleaning ATCM sets forth the equipment, operations and maintenance, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for Perc dry cleaning operations. In 2003, staff evaluated the effectiveness of the Dry Cleaning ATCM, finding that although Perc emissions from dry cleaning operations had been reduced by about 70 percent, more could be done to reduce Perc emissions from this source category. In January 2007, the Board approved amendments to the Dry Cleaning ATCM and the adoption of requirements for Perc manufacturers and distributors. The amendments will over time phase out the use of Perc dry cleaning machines and related equipment by January 1, 2023. In addition, the amendments will put in place revisions to the Curriculum for the Environmental Training Program for Perc Dry Cleaning Operations (Training Curriculum). On December 27, 2007, the approved Dry Cleaning ATCM and the requirements for Perc manufacturers and distributors became state law. The major requirements of the amended Dry Cleaning ATCM include: • Prohibit the installation of new Perc dry cleaning machines beginning on January 1, 2008; • Eliminate the use of existing Perc machines at co-residential facilities (facilities that share a wall with, or are located in the same building, as a residence) by July 1, 2010; • Require that converted machines, and machines that are 15 years or older, be removed from service by July 1, 2010; • Require that all Perc machines be removed from service once they become 15 years old (as a result, all remaining Perc machines must be removed from service by January 1, 2023); and • Expand good operating practices and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. • This requirement is enforced by the BAAQMD through Regulation 11: Hazardous Pol- lutants Rule 16: Perchloroethylene and Synthetic Solvent Dry Cleaning Operations. Local The regional air quality management district for the Bay Area is the BAAQMD. The district is primarily responsible for regulating stationary emissions sources at facilities within its geographic areas and for preparing the air quality plans that are required under the federal Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act. Air Quality Plans The 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments require that regional planning and air pollution control agencies prepare a regional Air Quality Plan to outline the measures by which both stationary and mobile sources of pollutants can be controlled in order to achieve all standards specified in 3.2-11 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures the Clean Air Act. The 1988 California Clean Air Act also requires development of air quality plans and strategies to meet state air quality standards in areas designated as non-attainment (with the exception of areas designated as non-attainment for the state PM standards). Maintenance plans are required for attainment areas that had previously been designated non- attainment in order to ensure continued attainment of the standards. On September 15,2010, the BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP). The 2010 CAP serves to update the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy plan in accordance with the requirements of the Chapter 10 of the California Health & Safety Code. In addition, the 2010 CAP provides an integrated, multi-pollutant strategy to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate.1 The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan serves to: • Update the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act to implement "all feasible measures" to reduce ozone; • Provide a control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter (PM), air toxics, and greenhouse gases in a single, integrated plan; • Review progress in improving air quality in recent years; and • Establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010-2012 timeframe. BAAQMD Rules and Regulations The BAAQMD is the regional agency responsible for rulemaking, permitting, and enforcement activities affecting stationary sources in the Bay Area. Specific rules and regulations adopted by the BAAQMD limit the emissions that can be generated by various uses and/or activities, and identify specific pollution reduction measures that must be implemented in association with various uses and activities. These rules regulate not only emissions of the six criteria air pollutants, but also toxic emissions and acutely hazardous non-radioactive materials emissions. Emissions sources subject to these rules are regulated through the BAAQMD's permitting process and standards of operation. Through this permitting process, including an annual permit review, the BAAQMD monitors generation of stationary emissions and uses this information in developing its air quality plans. Any sources of stationary emissions constructed as part of the proposed Plan would be subject to the BAAQMD Rules and Regulations. Both federal and state ozone plans rely heavily upon stationary source control measures set forth in BAAQMD's Rules and Regulations. New Source Review The BAAQMD's New Source Review regulations predominantly apply to non-attainment pollutants. The purpose of the New Source Review rule is to provide for the review of new and " BAAQMD, http://www. baaqmd.gov /Divisions/Planning-and -Research/Plans/Clean -Air-Plans.aspx, accessed December 2010. 3.2-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures modified sources and provide mechanisms, including the use of best available control technology for both criteria and toxic air pollutants, and emissions offsets by which authorities to construct such sources could be granted. The New Source Review regulations also include Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rules for attainment pollutants. PSD rules are designed to ensure that the emission sources will not cause or interfere with the attainment or maintenance of ambient air quality standards. With respect to the construction phase of the project, applicable BAAQMD regulations would relate to portable equipment (e.g., Portland concrete batch plants, and gasoline-or diesel- powered engines used for power generation, pumps, compressors, pile drivers, and cranes), architectural coatings, and paving materials. Equipment used during project construction would be subject to the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 2 (Permits), Rule I(General Requirements) with respect to portable equipment unless exempt under Rule 2-1-105 (Exemption, Registered Statewide Portable Equipment); BAAQMD Regulation 8 (Organic Compounds), Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings); and BAAQMD Regulation 8 (Organic Compounds), Rule 15 (Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts). With respect to the operational phase of the project, BAAQMD Regulation 2, Permits would apply to new or modified stationary sources proposed in the Planning Area. South San Francisco General Plan (1999) The General Plan includes several policies regarding air quality: Chapter 2: Land Use 2-G-6 Maximize opportunities for residential development, including through infill and redevelopment, without impact existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial operations. Chapter 7: Open Space and Conservation 7.3-G-l Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all national and State ambient air quality standards and by reducing the generation of air pollutants both from stationary and mobile sources, where feasible. 7.3-G-2 Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit, and carpooling. 7.3-G-3 Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and emissions generators by distancing them from one another. 7.3-1-1 Cooperate with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to achieve emissions reductions for nonattainment pollutants and their precursors, including carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM -10, by implementation of air pollution control measures as required by State and federal statutes. 7.3-1-2 Use the City's development review process and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations to evaluate and mitigate the local and cumulative effects of new development on air quality. 3.2-13 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 7.3-1-3 Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures included in BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines. 7.3-1-4 Require new residential development and remodeled existing homes to install clean- burning fireplaces and wood stoves. 7.3-1-5 In cooperation with local conservation groups, institute an active urban forest management program that consists of planting new tress and maintaining existing ones. South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 20 Zoning 20.300.010 Performance Standards H. Odors. No use, process, or activity shall produce objectionable odors that are perceptible without instruments by a reasonable person at the lot lines of a site. Odors from temporary construction, demolition, and vehicles that enter and leave the subject parcel (e.g., construction equipment, trains, trucks, etc.) are exempt from this standard. J. Air Contaminants. Uses, activities, and processes shall not operate in a manner that emit excessive dust, fumes, smoke, or particulate matter. 1. Compliance. Sources of air pollution shall comply with rules identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40), the California Air Resources Board, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2. BAAQMD Permit. Operators of activities, processes, or uses that require "approval to operate" from the BAAQMD, shall file a copy of the permit with the Planning Division within 30 days of permit approval. South San Francisco Permitting Process All construction projects are required to comply with BAAQMD dust control measures. These measures are levied by the Engineering Division as a condition of building permit issuance and are monitored for compliance by staff and/or special City engineering and/or planning inspectors. The measures include: • Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. 3.2-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previous- ly graded areas inactive for ten days or more). • Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiled materials. • Install sandbags or other erosion-control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. • Watering should be used to control dust generation during the break-up of pavement. • Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site. • Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible. • Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. • Diesel powered equipment shall be maintained in good working condition, with manu- facturer-recommended mufflers, filters, and other equipment. • Diesel powered equipment shall not be left inactive and idling for more than ten mi- nutes, and shall comply with applicable BAAQMD rules. • Use alternative fueled construction equipment, if possible. IMPACT ANALYSIS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Thresholds of Significance for plans within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, as detailed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines are used to evaluate the impacts of the proposed Plan on air quality.5 For a plan-level analysis, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines do not require preparing pollutant estimates. The BAAQMD Guidelines include the following thresholds of significance: • The proposed Plan must be consistent with the most recently adopted CAP (the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan) control measures and projected vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or vehicle trips (VT) under the proposed plan must increase less than or equal to the projected population increase. • The proposed land use diagram identifies special overlay zones around existing and planned sources of T ACs and PM 2.5, including special overlay zones of at least 500 feet (or Air District -approved modeled distance) on each side of all freeways and high- volume roadways, and plan identifies goals, policies, and objectives to minimize poten- tially adverse impacts. • The proposed plan must identify locations of odor sources in plan; identify goals, poli- cies, and objectives to minimize potentially adverse impacts. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010. 3.2-15 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures METHODOLOGY & ASSUMPTIONS Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursor Emissions To determine consistency with the recently adopted CAP, this EIR considers whether the proposed Plan supports the primary goals of the CAP; incorporates all feasible applicable control measures; and whether it would cause the disruption, delay, or otherwise hinder the implementation of any control measures. Finally, this EIR compares the proposed Plan's rate of projected VMT increase compared to the rate of the population increase. Local Community Risk and Hazard Impacts This EIR also considers existing and planned sources of TACs and PM 2.5. This EIR uses the BAAQMD Stationary Source Risk and Hazard Analysis Tool for San Mateo County to identify stationary sources.6 This EIR also considers goals, policies, and objectives in the proposed Plan and South San Francisco General Plan that would minimize potentially adverse impacts. Odor Impacts This EIR identifies existing odor sources in the Planning Area and planned odor sources in the proposed Plan and evaluates the impact of such sources. This EIR also considers goals, policies, and objectives in the proposed Plan, South San Francisco General Plan, and Zoning Ordinance that would minimize potentially adverse impacts. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursor Emissions The proposed Plan is consistent with the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan in that projected VMT increase is less than the projected population increase and the proposed Plan is consistent with the air quality plan control measures in the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. The VMT is projected to increase by 16.6 percent while the population is projected to increase by 20.4 percent. In addition, the proposed Plan and South San Francisco General Plan contains numerous policies that are consistent with the control measures in the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. Local Community Risks and Hazards Two permitted sources exist in the Planning Area, but neither are expected to have a significant impact on future development. One site, currently a drycleaner, will be required to phase out perc operations, reducing the health risk of dry cleaning. Projects proposed prior to the phase- out will be required to complete a site specific analysis. The second site is occupied by the County of San Mateo and PM from this source is considered de minimus and no further analysis is required. "The BAAQMD Stationary Source Risk and Hazard Analysis Tool for San Mateo County, last updated May 2010, is a kml me downloadable to Google Earth; the me can be found at http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and- Research/CEQA -G UID ELINES/Tools-and -Methodology.aspx, accessed January 2011. 3.2-/6 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures The average existing daily traffic volume on El Camino Real is 29,300 vehicles/day while the average on Mission Road is 8,450 vehicles/day. BAAQMD recommends that in determining where special overlay zones are needed around high-volume roadways to refer to ARB's Land Use Handbook when evaluating whether the Plan includes adequate buffer distances between TAC sources and sensitive receptors.7 The Handbook cites a high-volume road as one with 100,000 vehicles/day.~ Based on this criterion, there are no high-volume roads or freeways in the Planning Area. Existing average daily traffic volume with the proposed Plan is expected to increase to 52,467 vehicles/day on El Camino Real and 14,050 vehicles/day on Mission Road. Since no high-volume roadways or freeways exist in the Planning Area, it is expected that there will be no impact from mobile sources of T ACs. Odors Future land uses proposed by the proposed Plan include commercial and residential land uses. New industrial uses are not permitted in the Planning Area. Potential odor sources such as gas stations and automobile body shops would not be permitted as a future commercial land use. No odor sources are anticipated to be built under the proposed Plan and new uses would have to adhere to existing policies such as General Plan Policy 2-G-6 and Zoning standards 20.300.010(H) and 0), indicating that odor impacts would be less than significant. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.2-1 New development under the proposed Plan would not increase VMT at a faster rate than population and would not be inconsistent with air quality control measures in the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. (Less than Significant) As described in methodology and assumptions, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines specify that the plan-level air quality impact is evaluated by determining that the proposed Plan's projected VMT or vehicle trips increase is less than or equal to its projected population increase and that the local plan is consistent with current air quality plan control measures. The proposed Plan is consistent with the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan in that projected VMT increase is less than the projected population increase and the proposed Plan is consistent with the air quality plan control measures in the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. Population and VMT Increase Under the proposed Plan, population in the city would increase by approximately 20.4 percent while VMT would increase by approximately 16.6 percent. C Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010, p. 9-7. H California Environmental Protection Agency California Air Resources Board (ARB). Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005, page 10. 3.2-17 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.2-4: Proposed Plan Population and VMT Increase % Change from Existing Annual VMT % Change from Year Population Condition (million miles) I Existing Condition 2005 61,700 n/a 491.1 n/a 2030 No Project 75,200 18.0 543.2 9.6 2030 with Proposed Plan 77,500 2004 588.8 16.6 I Annual VMT includes state highway VMT that has been apportioned to the City of South San Francisco. Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 20 I 0; Kimley-Horn, 20 10; MTC, 2008, ICLEI/ City of South San Francisco, 2009; Caltrans, 2005, ABAG Projections, 2009. Air Quality Control Measures The proposed Plan and the City's General Plan policies conform with the control strategies included in the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. These policies are detailed in Table 3.2-5 and show that the proposed Plan is consistent with the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan control measures, resulting in less than significant impact. 3.2-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.2-5: TCMs in the Bay Area Ozone Strategy to be Implemented by the Proposed Plan and General Plan Policies Strategy Consistent Area Plan and General Plan Policies Transportation Control Measures TCM B-1 Freeway and Arterial Operations Strategies TCM B-2 Transit Efficiency and Use Strategies General Plan Policies 4.2-G-5 Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the arrangement of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle-miles traveled. 4.2-G-8 Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections, and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours. 4.2-G-9 Accept LOS E or F after finding that: • There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and • The uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit. 4.2-1-4 Establish priorities for transportation improvements, and prepare an action program to implement identified street improvements. 4.2-1-5 Establish accessibility requirements for all streets designated as arterial or collector on Figure 4-1 [in the General Plan]. As part of development review of all projects along these streets, ensure that access to individual sites does not impede through traffic flow. 4.3-1-9 Favor TSM programs that limit vehicle use over those that extend the commute hour. The proposed Plan includes the following station access improvements which conform to BART's Station Access Guidelines, which emphasize low-cost, high capacity modes and prioritize walking, transit, bicycling, vehicular drop-offs/pick-ups, and vehicular parking as a connection to BART. Improvements focus on the pedestrian and bicycle environment: • Streetscaping, landscaping, and pedestrian-scaled lighting improvements on streets that access the BART station, EI Camino Real, and Mission Road. • Enhanced and well-defined intersection crossings at signalized intersections directing pedestrians toward EI Camino Real, Centennial Way, and Mission Road. • Active building frontages at the street edge that provide interest to the pedestrian, everyday services, and a sense of security. • Increased east-west pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between EI Camino Real, Mission Road and Centennial Way to encourage use of the trail's direct access to the BART station. Proposed Area Plan Policies C-I Ensure that transportation improvements are executed concurrently with associated and/or adjacent development, as described in Section 5.3: Phasing and Initial Development Steps. 3.2-/9 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.2-5: TCMs in the Bay Area Ozone Strategy to be Implemented by the Proposed Plan and General Plan Policies Strategy Consistent Area Plan and General Plan Policies Transportation Control Measures TCM C-I Voluntary Employer-Based Trip Reduction Programs TCM C-3 Ridesharing Services and Incentives 3.2-20 C-2 Ensure that a continuous pedestrian and bicycle connection is provided along Centennial Way between Chestnut Avenue and the proposed Oak Avenue extension. C-3 Emphasize linkages to Centennial Way with east-west pedestrian/bicycle connections from new development and surrounding neighborhoods. These linkages will also help to break up larger blocks and development sites. C-4 Encourage pedestrian-oriented connections through development between Chestnut Avenue and the planned Oak Avenue extension. C-5 Enhance pedestrian/bicycle connectivity to key destinations, including Kaiser Hospital, the potential library and other civic uses, such as Orange Memorial Park and the Municipal Services Building. General Plan Policy 4.3-1-7 Undertake a program to improve pedestrian connections between the rail stations-South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations and the Caltrain Station-and the surroundings. Components of the program should include: • Installing handicapped ramps at all intersections as street improvements are being installed; • Constructing wide sidewalks where feasible to accommodate increased pedestrian use; • Providing intersection "bulbing" to reduce walking distances across streets in Downtown, across EI Camino Real and Mission Road, and other high use areas; • Continuing with the City's current policy of providing pedestrian facilities at all signalized intersections; and • Providing landscaping that encourages pedestrian use. General Plan Policies 4.3-G-3 In partnership with employers, continue efforts to expand shuttle operations. 4.3-G-4 In partnership with the local business community, develop a transportation systems management plan with identified trip-reduction goals, while continuing to maintain a positive and supportive business environment. 4.3-1-10 Undertake efforts to promote the City as a model employer and further alternative transportation use by City employees by providing: • A designated commute coordinator/manager; • A carpool/van pool match program; • Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools at City Hall; • Secure bicycle storage facilities; • On-site shower facilities at City Hall for employees; Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.2-5: TCMs in the Bay Area Ozone Strategy to be Implemented by the Proposed Plan and General Plan Policies Strategy Consistent Area Plan and General Plan Policies Transportation Control Measures TCM C-2 Safe Routes to Schools and Safe Routes to Transit Programs TCM 0-1 Bicycle Access and Facilities Improvements TCM 0-2 Pedestrian Access and Facilities Improvements • A commitment to future shuttle service to BART stations; • Guaranteed ride home program; • Transit subsidies; • On-site transit pass sales; and • Incentives/educational program. General Plan Policies 3.4-1-7 Work with BART and other agencies to ensure that the proposed plan for station area improvements includes: • Direct pedestrian connections and access to the EI Camino High School and direct pedestrian connection at the terminus of Evergreen Drive to the terminal; 3.4-1-26 As part of the streetscape master plan for EI Camino Real, undertake efforts to slow traffic near the High School, and provide an adequate number of crossings across EI Camino Real. 4.4-G-1 Promote local and regional public transit serving South San Francisco. Proposed Area Plan Policies C-I Ensure that transportation improvements are executed concurrently with associated and/or adjacent development, as described in Section 5.3: Phasing and Initial Development Steps. C-2 Ensure that a continuous pedestrian and bicycle connection is provided along Centennial Way between Chestnut Avenue and the proposed Oak Avenue extension. C-3 Emphasize linkages to Centennial Way with east-west pedestrian/bicycle connections from new development and surrounding neighborhoods. These linkages will also help to break up larger blocks and development sites. C-4 Encourage pedestrian-oriented connections through development between Chestnut Avenue and the planned Oak Avenue extension. C-5 Enhance pedestrian/bicycle connectivity to key destinations, including Kaiser Hospital, the potential library and other civic uses, such as Orange Memorial Park and the Municipal Services Building. General Plan Policies 4.3-G-1 Develop a comprehensive and integrated system of bikeways that promote bicycle riding for transportation and recreation. 4.3-G-2 Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers. 4.3-1-1 Prepare and adopt a Bikeways Master Plan that includes goals and objectives, a list or map of improvements, a 3.2-21 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.2-5: TCMs in the Bay Area Ozone Strategy to be Implemented by the Proposed Plan and General Plan Policies Strategy Consistent Area Plan and General Plan Policies Transportation Control Measures TCM 0-3 Local Land Use Strategies LUM 4 Land Use Guidance 3.2-22 signage program, detailed standards, and an implementation program. 4.3-1-2 As part of the Bikeways Master Plan, include improvements identified in Figure 4-3 in the General Plan, and identify additional improvements that include abandoned railroad rights-of-way and other potential connections. 4.3-1-3 Make bikeway improvements a funding priority by: • Continuing to consider financing bikeway design and construction as part of the City's annual construction and improvement fund; • Incorporating bikeway improvements as part of Capital Improvement Program; and • Pursuing regional funding and other sources for new bikeways to the extent possible under federal and State law. 4.3-1-4 Require provision of secure covered bicycle parking at all existing and future multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, and officelinstitutional uses. Proposed Area Plan Policies LU-I Ensure an appropriate mix of uses, activities, and amenities, to help the area develop as a citywide and regional destination. LU-3 Provide new residential development to support and activate commercial and public uses in the area, with a minimum of 800 housing units, and up to 1,500 new housing units, for approximately 2,500 to 4,200 new residents. LU-6 Provide a minimum of 100,000 to 200,000 square feet of additional regional and neighborhood-serving commercial uses in the Planning Area. LU-7 Ensure that the mix of commercial uses provides adequate neighborhood services for new residential development to reduce the need for driving for everyday needs. LU-8 Provide at least one major space of 40,000 to 60,000 square feet that can accommodate a community-serving supermarket-either a new one or a relocated Safeway, currently located in the southeastern portion of the Planning Area. General Plan Polices 2-G-3 Provide land use designations that maximize benefits of increased accessibility that will result from BART extension to the city and adjacent locations. 2-G-7 Encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office development in centers where they would support transit, in locations where they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and vitality. 2-G-8 Provide incentives to maximize community orientation of new development, and to promote alternative transportation modes. Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.2-5: TCMs in the Bay Area Ozone Strategy to be Implemented by the Proposed Plan and General Plan Policies Strategy Consistent Area Plan and General Plan Policies Transportation Control Measures TCM E-2 Promote Parking Policies to Reduce Motor Vehicle Travel 2-1-4 Require all new developments seeking an FAR bonus set forth in Table 2.2-2 [in the General Plan] to achieve a progressively higher alternative mode usage. The requirements of the TDM Program are detailed in the Zoning Ordinance. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-200 I, Adopted September 26, 200 I) 2-1-6 Undertake a comprehensive review of the parking standards and establish criteria for reduced parking for mixed-use developments, for development that meets specified TDM criteria, and Medium-and High-Density Residential development. 3.4-G-2 Encourage development of a mix of uses, with pockets of concentrated activity that provide focii and identity to the different parts of EI Camino Real. 4.3-1-8 Adopt a TDM program or ordinance which includes, but is not limited to, the following components: • Methodology to determine eligibility for land use intensity bonuses for TDM programs identified in the Land Use Element; • Procedures to ensure continued maintenance of measures that result in intensity bonuses; • Requirements for off-site improvements (such as bus shelters and pedestrian connections) that are directly necessary as a result of development; • Exemptions or reductions in any transportation impact fee that may be established in the future for projects that meet specific trip-reduction goals; and • Reduced parking requirements for projects in proximity to fixed-guideway transit or those with demonstrated measures that would reduce trip generation. 4.3-1-1 I Establish parking standards to support trip reduction goals by: • Allowing parking reductions for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction methods, such as paid parking, and for mixed-use developments; and • Requiring projects larger than 2S employees to provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools. 4.3-1-12 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include minimum parking requirements based on proximity to transit stations and development intensity. 4.3-1-13 Investigate opportunities for shared parking facilities whenever possible to reduce the number of new parking stalls required. Proposed Area Plan Policies P-I Balance parking need and provision with the desire to promote transit, walking, and bicycling. Do not mandate any minimum parking standards; rather, establish maximum parking standards and let parking provision be determined by market need. 3.2-23 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.2-5: TCMs in the Bay Area Ozone Strategy to be Implemented by the Proposed Plan and General Plan Policies Strategy Consistent Area Plan and General Plan Policies Transportation Control Measures ECM I Energy Efficiency ECM3 Urban Heat Island Mitigation P-2 Require all non-residential development within the area shown in Figure 3-8 to participate in a parking district to efficiently meet parking demand. Establish a special assessment on the properties within the district to fund the majority of a shared parking structure and develop an in-lieu fee program providing developers the option to use district facilities for their parking needs. P-6 Allow parking areas exceeding one space per housing unit to be provided in form of tandem parking (which will reduce parking construction costs), and/or allow (but do not require) parking in excess of one space per unit to be "unbundled" (that is, purchased or leased separately from the housing unit). P-7 Design mixed-use developments to enable parking to be shared efficiently between various uses. P-9 Establish time restrictions and pricing for on-street parking spaces to increase turnover and favor short-term visitor parking, and encourage long-term parking within the district's shared parking facility. P-I I Continue to administer and implement the transportation demand management program through the Municipal Code. Proposed Area Plan Policy UD-7 Ensure that development incorporates green building and site design measures such as energy-efficient building design, passive heating/cooling strategies, permeable paving, low-water-consumption planting, and stormwater management. Proposed Area Plan Design Guideline DG-40 Extensive and Intensive green roofs will manage stormwater runoff, reduce energy consumption through insulation, and provide common open space for residential units. Soil layers are typically two to six inches deep for Extensive roofs and eight to 24 inches deep for Intensive roofs, depending on the loading capacity of the roof and the architectural and plant features desired. • All green roofs must be designed to permit routine maintenance and irrigation as necessary. Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 20 I 0, BAAQMD, 20 I 0, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999. 3.2-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact The policies highlighted in Table 3.2-5 along with other policies included as part of the proposed Plan will ensure that impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.2-2 New development under the proposed Plan may result in the location of new sensitive receptors near existing sources of TACs. (Less than Significant) While some permitted sources exist in the Planning Area, they do not pose a significant risk to new sensitive uses, and roadways in the Planning Area do not have sufficient traffic volumes to pose a significant risk. Therefore the risk of exposing new sensitive land uses to T AC emissions is expected to be less than significant. Mobile Sources Table 3.2-6 shows the daily volumes along El Camino Real and Mission Road for Existing Condition and 2030 with proposed Plan. BAAQMD recommends that in determining where special overlay zones are needed around high-volume roadways to refer to ARB's Land Use Handbook when evaluating whether the Plan includes adequate buffer distances between TAC sources and sensitive receptors.9 The Handbook cites a high-volume road as one with 100,000 vehicles/day.lo Since no high-volume roadways or freeways exist in the Planning Area, it is expected that there will be no impact from mobile sources of T ACs. Table 3.2-6: Daily Traffic Volumes Along EI Camino Real and Mission Road EI Camino Real Mission Road North of North of South of North of North of Arroyo Chestnut Chestnut Oak Chestnut Existing Condition (20 I 0) 25,300 25,500 37,100 8,300 8,600 2030 No Project 41,500 43,000 60,800 13,500 12,800 2030 with Proposed Plan 46,300 46,900 64,200 14,800 13,300 Source: Kimley-Horn, 20 I O. ') BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, December 2010, p. 9-7. II) California Environmental Protection Agency California Air Resources Board (ARB). Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005, page 10. 3.2-25 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Permitted Sources Two permitted sources exist in the Planning Area, but neither is expected to have a significant impact on future development. They include: • 1053 (F) El Camino Real. This site is a drycleaner, and currently has the potential to re- sult in increased cancer risk as well as chronic and acute health hazards. • 1040 Old Mission Road. This site is owned by the County of San Mateo Site and the BAAQMD Stationary Source Risk and Hazard Analysis Tool for San Mateo County does not include data regarding specific use. The ARB Land Use Handbook recommends that a 300 foot buffer around any dry cleaning operations, and to avoid siting new sensitive land uses within that buffer. However, the drycleaner will be required to phase out perc operations by 2023 per State law and BAAQMD regulation, reducing the health risk of dry cleaning to less than significant. Projects proposed prior to the phase-out will be required to complete a site specific analysis. The second site at 1040 Old Mission Road is a 22 horsepower standby diesel generator that operates one day per week for 12 hours per day. Because BAAQMD only permits generators greater than 50 horsepowers, risks and PM from this source is considered de minimus and no further analysis is requiredY T AC sources outside the Planning Area are more than 300 feet from the Planning Area, the ARB Land Use Handbook's recommended distance for relevant uses. Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.2-4 New development under the proposed Plan may create odors affecting a substantial number of people. (Less than significant) Though offensive odors from stationary sources rarely cause any physical harm, they still remain unpleasant and can lead to public distress generating citizen complaints to local governments. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on the nature, frequency and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of receptors. Odor impacts should be considered for any proposed new odor sources located near existing receptors, as well as any new sensitive receptors located near existing odor sources. Generally, increasing the distance between a receptor and the source to an acceptable level will mitigate odor impacts. Table 3.2-7 shows BAAQMD-recommended screening distances for known odor-emitting sources. None of those uses are located within the Planning Area. One potential odor source may be a gas station, Westborough Chevron, located at 1 Westborough Boulevard, which is within the Planning Area. Future land uses in the proposed Plan include commercial II Michael, Sigalle, BAAQMD Senior Environmental Planner, email communication, August 25, 2010. 3.2-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures and residential land uses. New industrial uses are not permitted in the Planning Area. Therefore, no odor sources are anticipated to be built under the proposed Plan. In addition, all new development under the proposed Plan would be subject to existing policies and regulations regarding odors. The proposed Plan is consistent with General Plan policy 2- G-6 and is required to adhere to zoning standards 20.300.010(H) and 0), resulting in less than significant odor impacts. Table 3.2-7: BAAQMD-Recommended Buffer Zone Distances for Potential Odor Sources Land Use/Type of Operation Wastewater Treatment Plant Wastewater Pumping Facilities Sanitary Landfill Transfer Station Composting Facility Petroleum Refinery Asphalt Batch Plant Chemical Manufacturing Fiberglass Manufacturing Painting/Coating Operations (e.g., auto body shops) Rendering Plant Coffee Roaster Food Processing Facility Confined Animal Facility/Feed Lot/Dairy Green Waste and Recycling Operations Metal Smelting Plants Source: BAAQMD, 20 I O. Mitigation Measures N one required. Screening Distance 2 miles I mile 2 miles I mile I mile 2 miles 2 miles 2 miles I mile I mile 2 miles I mile I mile I mile I mile 2 miles 3.2-27 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures This page intentionally left blank. 3.2-28 3.3 Energy and Greenhouse Gases ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PHYSICAL SETTING Natural Gas and Electricity Pacific Gas and Electricity Company (PG&E) currently provides gas and electric services to South San Francisco homes and businesses and is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). With a few exceptions, PG&E's service area extends north to south from Eureka to Bakersfield, and east to west from the Sierra Nevada to the Pacific Ocean. The company controls 141,215 circuit miles of electric distribution lines and 18,616 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines, as well as 42,141 miles of natural gas distribution pipelines and 6,438 miles of transportation pipelines.l PG&E obtains its energy supplies from power plants and natural gas fields in northern California and from energy purchased outside its service area, and delivers energy through high voltage transmission lines. PG&E purchases electrical power from a variety of sources, including PG&E owned, independent, and out-of-state generators. Natural gas comes from three major sources: California, Southwestern U.S., and Canada.2 To promote the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of utility facilities, the CPUC has mandated specific clearance requirements between utility facilities and surrounding objects or construction activities. Between 2003 and 2006, the most recent years for which data is available, demand for electricity in the City of South San Francisco gradually increased approximately 11.4 percent from 447 million kWh to 798 million kWh. The demand for natural gas increased more slowly, only 4.9 percent over the same period, from 28 million therms to 30 million therms. Table 3.3- 1 provides a breakdown of annual energy use in South San Francisco by sector. The demand for energy in the city, particularly electricity, is slowly increasing as the number of residential and commercial users rises. I PG&E, Company Information, http://www.pge.com/about/company/prot1Je/. accessed August, 2010. 2 Ibid. 3.3-/ Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.3-1: Energy Use in the City of South San Francisco, 2003-2006 % Change from 2003 to 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 Electricity (kWh) Residential 95,040,951 98,868,932 100,353,343 10 I ,457, 169 6.8% Commercial/ Industrial 352,325,909 382,191,538 386,348,360 396,964,787 12.7% Total 447,366,860 481,060,470 486,70 I ,703 498,421,956 11.4% Natural Gas (therms) Residential 9,045,046 9,175,597 9,007,346 9,146,915 1.1% Commercial/ Industrial 19,751,705 20,489,184 20,110,712 21,072,421 6.7% Total 28,796,751 29,664,781 29,118,058 30,219,336 4.9% Source: /CLE/ICity of South San Francisco, 2009; City of South San Francisco, 20/0. Transportation Energy Driven by high demand from California's many motorists, major airports, and military bases, the transportation sector is the State's largest energy consumer. More motor vehicles are registered in California than any other State, and worker commute times are among the longest in the country. California's demand for motor gasoline was 365 million barrels in 2008. Energy for transportation comprised approximately 38 percent of all energy that the State consumed in 2008.3 In the Bay Area, as in most other places in the United States, automobiles and commercial vehicles (composed of small, medium, and large trucks) are the largest energy consumers in the transportation sector. Automobiles and commercial vehicles are generally fueled by diesel or gasoline. Other transit modes in the Bay Area include ferries, buses, light rail (San Francisco MUNI and SCVTA rail cars), BART, and commuter rail (Caltrain, Amtrak, and ACE). These transit modes also consume gasoline, diesel, and electricity. Global Climate Change Global climate change (GCC) is currently one of the most important and widely debated scientific, economic, and political issues in the United States. The anticipated impacts of climate change on California range from water shortages to inundation from sea level rise. GCC refers to a change in the average air temperature that may be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. The baseline by which these changes are measured originates in historical records identifying temperature changes that have occurred in the distant past, such as during previous ice ages. Over the last 10,000 years, the rate of temperature change has typically been incremental, with warming and cooling occurring over the course of thousands of years. During this period, the earth has experienced incremental J us Energy Information Administration (EIA), Independent Statistics and Analysis, State Energy Prot1ies, California. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy _prot1ies.cfm?sid=CA#Datum, Last updated August, 2010, accessed August, 2010. 3.3-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures warming as glaciers retreated across the globe. However, scientists have observed an unprecedented increase in the rate of warming over the past 150 years, roughly coinciding with the global industrial revolution. GCC is now a widely accepted phenomenon. While scientists are certain that human activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere and that increasing concentrations of GHGs (defined below) will change the planet's climate, they are less certain about how much the climate will change, at what rate it will change, or what the exact global, or even regional, effects will be. Nonetheless, the world's leading climate scientists-the IPCC1-have reached consensus that GCC is "very likely" caused by humans, and that hotter temperatures and rising sea levels will continue for centuries no matter how much humans control their future emissions. In particular, human influences have: • very likely contributed to sea level rise and increased storm surge during the latter half of the 20th century; • likely contributed to changes in wind patterns, affecting extra-tropical storm tracks and temperature patterns; • likely increased temperatures of extreme hot nights, cold nights and cold days; • more likely than not increased risk of heat waves, area affected by drought since the 1970s, and frequency of heavy precipitation events.5 The IPCC predicts that global mean temperature increase from 1990-2100 could range from 2.0 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit. They project a sea level rise of seven to 23 inches by the end of the century, with a greater rise possible depending on the rate of polar ice sheet melting. According to the California Climate Action Team, accelerating GCC has the potential to cause a number of adverse impacts in California, including but not limited to: a shrinking Sierra snowpack that would threaten the state's water supply; public health threats caused by higher temperatures and more smog; damage to agriculture and forests due to reduced water storage capacity, rising temperatures, increasing salt water intrusion, flooding, and pest infestations; critical habitat modification and destruction; eroding coastlines; increased wildfire risk; and increased electricity demand.6 " The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a scientitlc intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteoro- logical Organization and by the United Nations Environment Programme. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, ob- jective, open and transparent basis the latest scientitlc, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide re- levant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts, and op- tions for adaptation and mitigation. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). "Summary for Policymakers," Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, November 2007. " California Climate Action Team. Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature, April 2006. 3.3-3 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures While all of these impacts may be felt to some extent in the Bay Area, of particular concern are sea level rise and increased storm surge with the resulting potential for increased coastal erosion, higher storm-surge flooding, more extensive coastal inundation, changes in surface water quality and groundwater characteristics, loss of property and coastal habitats, increased flood risk and potential loss of life, loss of nonmonetary cultural resources and values, impacts on agriculture and aquaculture through decline in soil and water quality, and loss of tourism, recreation, and transportation functions. Also of concern is the potential for GCC to increase fire threat at the urban-wildland interface, and the potential for an imbalance between electricity supply and demand. Greenhouse Gases Gases that trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHGs). These gases playa critical role in determining the Earth's surface temperature. Part of the solar radiation that enters Earth's atmosphere from space is absorbed by the Earth's surface. The Earth reflects this radiation back toward space, but GHGs absorb some of the radiation. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. Without natural GHGs, the Earth's surface would be about 61°F cooler? This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. However, many scientists believe that emissions from human activities-such as electricity generation, vehicle emissions, and even farming and forestry practices-have elevated the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere beyond naturally-occurring concentrations, contributing to the larger process of GCe. The six primary GHGs are: • Carbon Dioxide (C02), emitted when solid waste, fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), and wood and wood products are burned; • Methane (CH4), produced through the anaerobic decomposition of waste in landfills, animal digestion, decomposition of animal wastes, production and distribution of nat- ural gas and petroleum, coal production, and incomplete fossil fuel combustion; • Nitrous oxide (N20), typically generated as a result of soil cultivation practices, partic- ularly the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, fossil fuel combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning; • Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), primarily used as refrigerants; • Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), originally introduced as alternatives to ozone depleting sub- stances and typically emitted as by-products of industrial and manufacturing processes; • Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), primarily used in electrical transmission and distribution. Though there are other gases that can contribute to global warming,~ these six are identified explicitly in California legislation and litigation as being of primary concern. GHGs have Ibid. H Diesel particulate matter, which is also referred to as black carbon, is a strong absorber of solar radiation; scientists have known for many years that when black carbon particles combine with dust and chemicals in air they become more et11cient in absorbing solar radiation, and black carbon mixtures may be the second biggest contributor to global 3.3-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures varying potentials to trap heat in the atmosphere, known as global warming potential (GWP), and atmospheric lifetimes. GWP ranges from one (carbon dioxide) to 23,900 (sulfur hexafluoride). GHG emissions with a higher GWP have a greater global warming effect on a molecule-by-molecule basis. For example, one ton of CHi has the same contribution to the greenhouse effect as approximately 21 tons of CO2•9 GWP is alternatively described as "carbon dioxide equivalents", or C02e. The parameter "atmospheric lifetime" describes how long it takes to restore the system to equilibrium following an increase in the concentration of a GHG in the atmosphere. Atmospheric lifetimes of GHGs range from tens to thousands of years. California GHG Emissions GHG emissions contributing to GCC are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) estimates that in 2008 the State of California emitted a net total of 468 million metric tons of C02e. Major sources of GHG emissions in California by category include transportation (37 percent), electric power (25 percent), industrial (20 percent), commercial and residential (9 percent), agriculture (6 percent), high GWP activities (3 percent), and recycling and waste (1 percent). Forestry has a net reduction of two percent on total emissions. Of emissions related to transportation, 73 percent were from passenger vehicles.lo California's gross emissions increased four percent from 2000 to 2008, with a maximum of 484 million tons of C02e in 2004. During the same period, California's population grew by 12 percent and GHG emissions per person decreased from 13.4 to 12.5 metric tons of C02e per personY The State of California is looking at options and opportunities for drastically reducing GHG emissions with the hope of thereby delaying, mitigating, or preventing at least some of the anticipated impacts of GCC on California communities. The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) required that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) determine the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level in 1990. Based on its 1990-2004 inventory work, ARB staff set 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (MMTC02e) as the total statewide greenhouse gas 1990 emissions level, and the 2020 emissions limit. The CARB approved the 2020 limit on December 6,2007. Bay Area GHG Emissions In 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) completed a baseline inventory of GHG emissions for the year 2007. According to that inventory, 95.8 million warming. See California Air Resources Board, Health Etlects of Diesel Particulate Matter pages 4-5, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel! dpm_draft_3-01-06.pdf [as of October 14, 2008]. ') California Climate Action Registry, General Reporting Protocol Version 3.1, 2009. II) California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2008-by Category as Defined in the Scoping Plan, updated May, 2010, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. II California Air Resources Board, Trends in California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000-2008-by Category as Defined in the Scoping Plan, updated May, 2010, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. 3.3-5 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures metric tons of C02e were emitted in the Bay Area that year.12 Given a population of just over seven million, the resulting per capita emissions were about 13.6 metric tons of C02e. Table 3.3-2 shows the emissions breakdown by pollutant. Table 3.3-2: 2007 Bay Area COze Emissions by Pollutant C02e (Million Metric Pollutant Percentage Tons/Year) Carbon Dioxide 91.6 87.8 Methane 2.6 2.5 Nitrous Oxide 1.6 1.5 HFC, PFC, SF6 4.1 4.0 Total 100 95.8 Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 20 10. The Bay Area's transportation sector contributes 37 percent of the C02e GHG emISSIOns, followed by industrial and commercial sources (36 percent), electricity and co-generation (16 percent), residential fuel usage (7 percent), off-road equipment (3 percent), and agriculture and farming (one percent). Bay Area emissions by sector are illustrated in Chart 3.3-1. Of transportation emissions, 76 percent are estimated to be from cars and light duty trucks. Chart 3.3-1: Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector, as a Percent of Total Emissions Equipment 3% Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 20 10. 7% Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Peb- ruary 2010. 3.3-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Absent policy changes, Bay Area GHG emissions are expected to grow at a rate of 1.4 percent a year due to population growth and economic expansion.13 Economic activity variations and the fraction of electric power generation in the region will cause year-to-year fluctuations in the emissions trends. Chart 3.3-2 shows the emission trends projected as usual by major sources for the period of 1990 to 2029, absent policy changes. Chart 3.3-2: Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trends by Sector 140 120 100 'II' t"'t.i 0 U 'ill'Jl' 80 J3 I- U' '1: P' ill' :E c 6{1 ,12 I: 4{1 20 o 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 200s 2MB: 201 1 2014 2011 202.0 202.3 '2:026 2029 Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 20 10, Greenhouse Gas Emissions in South San Francisco According to City of South San Francisco 2005 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, in 2005, the City of South San Francisco emitted approximately 560,414 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (C02e). As shown in Table 3.3-3, the transportation sector is the largest contributors to GHG emissions, responsible for approximately 34.9 percent of all U Ibid. 3.3-7 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures emISSIOns. The commercial/industrial sector accounts for approximately 34.7 percent of emissions, while the residential sector accounts for 12.7 percent of total emissions. The waste sector accounts for 13.2 percent of total emissions, while water accounts for approximately 0.3 percent. Both BART and Caltrains account for approximately 0.1 percent of emissions while off-road equipment and vehicles account for approximately four percent of emissions. Table 3.3-3: 2005 South San Francisco Community Emissions 2005 GHG Emissions GHG Emissions Sector' (MTC02e) (% MTC02e) Residential 70,893 12.7% Commerciallindustrial 194,562 34.7% Transportation 195,788 34.9% BART 612 0.1% Caltrain 508 0.1% Waste 74,073 13.2% Water 1,578 0.3% Off-Road 22,399 4.0% Total' 560,414 GHG Emissions Per Capita 9.1 GHG Emissions Per Service Population2 5.4 I Due to rounding of decimals to whole number, the sum of all sectors may be less than the total by I MTC02e 2 Service Population is the combined total number of residents and jobs. Source: City of South San Francisco, 20 I O. REGULATORY SETTING Federal Regulations Section 202 GHG Regulation of Cars and Light Duty Trucks This rule was proposed jointly by EP A and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to create a National Program of GHG emission standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. The standards apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. The standards are designed to achieve a national vehicle fleet whose emissions and fuel economy performance improves year over year. The goal is to reduce CO2 emissions by 960 million metric tons and save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in model years 2012 through 2016.11 The final rule was signed on April 1, 2010 and will become effective 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register. 14 US EPA, http://www.epa.gov/oms/ciimate/reguiations.htm. accessed December 8, 2010. 3.3-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Renewable Fuel Standard Program Finalized on February 3, 2010, this rule makes changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, as required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The original RFS program was designed to implement the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EP Act, described later). The revised statutory requirements establish new specific volume standards for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel that must be used in transportation fuel each year. The revised statutory requirements also include new definitions and criteria for both renewable fuels and the feedstocks used to produce them, including new greenhouse gas emission thresholds for renewable fuels. Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) (549 U.S. 497) In this U.S. Supreme Court case, 12 states, three cities, and 13 environmental groups filed suit that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be required to regulate carbon dioxide and other GHGs as pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act. In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the EPA has a statutory authority to formulate standards and regulations to address GHG emissions, which it historically has not done. In April 2009, EPA released an Endangerment Finding that GHGs significantly contribute to air pollution, triggering the process under the Clean Air Act for potentially developing National Ambient Air Quality Standards for GHGs and establishing emissions standards for stationary and mobile sources. Executive Order 13154 Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Peifor- mance On October 5, 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13154, which instructs federal agencies to set or achieve various emissions reduction and energy and environmental benchmarks by 2015, 2020, and 2030. The order requires agencies to set GHG emissions reduction targets for 2020 within 90 days, and requires OMB to set a federal government target for 2020 within 120 days. The order also sets out required reductions in vehicle fleet petroleum use and requires increases in water and energy efficiency and in recycling and waste diversion rates. The order also mandates adoption of certain contract and procurement practices designed to promote energy and water efficiency and environmentally-preferable products. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was designed to improve vehicle fuel economy and help reduce U.S. dependence on oil. The Act establishes several key standards: • Increases the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022, which represents a nearly five-fold increase over current levels; and • Reduces U.S. demand for oil by setting a National Fuel Economy Standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020-an increase in fuel economy of 40 percent. 3.3-9 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and CAFE Standards The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975 declared it to be u.s. policy to establish a reserve of up to 1 billion barrels of petroleum, and established nationwide fuel economy standards in order to conserve oil. Pursuant to this Act, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, part of the u.S. Department of Transportation, is responsible for revising existing fuel economy standards and establishing new vehicle fuel economy standards. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program was established to determine vehicle manufacturer compliance with the government's fuel economy standards. Compliance with CAFE standards is determined based on each manufacturer's average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States. The EPA calculates a CAFE value for each manufacturer based on city and highway fuel economy test results and vehicle sales. The CAFE values are a weighted harmonic average of the EPA city and highway fuel economy test results. Based on information generated under the CAFE program, the u.S. Department of Transportation is authorized to assess penalties for noncompliance. CAFE rules require the average fuel economy of all vehicles of a given class that a manufacturer sells in each model year to be equal or greater than the standard. CAFE standards apply to passenger cars and light trucks (gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less). Heavy-duty vehicles (i.e. gross vehicle weight over 8,500 pounds) are not currently subject to fuel economy standards. The EPCA was reauthorized in 2000 (49 CFR 533). The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 revised CAFE standards for the first time in 30 years, followed quickly by Section 202 GHG Regulation of Cars and Light Duty Trucks, which calls for further revision of the CAFE standards. Both of those regulations are described above. Energy Policy Act of 2005 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 seeks to reduce reliance on non-renewable energy resources and provide incentives to reduce current demand on these resources. For example, under the Act, consumers and businesses can attain federal tax credits for purchasing fuel-efficient appliances and products. Because driving fuel-efficient vehicles and installing energy-efficient appliances can provide many benefits, such as lower energy bills, increased indoor comfort, and reduced air pollution, businesses are eligible for tax credits for buying hybrid vehicles, building energy efficient buildings, and improving the energy efficiency of commercial buildings. Additionally, tax credits are given for the installation of qualified fuel cells, stationary microturbine power plants, and solar power equipment. Tax Credit for Wind-Generated Electricity Beginning in the late 1990s, Congress introduced a tax subsidy on the production of renewable wind-generated electricity. The availability, expiration, and potential extension of the Production Tax Credit cause the boom and bust production of energy that typifies wind development in the United States. The Production Tax Credit's limitations have determined the role of the wind energy industry in the United States and contributed to the dominance of electric utility subsidies. 3.3-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Energy Star Program Energy Star is a joint program of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. The program establishes criteria for energy efficiency for household products and labels energy efficient products with the Energy Star seal. Homes can be qualified as "Energy Star homes" if they meet efficiency standards. In California, Energy Star homes must use at least 15 percent less energy than standards set by Title 24, pass the California Energy Star Homes Quality Insulation Installation Thermal Bypass Checklist Procedures, have Energy Star windows, and have minimal duct leakage. Global Change Research Act (1990) (15 United States Code Sections 2921 et seq.) In 1990, Congress passed and the President signed Public Law 101-606, the Global Change Research Act. The purpose of the legislation was: " ... to require the establishment of a United States Global Change Research Program aimed at understanding and responding to global change, including the cumulative effects of human activities and natural processes on the environment, to promote discussions towards international protocols in global change research, and for other purposes." To that end, the Global Change Research Information Office (GCRIO) was established in 1991 (it began formal operation in 1993) to serve as a clearinghouse of information. The Act requires a report to Congress every four years on the environmental, economic, health and safety consequences of climate change; however, the first and only one of these reports to-date, the National Assessment on Climate Change, was not published until 2000. In February 2004, operational responsibility for GCRIO shifted to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. State Regulations Executive Orders 5-21-09 (Gov. 5chwarzenegger, 2009) This Order directs the state's Air Resources Board (ARB) to adopt regulations increasing California's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 33 percent by 2020. The executive order provides more guidance to state regulators about how to achieve the requirement than Governor Schwarzenegger's 2008 order (Executive Order S-14-08) establishing the 33 percent goal. Executive Order 5-01-07 (Gov. 5chwarzenegger, January 2007) This Order calls for a statewide goal to be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020 ("2020 Target"), and that a Low Carbon Fuel Standard ("LCFS") for transportation fuels be established for California. Further, it directs CARB to determine if an LCFS can be adopted as a discrete early action measure pursuant to AB 32, and if so, consider the adoption of a LCFS by June 30, 2007, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 38560.5. The LCFS applies to all refiners, blenders, producers or importers ("Providers") of transportation fuels in California, will be measured on a full fuels cycle basis, and may be met through market-based methods by which Providers exceeding the performance required by a LCFS shall receive credits that may be applied to future obligations or traded to Providers not meeting the LCFS. 3.3-11 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures In June 2007, CARB approved the LCFS as a Discrete Early Action item under AB 32. The LCFS rulemaking package was filed with the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on November 25, 2009. The OAL approved the LCFS rule making and filed with the Secretary of State on January 12, 2010. Executive Order S-20-06 (Gov. Schwarzenegger, October 2006) This Order establishes the authority and roles of various departments and leadership roles in implementing AB 32. Executive Order S-06-06 (Gov. Schwarzenegger, April 2006) This Order was to establish biomass production and use targets for California. Biomass is a large but primarily unused resource including residues from forestry, urban, and agricultural wastes and can be used to create electricity, transportation fuels, and biogas. Use of biomass could not only increase energy production but also reduce the waste stream. The Order states that biomass should comprise 20 percent of the State's Renewables Portfolio Standard for 2010 and 2020, and California shall produce a minimum of 20 percent of its biofuels within the state by 2010, 40 percent by 2020, and 75 percent by 2050. Additional funding and research will go to further developing these technologies and integrating them into use. Executive Order S-3-05 (Gov. Schwarzenegger, June 2005) This Order recognizes California's vulnerability to climate change, noting that increasing temperatures could potentially reduce snow pack in the Sierra Nevada, which is a primary source of the State's water supply. Additionally, according to this Order, climate change could influence human health, coastal habitats, microclimates, and agricultural yield. The Order set the greenhouse gas reduction targets for California: By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020 reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050 reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. This corresponds to an approximate 27 percent reduction by 2030 to 1990 levels, or 55 C02e in total emissions which correlates to 41 percent reduction over today's levels by 2030. Executive Order S-20-04 (Gov. Schwarzenegger, July 2004) This Order requires that the State commit to aggressive action to reduce state building electricity use, and more specifically, State agencies, departments, and other entities, take measures to reduce energy use by 20 percent by 2015. In addition, the Order requires that the CEC increase energy efficiency standards by 20 percent by 2015, compared to the 2003 Titles 20 and 24 standards. Senate Bills Senate Bill]7 (Padilla, Chapter 327, Statutes of 2009) This bill requires the CPUC to determine the requirements for a smart grid deployment plan consistent with the policies set forth in the bill and federal law, which was completed in June 2010. The bill requires the smart grid to improve overall efficiency, reliability, and cost- effectiveness of electrical system operations, planning, and maintenance. Each electrical 3.3-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures corporation must develop and submit a smart grid deployment plan to the CPUC for approval by July 1, 2011. Senate Bill 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) On September 30, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill (SB) 375 into law. This legislation links transportation and land use planning with the CEQA process to help achieve the GHG emission reduction targets set by AB 32. Regional transportation planning agencies are required to include a sustainable community strategy (SCS) in regional transportation plans. The SCS must contain a planned growth scenario that is integrated with the transportation network and policies in such a way that it is feasible to achieve AB 32 goals on a regional level. SB 375 also identifies new CEQA exemptions and stream lining for projects that are consistent with the SCS and qualify as Transportation Priority Projects (TPP). TPPs must meet three requirements: 1) contain at least 50 percent residential use; commercial use must have floor area ratio (FAR) of not less than 0.75; 2) have a minimum net density of 20 units per acre; and 3) be located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high quality transit corridor included in the regional transportation plan. Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 185, Statutes of 2007) (Calif. Public Resources Code Sections 21083.5 and 21097) Senate Bill (SB) 97 directs the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the California Resources Agency guidelines for feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, by July 1, 2009. The Resources Agency is required to certify and adopt amendments to the Guidelines implementing the CEQA Guidelines on or before January 1, 2010. These new CEQA Guidelines will provide regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. In the interim, the OPR offered informal guidance regarding steps lead agencies should take to address climate change in their CEQA documents. IS Senate Bill 1368 (Chapter 598, Statutes of 2006) (Calif. Public Utilities Code Sections 8340 et seq.) Senate Bill (SB) 1368 required the CPUC to establish a GHG emissions performance standard for "baseload" generation from investor-owned utilities by February 1, 2007. The CEC was required to establish a similar standard for local publicly-owned utilities by June 30, 2007. The legislation further required that all electricity provided to California, including imported electricity, must be generated from plants that meet or exceed the standards set by the CPUC and the CEC. In January 2007, the CPUC adopted an interim performance standard for new long-term commitments (1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour), and in May 2007, the CEC approved regulations that match the CPUC standard. [, Governor's Ot1lce of Planning and Research. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through Califor- nia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review Technical Advisory, June 19, 2008. 3.3-13 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Senate Bill 1078 Sher (Chapter 516, Statutes of2002) SB 1078 establishes a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), requiring electricity providers to increase purchases of renewable energy resources by one percent per year until they have attained a portfolio of 20 percent renewable resources by 2010. Senate Bill 1771 Sher (Chapter 1018, Statutes of2000) SB 1771 requires the CEC to prepare an inventory of the state's GHG emissions, to study data on GCC, and to provide government agencies and businesses with information on the costs and methods for reducing GHG emissions. It also established the California Climate Action Registry to serve as a certifying agency for companies and local governments to quantify and register their GHG emissions for possible future trading systems. Assembly Bills Assembly Bill 758 (Skinner, Chapter 470, Statutes of 2009) This bill requires the Energy Commission to establish a regulatory proceeding by March 1, 2010, to develop a comprehensive program to achieve greater energy savings in existing residential and nonresidential buildings. Assembly Bill 2021 (Levine, Chapter 734, Statutes of 2006) This bill requires the Energy Commission, in consultation with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and publicly owned utilities, to develop a statewide estimate of all potentially achievable cost -effective electricity and natural gas efficiency savings and establish statewide annual targets for energy efficiency savings and demand reduction over 10 years. Assembly Bill 1493 (Chapter 200, Statutes of 2002) (Calif. Health & Safety Code Sections 42823 and 43018.5) Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (Pavley) amended California Health & Safety Code sections 42823 and 43018.5 requiring the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and adopt, by January 1, 2005, regulations that achieve maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles used for noncommercial personal transportation in California. The regulations apply to motor vehicles manufactured in the 2009 or later model year. In September 2004, pursuant to AB 1493, the ARB approved regulations to reduce GHG emissions from new motor vehicles. Under the regulation, one manufacturer fleet average emission standard is established for passenger cars and the lightest trucks, and a separate manufacturer fleet average emission standard is established for heavier trucks. The regulation took effect on January 1, 2006 and set near-term emission standards, phased in from 2009 through 2012, and mid-term emission standards, phased in from 2013 through 2016 (referred to as the Pavley Phase 1 rules). The ARB intends to extend the existing requirements to obtain further reductions in the 2017 to 2020 timeframe (referred to as Pavley Phase 2 rules). The ARB has included both Pavley 1 and 2 rules in its Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan 3.3-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures (October 2008), pursuant to the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which outlines the State's strategy to achieve 2020 GHG emission reductions. After initially refusing to grant a waiver, on June 30, 2009 the EPA granted a waiver that allows California to implement these standards. The ARB calculates that in calendar year 2016, the Pavley Phase 1 rules will reduce California's GHG emissions by 16.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, and by 2020, Pavley Phase 2 would reduce emissions by 31.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents. Further, the AB 1493 new vehicle requirements would cumulatively produce 45 percent more GHG reductions by 2020 compared to the federal CAFE standard in the Energy Independence and Security Act of2007 (above).16 Without Pavley rules, both state and regional CO2 emissions would increase steadily between now and 2035 as VMT increases with population growth; with Pavley rules, CO2 emissions are projected to decrease between now and 2035. This decrease in regional 2035 CO2 emissions compared to current levels is in large part a result of technological changes expected to reduce CO2 emissions per VMT. The regulations would reduce climate change emissions from the light duty passenger vehicle fleet by 12.6 percent statewide and 22.9 percent in the Bay Area in the 2035 calendar year compared to 2006. Title 24 California Building Standards Code Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations governs the design and construction of all building occupancies and associated facilities and equipment throughout California. Title 24 applies to all building occupancies, and related features and equipment throughout the state, and contains requirements to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, and requires measures for energy conservation, green design, construction and maintenance, fire and life safety, and accessibility. Title 24 is implemented through the local plan check and permit process. Part 6: California Energy Code Included in Part 6 of the Code are standards mandating energy efficiency measures in new construction. Since its establishment in 1977, the building efficiency standards (along with standards for energy efficiency in appliances) have contributed to a reduction in electricity and natural gas costs in California. The standards regulate energy consumed in buildings for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. Part 11: California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Gode) CALGreen has approximately 52 nonresidential mandatory measures and an additional 130 provisions that have been placed in the appendix for optional use. Some key mandatory measures for commercial occupancies include specified parking for clean air vehicles, a 20% reduction of potable water use within buildings, a 50% construction waste diversion from 16 California Air Resources Board (ARB). Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Reductions for the United States and Canada Under ARB GHG Regulations and Proposed Federal 2011-2015 Model Year Fuel Economy Standards, Addendum to Feb- ruary 25 Technical Assessment, 2008. 3.3-15 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures landfills, use of building finish materials that emit low levels of volatile organic compounds, and commissioning for new, nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet. California Global Warming Solutions Act of2006 (AB 32) (Calif. Health & Safety Code Sec- tions 38500 et seq.) In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act (Health and Safety Code Section 38500 et. seq.). The Act requires the reduction of statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. This change, which is estimated to be a 30 percent reduction from business as usual emission levels projected for 2020, will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. The Act also directs the ARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources and address GHG emissions from vehicles. The ARB has stated that the regulatory requirements for stationary sources will be first applied to electricity power generation and utilities, petrochemical refining, cement manufacturing, and industrial/commercial combustion. The second group of target industries will include oil and gas production/distribution, transportation, landfills and other GHG-intensive industrial processes. The ARB developed a Climate Change Scoping Plan, finalized in December 2008, outlining the State's strategy to achieve 2020 greenhouse gas emission limits. The Plan proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions. State of California Integrated Energy Policy (2002) The CEC adopts and transmits to the Governor and Legislature a report of findings biannually. In 2002, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1389. The legislation reconstituted the state's responsibility to develop an integrated energy plan for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels, or Energy Report. At a Special Business Meeting on November 12, 2003, the CEC adopted the 2003 Integrated Energy Policy. The 2004 Update to the Integrated Energy Policy was adopted by the Energy Commission on November 3, 2004. The 2005 Integrated Energy Policy was adopted by the Energy Commission on November 21, 2005. The plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for Zero Emission Vehicle and addressing their infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban design that reduces vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and accommodates pedestrian and bicycle access. California Public Utilities Commission The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) including those that offer electric, natural gas, steam, and petroleum service to consumers. The CPUC regulates both electric and natural gas rates and services provided by these utilities including in-state transportation over the utilities' transmission and distribution pipeline systems, storage, procurement, metering and billing. Natural gas regulations are found in General Orders 58, 94, 96, and 112, while electrical distribution regulations are found in General Orders 95, 128, 131, 165, and 166. 3.3-/6 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Regional Coordination In the Bay Area, the Joint Policy Committee OPC) coordinates the regional planning efforts of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the BAAQMD, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). In fall 2006, the JPC commenced a six-month program to study the issue of climate change and to recommend an initial set of actions to be pursued jointly by the four regional agencies. The study recommends that the regional agencies build their Joint Climate Protection Strategy in service of this key goal: To be a model for California, the nation and the world. It then organizes initial actions by six strategy elements: establish priorities, increase public awareness and motivate action, provide assistance, reduce unnecessary driving, prepare to adapt, and break old habits.17 Local Regulations Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (Chapter 20.120 of the Municipal Code) South San Francisco's current Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance states that for non-residential sites generating more than 100 daily trips, a minimum of 28 percent of all trips must be made through alternative mode use. For projects that seek a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus in accordance with the General Plan, 30 percent to 45 percent of all trips must be made through alternative mode use, depending on the type of development and requested FAR. South San Francisco General Plan (1999) There are many policies in the City General Plan that will help reduce GHG emissions in the City of South San Francisco even though they were not specifically adopted for that purpose. For example, policies that call for locating land uses to support transit ridership and that support opportunities for infill and redevelopment help address GHG emissions, even though they were not adopted for that purpose. Policies applicable to GHG emissions are located throughout the General Plan, most notable in the Land Use; Planning Sub-Areas; Transportation; Open space and Conservation; and Health and Safety elements. Chapter 2: Land Use 2-G-3 Provide land use designations that maximize benefits of increased accessibility hat will result from BART extension to the city and adjacent locations. 2-G-7 Encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office development in centers where they would support transit, in locations where they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and vitality. Ie Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Air quality Management District, Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Joint Policy Committee memo regarding "Bay Area Regional Agency Climate Protection Program -Consolidated Recommendations," available at http://www.abag.ca.gov/jointpolicy/jpc_agenda_packages.htm. accessed May 4,2007. 3.3-17 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 2-G-8 Provide incentives to maximize community orientation of new development, and to promote alternative transportation modes. Chapter 3: Planning Sub-Areas 3.4-G-5 Encourage the implementation of the Guiding Principles of the Grand Boulevard Initiative as adopted by the Grand Boulevard Task Force in April of 2007. Chapter 4: Transportation 4.2-G-5 Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the arrangement of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle-miles traveled. 4.3-G-I Develop a comprehensive and integrated system of bikeways that promote bicycle riding for transportation and recreation. 4.3-G-2 Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers. 4.3-G-3 In partnership with employers, continue efforts to expand shuttle operations. 4.3-G-4 In partnership with the local business community, develop a transportation systems man- agement plan with identified trip-reduction goals, while continuing to maintain a positive and sup- portive business environment. 4.3-1-4 Require provision of secure covered bicycle parking at all existing and future multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, and officelinstitutional uses. 4.3-1-7 Undertake a program to improve pedestrian connections between the rail stations-South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations and the Caltrain Station-and the surroundings. Components of the program should include: • Installing handicapped ramps at all intersections as street improvements are being in- stalled; • Constructing wide sidewalks where feasible to accommodate increased pedestrian use; • Providing intersection "bulbing" to reduce walking distances across streets in Down- town, across El Camino Real and Mission Road, and other high use areas; • Continuing with the City's current policy of providing pedestrian facilities at all signa- lized intersections; and • Providing landscaping that encourages pedestrian use. 4.3-1-8 Adopt a TDM program or ordinance which includes, but is not limited to, the following components: • Establishment of baseline TDM requirements for all new projects generating more than 100 peak period trips. 3.3-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • Establishment of additional requirements for all new projects seeking a FAR bonus. • An ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure TDM measures are ac- tually implemented. • Reduce parking requirements for new projects implementing a TDM Program. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001, Adopted September 26, 2001) 4.3-1-9 Favor TSM programs that limit vehicle use over those that extend the commute hour. This would have added air quality benefits. 4.3-1-10 Undertake efforts to promote the City as a model employer and further alternative trans- portation use by City employees by providing: • A designated commute coordinator/manager; • A carpoollvanpool match program; • Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools at City Hall; • Secure bicycle storage facilities; • On-site shower facilities at City Hall for employees; • A commitment to future shuttle service to BART stations; • Guaranteed ride home program; • Transit subsidies; • On-site transit pass sales; and • Incentives/ educational program. 4.3-1-11 Establish parking standards to support trip reduction goals by: • Allowing parking reductions for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction methods, such as paid parking. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001, Adopted September 26, 2001) 4.3-1-12 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to reduce minimum parking requirements for all projects proximate to transit stations and for projects implementing a TDM program. Periodically examine these standards as transit service changes. Parking above a minimum amount should be allowed only if additional amenities for bicyclists, pedestrians, transit and/or landscaping are provided. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001, Adopted September 26,2001) 4.3-1 -13 Investigate opportunities for shared parking facilities whenever possible to reduce the number of new parking stalls required. Potential for this exists for the area near the South San Francisco BART Station. 4.4-G-l Promote local and regional public transit serving South San Francisco. 3.3-/9 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4-G-2 Explore mechanisms to integrate varioLls forms of transit. Chapter 7: Open Space and Conservation 7.3-G-l Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all national and State ambient air quality standards and by reducing the generation of air pollutants both from stationary and mobile sources, where feasible. 7.3-G-2 Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit, and carpooling. 7.3-G-3 Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and emissions generators by distancing them from one another. 7.3-1-1 Cooperate with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to achieve emissions reductions for nonattainment pollutants and their precursors, including carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM -10, by implementation of air pollution control measures as required by State and federal statutes. 7.3-1-2 Use the City's development review process and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations to evaluate and mitigate the local and cumulative effects of new development on air quality. 7.3-1-3 Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures included in BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines. 7.3-1-4 Require new residential development and remodeled existing homes to install clean- burning fireplaces and wood stoves. 7.3-1-5 In cooperation with local conservation groups, institute an active urban forest management program that consists of planting new tress and maintaining existing ones. Sustainable South San Francisco Division (Sustainable SSF) The City Manager's Office has launched its new division, Sustainable SSF which is dedicated to helping residents; the business community and the City take advantage of new cutting-edge technologies to help the environment while saving money and resources. Sustainable SSF will: • Help residents and businesses take advantage of opportunities for alternative energy like solar and fuel cells; • Lower operating costs through energy efficiency upgrades, such as new windows, water heaters and energy-efficient appliances; • Look for ways to lower the City's own operating costs through retrofitting and upgrad- ing City facilities and infrastructure; • Serve as a one-stop center for "green" information. 3.3-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 15 Building and Construction 15.60.020 Deconstruction and salvage and recovery. (a) Contractors are encouraged to make every structure planned for demolition available for deconstruction, salvage, and recovery prior to demolition; and to recover the maximum feasible amount of salvageable designated recyclable and reusable materials prior to demolition. (b) Recovered and salvaged designated recyclable and reusable materials from the deconstruction phase shall be counted towards the diversion requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 1373 § 1 (part), 2006) 15.60.030 Diversion requirements. (a) One hundred percent of inert solids, and at least fifty percent of the remaining construction and demolition debris tonnage shall be diverted. (b) For each covered project, the diversion requirements of this chapter shall be met by submitting and following a waste management plan that includes the following: (1) Deconstructing and salvaging all or part of the structure as practicable; and (2) Directing one hundred percent of inert solids to reuse or recycling facilities approved by the city; and (3) Either: (A) Taking all mixed construction and demolition debris to the mixed construction and demolition debris recycling facilities approved by the city and taking all sorted or crushed construction and demolition debris to approved facilities; or (B) Source separating noninert materials, such as cardboard and paper, wood, metals, green waste, new gypsum wallboard, tile, porcelain fixtures, and other easily recycled materials, and directing them to recycling facilities approved by the city and taking the remainder (but no more than fifty percent by weight or yardage) to a facility for disposal. In this option, calculations must be provided to show that fifty percent of construction and demolition debris (in addition to one hundred percent of inert solids) has been diverted. (Ord. 1373 § 1 (part), 2006) Title 20 Zoning 20.300.007 Landscaping 3.3-21 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures C. Landscape Design Principles. The following design principles are general standards to be used by City statI in evaluating whether landscape plans conform to the require- ments of this section: 5. Use of Native and Drought Resistant Plants. Landscape designs should feature native and/or related plant species, especially in areas adjacent to existing native vegetation, to take advantage of the unique natural character and diversity of the San Francisco peninsula region and the adaptability of native plants to local environmental conditions. Where feasible, the re-establishment of native habitats should be incorporated into the landscape design. In the same manner, landscape designs should utilize drought tolerant plant materials to the maximum extent feasible. The use of drought-tolerant plants should enrich the existing landscape character, conserve water and energy, and provide as pleasant and varied a visual appearance as plants that require more water. G. Water Efficient Landscaping and Irrigation. Landscaping shall be designed and plantings selected so that water use is minimized. The estimated total water use (ETWU) of the proposed landscaping on a site shall not exceed the maximum applied water allowance (MAW A). 2005 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory (2010) The Community-Wide Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory is part of a continuing effort by the City of South San Francisco to identify and assess the sources and quantities of GHGs within the city. This Inventory identifies the major sources of GHG emissions within the city and provides a baseline against which future progress can be measured.' Specifically, this Inventory does the following: • Calculates GHGs from community-wide activities within the City's jurisdictional boundary in calendar year 2005; • Provides City decision-makers and the community with adequate information to in- form policy decisions; and • Forecasts how emissions will grow in the community if no behavioral changes are made. The Inventory represents a key first step in the City's efforts to improve air quality, enhance sustainability, and ensure the safety and comfort of its residents for generations to come. In addition, this Inventory allows the City to quantitatively track and take credit for its numerous efforts related to energy efficiency and the mitigation of climate change. Building upon the Inventory, the City of South San Francisco is currently working to develop a Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan to serve as a blueprint for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Other City of South San Francisco Programs Other sustainability efforts from the City include: 3.3-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • Development of guidelines to "green" surface parking lots • Installation of photovoltaic (PV) systems on City-sponsored projects (Grand Oak Apartments, Miller Avenue Parking Garage) • Reduced permit fee for solar panel installation • Use of energy-efficient light bulbs for City-owned rental housing • Adoption of green food packaging ordinance • Use of recycled material content office products and kitchen utensils in City Offices • Refurbish and reuse street signs and traffic lights, where possible IMPACT ANALYSIS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The significance criteria for this analysis were developed from criteria presented in the CEQA Guidelinesl~ (including the 2010 amendments) and the BAAQMD 2010 CEQA Guidelines. 19 A significant impact would occur with full implementation of the proposed Plan if it would do one or more of the following: • Result in a wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy; • Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, in excess of 4.6 MT C02e per year per service population; or • Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reduc- ing the emissions of greenhouse gases. METHODOLOGY & ASSUMPTIONS Application of Regulatory Framework The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines indicate that "where possible, emission projections should account for inherent improvements in energy and fuel efficiency, population and employment growth rates published by ABAG, VMT growth rates available from MTC, energy consumption growth rates available from California Energy Commission (CEC), planned expansions of municipal infrastructure or services, and anticipated statewide legislative requirements or mandates (e.g., Renewable Energy Portfolio, Green Building Code Standards, on-road vehicle emission regulations)." Therefore, this EIR includes Pavley Phases 1 and 2 in the GHG and energy analyses. This EIR uses fuel etliciency estimates for Pavley Phase 1 and Pavley Phase 2 as developed by MTC as a means of incorporating State regulations into this l~ 2010 California Environmental Quality Act Statute and Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387) available from http://leginfo.ca.gov as ofJanuary 1, 2010. [9 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010. 3.3-23 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures analysis.CO The GHG analysis also considers the implementation of SB 1078 33 percent Renewables Portfolio and Executive Order S-O 1-07 Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Energy The residential and commercial/industrial energy data for baseline and 2020 Business As Usual conditions are provided in the 2005 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory (2005 Inventory). The forecast for residential energy use in the 2005 Inventory was based on the growth of households while the forecast for commercial/industrial energy use was based on the increase of jobs. These same growth factors were used to forecast energy use in 2020 with the proposed Plan, 2030 Business As Usual, and 2030 with proposed Plan conditions. Transportation energy was based on information provided by ICLEIICity of South San Francisco and Kimely-Horn. Although the 2005 Inventory provides an annual VMT baseline and 2020 Business As Usual annual VMT, there is an absence of data for 2030 Business As Usual and a growth factor which could be used to project annual 2030 VMT. Therefore, to ensure consistency with traffic data contained in other chapters of this EIR and the need for VMT in the year 2030, transportation energy is based on information provided by information provided by ICLEI/City of South San Francisco and Kimley-Horn. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) As discussed above, the baseline VMT and 2020 Business As Usual VMT in the 2005 Inventory was not used. Baseline emissions for this analysis are based on VMT contained in Caltrans 2005 California Public Road Data. The share of State Highway VMT apportioned to South San Francisco in 2005 was provided by ICLEI/City of South San Francisco. Forecasts for transportation energy use and emissions are based on annual 2020 and 2030 VMT projected by MTC in the December 2008 Travel Forecasts Data Summary for the Transportation 2055 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area. Annual VMT resulting from the proposed Plan was provided by Kimley-Horn. The increase in VMT as a result of the proposed Plan to 2020 was interpolated. Greenhouse Gases The methodology used in the forecast of of GHG for Residential; Commercial/Industrial; Waste; Water; and Off Road sectors is based on the growth indicators used in the 2005 Inventory. Table 3.3-4 shows the Growth Indicators used. 21) Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Draft Environmental Impact Report for Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, December 2008. 3.3-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.3-4: Growth Indicators (Percent Growth from 2005) 2020 Business 2020 with 2030 Business As Usual Plan As Usual Service 15.3% 18% 29.9% Population Households 13.5% 13.8% 24.2% Employment 18.7% 24.8% 41.6% Source: City of South San Francisco, 2010; Dyett & Bhatia, 2011. 2030 with Plan 32.4% 28.2% 42.3% Applied to BART, Caltrain, Waste Water Residential Energy Off Road Equipment Commercial & Industrial Energy Transportation GHGs is based on emission factors and calculation methods outlined in ICLEI's Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology for Bay Area Governments, prepared as part of the BAAQMD-ICLEI Workshop, December 6, 2007, which was attended by representatives from the City of South San Francisco. This methodology was used since the City of South San Francisco is currently a member of I CLEI. Evaluation of 2020 and 2030 Per BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, this EIR analyzes GHG emissions for the year 2020, which is the AB 32 benchmark year, as well as 2030, the anticipated build-out year for the proposed Plan. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS Energy Energy use under the proposed Plan would be moderated by the application of State regulations. New development under the proposed Plan would have to adhere California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6) and CALgreen Code (Title 24, Part 11), which outlines improved site planning and building design as well as energy conservation measures, ensuring that energy use will not be wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary. In addition, State regulations such as AB 1493 Pavley and SB 1078 Renewable Portfolio Standard will further ensure that energy use will not be wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary. Greenhouse Gases The emissions reductions as a result of State/local programs will result in 2020 emission levels that are below baseline levels under the No Project condition. The emissions reductions as a result of State/local programs and proposed Plan policies will result in 2020 Plan emission levels that are below baseline levels. The emission reductions as a result of State /local programs will result in 2030 emission levels that are slightly higher than baseline levels under the No Project. The emission reductions as a result of State/local programs and proposed Plan policies will also result in 2030 Plan emission 3.3-25 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures levels that are slightly higher than baseline levels; however the emissions per service population are lower than the baseline rate under the proposed Plan. While total emissions are slightly lower in the No Project Alternative than under the proposed Plan, per service population emissions are the same between the two, indicating an efficient accommodation of growth in the proposed Plan. In addition, the proposed Plan includes policies which may further reduce the per service population emissions under 4.6 metric tons C02e. While regional GHG emissions are on a whole are a significant cumulative impact, these comparisons indicate that the proposed Plan does not make a considerable contribution to the impact. The City of South San Francisco has currently completed a community-wide greenhouse gas inventory and is currently in the process of establishing a baseline government emissions inventory and is planning a community-wide inventory of GHG emissions. The proposed Plan does not conflict with any of the actions in the Scoping Plan developed by ARB under AB 32 and is consistent with measures in the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, resulting in a less than significant impact in regard to existing GHG plans, policies and regulations. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.3-1 New development under the proposed Plan would not result in wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy. (Less than Significant) Residential and Commercial The analysis of electricity and natural gas consumption uses a business as usual methodology to project future demand, with electricity and natural gas use increasing at the same rate as households in the residential sector and at the same rate as jobs in the commercial/industrial sector. Table 3.3-5 shows that the increase in annual BTU for the 2020 and 2030 Business As Usual scenario and the 2020 and 2030 with proposed Plan scenario. For this analysis, the annual growth rate was calculated based on household and job estimates for 2005 and for 2030 under the proposed Plan, which reflects a 28.2 percent increase in households and a 42.3 percent increase in jobs. 3.3-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.3-5: Annual BTU Use Projections for Residential and Commercial/Industrial Annual BTUs (billions) 2020 2020 wi Plan 2030 2030 wi Plan Business As 2020 wi and State Business As 2030 wi and State 2005 Usual Plan Mandate Usual Plan Mandate Residential Electricity 342 389 390 288 427 439 325 Natural Gas 901 1,022 1,025 1,025 1,123 1,155 1,155 Commercialll nd ustrial Electricity 1,318 1,496 1,645 1,218 1,644 1,876 1,388 Natural Gas 2,011 2,387 2,510 2,510 2,701 2,862 2,862 Total 4,573 5,294 5,570 5,041 5,895 6,331 5,730 Source: City of South San Francisco, 20/0; Dyett & Bhatia, 20 I I; ABAG, 2009. Since energy is projected to grow at the same rate as population and jobs, per capita and per job energy use remains constant for electricity and natural gas. Therefore, development considered under the proposed Plan could potentially increase the total demand for gas and electrical services. Despite the business as usual approach in this analysis, it is expected that energy efficiency will improve in the future. New development under the proposed Plan would have to adhere California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6) and CALgreen Code (Title 24, Part 11), which outlines improved site planning and building design as well as energy conservation measures, ensuring that energy use will not be wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary. As improvements in energy efficiency due to Title 24 are difficult to quantify, especially at the plan level, Table 3.3-5 does not account for energy improvements under Title 24. In addition, state-led or state-induced energy efficiency strategies included in the AB 32 Scoping Plan will also help ensure that energy use will not be wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary. Established in 2002 in Senate Bill 1078, the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) directs utility providers to increase the portion of energy that comes from renewable sources to 20 percent by 2010 and to 33 percent by 2020. A June 2009 report from the California Public Utilities Commission indicated that it is unlikely that the State and its investor-owned utilities will be able to reach the RPS goal of 33 percent by 2020. According to state assessments, the forecast assumes that energy providers will achieve a 26 percent renewable portfolio by 2020Y As shown in Table 3.3-5, when taking RPS into account, energy use from non renewable sources will decrease to below business as usual levels. In addition, proposed Plan Policy UD-7 (see applicable proposed plan policies below) will help ensure that the proposed Plan will not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. City of South San francisco, City of South San Francisco 2005 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, 2010. 3.3-27 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation Analysis of transportation energy use considers projected VMT resulting from the proposed Plan and MTC VMT forecasts as a metric for determining transportation energy demand at buildout. Adding 15,800 new residents between 2005 and 2030 would likely require additional energy for transportation uses within the City of South San Francisco. Kimley-Horn estimated annual VMT from the proposed Plan to be 45,656,046. Building on baseline VMT from Caltrans and VMT forecasts by MTC, it is estimated that annual VMT will increase from 491,093,265 in 2005 to 588,846,447 in 2030 under the proposed Plan, a 17 percent increase in VMT. As shown in Table 3.3-6, VMT for the interim year 2020 has also been forecast. Table 3.3-6: Transportation Energy Use in BTUs Fuel Efficiency Annual Annual BTU (miles per Annual Fuel BTUs Change Annual VMT gallon) Consumption (Billions) from 2005 2005 491,093,265 17.5 28,062,472 3,507.81 Project (Proposed Plan) No Pavley 588,846,447 18.2 32,354,200 4,044.28 15.3% 2030 Pavley I 588,846,447 24.6 23,936,847 2,992.11 -14.7% Pavley I and" 588,846,447 27.3 21,569,467 2,696.18 -23.1% No Pavley 503,427,377 18.2 27,660,845 3,457.61 -1.4% 2020 Pavley I 503,427,377 24.6 20,464,528 2,558.07 -27.1% Pavley I and" 503,427,377 27.3 18,440,563 2,305.07 -34.3% No Project No Pavley 543,190,40 I 18.2 29,845,626 3,730.70 6.4% 2030 Pavley I 543,190,40 I 24.6 22,080,911 2,760.11 -21.3% Pavley I and" 543,190,40 I 27.3 19,897,084 2,487.14 -29.1% No Pavley 503,296,744 18.2 27,653,667 3,456.71 -1.5% 2020 Pavley I 503,296,744 24.6 20,459,217 2,557.40 -27.1% Pavley I and II 503,296,744 27.3 18,435,778 2,304.47 -34.3% Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 20 I 0; Kimley-Horn, 20/0; MTC, 2008, ICLEI/ City of South San Francisco, 2009; Caltrans, 2005. Although Table 3.3-6 shows that the usage of transportation energy will increase due to projected growth, there are several existing policies that will ensure that energy usage will not be wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary. General Plan policies 2-G-3, 2-G-7, 2-G-8, 3.4-G-5, 4.2-G-5, 4.3-G-2, 4.3-G-3, 4.3-1-4, 4.3-1-7, 4.3-1-8, 4.3-1-9, 4.3-1-10, 4.3-1-11, 4.3-1-12, 4.3-1-13, 4.4-G-1, 4.4-G-2, and 7.3-G-2 (listed above under Regulatory Setting) ensures that the proposed Plan will result in an efficient use of land and transportation systems, minimizing energy consumption. In addition, qualifying new development under the proposed Plan would be required to be consistent with the City's TDM Ordinance which would further minimize energy consumption. The proposed Plan also includes several policies (listed under Applicable Proposed Plan Policies below) that help minimize transportation consumption. 3.3-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures In addition, state-led or state-induced energy efficiency strategies included in the AB 32 Scoping Plan will also help ensure that energy use will not be wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary. Table 3.3-6 shows that annual fuel consumption under the proposed Plan will decline if Pavley Phase 1 and 2 are applied. Transportation BTUs decline by 23.1 percent with Pavley 1 and 2. Overall, this analysis of residential; commercial/industrial, and transportation energy use concludes that the proposed Plan's contributions to inefficient energy use are less than significant. Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact 3.1 Land Use LU -7 Ensure that the mix of commercial uses provides adequate neighborhood services for new residential development to reduce the need for driving for everyday needs. LU-IO Orient neighborhood-serving commercial establishments to the public realm and ensure easy access to pedestrian and bicycle connections. 3.3 Urban Design and the Public Realm UD-7 Ensure that development incorporates green building and site design measures such as energy-efficient building design, passive heating/cooling strategies, permeable paving, low-water-consumption planting, and stormwater management. UD-13 Create an open space and trail extension of Centennial Way along the BART right-of-way from Chestnut Avenue to Colma Creek, just north of the Oak A venue extension. Establish the portion between Chestnut Avenue and Oak A venue as a pedestrian district. UD-16 Provide a diverse range of amenities and activities throughout park spaces in the Planning Area, including passive and active recreation areas; urban plazas with landscaping, paving, benches, and trees; and linkages along Centennial Way to access bike and pedestrian trails. UD-29 Provide continuous sidewalks and extend the streetscape palette of street trees and plantings from Chestnut Avenue and the planned Oak Avenue extension through to Mission Road. UD-30 Balance vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle movement along the planned Oak A venue extension. Bring buildings to the street edge with ample fenestration and entries, and provide wide sidewalks and shared travel bicycle lanes to accommodate all modes of travel. UD-31 Accommodate a range of active pedestrian uses along the new Centennial Way pedestrian connection, by providing areas for seating, dining, and passive recreation areas. 3.3-29 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Circulation C-2 Ensure that a continuous pedestrian and bicycle connection is provided along Centennial Way between Chestnut Avenue and the proposed Oak Avenue extension. C-3 Emphasize linkages to Centennial Way with east-west pedestrian/bicycle connections from new development and surrounding neighborhoods. These linkages will also help to break up larger blocks and development sites. C-4 Encourage pedestrian-oriented connections through development between Chestnut Avenue and the planned Oak Avenue extension. C-5 Enhance pedestrian/bicycle connectivity to key destinations, including Kaiser Hospital, the potential library and other civic uses, such as Orange Memorial Park and the Municipal Services Building. 3.6 Parking and Transportation Demand Management P-I Balance parking need and provision with the desire to promote transit, walking, and bicycling. Do not mandate any minimum parking standards; rather, establish maximum parking standards and let parking provision be determined by market need. P-2 Require all non-residential development within the area shown in Figure 3-8 to participate in a parking district to efficiently meet parking demand. Establish a special assessment on the properties within the district to fund the majority of a shared parking structure and develop an in-lieu fee program providing developers the option to use district facilities for their parking needs. P-6 Allow parking areas exceeding one space per housing unit to be provided in form of tandem parking (which will reduce parking construction costs), and/or allow (but do not require) parking in excess of one space per unit to be "unbundled" (that is, purchased or leased separately from the housing unit). P-ll Continue to administer and implement the transportation demand management program through the Municipal Code. P-12 Use the development agreement process to ensure that developers accept the transportation demand management and trip reduction requirements. Although trip reduction requirements are established for sites and buildings during the entitlements phase of development, the TDM programs will primarily be developed, implemented, monitored and refined by future employers and tenants. Employers are required to develop and submit plans for approval, implement and monitor the effectiveness of the plan and ability to meet requirements, and refine the plan as necessary. Mitigation Measures N one required. 3.3-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.3-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in a ratio of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions to service population that would not exceed 4.6 MTC02e. (Less than Significant) Concurrent implementation of the proposed Plan and forecast development of residential and employment land uses in the region could result in increased GHG emissions, thereby contributing to GCe. It is reasonable to generalize that GCC is a significant cumulative impact, as the scientific community has acknowledged its detrimental effects on ecosystems and human communities, and it is caused by the cumulative GHG emissions from human activities across the globe and over many decades. Furthermore, as GCC is accelerated by GHG emissions, any emissions in addition to what exists today in the atmosphere can generally be considered to contribute somewhat to this significant cumulative impact. For the purposes of this EIR, this analysis makes a determination about whether the proposed Plan makes a cumulatively considerable contribution to the overall cumulative impact. Under the proposed Plan, future emissions are estimated to increase to 681,310 metric tons of C02e in 2020 and to 785,413 metric tons of C02e in 2030 under a business-as-usual scenario, absent policy changes. Tables 3.3-8 and 3.3-9 show the increases in each sector. Per capita emissions will slightly decrease from 9.8 metric tons of C02e in 2005 to 9.7 metric tons of C02e in 2020 under a business-as usual scenario. Per capita emissions will then increase slightly in 2030 to 10.0 metric tons of C02e. There are several State mandates and local programs that will significantly reduce GHG emissions by 2020. Table 3.3-7 also shows the estimated emissions reductions that result from proposed Plan policies for each sector. Tables 3.3-8 and 3.3-9 show the GHG emission reductions resulting from the State mandates, local programs and proposed Plan policies. Reduction factors for each State standard were based on GHG reductions attributed to each standard in the Climate Change Scoping Plan, developed by ARB pursuant to AB 32.22 Senate Bill 1078 Sher and Executive Order S-14-08: Renewables Portfolio Standard Based on Governor Schwarzenegger's call for a statewide 33 percent Renewables Portfolio Standard, the Scoping Plan anticipated that California will have 33 percent of its electricity provided by renewable resources by 2020, and included the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions based on this level. A June 2009 report from the California Public Utilities Commission indicated that it is unlikely that the State and its investor-owned utilities will be able to reach the RPS goal of 33 percent by 2020. According to state assessments, the forecast assumes that energy providers will achieve a 26 percent renewable portfolio by 2020.23 Therefore, a 26 percent reduction was applied to the GHG emissions generated from residential electricity use and commercial/industrial electricity use in South San Francisco. 22 California Air Resources Board (ARB). Climate Change Scoping Plan, December 2008. City of South San francisco, City of South San Francisco 2005 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, 2010. 3.3-31 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Executive Order S-O 1-07: Low-Carbon Fuel Standard The Scoping Plan estimates that the Low Carbon Fuel Standard would result in a reduction of 15 million metric tons of C02e in 2020. This represents a reduction of approximately 6.6 percent in GHG emissions from the State's transportation sector. Therefore, a 6.6 percent reduction was applied to the GHG emissions generated from South San Francisco's transportation sector. Assembly Bill 1493: Pavley Phase 1 and 2 The Scoping Plan estimates that Pavley Phases 1 and 2 will result in a reduction of 31.7 million metric tons C02e in 2020. This represents a reduction of approximately 14 percent in GHG emissions from the State's transportation sector. Therefore, a 14 percent reduction was applied to the GHG emissions generated from South San Francisco's transportation sector. South San Francisco Construction and Waste Ordinance The 2005 Inventory estimates GHG reductions as a result of the Construction & Demolition Waste Ordinance to be 5,709 MTC02eiyr. As no growth factor was provided, this reduction was assumed to stay constant in 2030. Other Reductions The 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines contain measures that would reduce operational-related emissions of criteria air pollutants, precursors, and GHGs from mobile, area, and stationary sources as well as estimated emission reductions for each measure. Table 3.3-7 shows list the relevant measures and demonstrates how the proposed Plan includes these measures. For a conservative analysis, the GHG calculations incorporate the following reduction measures in the GHG calculations: local serving retail within half-mile of a project, and 100 percent increase in the diversity of land uses, design, and density. A 15 percent reduction was applied to the GHG emissions generated from South San Francisco's transportation sector. 3.3-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.3-7: BAAQMD Mitigation Measures for GHG Emissions Measure Sector Applicable Sector Proposed Plan Mix of Uses Local serving retail within 1/2 mile of project Transit Service Bike & Pedestrian (Credit is given based on in- tersection density, sidewalk completeness, and bike net- work completeness; No re- duction if entire area within 1/2 mile is single use) Reductions Pollutants -3% to 9% CAPs, GHGs 2% CAPs, GHGs 0% to 15% CAPs, GHGs 0% to 9% CAPs, GHGs Mobile sources Mobile sources Mobile sources Mobile sources The proposed Plan will allow for mixed use development within the Planning Area. Area Plan policies include: LU-I Ensure an appropriate mix of uses, activities and amenities, to help the area develop as a citywide and regional destination. The proposed Plan will include accommodate local serving retail in the Planning Area. Area Plan policies include: LU-6 Provide a minimum of 100,000 to 200,000 square feet of additional regional and neighborhood-serving commercial uses in the Planning Area. LU-8 Provide at least one major space of 40,000 to 60,000 square feet that can ac- commodate a community-serving supermarket-either a new one or a relocated Safe- way, currently located in the southeastern portion of the Planning Area. In addition, the Fairfield Mixed-Use Development north of the Planning Area includes local serving retail such as a Trader Joe's. The Planning Area is served by Samtrans bus transit stops on EI Camino Real and Mission Road and the Planning Area is located south of the San Francisco BART Sta- tion. Centennial Way Linear Park runs through the Planning Area and is a multi-use path which accommodates pedestrians and bikes. In addition, additional pedestrian and bike linkages are proposed by the Plan. Area Plan policies include: C-2 Ensure that a continuous pedestrian and bicycle connection is provided along Centennial Way between Chestnut Avenue and the proposed Oak Avenue exten- sion. C-3 Emphasize linkages to Centennial Way with east-west pedestrian/bicycle connec- tions from new development and surrounding neighborhoods. These linkages will also help to break up larger blocks and development sites. C-4 Encourage pedestrian-oriented connections through development between chestnut Avenue and the planned Oak Avenue extension. C-5 Enhance pedestrian/bicycle connectivity to key destinations, including Kaiser Hospital, the potential library and other civic uses, such as Orange Memorial Park and the Municipal Services Building. 3.3-33 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.3-7: BAAQMD Mitigation Measures for GHG Emissions Measure Sector Applicable Sector Proposed Plan 100% increase in diversity of land use mix 100% increase in design (Le., presence of design guidelines for transit oriented develop- ment, complete streets stan- dards) 100% increase in density Install green roofs Notes: CAPs = Criteria Air Pollutants GHGs = Greenhouse Gases R = Residential Development C =Commercial Development AIC -Air Conditioning Reductions Pollutants 5% 3% 5% 1% CAPs, GHGs CAPs, GHGs CAPs, GHGs CAPs, GHGs Source: BAAQMD, 20 I 0; Dyett & Bhatia, 20 II. 3.3-34 Mobile sources Mobile sources Mobile sources R,C AIC The proposed Plan will allow for mixed use development within the Planning Area, allowing for residential, commercial, office, and public uses within the Planning Area. The proposed Plan includes design guidelines for the Planning Area, which provides guidance for achieving high quality design of private and the public realm. Existing maximum residential density is approximately 30 dulac. The proposed Plan will allow residential densities of up to 120, and up to 180 dulac for development meeting specified criteria. The proposed Plan includes sustainability measure and design guidelines including: Electricity UD-7 Ensure that development incorporates green building and site design measures such as energy-efficient building design, passive heatinglcooling strategies, permeable paving, low-water consumption planning, and stormwater management. DG-40 Extensive and Intensive green roofs will manage stormwater runoff, reduce energy consumption through insulation, and provide common open space for residen- tial units. Soil layers are typically two to six inches deep for Extensive roofs and eight to 24 inches deep for Intensive roofs, depending on loading capacity of the roof and the architectural and plant features desired. • All green roofs must be designed to permit routine maintenance and irriga- tion as necessary. Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.3-8: 2020 South San Francisco Community Emissions (Metric Tons of COle) 2020 Emissions State/Local 2020 Emissions 2020 Emissions with Business as Usual Mandates3 with State/ Local State/Local Mandates and Mandates Proposed Policies Sector 2005 No Project Project No Project No Project Project Project Re-Project 2020 (Proposed Project (Proposed 2020 (Proposed ductions w/ (Proposed Plan) 2020 Plan) Plan) Plan Policies4 Plan) 2020 2020 2020 2020 Residential 70,893 80,437 80,676 -6,618 -6,638 73,819 74,038 74,038 Commercial/Industrial 194,562 230,904 242,813 -26,65 I -28,026 204,253 214,788 214,788 Transportation 1,2 240,364 246,337 246,40 I -50,745 -50,759 195,591 195,642 -29,346 166,296 BART 612 706 833 706 833 833 Caltrain 508 586 691 586 691 691 Waste 74,073 79,952 81,602 -5,709 -5,709 79,952 81,602 81,602 Water 1,578 1,819 1,862 1,819 1,862 1,862 Off Road 22,399 25,419 26,431 25,419 26,431 26,431 Total 604,988 666,160 681,310 -89,724 -91,131 554,907 567,595 -29,346 566,541 Emissions per Capita 9.8 9.6 9.7 8.0 8.1 7.3 Emissions per Service Popu- lation 5.8 5.6 5.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 I. Emission Factors and Calculation Methods: ICLEI, Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology for Bay Area Governments, prepared as part of the BAAQMD-ICLEI Workshop, December 6, 2007. 2. Forecast for transportation based on 2020 annual VMT projections. 3. Reductions for residential and commercial/ industrial reflect electricity savings, based on Senate Bill 1078. Reductions for transportation reflect fuel efficiency and low carbon fuel savings, based on Assembly Bill 1493: Pavley Phases I and 2 and Executive Order S-O 1-07. Reductions for waste based on reduction listed in 2005 Inventory. 4. Reductions for transportation based on proposed policies and corresponding sector reductions listed in the 20 I 0 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Source: City of South San Francisco, 20 I 0; Dyett & Bhatia, 20 II; Kimley-Horn, 20 I 0; MTC, 2008, ICLEI/ City of South San Francisco, 2009; Caitrans, 2005, ABAG Projections, 2009, 3.3-35 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.3-9: 2030 South San Francisco Community Emissions (Metric Tons of C02e) 2030 Emissions State/Local Mandates3 2030 Emissions 2030 Emissions with Business as Usual with State/Local Man-State/Local Mandates and dates Proposed Policies Sector 2005 No Project Project No Project No Project Project Reduc-Project 2030 (Proposed Project (Proposed Project (Proposed tions w/ Plan (Proposed Plan) 2030 2030 Plan) 2030 2030 Plan) 2030 Policies4 Plan) 2030 Residential 70,893 88,049 90,885 -7,245 -7,478 80,804 83,407 83,407 Commercial/Industrial 194,562 275,500 276,862 -31,798 -31,956 243,701 244,906 244,906 Transportation 1.2 240,364 265,862 288,209 -54,768 -59,371 211,095 228,838 -43,231 185,607 BART 612 795 810 795 810 810 Caltrain 508 660 673 660 673 673 Waste 74,073 88,844 98,073 -5,709 -5,709 83,135 92,364 92,364 Water 1,578 2,050 2,089 2,050 2,089 2,089 Off Road 22,399 29,096 29,656 29,096 29,656 29,656 Total 604,988 750,856 787,256 -99,520 -104,514 620,190 650,997 -43,231 639,511 Emissions per Capita 9.8 10.0 10.2 8.2 8.4 8.3 Emissions per Service Population 5.8 5.6 5.7 4.6 4.7 4.6 I. Emission Factors and Calculation Methods: ICLEI, Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology for Bay Area Governments, prepared as part of the BAAQMD-ICLEI Workshop, December 6, 2007. 2. Forecast for transportation based on 2030 annual VMT projections. 3. Reductions for residential and commercial/ industrial reflect electricity savings, based on Senate Bill 1078. Reductions for transportation reflect fuel efficiency and low carbon fuel savings, based on Assembly Bill 1493: Pavley Phases I and 2 and Executive Order S-O 1-07. Reductions for waste based on reduction listed in 2005 Inventory. 4. Reductions for transportation based on proposed policies and corresponding sector reductions listed in the 20 I 0 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Source: City of South San Francisco, 20 I 0; Dyett & Bhatia, 20 II; Kimley-Horn, 20 I 0; MTC, 2008, ICLEI/ City of South San Francisco, 2009; Caitrans, 2005, ABAG Projections, 2009. 3.3-36 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures The emission reductions as a result of State /local programs will result in 2030 emission levels that are slightly higher than baseline levels under the No Project. The emission reductions as a result of State/local programs and proposed Plan policies will also result in 2030 Plan emission levels that are slightly higher than baseline levels; however the emissions per service population are lower than the baseline rate under the proposed Plan. With State/local mandates and proposed Plan policies, the emissions per service population will be 4.6 in 2020 with the proposed Plan. In addition, emission levels could potentially be even lower under the proposed Plan. The Office of the California Attorney General has a list of measures to offset or reduce global warming impacts and several of these measures would be implemented with the proposed Plan.21 • Adopt land use designations to carry out policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, e.g., policies to minimize or reduce VMT, expand development near existing public transportation corridors, encourage alternative modes of transportation, and in- crease infill, mixed use, and higher density development. • Identify and facilitate the development of land uses not already present in local districts -such as residential uses in business districts or supermarkets, parks and recreation fields, and schools in neighborhoods-to reduce vehicle miles traveled and allow bicycl- ing and walking to these destinations. • Enact policies to limit or discourage low density development that segregates employ- ment, services, and residential areas. • Provide permitting-related and other incentives for energy efficient building projects. The BAAQMD 2010 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines also contains a list of strategies and measures recommended for inclusion in plans. Table 3.3-10 shows the policies which are incorporated into the proposed Plan. Ot1lce of the California Attorney General. Global Warming Measures, Updated December 9, 2008, available at http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdflGW _mitigation_measures.pdt~ accessed June 9, 2009. 3.3-37 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.310: Qualifying Mitigating Proposed Plan Policies BAAQMD Mitigation measure or General/Area Plan Policy Urban Form Create and enhance landscaped greenway, trail, and sidewalk connections between neighborhoods, commercial areas, activity centers, and parks. Adopt policies supporting infill development; Reinvest in existing neigh- borhoods and promote infill development as a preference over new, greenfield development. Ensure that proposed land uses are supported by a multi-modal transpor- tation system and that the land uses themselves support the development of the transportation system. Designate a central city core for high-density and mixed-use develop- ment. 3.3-38 Proposed Plan Policies UD-13 Create an open space and trail extension of Centennial Way along the BART right-of-way from Chestnut Avenue to Colma Creek, just north of the Oak Avenue extension. Establish the portion between Chestnut Avenue and Oak Avenue as a pedestrian district. UD-20 Design streets cape improvements consistent with Figure 3-5. UD-22 Integrate parks and plazas throughout new development along pedestrian connections, Centennial Way and Colma Creek to create a cohesive and connected public realm. UD-24 Equip pedestrian-oriented streets with trees, benches, outdoor seating, kiosks, and other amenities. C-2 Ensure that a continuous pedestrian and bicycle connection is pro- vided along Centennial Way between Chestnut Avenue and the proposed Oak Avenue extension. The Planning Area is an infill area and is located close to the South San Francisco BART Station. The proposed Plan allows for mixed-use development within the Planning Area, allowing high intensity and high density uses within close proximity to the South San Francisco BART station. LU-2 Provide uses that reflect the area's proximity to BART and visibility along EI Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. EI Camino Real has the potential to be a place for residents to work, live, shop and play, creating links between communities that promote walking and transit and an improved and meaningful quality of life. To support this vision, the City of South San Francisco has already undertaken the South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment (2010) which allows for mixed- uses and increased intensity/density along the southern portion of EI Ca- mino Real in the City. The Planning Area, located along EI Camino will serve to complete a continuous high intensity/density corridor along EI Camino Real, connecting the South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations. Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.310: Qualifying Mitigating Proposed Plan Policies BAAQMD Mitigation measure or General/Area Plan Policy Provide financial incentives and density bonuses to entice development within the designated central city. Achieve a jobs/housing balance or improve the jobs/housing ratio within the plan area. Adopt incentives for the concurrent development of retail, office, and residential land uses within mixed-use projects or areas. Require mixed- use development to include ground-floor retail. Transit-Oriented Design Develop transit/pedestrian-oriented design guidelines. Identify and desig- nate appropriate sites during general plan updates and amendments. Sustainable Development Promote re-use of previously developed property, construction materials, and/or vacant sites within a built-up area. Provide land area zoned for commercial and industrial uses to support a mix of retail, office, professional, service, and manufacturing businesses. Activity Centers Provide pedestrian amenities, traffic-calming features, plazas and public Proposed Plan Policies LU-I Ensure an appropriate mix of uses, activities, and amenities, to help the area develop as a citywide and regional destination. The proposed Plan also includes a minimum FAR requirement, which limits low density development in the area. In addition, the proposed Plan would make available FAR and corresponding density bonuses for projects that meet specific criteria, such as participation in the TDM pro- gram or incorporation of design measures, such as green building. Each of these approaches would allow an additional FAR bonus of 0.5, totaling in an FAR bonus of 1.0 if both approaches apply. The proposed Plan will improve the jobs/housing ratio within the Planning Area from 8.0 to 1.0. UD-I Require active frontage along key streets, open spaces and linear connections, as shown in Figure 3-3. UD-2 Ensure that the ground level of buildings along Chestnut Avenue and EI Camino Real contains commercial uses, with other uses at higher levels. UD-4 Line internal pedestrian connections through mixed-use develop- ment with active ground floor uses. The proposed Plan includes Design Guidelines which build on the prin- ciples and polices in the plan. They provide specific and board recom- mendations to create high-quality buildings and site plans that will result in a more attractive and accessible urban destination. The Planning Area is a built-up area and includes a few vacant parcels. The Planning Area will be zoned mixed-use which will allow for a mix of retail, office, professional, and service businesses. LU-6 Provide a minimum of 100,000 to 200,000 sguare feet of additional 3.3-39 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.310: Qualifying Mitigating Proposed Plan Policies BAAQMD Mitigation measure or General/Area Plan Policy areas, attractive streetscapes, shade trees, lighting, and retail stores at activity centers. Provide for a mix of complementary retail uses to be located together to create activity centers and commercial districts serving adjacent neigh- borhoods. Permit upper-story residential and office uses in neighborhood shopping areas. Provide pedestrian links between commercial districts and neighbor- hoods. Regional Circulation Adopt a (or implement the existing) Transportation Demand Manage- 3.3-40 Proposed Plan Policies regional and neighborhood-serving commercial uses in the Planning Area. LU-7 Ensure that the mix of commercial uses provides adequate neigh- borhood services for new residential development to reduce the need for driving for everyday needs. LU-8 Provide at least one major space of 40,000 to 60,000 square feet that can accommodate a community-serving supermarket-either a new one or a relocated Safeway, currently located in the southeastern portion of the Planning Area .. LU-IO Orient neighborhood-serving commercial establishments to the public realm and ensure easy access to pedestrian and bicycle connec- tions. UD-13 Create an open space and trail extension of Centennial Way along the BART right-of-way from Chestnut Avenue to Colma Creek, just north of the Oak Avenue extension. Establish the portion between Chestnut Avenue and Oak Avenue as a pedestrian district. UD-16 Provide a diverse range of amenities and activities throughout park spaces in the Planning Area, including passive and active recreation areas; urban plazas with landscaping, paving, benches, and trees; and lin- kages along Centennial Way to access bike and pedestrian trails. LU-I Ensure an appropriate mix of uses, activities, and amenities, to help the area develop as a citywide and regional destination. LU-7 Ensure that the mix of commercial uses provides adequate neigh- borhood services for new residential development to reduce the need for driving for everyday needs. UD-2 Ensure that the ground level of buildings along Chestnut Avenue and EI Camino Real contains commercial uses, with other uses at higher levels. LU-IO Orient neighborhood-serving commercial establishments to the public realm and ensure easy access to pedestrian and bicycle connec- tions. P-I I Continue to administer and implement the transportation demand Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.310: Qualifying Mitigating Proposed Plan Policies BAAQMD Mitigation measure or General/Area Plan Policy ment Ordinance. Parking Reduce parking for private vehicles while increasing options for alterna- tive transportation. Eliminate minimum parking requirements for new development. Require that parking is paid for separately and is not included in rent for residential or commercial space. Encourage parking sharing between different land uses. Bicycles and Pedestrians Provide safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections to and from activity centers, commercial districts, offices, neighborhoods, schools, other major activity centers. Proposed Plan Policies management program through the Municipal Code. P-I Balance parking need and provision with the desire to promote tran- sit, walking, and bicycling. Do not mandate any minimum parking stan- dards; rather, establish maximum parking standards and let parking provi- sion be determined by market need. P-I Balance parking need and provision with the desire to promote tran- sit, walking, and bicycling. Do not mandate any minimum parking stan- dards; rather, establish maximum parking standards and let parking provi- sion be determined by market need. P-6 Allow parking areas exceeding one space per housing unit to be pro- vided in form of tandem parking (which will reduce parking construction costs), and/or allow (but do not require) parking in excess of one space per unit to be "unbundled" (that is, purchased or leased separately from the housing unit). P-2 Require all non-residential development within the area shown in Figure 3-8 to participate in a parking district to efficiently meet parking demand. Establish a special assessment on the properties within the dis- trict to fund the majority of a shared parking structure and develop an in- lieu fee program providing developers the option to use district facilities for their parking needs. P-7 Design mixed-use developments to enable parking to be shared effi- ciently between various uses. C-3 Emphasize linkages to Centennial Way with east-west pede- strian/bicycle connections from new development and surrounding neigh- borhoods. These linkages will also help to break up larger blocks and development sites. C-4 Encourage pedestrian-oriented connections through development between Chestnut Avenue and the planned Oak Avenue extension. C-5 Enhance pedestrian/bicycle connectivity to key destinations, including 3.3-41 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.310: Qualifying Mitigating Proposed Plan Policies BAAQMD Mitigation measure or General/Area Plan Policy Ensure that non-motorized transportation systems are connected and not interrupted by impassable barriers, such as freeways. Retrofit abandoned rail corridors as segments of a bikeway and pede- strian trail system. Regional Rail Transit Create activity centers and transit-oriented development projects near transit stations. Source: BAAQMD, 20 I 0; Dyett & Bhatia, 20 II. 3.3-42 Proposed Plan Policies Kaiser Hospital, the potential library and other civic uses, such as Orange Memorial Park and the Municipal Services Building. C-2 Ensure that a continuous pedestrian and bicycle connection is pro- vided along Centennial Way between Chestnut Avenue and the proposed Oak Avenue extension. Portions of Centennial Way Linear Park, which is located on top of the BART Right of Way is located within the Planning Area. In addition, the proposed Plan proposes the establishment of a pedestrian district through the Planning Area to further enhance pedestrian and bikeway connections. The Planning Area is in close proximity to the South San Francisco BART Station. Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures As described above, GHG emissions are in and of themselves a significant cumulative impact. However, due to emission reductions that would result from State regulations and the implementation of the proposed Plan, emissions in 2020 and 2030 would not exceed existing levels. In addition, per service population emissions would not exceed 4.6 metric tons of C02e. This indicates that the proposed Plan does not make a considerable contribution to the impact. Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact The policies highlighted in Tables 3.3-7 and 3.3-10 along with other policies included as part of the proposed Plan, help to alleviate the cumulative impact. Mitigation Measures Given that the project's contribution is less than considerable, no additional mitigation measures are required. Impact 3.3-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. (Less than Significant) The City of South San Francisco currently does not have any adopted policy or plan regarding the reduction of GHG emissions. The City has established a community-wide inventory of GHG emissions and is currently developing a climate action plan. Under AB 32, which requires a statewide reduction of GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, ARB has developed a Scoping Plan outlining the State's strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG emissions limit, which proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California. AB 32 does not require individual sectors or jurisdictions to reduce emissions by a specific amount. However, as discussed for Impact 3.3-3, South San Francisco GHG emissions will be reduced to below current levels as a result of State mandates, and GHG emissions would be further reduced as a result of implementing the proposed Plan. These reductions will assist California in achieving its reduction goal; therefore the proposed Plan does not conflict with AB 32, resulting in less than significant impacts. In addition, the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan provides a comprehensive plan to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed Plan and the City's General Plan policies conform to the control strategies included in the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. These policies are detailed in Table 3.2-5 in Chapter 3.2 Air Quality and show that the proposed Plan is consistent with the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan control measures, therefore resulting in less than significant impacts. Mitigation Measures N one required. 3.3-43 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures This page intentionally left blank. 3.3-44 3.4 Cultural Resources Cultural resources in the Bay Area reflect centuries of human settlement in the region, and document the changing character of economic, social, and spiritual activities. This chapter evaluates the potential cultural resource impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PHYSICAL SETTING The Planning Area is approximately a mile west of the San Francisco Bay and has been urbanized with a variety of residential, commercial, and institutional land uses. The Planning Area is generally flat to gently sloped and within the natural flood plain of Colma Creek. Prehistorically, this would probably have been an oak grassland alongside the more thickly- vegetated Colma Creek riparian corridor. The Planning Area is located approximately 0.5 miles northwest of a former inlet of the San Francisco Bay.] Prehistoric Context The first survey of archeological sites in the San Francisco Bay region was led by N.C. Nelson for the University of California at Berkeley between 1906 and 1908, documenting 425 shell mounds. These shell mounds typified Bay Area archeology and reflected its economic unity, which relied greatly on marine resources. Cultural materials discovered at the University Village Complex (SMA-277) in San Mateo County indicate that the San Francisco Peninsula Region was inhabited between circa 3,500 and 2,500 B.c. Excavation and analysis of that site showed that the complex is earlier than "middle Horizon," yet unlike "Early Horizon" deposits, which led excavators to believe that a pre-Costanoan or Early Bay culture once existed.2 Native American Period The open exposure, easy slope, availability of fresh water, and location along one of only two easy routes up and down the Peninsula made this location attractive to the Ohlone Indians prior to the European invasion. Several villages were located in the territory of the Urebure tribelet when the Spanish arrived, including occupations along Colma Creek.' Spanish Period The first Europeans to reach the San Francisco area were Spanish explorers. An expedition led by Juan Bautista de Anza in 1776 resulted in the establishment of Mission San Francisco de Asis (Mission Delores). A few months later, Mission Santa Clara de Asis was founded to ] Jillian E. Guldenbrein, Sonoma State Northwest Information Center, Record search results for the proposed El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, City of South San Prancisco, October 13, 2010. 2 Carolyn Rice, Archeological Survey Report for BART_San Francisco Airport Extension Project, June 1994, Revised December 1994. , Matthew R. Clark, Holman & Associates, Initial Subsurface Archeological Reconnaissance of Two Redevelopment Parcels on Chestnut Avenue in the City of South San Francisco, California, April 17, 2000, Amended August 11,2000. Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures the south. The El Camino Real (now Mission Road, which runs parallel along the eastern side of the Planning Area) became a heavily traveled route between the two missions and their outposts.' Mexican Period During the Mexican rule of California (1822 through 1848), large tracts ofland were issued to private individuals, usually cattle ranchers and hide and tallow traders. The Planning Area was part of the 1820s Mexican "Rancho Buri Burf' Land Grant, one of the largest grants on the peninsula. Early American Period This was the general location of the early never-incorporated nineteenth century agricultural community of "Baden;" the Southern Pacific "Baden Station" was located at the junction of Chestnut Avenue and EI Camino. The early agricultural/pastoral community of Baden was the location of the" 12 Mile House" stage stop and public house on Mission Road as early as 1853. Baden came into being when cattleman Charles Lux bought 1,500 acres of the Buri Buri Rancho in 1856 and built a large house near the creek and Planning Area. Two years later, he and rancher Henry Miller found a cattle company. Lux and Miller supplied San Francisco stockyards for the next 30 years, the cattle being driven up EI Camino to Baden and then into San Francisco. The first local railroad ran through Baden when it began regular service down the Peninsula in 1863. After Lux died, in 1888 meatpacking titans Swift and Armour joined forces to form the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company, bought Lux's land and 2,000 more acres, and began the City of South San Francisco. The City was formally incorporated in 1908. Recorded Resources in South San Francisco Historic Resources South San Francisco's history is notable for the close relationship of industrial and community growth. The development of a residential town to support new industrial plants was a calculated strategy of local industrialists. In turn, success of the city's industries gave South San Francisco an important role in the region. South San Francisco's identity as "The Industrial City" is a historically appropriate designation. The sign on Sign Hill, one of two resources that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, has proclaimed the City's identity since 1891 when the J. Dunn Real Estate Company, South San Francisco's first realtor, initially installed the sign. The other is the Martin Building located Downtown. From 1985 to 1986, the City of South San Francisco performed a comprehensive survey to identify the architectural and historic resources of South San Francisco. The 1985-1986 South San Francisco Historic Preservation Survey identified several historic homes and commercial , City of South San francisco, EI Camino Corridor Program Final EIR: IVK Cultural Resources, April 1993. 3.4-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures buildings located along Grand Avenue near the Civic Center, and around the intersection of Grand Avenue and Eucalyptus Street. Archeological Resources Consistent with its history as an Ohlone settlement location, South San Francisco has Native American village sites and shell mounds scattered around the city. The City's General Plan identifies two resources: • A Native American archaeological village (CA-SMA-299) located within the El Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Area that contains household items, projectile points, dietary debris, and human burials. • A large shell mound (CA-SMA-40) and one small shell midden (CA-SMA-40) near the south slope of San Bruno Mountain. The shell mound is considered a significant archaeological resource.5 Paleontological Resources Fossil remains are considered to be important as they provide indicators of the earth's chronology and history. The University of California Museum of Paleontology specimens list contains more than 300 localities where fossils have been found in San Mateo County. At least one locality is located in the City of South San Francisco.6 The locality contains records for Equus which includes horses, donkeys, and zebras. Equus has numerous extinct species known only from fossils. The University of California Museum of Paleontology does not provide the exact location of where the Equus fossil was found in South San Francisco. However, the lithology of the fossil is identified as mudstone which is located in areas near the Bay and in the San Bruno Mountains. In addition, due to the built out nature of the Planning Area, it is unlikely that the locality of the fossil is in the Planning Area. Recorded Resources in and around the Planning Area There are no sites in the Planning Area listed on the National Register of Historic Places. A records search conducted by the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historic Resources Information System at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park indicates that there have been 15 cultural resource studies that in total cover approximately 60 percent of the Planning Area. The records search identified recorded Native American archeological resources and historic-period cultural resources within and adjacent to the Planning Area. Table 3.4-1 lists the recorded sites, their location and their state rating. City of South San Prancisco, General Plan, October 1999, p. 242. (, University of California Museum of Paleontology. Website available at http://ucmpdb.berkcley.edu, accessed Pebruary 26, 2009. 3.4-3 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.4-1: Cultural Resources In and Around the Planning Area Site Number Primary Address APN Location Number State Rating CA-SMA-299 CA-SMA-355 P-41-409 P-41-495 n/a n/a n/a Within Planning Area 6Y P-41-382 01 1-327-040 Adjacent to Planning Area, n/a extent of boundaries unconfirmed 1281 Mission Road 0 I 0-430-180 Within Planning Area n/a 1080 Mission Road 0 I 1-302-170 Adjacent to Planning Area 7L 6Y = Determined ineligible for the National Register (NR) by consensus through Section 106 process, but not evaluated for the California Register (CR) or Local Listing 7L = State Historic Landmark and Point of Historical Interest that was designated prior to January 1998, needs to be re-evaluated using current standards. Source: Northwest Information Center, 20 10; Dyett & Bhatia, 20 10. The following is a description of each resource listed in the table, as well as the current status of the resource: • CA-SMA-299 (P-41-409). This prehistoric site is identified by the General Plan and is located within the Planning Area. However, the site record, completed in 1998, states that the site has been "completely destroyed." Destructive factors stated in the site record include soil mining of the midden in the 1930s to 1950s, the channelization of Colma Creek, and the construction of the SPTCo rail line. Broken rock -often a remnant of prehistoric habitation -was located in abundance on the surface, but never associated with anthropic soil, or in a cultural context. During the field survey for the BART-San Francisco Airport Extension Project, it appeared that large equipment was used to scrape and pile surface dirt and fill. In addition, the large parking garage for Kaiser Hospital, located directly west of the former site, and landscaping appear to have contributed to completely erasing all traces of the former site.! • CA-SMA-355 (P-41-495). This prehistoric site was discovered during the development of the Chestnut Creek Senior Housing Project, located at 65 Chestnut Avenue (APN 011-327-040), which is adjacent to the Planning Area. However, the site boundaries are unclear because cultural materials are buried under fill. Cultural midden deposits between five and eight feet below current surface were encountered on the Chestnut Creek Senior Housing Project site and at one location the midden was recorded as a minimum of two feet and up to seven feet thick.B ! Carolyn Rice, BART-San Francisco Airport Extension Project Draft Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement Archeological Survey Report, June 1994, Revised December 1994. B Matthew R. Clark, Holman & Associates, Final Report: Subsurface Archeological Reconnaissance, Assessment of Potential Project Impacts, and Resource Management Recommendations for the Chestnut Creek Senior Housing Project, South San Francisco, September 6, 2000. 3.4-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • 1281 Mission Road (P-41-382). This resource, identified within the Planning Area, is listed as an early-twentieth century "Queen Anne" style cottage, built circa 1900- 1915, located at 1281 Mission Road.0 The cottage has since been demolished and the current owner of 1281 Mission Road (APN 010-430-180) is listed as the San Mateo County Transit District. • 1080 Mission Road. This resource is listed as the site of the former Twelve Mile House, located adjacent to the Planning Area. The Twelve Mile House was a way station for stagecoaches built in 1860. The Twelve Mile House was sold to a contractor in 1977 and has since been demolished. The site is identified as a Historic Marker Site through the Historic Marker Program, created by the City of South San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission, to identify historically or culturally significant sites throughout South San Francisco. The records search conducted by the NWI C also identified an unnamed property at 1171 El Camino Real with a status code of 6Y. However, an address search indicates that 1171 El Camino Real is located in Colma, north of South San Francisco. The early district of Colma extended from the San Francisco County line to parts of today's Daly City and South San Francisco and from San Bruno Mountain to Pacifica. The resource located at 1171 El Camino Real is a mausoleum on the grounds of the Salem Memorial Park Cemetery. REGULATORY SETTING Federal Regulations National Historic Preservation Act The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is the most prominent federal law dealing with historic preservation. The NHP A established guidelines to "preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and to maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and a variety of individual choice." The NHP A includes regulations specifically for federal land-holding agencies, but also includes regulations (Section 106) which pertain to all projects that are funded, permitted, or approved by any federal agency and which have the potential to affect cultural resources. All projects that are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) are also subject to compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. At the federal level, the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) carries out reviews under Section 106 of the NHP A. National Register of Historic Places NHPA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish a National Register of Historic Places (National Register), an inventory of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant on a national, State, or local level in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The National Register is maintained by the National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, State Historic Preservation Office, and grants-in-aid programs. ° B. Giberti and M.L Brack. Historic Resources Inventory form for 1281 Mission Road. On me, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, 1993. 3.4-5 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures To be potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), a building must usually be over 50 years old and must have historic significance and must retain its physical integrity. More detailed eligibility criteria are described in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 60. Historical resources achieving significance within less than 50 years may be considered for listing if they are of "exceptional importance," or if they are integral parts of districts that are eligible for listing in the National Register. Procedures for the Protection of Historic Properties (33 CPR 325, Appendix C) Code of Federal Regulations, Section 33, Part 325 establishes the procedures to be followed by the u.S. Army Corps of Engineers to fulfill the requirements set forth in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), other applicable historic preservation laws, and Presidential directives as they relate to the regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers. State Regulations Office of Historic Preservation California Public Resources Code 5024 requires consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) when a project may impact historical resources located on State-owned land. California Register of Historic Resources The SHPO also maintains the California Register of Historic Resources (California Register). Historic properties listed, or formally designated for eligibility to be listed, on the National Register are automatically listed on the California Register (Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1). State Landmarks and Points of Interest are also automatically listed. The California Register can also include properties designated under local preservation ordinances or identified through local historic resource surveys. For a historic resource to be eligible for listing on the California Register, it must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria: • It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; • It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; • It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or • It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation (California Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1). 3.4-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Additional criteria are listed in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 11.5. A building must usually be over 45 years old, must have historic significance, and must retain its physical integrity. Historical resources achieving significance within less than 45 years may be considered for listing in the California Register if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand it historical importance. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 21083.2: Archaeological Resources CEQA directs the lead agency on any project undertaken, assisted, or permitted by the State to include the following in its environmental impact report for the project: determines the project's effect on unique archeological resources; defines unique archeological resources; enables a lead agency to require an applicant to make reasonable effort to preserve or mitigate impacts to any affected unique archeological resource; sets requirements for the applicant to provide payment to cover costs of mitigation; and restricts excavation as a mitigation measure. 21084.1 : Historic Resources CEQA defines historic resources and establishes that an adverse effect on a historical resource qualifies as a significant effect on the environment. CEQA Guidelines Historic Resources Section 15064.5 of CEQA guidelines define three ways that a property can qualify as a significant historical resource for the purposes of CEQA review: • If the resource is listed in or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); • If the resource is included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1 (k) of the Public Resources Code, or is identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code unless a preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant; or, • If the lead agency determines the resource to be significant as supported by substantial evidence (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, section 15064.5). In addition to determining the significance and eligibility of any identified historical resource under CEQA and the California Register, historic properties must be evaluated under the criteria for the National Register should federal funding or permitting become involved in any undertaking subject to this document. 3.4-7 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Archeological Resources CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 states that "public agencies should, whenever feasible, seek to avoid damaging effects on any historical resources of an archeological nature." The Guidelines further state that preservation-in-place is the preferred approach to mitigate impacts on archaeological resources. However, according to Section 15126.4, if data recovery through excavation is "the only feasible mitigation," then a "data recovery plan, which makes provision for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the historical resources, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken." Data recovery is not required for a resource of an archaeological nature if "the lead agency determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from and about the archaeological or historical resource." The section further states that its provisions apply to those archaeological resources that also qualify as historic resources. Paleontological Resources Paleontological resources are afforded protection by CEQA. Appendix G (Part V) of the CEQA Guidelines provides guidance relative to significant impacts on paleontological resources, stating that a project will normally result in a significant impact on the environment if it will " ... disrupt or adversely affect a paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature, except as part of a scientific study." Section 5097.5 of the Public Resources Code specifies that any unauthorized removal of paleontological remains is a misdemeanor. Further, the California Penal Code Section 622.5 sets the penalties for the damage or removal of paleontological resources. Native American Heritage Act Also relevant to the evaluation and mitigation of impacts to cultural resources, the Native American Heritage Act (NAHA) of 1976 established the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and protects Native American religious values on state property (see California Public Resources Code 5097.9). PRC 5097.98 defines the steps that need to be taken if human remains are identified on a site, including the notification of descendants and the disposition of remains and grave goods. Disposition of Human Remains Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that when an initial study identifies the existence, or the probable likelihood, of Native American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials. Furthermore, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the county coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC. 3.4-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Health and Safety Code Section 8010-8011 establishes a state repatriation policy intent that is consistent with and facilitates implementation of the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. The Act strives to ensure that all California Indian human remains and cultural items are treated with dignity and respect. It encourages voluntary disclosure and return of remains and cultural items by publicly funded agencies and museums in California. It also states the intent for the state to provide mechanisms for aiding California Indian tribes, including non-federally recognized tribes, in filing repatriation claims and getting responses to those claims. Tribal Consultation Guidelines Passed in 2004, Senate Bill (SB) 18 (Burton, D-San Francisco) now Government Code Section 65351 and 65352 establishes a procedure to help tribes and jurisdictions define tribal cultural resources and sacred areas more clearly and incorporate protection of these places earlier into the General Plan and Specific Plan processes. The SB 18 process mirrors the federal 106 Review process used by archaeologists as part of the environmental review conducted under NEPA (36 CFR Part 800.16) While not a component of CEQA review per se, the Lead agency is required to request consultation with responsible and trustee agencies, such as NAHC and neighboring tribes, during the initial study and EIR process (PRC 21080.3, 21080.4). California Historical Resources Information System The California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) is a statewide system for managing information on the full range of historical resources identified in California. CHRIS is a cooperative partnership between the citizens of California, historic preservation professionals, 12 Information Centers, and various agencies. This system bears the following responsibilities: integrate newly recorded sites and information on known resources into the California Historical Resources Inventory; furnish information on known resources and surveys to governments, institutions, and individuals who have a justifiable need to know; and supply a list of consultants who are qualified to do work within their area. Typically, the initial step in addressing cultural resources in the project review process involves contacting the appropriate Information Center to conduct a record search. A record search should identify any previously recorded historical resources and previous archaeological studies within the project area, as well as provide recommendations for further work, if necessary. Depending on the nature and location of the project, the project proponent or lead agency may be required to contact appropriate Native American representatives to aid in the identification of traditional cultural properties. If known cultural resources are present within the proposed project area, or if the area has not been previously investigated for the presence of such resources, the Information Center may recommend a survey for historical, archaeological and paleontological sites. Cultural resources that may be adversely affected by an undertaking could warrant further evaluation for test excavations. For historical sites or standing structures, historical research may be necessary and an architectural evaluation may be warranted. Data recovery excavations may be warranted in the case of unavoidable damage to archaeological sites. If human burials are present, contact the appropriate Coroner's office. A professional archaeologist and 3.4-9 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures appropriate Native American representatives should also be consulted (Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the PRC). When an initial study identifies the existence, or the probable likelihood, of Native American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. Local Regulations South San Francisco Historic Preservation Survey (1985-1986) The survey identifies the architectural and historic resources of South San Francisco. The survey is intended to serve as a resource in the planning process, to integrate the preservation of cultural resources with decisions affecting South San Francisco. By identifying potential historic resources, the survey allows for the Historic Preservation Commission to review all requests for demolition permits for these resources. South San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission The Commission designates historic resources; reviews applications for altering or demolishing historic resources; disseminates information to the public concerning structures, sites and areas deemed worthy of preservation; and considers and recommends to the City Council methods for encouraging and achieving historical or architectural preservation.lo Procedures to identify and designate cultural resources are outlined in Chapter 2.58 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. South San Francisco General Plan (1999) Chapter 7: Open Space and Conservation Element 7.5-G-I Conserve historic, cultural, and archaeological resources for the aesthetic, educational, economic, and scientific contribution they make to South San Francisco's identity and quality of life. 7.5-G-2 Encourage municipal and community awareness, appreciation, and support for South San Francisco's historic, cultural, and archaeological resources. 7.5-1-4 Ensure the protection of known archaeological resources in the city by requiring a records review for any development proposed in areas of known resources. 7.5-1-5 In accordance with State law, require the preparation of a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist in the event that archaeological resources are uncovered. ]() City of South San Prancisco (SSP). Historic preservation, available at http://www.ssfnetinews/displaynews.asp?NewsID=518, accessed April 2, 2009. 3.4-/0 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures IMPACT ANALYSIS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Implementation of the proposed Plan would have a potentially significant impact if it would result in: • Substantial changes to the significance of a historical resource, defined as physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historic resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5); • Substantial changes to the significance of an archaeological resource; • Direct or indirect destruction of a unique paleontological resource; or • Disturbance of any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS The Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historic Resources Information system at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park was emailed a records search request on September 20, 2010. The NWIC is an affiliate of the State of California Office of Historic Preservation and is the official State repository of cultural resources reports and records, for a 16-county area. A response, dated October 13, 2010 was received. (See Appendix C.) The NAHC was contacted on October 5, 2010 for a contact list oflocal tribal representatives who may have knowledge of Native cultural resources within the Planning Area. The NAHC was contacted again on October 28, 2010. A response from the NAHC dated November 10, 2010 was received. The list of local tribal representatives provided by the NAHC were contacted on November 15,2010 via first class certified mail and email. In addition to the records search, several archeological surveys of the Planning Area were reviewed. The following archeological surveys, which are available on file at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University, were reviewed: • Carolyn Rice, Archeological Survey Report for BART _San Francisco Airport Extension Project, June 1994, Revised December 1994. • Miley Paul Holman, Holman & Associates, Archival Search and Field Inspection of the Chestnut Creek Site, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California Letter, March 16,2000. • Matthew R. Clark, Holman & Associates, Initial Subsurface Archeological Reconnaissance of Two Redevelopment Parcels on Chestnut A venue in the City of South San Francisco, California, April 17, 2000, Amended August 11, 2000. 3.4-11 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • Matthew R. Clark, Holman & Associates, Final Report: Subsurface Archeological Reconnaissance, Assessment of Potential Project Impacts, and Resource Management Recommendations for the Chestnut Creek Senior Housing Project, South San Francisco, September 6, 2000. • Matthew R. Clark, Holman & Associates, City of South San Francisco Wet Weather Program, Initial Historic Properties Research for Section 106 Compliance, Phase 5: Linden Storm Drain Improvements, January 2004. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS According to the NWIC, there is a moderate to high potential of identifying unrecorded Native American and historic-period archeological resources in the Planning Area. The NWIC also identified three recorded historic buildings that may be significant, which have been identified as outside the Planning Area or demolished. The NWIC also identifies six buildings and a segment of the Southern Pacific Railroad within the Planning Area that meet the Office of Historic Preservation's minimum age standard that buildings, structures, and objects 45 years or older may be of historical value. The lithology of the fossil identified within South San Francisco by the Museum Paleontology collections at the University of California, is not present in the Planning Area. New development allowed under the proposed Plan has the potential to disrupt undiscovered archeological resources and unrecorded historic resources during project construction. However, existing national, state and local laws as well as policies contained in the General Plan would reduce these potential impacts on archeological and historic resources to less than significant levels. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.4-1 Future development under the proposed Plan may have the potential to adversely affect historic resources that appear on State historical inventories or may be eligible for inclusion on such lists. (Less than significant) The NWIC indentified one recorded property within the Planning Area. This property located at 1281 Mission Road is listed in as an early-twentieth century "Queen Anne" style cottage, built circa 1900-1915, located at 1281 Mission RoadY However, the cottage has since been demolished and the current owner of 1281 Mission Road (APN 010-430-180) is listed as the San Mateo County Transit District. The NWIC also identified seven unrecorded properties in and around the Planning Area, which meet the Office of Historic Preservation's minimum age standard that buildings, structures and objects 45 years or older may be of historical value. However, in addition to age, these unrecorded buildings, structures and objects will have to possess architecturally significant elements or integrity in order to be eligible for inclusion on the California Register 11 B. Giberti and M.L Brack. Historic Resources Inventory form for 1281 Mission Road. On file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, 1993. 3.4-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures of Historic Places. The 1985-1986 South San Francisco Historic Preservation Survey does not identify any local historic resources within the Planning Area. Current federal, state and local laws will reduce potential impacts on historic resources to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.4-2 Future development under the proposed Plan may have the potential to adversely affect undiscovered archaeological resources and human remains. (Less than significant) Although the NWIC identifies a recorded Native American archeological resource, CA- SMA-299 within the Planning Area, evaluation of the site as part of the BART extension determined that the integrity of the site had been destroyed and that the resource was absent where it had previously been identified. Future development under the proposed Plan would have no impact on this identified archeological site. During the development of the Chestnut Creek Senior Housing, CA-SMA-355 was discovered under the current surface of the site. CA-SMA-355 is located in an area that is considered the edge of what use to be Bayside marshes (which used to extend up to Orange Park and nearly Chestnut Avenue) and near Colma Creek, rising from the former creek banks to a high spot just upland from the marshlands.12 Although the Chestnut Creek Senior Housing site is adjacent to the Planning Area, the extent of the boundaries of CA-SMA-355 is unknown. There exists sensitivity for historic archeological materials within the Planning Area since it includes the former edge of the marshlands. There may be potential for construction activities from new development under the proposed Plan to impact prehistorical archeological resources in the Planning Area. Various State regulations provide guidance on the steps that must be taken if significant archaeological resources are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities associated with construction. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 (f), if potentially significant cultural resources are discovered, work shall halt in that area until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City of South San Francisco and other appropriate agencies and interested parties. If the archaeologist determines that the find does not meet the CEQA standards of significance, construction shall proceed. On the other hand, if the archaeologist determines that further information is needed to evaluate significance, Department of Economic and Community Development staff shall be notified and a data recovery plan shall be prepared. 12 Matthew R. Clark, Holman & Associates, City of South San Prancisco Wet Weather Program, Initial Historic Properties Research for Section 106 Compliance, Phase 5: Linden Storm Drain Improvements, January 2004. 3.4-13 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures All future development in the Planning Area will be in accordance with State laws pertaining to the discovery of human remains. Accordingly, if human remains of Native American origin are discovered during project construction, the developer and/or the Department of Economic and Community Development staff would be required to comply with State laws relating to the disposition of Native American burials, which fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (Pub. Res. Code Sec. 5097). If any human remains are discovered or recognized in any location on a project site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until: A. The San Mateo County Coroner/Sheriff has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required; and B. If the remains are of Native American origin: 1. The descendants of the deceased Native Americans have made a recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98; or 2. The Native American Heritage Commission was unable to identify a descendant or the descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission. These regulations and General Plan Policy 7.5-1-5 which requires the preparation of a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist in the event that archaeological resources are uncovered, in accordance with State law will help reduce impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.4-3 Future development under the proposed Plan may adversely affect paleontological resources. (No Impact) According to the UCMP, South San Francisco contains a record for Equus which includes horses, donkeys, and zebras. Equus has numerous extinct species known only from fossils. However, the lithology of the record indicates that the fossil is most likely found in the San Bruno Mountains or near the Bay, both outside the Planning Area. Therefore there will be no impacts to paleontological resources. 3.4-14 3.5 Noise This section provides an overview of the existing noise environment in the Planning Area and surrounding environment, the regulatory framework, an analysis of potential noise impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Plan, and mitigation measures where appropriate. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PHYSICAL SETTING Noise Principles and Descriptors Introduction Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound, traveling in the form of waves from a source, exerts a sound pressure level (referred to as sound level) which is measured in decibels (dB), with zero dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing, and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain. Pressure waves traveling through air exert a force registered by the human ear as sound. Sound pressure fluctuations can be measured in units of hertz (Hz), which correspond to the frequency of a particular sound. Typically, sound does not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band offrequencies varying in levels of magnitude (sound power). When all the audible frequencies of a sound are measured, a sound spectrum is plotted consisting of a range of frequency spanning 20 to 20,000 Hz. The sound pressure level, therefore, constitutes the additive force exerted by a sound corresponding to the sound frequency/sound power level spectrum. The typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that de-emphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 Hz and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ears decreased sensitivity to low and extremely high frequencies. This method offrequency weighting is referred to as A-weighting and is expressed in units of A-weighted decibels (dBA). Frequency A-weighting follows an international standard methodology of frequency de-emphasis and is typically applied to community noise measurements. Some representative noise sources and their corresponding A-weighted noise levels are shown in Figure 3.5-1. For simplicity, all noise levels in this section use the "dB" symbol; however, all noise levels presented in this section are A-weighted. Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Figure 3.5-1: Typical Sound Levels Civil Defense Siren (I 00 ft.) Jet Takeoff (200 ft.) Riveting Machine Bay Area Rapid Transit Train Passby (110ft.) Pneumatic Drill (50 ft.) Freight Cars ( 100 ft.) Vacuum Cleaner ( 10ft.) Speech (l ft.) Auto Traffic near Freeway Large Transformer (200 ft.) Average Residence Soft Whisper Rustling Leaves Threshold of He2lring A-Weighted Sound Pressure Level in Decibels (n It.) = Distance in feet between source and listener Noise Exposure and Community Noise Threshold of POlin Rock Music Band Pi led river (50ft.) Ambul2lnce Siren (100 ft.) Boiler Room Printing Press Plant Garbage Disposal in the Home Inside Sports Car, 50 mph Dat<l Processing Center Department Store Private Business Office LightTraffic (100 ft.) Typical Minimum Nighttime Levels -Reslidential Areas Recording Studio Mosquito (3 ft.) An individual's noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. A noise level is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. The noise levels presented in Figure 3.5-1 are representative of measured noise at a given instant in time, however, they rarely persist consistently over a long period of time. Rather, community noise varies continuously over a period of time with respect to the contributing sound sources of the community noise environment. Community noise is primarily the product of many distant noise sources, which constitute a relatively stable background noise exposure, with the individual contributors unidentifiable. The background noise level changes throughout a typical day, but does so 3.5-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures gradually, corresponding with the addition and subtraction of distant noise sources such as traffic and changes in atmospheric conditions. What makes community noise variable throughout a day, besides the slowly changing background noise, is the addition of short duration single event noise sources (e.g., aircraft flyovers, motor vehicles, sirens), which are readily identifiable to the individual. These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment varies the community noise level from instant to instant requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period of time to legitimately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise impacts. This time-varying characteristic of environmental noise is described using statistical noise descriptors. The most frequently used noise descriptors are summarized below: • Leq: the equivalent sound level is used to describe noise over a specified period of time, typically one hour, in terms of a single numerical value. The Let] is the constant sound level which would contain the same acoustic energy as the varying sound level, during the same time period (i.e., the average noise exposure level for the given time period). • Lnax: the instantaneous maximum noise level for a specified period of time. • Lso: the noise level that is equaled or exceeded 50% of the specified time period. The Lso represents the median sound level. • L90: the noise level that is equaled or exceeded 90% of the specified time period. The L90 is sometimes used to represent the background sound level. • Ldn: the Ldn is the same as the DNL (below). • DNL: The DNL is a 24-hour day and night A-weighted noise exposure level which ac- counts for the greater sensitivity of most people to nighttime noise by weighting noise levels at night. Noise between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is weighted (penalized) byadd- ing 10 dB to take into account the greater annoyance resulting from nighttime noises. • CNEL: similar to the DNL, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) adds a 5 dB "penalty" for the evening hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. in addition to a 10 dB penalty between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. • SEL: Sound Exposure Level (SEL) is the energy-based sum of a given duration noise event squeezed into a reference duration of one second. Cumulative noise descriptors, DNL and CNEL, are directly correlated with the likelihood of public annoyance from transportation noise sources. Individual noise events, such as train passbys, are further described using single-event noise descriptors. For single events, the maximum measured noise level (Lmax) is often cited, as is SEL. As a general rule, in areas where the noise environment is dominated by traffic, the Let] during the peak-hour is generally equivalent (+/ -1 to 2 dB) to the DNL at that location.l I California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement to the Tramc Noise Analysis Protocol, October, 1998. 3.5-3 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Sound Propagation and Attenuation Sound levels naturally decrease as one moves further away from the source. This basic attenuation rate is referred to as the geometric spreading loss. The basic rate of geometric spreading loss depends on whether a given noise source can be characterized as a point source or a line source. Stationary point sources of noise, including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles, attenuate (lessen) at a rate between 6 dB for "hard" sites and 7.5 dB for "soft sites" for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement. Hard sites are those with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver such as parking lots or smooth bodies of water. Soft sites have an absorptive ground surface such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees. In addition to geometric spreading, an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB (per doubling of distance) is normally assumed for soft sites. Line sources (such as traffic noise from vehicles) attenuate at a rate between 3 dB for hard sites and 4.5 dB for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement.2 Atmospheric effects, such as wind and temperature gradients, can also influence noise attenuation rates from both line and point sources of noise. However, unlike ground attenuation, atmospheric effects are constantly changing and are difficult to predict. Trees and vegetation, buildings, and barriers reduce the noise level that would otherwise occur at a given receptor distance. However, for trees or a vegetative strip to have a noticeable effect on noise levels, it must be dense and wide. For example, a stand of trees must be at least 100 feet wide and dense enough to completely obstruct a visual path to the roadway to attenuate traffic noise by 5 dB. 3 A row of structures can shield more distant receivers depending upon the size and spacing of the intervening structures and the site geometry. Generally, for an at -grade highway in an average residential area where the first row of houses cover at least 40% of the total area, the reduction provided by the first row of houses is approximately 3 dB, and 1.5 dB for each additional row. 1 Similar to vegetative strips discussed above, noise barriers, which include natural topography and soundwalls, reduce noise by blocking the line of sight between the source and receiver. Generally, a noise barrier that breaks the line of sight between source and receiver will provide at least a 5 dB reduction in noise. Effects of Noise on People Human reaction to noise ranges from annoyance, to interference with various activities, to hearing loss and stress-related health problems. The effects of noise on people can be placed into three categories: • Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction; • Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, learning; and • Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling. 2 Ibid. J Ibid. " Ibid. 3.5-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no complete satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise, or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists, and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual's past experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so called "ambient noise" level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships occur: • Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dB cannot be per- ceived; • Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dB change is considered a just-perceivable difference; • A change in level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in human re- sponse would be expected; and • A 10 dB change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause adverse response. These relationships occur in part because of the logarithmic nature of sound and the decibel system. The human ear perceives sound in a non-linear fashion; hence the decibel scale was developed. Because the decibel scale is based on logarithms, two noise sources do not combine in a simple additive fashion, rather logarithmically. For example, if two identical noise sources produce noise levels of 50 dB the combined sound level would be 53 dB, not 100 dB. Sensitive Receptors People in residences, motels and hotels, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, auditoriums, natural areas, parks and outdoor recreation areas are generally more sensitive to noise than are people at commercial and industrial establishments. Consequently, the noise standards for sensitive land uses (sensitive receptors) are more stringent than for those at less sensitive uses. Noise Sources in South San Francisco As in most urban areas, transportation sources generate the bulk of noise in South San Francisco. Aircraft departures from the San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) are the primary source of transportation noise in South San Francisco. Other noise sources in the city include roadways, railways, and industrial activities. Aircraft Noise The Planning Area is located northwest of SFIA. South San Francisco lies in the flight path of a large portion of departures from SFIA and airport flyovers comprise South San Francisco's major noise source. However, because of the federally mandated replacement of noisier Stage 2 aircraft with quieter Stage 3 aircraft completed by the year 2000, aircraft noise has decreased in recent years. 3.5-5 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the agency charged with ensuring air safety, mandates that most airports create computer-generated noise contour maps using the Integrated Noise Model program. The most recent FAA-approved noise contour maps are contained in the 2001 Noise Exposure Map Update ('01 NEM), which includes 2001 baseline noise contours and projected 2006 noise contours. The Planning Area is located outside of the 65 dB noise contours, but the southwestern corner of the Planning Area does fall within the 60- 65 dB noise contours, as shown in Figure 3.5-2. Roadway Noise The Planning Area is exposed to noise generated by traffic on El Camino Real, Chestnut Avenue, and Mission Road. Traffic noise depends primarily on traffic speed (tire noise increases with speed) and the proportion of truck traffic (trucks generate engine, exhaust, and wind noise in addition to tire noise). Changes in traffic volumes can also have an impact on overall traffic noise levels. For example, a doubling of traffic volumes results in a 3 dB increase in noise levels. Existing roadway noise contours are shown in Figure 3.5-3. Railway Noise The Planning Area is not impacted by railroad noise. Trains operating on the Southern Pacific Railroad Line through South San Francisco affect the noise environment of nearby residential areas. The Railroad Line runs adjacent to u.S. 101 and is approximately a mile or more from the Planning Area. BART tracks run parallel to the Planning Area, from the South San Francisco station to the San Bruno Station. Since BART runs underground, they do not significantly affect the city's ambient noise environment. REGULATORY SETTING Federal Generally, the federal government sets noise standards for transportation-related noise sources that are closely linked to interstate commerce, such as aircraft, locomotives, and trucks. For those noise sources, the state government is pre-empted from establishing more stringent standards. Federal Aviation Act of 1958 The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 created the Federal Aviation Agency. When the Agency became a part of the Department of Transportation in 1967, it adopted its present name of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Among other responsibilities, the FAA is in charge of developing and carrying out programs to control aircraft noise and other environmental effects of civil aviation. Federal Aviation Administration's Airport Improvement Program The Airport Improvement Program (AlP) provides grants to public agencies -and, in some cases, to private owners and entities -for the planning and development of public-use airports that are included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). When airport owners or sponsors, planning agencies, or other organizations accept funds from FAA- administered airport financial assistance programs, they must agree to certain obligations (or assurances). These obligations require the recipients to maintain and operate their facilities 3.5-6 Figure 3.5-2: San Francisco International Airport Noise Contours Existing Noise Contours (2001) 60 -65 dB 65 -70 dB Future Noise Contours (2006) 60 -65 dB 65 -70 dB '\VU c1~ Iv ;;. " ",<-~ 'j :;:,0 t<; 0' Planning Boundary c::::::::J Pa rc e I 5 mn:r:m:. BA RT Colma Creek Channel 01 I o 250 500 1,000 Feet Source: David Ong,Aircraft NoiscAbatcmcnt, San Francisco International Airport, 200a.san Mateo County, 2008; Dyctt and Bhatia, 20 10. Figure 3.5-3: Existing Roadway Noise Contours San Francisco BART Station Traffic Noise Level CNEL in dB 60 -65 65 -70 111111111111111111111 70 -75 .. 75+ Kaiser Permanente Medical Center r::l Planning Boundary <IJIlI[[[J> BA RT Colma Creek Channel ~I(j' r o 250 500 Feet Source: Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., 201 0; San Mateo County, 2008; Dyctt and Bhatia, 201 O. 01 I 1,000 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures safely and efficiently and in accordance with specified conditions. The assurances appear either in the application for Federal assistance and become part of the final grant offer or in restrictive covenants to property deeds. The duration of these obligations depends on the type of recipient, the useful life of the facility being developed, and other conditions stipulated in the assurances. The City of South San Francisco currently runs an Aircraft Noise Insulation Program with their AlP grant. South San Francisco's assurances include taking "appropriate action, including adoption of zoning laws, to the extent reasonable, to restrict use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the Airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal Airport operations, including landing and takeoff of aircraft" and "maintaining zoning and land uses within its jurisdiction that would not reduce the compatibility of the Airport or federally financed noise compatibility measures." State Regulations The State of California has guidelines for evaluating the compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure. The State also establishes noise limits for vehicles licensed to operate on public roads. For heavy trucks, the State pass-by standard is consistent with the federal limit of 80 dB. The State pass-by standard for light trucks and passenger cars (less than 4.5 tons, gross vehicle rating) is also 80 dB at 15 meters from the centerline. These standards are implemented through controls on vehicle manufacturers and by legal sanction of vehicle operators by state and local law enforcement officials. California Noise Insulation Standards, California Code of Regulations, Title 24 The State has also established noise insulation standards for new multi-family residential units, hotels, and motels that would be subject to relatively high levels of transportation-related noise. The noise insulation standards set forth an interior standard of DNL 45 dB in any habitable room. Where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than DNL 60 dB, the Code requires an acoustical analysis to demonstrate that the dwelling units have been designed to meet the interior noise standard. Title 24 standards are typically enforced by local jurisdictions through the building permit application process. General Plan Consistency with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans Public Utilities Code 21675 requires each airport land use commission to formulate an airport land use compatibility plan. California Government Code 65302.3 further requires that general plans be consistent with airport land use compatibility plans. In addition, general plans and applicable specific plans must be amended to reflect amendments to the airport land use compatibility plan. The San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan is discussed below. Local Regulations San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, 1996 The San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) develops and implements the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP). The current CLUP was adopted in December 1996. In San Mateo County, the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) is the designated ALUC. The CLUP establishes the procedures that C/CAG uses in reviewing proposed local agency actions that affect land use 3.5-9 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures decisions in the vicinity of San Mateo County's airports. Airport planning boundaries define where height, noise, and safety standards, policies, and criteria are applied to certain proposed land use policy actions. For the purposes of review under the SFIA Land Use Plan, the 2001 NEM is the most recent federally accepted NEM and is the noise contour map that C/CAG uses in making its determination of the consistency of a proposed local agency land use policy action with the SFIA Land Use Plan.s A small portion of the Planning Area in the southwest is located between the 2001 CNEL 60 dB and CNEL 65 dB noise contours (i.e., noise levels are between CNEL 60 dB and CNEL 65 dB), as shown in Figure 3.5-2. No noise/land use compatibility standards apply within these noise contours. South San Francisco General Plan (1999) The South San Francisco General Plan contains a Noise Element which has policies to reduce noise impacts in the City. The San Mateo County CLUP noise/land use compatibility standards have been adopted by the City of South San Francisco and are contained in Table 9.2-1 of the Noise Element. Relevant policies in the 1999 General Plan, as amended in 2010 include: Chapter 2: Land Use 2-1-22 Require that all future development conforms with the relevant height, aircraft noise, and safety policies and compatibility criteria contained in to the most recently adopted version of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the environs of San Francisco International Airport. Chapter 9: Noise 9-G-l Protect public health and welfare by eliminating or minimizing the effects of existing noise problems, and by preventing increased noise levels in the future. 9-G-2 Continue efforts to incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions, and guide the location and design of transportation facilities to minimize the effects of noise on adjacent land uses. 9-1-1 Work to adopt a pass-by (single event) noise standard to supplement the current 65 dB CNEL average noise level standard as the basis for aircraft noise abatement programs. 9-1-2 Work to adopt a lower average noise standard for aircraft-based mitigation and land use controls. 9-1-3 Pursue additional funding sources and programs for the noise insulation retrofit of homes not completed before the expiration of the Memorandum of Understanding in 2000. 9-1-4 Ensure that project applications for all new noise-sensitive land uses (plans and specifications), including hospitals and residential units proposed within the CNEL 60 dB to , City of San Bruno. General Plan Environmental Impact Report, October 2008. 3.5-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures CNEL 69 dB aircraft noise contour include an acoustical study, prepared by a professional acoustic engineer, that specifies the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in the design and construction of these uses, to achieve an interior noise level of not more than CNEL 45 dB in any habitable room, based on the latest official SFIA noise contours and on-site measurement data. 9-1-5 Ensure that project applications for new noise-sensitive land uses (plans and specifications), including schools and places of assembly, proposed within the CNEL 60 dB to CNEL 69 dB aircraft noise contour include an acoustical study, prepared by a professional acoustic engineer, that specifies the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in the design and construction of these uses, to achieve an interior noise level of not more than Leq 45 dB for the noisiest hour of normal facility operation. 9-1-6 Require that applicants for new noise-sensitive development in areas subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, obtain the services of a professional acoustical engineer to provide a technical analysis and design of mitigation measures. 9-1-7 Where site conditions permit, require noise buffering for all noise-sensitive development subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL. This noise attenuation method should avoid the use of visible sound walls, where practical. 9-1-8 Require the control of noise at source through site design, building design, landscaping, hours of operation, and other techniques, for new developments deemed to be noise generators. South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 8 Health and Welfare 8.32.050 Special provisions (d) Construction. Construction, alteration, repair or landscape maintenance activities which are authorized by a valid city permit shall be allowed on weekdays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of 9 a.m. and 8 p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m., or at such other hours as may be authorized by the permit, if they meet at least one of the following noise limitations: (1) No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 90 dB at a distance of 25 feet. If the device is housed within a structure or trailer on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to 25 feet from the equipment as possible. (2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed 90 dB. Title 20 Zoning Section 20.300.010 Performance Standards 3.5-11 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures E. Noise 3. Noise Attenuation Measures. Noise attenuation measures identified in an acoustic study shall be incorporated into the project to reduce noise impacts to satisfactory levels. 4. Maximum Acceptable Interior Noise Levels. New noise-sensitive uses (e.g. schools, hospitals, churches, and residences) shall incorporate noise attenuation measures to achieve and maintain and interior noise level of CNEL 45 dB. 5. Residential Interior Noise Level Reduction. New dwellings exposed to CNEL above 65 dB shall incorporate the following noise reduction design measures unless alternative designs that achieve and maintain an interior noise level of CNEL 45 dB are incorporated and verified by a Board Certified Acoustical Engineer. a. All fa<;:ades must be constructed with substantial weight and insulation; b. Sound-rated windows providing noise reduction performance similar to that of the fa<;:ade must be included for habitable rooms; c. Sound-rated doors or storm doors providing noise reduction performance similar to that of the fa<;:ade must be included for all exterior entries; d. Acoustic baffling of vents is required for chimneys, fans, and gable ends; e. Installation of a mechanical ventilation system affording comfort under closed-window conditions; and f. Double-stud construction, double doors, and heavy roofs with ceilings of two layers of gypsum board on resilient channels. F. Vibration. No vibration shall be produced that is transmitted through the ground and is discernible without the aid of instruments by a reasonable person at the lot lines of the site. Vibrations from temporary construction, demolition, and vehicles that enter and leave the subject parcel (e.g., construction equipment, trains, trucks, etc.) are exempt from this standard. The Airport/Community Roundtable The Airport/ Community Roundtable is a voluntary committee of elected representatives from 45 municipalities near SFIA, established in 1981 to address community noise impacts from aircraft operations at SFIA. The Roundtable monitors a performance-based noise mitigation program implemented by airport staff, interprets community concerns and attempts to achieve noise mitigation through a cooperative sharing of authority among the aviation industry, the Federal Aviation Administration, SFIA management and local government. Residential Sound Insulation Program The home insulation program at SFIA began in 1983, treating homes, churches, and schools in the County of San Mateo, Daly City, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno and South San Francisco. The program is administered directly by the local jurisdictions but funded through a 3.5-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures combination of FAA and airport funds distributed through the airport. FAA guidelines set the standard for eligibility for the use of federal funds to insulate residences; noise sensitive properties within the federally approved CNEL 65 dB annual noise contour are eligible. IMPACT ANALYSIS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Significance criteria were developed based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Implementation of the proposed Plan would have a potentially significant impact if it would: • Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; • Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan, Noise Ordinance, or CLUP; • Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; • Expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels as identi- fied in an airport land use plan; or • Expose persons to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels; • For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. METHODOLOGY & ASSUMPTIONS Noise impacts are assessed based on a comparative analysis of the noise levels resulting from the proposed Plan and the noise levels under existing conditions. Analysis of temporary construction noise effects is based on typical construction phases and equipment noise levels. Title 8 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code would also apply to construction in the Planning Area. The impact of project and cumulative traffic noise has been evaluated using guidance from Caltrans. A change in noise levels of less than 3 dB is not discernible to the general population; an increase in average noise levels of 3 dB is considered barely perceptible, while an increase of 5 dB is considered readily perceptible to most people.6 Therefore, for evaluation of operational noise due to project-related traffic, an increase in noise of 3 dB over existing noise levels would be considered substantial and indicate a significant permanent increase in ambient noise levels. For land use compatibility impacts, compatibility categories developed by the Airport Land Use Committee are applied to the proposed Plan. "Caitrans, California Department of Transportation. Tramc Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects, October, 1998. 3.5-13 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Noise contours were developed by Charles M. Salter Associates based on traffic data provided by Kimley-Horn. Noise contours projected for 2030 are shown in Figure 3.5-3. The contours were developed for 2030 based on transportation data. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS Construction Noise Impacts Ambient noise levels near areas of new development may temporarily increase due to construction activities. Proposed Plan development would be required to comply with the limitations on construction activity and associated noise standards included in Title 8 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Compliance with these provisions is mandatory and will ensure that construction noise impacts, while potentially a temporary nuisance, are less than significant. Traffic and Airport Noise Impacts Noise generated from the project is expected to be primarily due to noise from traffic along El Camino Real, Mission Road, and Chestnut Avenue. Noise levels are expected increase an average of 2.6 dB along El Camino Real, an average of 2.2 dB along Mission Road, and an average of 2.1 dB along Chestnut Avenue. Because this increase is less than 3.0 dB, it is not expected to be noticeable, making the impact less than significant. The proposed Plan could result in development of noise-sensitive receptors in close proximity to major sources of transportation noise, from El Camino Real, Mission Road, and Chestnut Avenue. The frontages of El Camino Real, Mission Road, and Chestnut Avenue will be subject to noise levels of CNEL 65 dB or greater from roadway noise along those streets. Residential uses are conditionally compatible within the CNEL 65 dB to CNEL 70 dB range and existing regulations and policies and proposed policies will ensure that traffic noise will be sufficiently mitigated. Maintenance of interior noise levels at CNEL 45 dB or less and restriction of residential development in CNEL 70 dB+ areas based on existing General Plan policies, and Title 24 and attenuation standards in the Zoning Ordinance would reduce the noise impacts on new noise- sensitive development to a less than significant level. Other Noise Impacts The Planning Area is not located within the 65 dB CNEL or greater aircraft noise contour as shown in Figure 3.5-2. The airport noise contours shown on Figure 3.5-2 are the most recent FAA-approved noise contours and includes 2001 baseline noise contours and projected 2006 noise contours. Therefore, noise levels identified in the CLUP are expected to have no impact on the proposed Plan. Given the limited potential for and temporary nature of ground-borne vibration in the Planning Area, the impact is less than significant. No private airstrips are located in the vicinity of the Planning Area; therefore no impact due to noise from private airstrips is expected. 3.5-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.5-1 Future development under the proposed Plan may potentially expose existing noise- sensitive uses to construction-related temporary increases in ambient noise. (Less than Significant) Ambient noise levels near areas of new development may temporarily increase due to construction activities. Proposed Plan development would be required to comply with the limitations on construction activity and associated noise standards included in Title 8 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Construction-related noise is considered a short-term noise impact associated with demolition, site preparation, grading, and other construction-related activities. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during these construction-related activities. First, the transport of workers and the movement of materials to and from the construction site could incrementally increase noise levels along local access roads. The second source of noise would result from the physical activities (e.g., grading) associated with any construction-related activities. Construction is performed in various distinct steps, each with its own mix of equipment, workers, and activities. Consequently, each step has its own noise characteristics. However, despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 3.5-1 shows typical exterior noise levels at various phases of commercial construction, and Table 3.5-2 shows typical noise levels associated with various types of construction related machinery. Table 3.5-1: Typical Construction Phase Noise Levels Construction Phase Noise Level (dB, Leq)' Ground Clearing Excavation Foundations Erection Finishing 84 89 78 85 89 I Average noise levels 50 feet from the noisiest source and 200 feet from the rest of the equipment associated with a given construction phase. Noise levels cor- respond to commercial projects in a typical urban ambient noise environment. Source: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, U.S. EPA, 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, 1971. 3.5-15 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.5-2: Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment Construction Equipment Noise Level (dB, Leq at 50 feet) Truck 88 Concrete Mixer (Truck) 85 Scraper 89 Jack Hammer 88 Dozer 85 Paver 89 Generator 81 Pile Driver (Impact) 101 Loader 85 Grader 85 Backhoe 80 Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006. Construction activities associated with the project would be temporary in nature and related noise impacts would be short-term. However, since construction activities could substantially increase ambient noise levels at noise-sensitive locations, construction noise could result in potentially significant, albeit temporary, impacts to sensitive receptors. However, compliance with the limitations on construction activity and associated noise standards established in Title 8 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, including limiting the hours during which such construction activity may occur, will ensure that construction noise impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.5-2 Future development under the proposed Plan, together with regional growth, may contribute to a noticeable increase in the ambient noise level along El Camino Real, Mission Road, and Chestnut Avenue, which would impact nearby existing and proposed sensitive receptors. (Less than Significant) Uses along El Camino Real, Mission Road, and Chestnut Avenue currently experience noise levels of CNEL 65 dB and higher. As shown on Figure 3.5-4, the increase in noise from existing conditions to 2030 with the proposed Plan, together with regional growth, is expected to be primarily due to traffic volume increases along El Camino Real, and is minor. Table 3.5-3 shows the increases in noise between existing conditions and proposed Plan and between No Project and the proposed Plan. Figure 3.5-4 shows the future roadway noise contours. 3.5-/6 Figure 3.5-4: 2030 Projected Roadway Noise Contours San Francisco BART Station Traffic Noise Level CNEL in dB 60 -65 65 -70 111111111111111111111 70 -75 .. 75+ Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Planning Boundary <IJIlI[[[J> BA RT Colma Creek Channel \~fj o 250 500 Feet Source: Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., 201 0; San Mateo County, 2008; Dyctt and Bhatia, 201 O. o 1,000 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.5-3: Increase in Noise Levels in 2030 with Proposed Plan dB increase over dB increase over Street Section Existing Condition 2030 No Project EI Camino Real North of Arroyo 2.6 0.5 EI Camino Real Chestnut to Arroyo 2.6 0.4 EI Camino Real South of Chestnut 2.4 0.2 Mission North of Oak 2.5 0.4 Mission South of Oak to Chestnut 1.9 0.2 Chestnut EI Camino to Antoinette Lane 2.2 0.3 Chestnut Antoinette to Mission 2.0 0.1 Chestnut East of Mission 2.2 0.1 Source: Salter and Associates, 20 I 0; Kimley-Horn, 20 10. Noise along El Camino Real, Mission Road, and Chestnut Avenue is expected to increase by levels less than three dB, it is not expected to be noticeable, making the impact less than significant. Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.5-3 The proposed Plan may result in the siting of noise-sensitive receptors in close proximity to major sources of transportation noise. (Less than Significant) The proposed Plan could result in the development of 1,455 additional residential units in the Planning Area by 2030. The proposed Plan also accommodates a potential library that may be located along El Camino Real. The primarily source of transportation noise in the Planning Area is roadway noise. The frontage of El Camino Real, Mission Road and Chestnut Avenue will be subject to noise levels of CNEL 65 dB or greater from roadway noise, as shown in Figure 3.5-4. However, the proposed Plan requires that the frontage along El Camino Real, Mission Road, and Chestnut Avenue be devoted to active uses such as retail, eating, and drinking establishments. Residential on the ground floor is permitted along Mission Road, north of Oak Avenue, which carries the lowest volume of traffic compared to El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. Title 24 noise insulation standards will apply to any new multi-family residential units in the Planning Area. In addition, new development under the proposed Plan would have to adhere to noise standards in Section 20.300.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. While the development of noise-sensitive receptors in close proximity to major sources of transportation noise is potentially significant, Title 24 and Zoning Ordinance noise attenuation standards would effectively mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. 3.5-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.5-4 Future development under the proposed Plan may result in the exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. (Less than Significant) While it is difficult to quantify and describe the nature and extent of vibration impacts at the programmatic level, subsequent CEQA analysis and documentation for individual projects will have project -specific data and will be required to mitigate any potential construction/ operations related vibration and noise impacts to a less than significant level. However, new development under the proposed Plan will have to adhere to Section 20.300.010 of the Zoning Ordinance which contains performance standards regarding vibrations. No new industrial activities are anticipated and there are no railroad activities in the Planning Area, though vibration in the Planning Area could be created through construction. Given the limited potential for and temporary nature of ground-borne vibration in the Planning Area, the impact is less than significant. Mitigation Measures N one required. 3.5-/9 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures This page intentionally left blank. 3.5-20 3.6 Parks and Recreation ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PHYSICAL SETTING Parks and Open Space Parks and recreational open spaces provide opportunities for both active recreation, such as organized or informal sports, and passive recreation. Despite the relatively small quantity of parkland in South San Francisco, a broad range of outdoor recreation opportunities exist, each reflecting the variety of the city's landscape and pattern of development. These range from shoreline open space on San Francisco Bay, to Sign Hill Park, situated at an elevation of more than 600 feet. In addition, the San Bruno Mountain County Park-a major regional open space resource and prominent visual landmark-lies directly north of the city. In 1999, South San Francisco included 319.7 acres of parks and open space, or 5.4 acres per 1,000 residents. This included 70 acres of developed parkland (community, neighborhood, mini, and linear parks), 168.5 acres of open space, and 81.2 acres of school lands. While the overall amount of parkland appeared adequate to meet the community's needs, closer analysis revealed that only 1.2 acres of developed parkland, excluding school parks and open space, was available per 1,000 residents. The General Plan addressed the deficiencies in park and recreational opportunities through a level of service standard of three acres of parldand per 1,000 new residents and one-half acre of parkland per 1,000 employees. As a result, 24.6 acres of parldand was identified as the need in residential areas and 13.5 acres of parkland as the need in employment areas at buildout. An amendment to the General Plan to allow higher densities and intensity in the South El Camino Real Area in 2010 increased the need of parkland in residential areas to 31.8 acres and the need for parldand in employment areas to 14.1 acres, resulting in a citywide total parkland need of 45.9 acres. The General Plan proposes approximately 107.6 acres of parkland to meet the need of additional population at buildout. Part of the Centennial Way Linear Park runs through the Planning Area. The Planning Area is also adjacent to Orange Memorial Park, a 26.9 acre park that includes numerous amenities such as a children's play area, community building, picnic areas, ballfields, tennis and basketball courts, and basketball courts. There are two additional parks within 1;2-mile of the Planning Area -Buri Buri Park (4.2 acres) and Alta Lorna Park (9.0 acres). Recreation and Public Facilities Community and recreation centers provide space for many of the classes and services that are central to South San Francisco's recreation programs. The Municipal Services Building at 33 Arroyo Drive is located within the Planning Area. This location includes a senior center as well as space for the public to rent. Adjacent to the Planning Area is the Joseph A. Fernekes Recreation Building, located within Orange Memorial Park. The recreation building accommodates cultural, recreational, celebratory, and educational activities and is available for the public to rent. The City also has an indoor public pool at Orange Memorial Park. Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures REGULATORY SETTING State Quimby Act The 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code section 66477) authorized cities and counties to pass ordinances requiring that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. The Act states that the dedication requirement of parldand can be a minimum of 3 acres per thousand residents or more, up to 5 acres per thousand residents if the existing ratio is greater than the minimum standard. Revenues generated through in lieu fees collected and the Quimby Act cannot be used for the operation and maintenance of park facilities. In 1982, the act was substantially amended. The amendments further defined acceptable uses of or restrictions on Quimby funds, provided acreage/population standards and formulas for determining the exaction, and indicated that the exactions must be closely tied (nexus) to a project's impacts as identified through studies required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Local South San Francisco Park, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Master Plan (1990,1997 Up- date) The PROS Master Plan provides a framework to guide park system and recreation facility improvements over a 15-year time horizon. The PROS Master Plan addresses the preservation of existing parks and school sites for public use, improvement of the existing facilities, and strategic acquisition and expansion of these facilities. The 1997 Update includes a description of changed conditions, updates the facilities inventory and discusses new opportunities for parks and recreation facilities. Orange Memorial Park Master Plan (1990, 2007 Update) The Master Plan establishes a vision and development goals for Orange Memorial Park. Orange Memorial Park is one of the oldest and largest parks in South San Francisco and offers numerous amenities. In 2007, the Master Plan was updated when property adjacent to the park was purchased by the City, potentially increasing the size of Orange Memorial Park to 36 acres. The Master Plan provides a conceptual design for the adjacent property. South San Francisco BART Linear Park Master Plan (2003) The South San Francisco BART Linear Park, now called Centennial Way Linear Park, is to help create a bridge between residents, commuters, and recreationalists within neighboring communities, to the South San Francisco and San Bruno BART Stations. The Master Plan proposes a development program for the entire stretch of the linear park. Construction was completed in 2009. 3.6-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures South San Francisco General Plan (1999) Chapter 5: Parks, Public Facilities, and Services Element 5.1-G-l Develop additional parkland in the city, particularly in areas lacking these facilities, to meet the standards of required park acreage for new residents and employees. 5.1-G-2 Improve bayfront access along its entire length and endorse the prominence of this important natural asset. 5.1-G-3 Provide a comprehensive and integrated network of parks and open space; improve access to existing facilities where feasible. 5.1-G-4 Develop linear parks in conjunction with major infrastructure improvements and along existing public utility and transportation rights-of-way. 5.1-1-1 Maintain the PROS Master Plan as the implementing tool for General Plan park and recreation policies and proposals. 5.1-1-2 Maintain parldand standards of 3.0 acres of community and neighborhood parks per 1,000 new residents, and of 0.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 new employees, to be located in employment areas. 5.1-1-3 Prefer in-lieu fees to dedication, unless sites offered for dedication provide features and accessibility similar in comparison to sites shown on Figure 5-1 [of the General Plan]. 5.1-1-4 Develop new parks in locations and sizes shown on Figure 5-1 [of the General Plan]. 5.1-1-5 Use the PROS Master Plan process to achieve additional parkland acreage, as necessary, to meet the residential parldand need at General Plan buildout. 5.1-1-6 Work with Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), and the SFPUC to lease and develop linear parks on existing public utility and transportation rights-of- way in the city, where appropriate and feasible. 3.6-3 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures IMPACT ANALYSIS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Impacts of the proposed Plan would be significant if buildout resulted in: • Increased use of existing parks and increased demand for parkland such that substan- tial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated; or • Increased use of existing recreation and public facilities and increased demand for such facilities, requiring the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. METHODOLOGY & ASSUMPTIONS This analysis considered existing General Plan and proposed Area Plan policies, goals, and applicable regulations as well as existing and proposed parks, open space, and public facilities within the Planning Area and the City. At buildout, the proposed Plan is projected to result in an additional population of 4,400 new residents and 600 new employees. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS With full implementation of the proposed Plan, the City will have to provide 13.5 acres of new parkland to meet additional residential and employee population. This will result in a total citywide parkland need of 64.9 acres at buildout. This need is addressed by the General Plan as it proposes 107.6 acres of parkland for the City. A portion of the Centennial Way Linear Park currently runs through the Planning Area. The existing and planned portion of Centennial Way within the Planning Area is approximately 7.0 acres. In addition, the Plan proposes new segments to Centennial Way Linear Park and a new community park, resulting in an additional 3.60 acres of parkland within the Planning Area. Overall, there is a total of 10.6 acres of existing and proposed parkland within the Planning Area which will serve the Planning Area population. In addition, Orange Memorial Park, which is adjacent to the Planning Area, will help address the demand for parkland from Planning Area population. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.6-1 While future development under the proposed Plan may result in increased demand for and use of existing parks, proposed parks will meet level of service standards. (Less than Significant) The City has a parldand ratio standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 new residents and one-half acre per 1,000 employees in the General Plan. The proposed Plan will result in an additional population of 4,400 residents and 600 new employees which will require approximately 13.5 acres of new parkland, increasing the total amount of new parkland required citywide to 64.9 acres at buildout. This need can be met through the 107.6 acres of parkland proposed by the General Plan. 3.6-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.6-1: New Parkland Needed Standard Parks in Residential Areas 3.0 acres/ I ,000 new residents Parks in Employment Areas 0.5 acres/ I ,000 new employees Total Parkland Needed Source: SSF General Plan, 1999; Dyett & Bhatia, 20 10. Additional Population from proposed Plan 4,400 600 Acres from proposed Plan 13.2 0.3 13.5 The total amount of parkland needed to serve the Planning Area population is 13.5 acres. Currently, the portion of Centennial Way Linear Park within the Planning Area, as constructed and planned, is approximately 7.0 acres. The Plan proposes an additional 2.45 acres to Centennial Way Linear Park within the Planning Area. The Plan also proposes a 1.15 acre community park within the Planning Area. As Table 3.6-2 shows, total parkland within the Planning Area will be 10.6 acres. Most of the Planning Area population will be served by parkland within the Planning Area. Table 3.6-2: Existing and Proposed Parks Within Planning Area Centennial Way Linear Park (Existing and Planned) Centennial Way Linear Park (Proposed in Area Plan) Community Park (Proposed in Area Plan) Subtotal Parks within One-half Mile of Planning Area Orange Memorial Park Orange Memorial Park Expansion Buri Buri Park Alta Loma Park Subtotal Total Acres 7.0 2.45 1.15 10.6 26.9 10.0 4.2 9.0 50.1 60.7 Source: South San Francisco General Plan, 1999; Orange Memorial Park Master Plan Update, 2007; South San Francisco BART Linear Park Master Plan, 2003; Dyett & Bhatia, 2010. The City currently has 50.1 acres of existing and proposed parldand within one-half mile of the Planning Area. The Planning Area is adjacent to the City's biggest park, Orange Memorial Park. There is currently a plan to expand Orange Memorial Park, which will increase the size of the park to 36.9 acres. The Orange Memorial Park Master Plan includes a new central plaza, an expanded play area and swim center, a skate park, an expanded sculpture garden, and an additional tennis court and practice court.l The increase in parkland near the Planning Area will help accommodate the projected population and employee increase. New parks will limit the physical deterioration of exiting parkland. I City of South San Prancisco. Orange Memorial Park Master Plan Update, 2007. 3.6-5 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact 3.3 Urban Design and the Public Realm UD-13 Create an open space and trail extension of Centennial Way along the BART right- of-way from Chestnut Avenue to Colma Creek, just north of the Oak Avenue extension. Establish the portion between Chestnut Avenue and Oak Avenue as a pedestrian district. UD-14 Create a public plaza at least half acre in size at the northern end of the Centennial Way pedestrian district, with minimum dimensions of 100 by 150 feet. UD-15 Create a community park of a minimum size of 1.0 acre that acts as a major open space connection between Mission Road and El Camino Real, as shown on Figure 3- 4: Open Space Framework. This park will provide active recreation facilities such as sports courts, ball fields, and picnic areas, as well as a portion of the Centennial Way walking and biking trail. UD-16 Provide a diverse range of amenities and activities throughout park spaces in the Planning Area, including passive and active recreation areas; urban plazas with landscaping, paving, benches, and trees; and linkages along Centennial Way to access bike and pedestrian trails. UD-17 Require park land as a part of new development. Park land can be publicly or privately maintained and operated, but should be accessible to the public. UD-18 Require private common open space within all new residential developments as a complement to public open space. This common open space could be in the form of courtyards at the ground level or terraces over parking podiums. Where possible, orient private open spaces toward the central open space spine to provide a cohesive network of open spaces. UD-19 Develop a program of community activities and events to activate the Centennial Way pedestrian district and public plaza, with emphasis on evenings and weekend activities. UD-22 Integrate parks and plazas throughout new development along pedestrian connections, Centennial Way and Colma Creek to create a cohesive and connected public realm. UD-34 Comply with the existing BART Linear Master Plan for the segments of Centennial Way north of Oak Avenue. Mitigation Measures None. 3.6-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.6-2 Future development under the proposed Plan may increase the use of existing recreation and public facilities and increase the demand for such facilities, requiring the expansion of facilities that may have a negative impact on the environment. (Less than Significant) The Municipal Services Building, located within the Planning Area at 33 Arroyo Drive is a public facility that includes classrooms, social hall, and senior center. Programmed activities include classes, adult services, community and public meetings, and gallery space. Adjacent to the Planning Area, in Orange Memorial Park, is the Joseph A. Fernekes Recreation Building, a 6,400 square foot facility that accommodates the City's cultural, recreational, celebratory, and educational activities. In addition, the Area Plan proposes a new 50,000 square foot library within the Planning Area. This will increase the amount of public facilities within the Planning Area. The PROS Master Plan contains an inventory of individual recreation and public facilities in South San Francisco, along with analysis and recommendations for improvements. The Plan proposes new park policies and the current General Plan requires the PROS Master Plan be maintained as the implementing tool for General Plan park and recreation policies and proposals. Therefore, impacts on recreation and public facilities will be less than significant. Demand for recreation and public facilities is expected to be met through implementation of the PROS Master Plan. Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact 3.1 Land Use LU-4 LU-5 Enable the City Library to relocate to the Planning Area, in a location that builds on synergies with other public uses and maximizes visibility and access for the community. Possible locations for the library should consider accessibility from Chestnut Avenue and El Camino Real, as well as proximity to public open space like Centennial Way and Orange Memorial Park. Establish an identity for a "Civic District" containing the Municipal Services Building, a potential new City library, and other civic uses, through signage along El Camino Real and other places, landscape design, and connections (including better pedestrian access across El Camino Real). Cluster civic uses around the new plaza/amphitheater and other community gathering places. Further synergies with shared resources such as joint parking facilities. Mitigation Measures N one required. 3.6-7 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures This page intentionally left blank. 3.6-8 3.7 Public Services and Utilities This section presents the environmental setting and impact analysis for public services and utilities for the Planning Area, including schools, fire and police protection, water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste as they pertain to the proposed Plan. Park facilities are addressed in Section 3.6. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PHYSICAL SETTING Schools The South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD or the District) provides K-12 educational services to the community. The District currently operates nine elementary schools, three middle schools and three high schools. In 2009-10, enrollment in the SSFUSD was approximately 9,179 students.l The estimated total capacity for the District is approximately 10,701 students.2 SSFUSD owns three closed schools, Serra Vista, Southwood and Hillside Elementary School. While Hillside Elementary School was still in operation when the 1999 General Plan was adopted, it has since been closed due to declining enrollment.3 Enrollment in the District has experienced a nearly 10 percent decline over the past decade. From a peak of 10,269 students in the fall of the 1998-99 school year, enrollment decreased to 9,336 in 2006-07, declined further in 2007-08 to 9,232 and continued to decline in 2009-10 to 9,179. Table 3.7-1 shows the existing school enrollment compared to school capacity within the District. Table 3.7-1: South San Francisco Existing School Enrollment and Capacity 2009-10 Enrollment Capacity' Remaining Capacity Percent of Capacity Elementary (K-5) 4,156 4,705 549 88% Middle School (6-8) 1,975 2,725 750 72% High School (9-12) 3,048 3,271 223 93% Total 9,179 10,701 1,469 86% I. School Capacity does not include closed schools. Source: South San Francisco Unified School District, 20 I 0; SSF General Plan, 1999; Dyett & Bhatia, 2009. I Grima, Charlotte. Executive Assistant, South San Prancisco UnWed School District, email communication, August 2, 2010. City of South San Prancisco. General Plan, October 1999, p. 190. J Walker, Mercy. Receptionist, South San Prancisco UnWed School District, phone communication, July 6, 2009. Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures There are two elementary schools, one junior high school, two high schools, and a continuation high school, within a 1;2-mile of the Planning Area. Elementary Schools Ponderosa Elementary School Ponderosa Elementary School has 34 teaching stations (four buildings and 11 portables) 1 and currently 16 classrooms are being used for K-5 classroom instruction while four classrooms are being used for Special Day Classes (SDC). SDC's are provided for children who are identified as having learning handicaps or behavioral disorders, or whose educational needs require a more restrictive environment. Buri Buri Elementary School The school has 37 teaching stations (nine buildings and four portables), providing education for grades K-5. There is a multi-purpose room, a library-media center, and administrative offices. Junior High School Alta Lorna Junior High School The school has 34 teaching stations (ten buildings and seven portables), providing education for grades 6-8. The campus was modernized in 1999-2000 and is comprised of 26 classrooms, two PC computer labs, two science labs, a multi-purpose room, a mat/weight room, library, and administrative offices. At the present time there are six portables being used for instruction. High Schools El Camino High School El Camino High School was established at the current site in 1961. The theater and swimming pool were added in 1964. The school has 78 teaching stations (ten buildings and five portables), providing education for grades 9-12. South San Francisco High School South San Francisco High School was established at the current site in 1951. The school has 74 teaching stations (ten buildings and 21 portables), providing education for grades 9-12. The campus consists of eight wings, including 55 classrooms, a multipurpose room, a kitchen, a library, an administrative building and a pool. " South San Prancisco UnWed School District, 2007-2008 School Accountability Report Card, 2008-2009. 3.7-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Fire Services The South San Francisco Fire Department is staffed by 79 sworn and 15 non-sworn personnel. The Department provides residents and local businesses with protection from fire, natural disasters, hazardous materials, and emergency medical incidents through direct response, public education, code development, and enforcement. The Fire Department is the only department in San Mateo County presently providing emergency medical care via its own fire rescue ambulances. Minimum on duty staffing is 20 persons.s The City is served by five fire stations. In addition, the City has identified fire hazard management unit areas, which are identified in areas that need vegetation management or other measures to reduce wildland fire risk and increase the potential for successful fire suppression. The Planning Area is not located in any of the City's fire hazard management unit areas.6 There is a fire station (Station #63) located within the Planning area. While the Department does not have a formal service ratio standard, it does have a response time standard of 4.99 minutes or less. Police Services Law enforcement services in South San Francisco are provided by the City of South San Francisco Police Department. The Department currently has 83 police officers7, resulting in an officer ratio of 1.3 per 1,000 residents. While the Department does not have service ratios or formal response time standards, the Department is generally able to respond to high priority calls within two to three minutes.~ While additional development may impact response times, the department does not currently use set standards for providing service to a growing population. The Department typically works a four beat system but the watch supervisor has the discretion to deploy his personnel as he sees fit to accomplish daily goals and objectives. Each beat is typically staffed by a one officer unit with between six and nine other officers consisting of traffic, K-9, training, float, and supervisory units available for backup and overlap.9 The Police Department is located within the City's Municipal Building at 33 Arroyo Drive, which is within the Planning Area. Water Supply Potable water is provided for the City of South San Francisco by the California Water Service Company (CWSC) and the Westborough County Water District (WCWD). The CWSC serves City of South San Prancisco. Centrum Logistics Project DEIR, Appendix B: Initial Study, June 2009. " City of South San Prancisco, General Plan, October 1999, p. 265. -Maida Ng, Administrative Assistant, South San Prancisco Police Department, phone and email communication Pebru- ary 23, 2011. H City of South San Prancisco. Centrum Logistics Project DEIR, Appendix B: Initial Study, June 2009. ') City of South San Prancisco. General Plan, October 1999, p. 268. 3.7-3 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures the portion of the city east of 1-280, which represents a majority of the City's area, while the WCWD serves the portion west of 1-280. The Planning Area is within CWSC's South San Francisco District, which also includes the City of Colma and the Broadmoor District. CWSC receives water from the City and County of San Francisco's regional system operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). In 1984, CWSC signed a Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract with the City of San Francisco, supplemented by an individual Water Supply Contract. CWSC's individual Supply Assurance is 35.39 million gallons per day (MGD). Acquisition of the Los Trancos County Water District in July 2005 increased CWSC's total Supply Assurance Allocation to 35.5 MGD. Part of this supply is used to meet the demand in the South San Francisco District. The Supply Assurance, which quantified San Francisco's obligation to supply water to its individual wholesale customers, continues indefinitely even if the master Contract and accompanying Water Supply Contract expires.lo Table 3.7-2 shows the distribution of services in 2005 for the South San Francisco District. Table 3.7-3 shows the historic average day demand for the South San Francisco District. II) California Water Service Company (CWSC), 2006 Urban Water Management Plan for the South San Francisco District, December 15, 2006. 3.7-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.7-2: Distribution and Demand of Services for the South San Francisco District (2005) Service Connection Type Single-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Commercial Industrial Government Other Unaccounted Total Percentage of Total Services 85.5% 0.9% 11.6% 0.4% 1.4% 0.1% 100% Source: California Water Service Company, 2006. Table 3.7-3: Historic Average Day Demand MGD Percent Change 2005 7.92 -7.2% 2004 8.53 3.4% 2003 8.25 -4.1% 2002 8.60 0.2% 2001 8.58 -1.3% 2000 8.69 3.6% 1999 8.39 5.4% 1998 7.96 -1.0% 1997 8.04 7.2% 1996 7.50 2.2% 1995 7.34 Source: California Water Service Company, 2006. Percentage of Demand 38.8% 4.6% 41.8% 8.4% 4.6% 0.2% 1.7% 100% Between 1995 and 2005, water demand has fluctuated, with the lowest demand at 7.5 MGD and the highest demand at 8.69 MGD. The projected average day demand for the year 2030 for the South San Francisco District ranges from 6.76 MGD to 11.27 MGDY Based on discussions with CWSC, the existing water distribution system that serves the Planning Area is generally in good condition. The distribution network of water supply lines within the Planning Area consists primarily of eight inch, 12 inch and 16 inch pipelines within the streets.12 II Ibid. Kimcly Horn, 2010. 3.7-5 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Wastewater The City of South San Francisco owns and maintains the wastewater collection system. All wastewater produced within the City of South San Francisco is treated at the City's Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP), which is located at the end of Belle Air Road, near the edge of San Francisco Bay. Currently, the WQCP has the capacity to provide secondary treatment for 13 MGD in dry weather and 60 MGD in wet weatherY The average wastewater flow was 9.93 MGD for 2006, 9.19 MGD for 2007, and 9.2 MGD for 2008; average peak wet weather flows approach 30 MGD. Wastewater treatment at the WQCP consists of screening, grit removal, chemical addition to aid settling of solids, primary settling under vacuum, aeration, clarification, and disinfection by chlorination. Excess chlorine is removed prior to discharge of the treated water two miles offshore in San Francisco Bay. The WQCP is jointly owned by the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and it treats all wastewater generated within the two cities. Currently, the City of South San Francisco has an allocation of treatment capacity of 8.74 MGD, and is currently generating 5.6 MGD.l1 The Planning Area is currently served by two 18-inch trunk lines in Mission Avenue, a recently constructed 18-inch trunk line in the future Oak Avenue extension, and smaller diameter pipes that serve the existing developments at Buri Buri Center and Chestnut Center south of Chestnut Avenue. The existing 12-inch line south of Chestnut Avenue runs in an easement on private property and will need to be relocated within the parcel to accommodate new development. Existing lines in the Planning Area are connected to a 24-inch line at the intersection of Mission and Chestnut avenues that flows south to the treatment plant. According to the public works department staff, there are no known deficiencies in the existing collection system that serves the Planning Area. Solid Waste Solid waste is collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses and is processed at the South San Francisco Scavenger Company's materials recovery facility and transfer station (MRF/TS). Materials that cannot be recycled or composted are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, near Half Moon Bay. In 2001, Browning-Ferris Industries, owner of the Ox Mountain Landfill, obtained a revised solid waste facility permit for Ox Mountain to increase the permitted disposal acreage from 173 acres to 191 acres and to change the closure date of the facility from 2018 to 2023,15 with a longer period of operation allowed pending renewal of the landfill's permit. The evaluation on volumetric capacity is ongoing at Ox Mountain. Capacity may change based on such factors such as amount of waste landfilled, compaction rates, waste settlement, and cover soil use, and therefore the closure date may also change. u City of South San Prancisco. 328 Roebling Road Initial Study, Pebruary 2009. [4 City of South San Prancisco. Centrum Logistics Project DEIR, Appendix B: Initial Study, June 2009, p. 11-13. [, California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), Solid Waste Pacility Permit, SWIS No. 41-AA-0002, Issued June 26, 2001. 3.7-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures The City of South San Francisco has reduced its waste stream significantly in the last decade. In 1995, the City diverted approximately 25 percent of its waste stream to recycled or composted materials. In 2006, the City's diversion rate had increased to 50 percent, meeting the 50 percent State requirement for waste diversion. As shown in Table 3.7-4, waste diversion programs include composting, facility recovery, household hazardous waste, recycling, source reduction, and special waste materials. Table 3.7-4: Waste Diversion Programs in South San Francisco Source Reduction Recycling Composting Special Waste Materials Public Education Policy Incentives Xeriscapi ng/G rasscycl i ng Backyard and On-Site Composting/Mulching Business Waste Reduction Program Procurement School Source Reduction Programs Government Source Reduction Programs Material Exchange, Thrift Shops Residential Curbside Residential Drop-Off Residential Buy-Back Commercial On-Site Pickup Commercial Self-Haul School Recycling Programs Special Collection Seasonal (regular) Special Collection Events Residential Curbside Greenwaste Collection Residential Self-haul Greenwaste Commercial On-Site Greenwaste Pick-up Commercial Self-Haul Greenwaste Food Waste Composting Sludge (sewagelindustrial) Tires White Goods Scrap Metal Wood Waste Concrete/ Asphalt/Ru bble Shingles Rendering Electronic (radio ,TV, web, hotlines) Print (brochures, flyers, guides, news articles) Outreach (tech assistance, presentations, awards, fairs, field trips) Schools (education and curriculum) Economic Incentives 3.7-7 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.7-4: Waste Diversion Programs in South San Francisco Facility Recovery Transformation MRF Transfer Station Composting Facility Alternative Daily Cover Biomass Source: California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2006. Electricity and Natural Gas Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) owns and operates a 230 KV underground transmission electric line, a 155 KV tower line, and a 30 inch gas line within the Planning Area, in addition to smaller service lines. The 230 KV underground transmission line runs across the Planning Area from north to south, starting from south of Evergreen Drive, leaving the Planning Area at Chestnut Avenue. The 115 KV tower line runs northeasterly near the northwest boundary of the project site. The 30 inch gas line runs southeasterly along Mission Road, and enters the Planning Area near Oak Avenue, and continues southeast towards First Street. Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in the abandonment Antoinette Lane and associated utilities in the road right of way including the 30 inch gas line and the 155 KV tower line. These utilities can either be relocated outside the Planning Area or a corridor within the Planning Area with appropriate setbacks may be established to ensure the safety of community members and nearby developments. REGULATORY SETTING Federal Regulations Water Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act is the principal federal law that addresses water quality. The primary objectives include the regulation of pollutant discharges to surface water, financial assistance for public wastewater treatment systems, technology development, and non-point source pollution prevention programs. The Clean Water Act also requires that states adopt water quality standards to protect public health and welfare and enhance the quality of water. Safe Drinking Water Act The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDW A), administered by the U.S. EPA in coordination with the states, is the main federal law that ensures the quality of drinking water. Under the SDW A, EP A sets standards for drinking water quality and oversees the states, localities, and water suppliers who implement those standards. The Department of Public Health administers the regulations contained in the Act in the State of California. 3.7-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Solid Waste Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Amended 1986) The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is a federal act regulating the potential health and environmental problems associated with solid waste hazards and non-hazardous wastes. Specific regulations addressing solid waste issues are contained in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations. State Regulations Water California Water Code California Water Code (Porter-Cologne Act) establishes a program to protect water quality and beneficial uses of state water resources and includes groundwater and surface water. The State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) are the principal state agencies responsible for control of water quality. California Department of Public Health A major component of the State Department of Public Health, Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management, is the Drinking Water Program which regulates public water systems. Regulatory responsibilities include the enforcement of the federal and state Safe Drinking Water Acts, the regulatory oversight of public water systems, issuance of water treatment permits, and certification of drinking water treatment and distribution operators. State regulations for potable water are contained primarily within titles 22 and 17, Chapter 5 of the California Code of Regulations. The regulations governing recycled water are found in a combination of sources including the Health and Safety Code, Water Code, and titles 22 and 17 of the California Code of Regulations. Issues related to treatment and distribution of recycled water are generally under the influence of the RWQCB, while issues related to use and quality of recycled water are the responsibility of the California Department of Public Health. California Environmental Quality Act and SB 610 Section 15083.7 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the City to request certain information from the public water supply system(s) serving the planning area. This requested information includes: an indication of whether the projected water demand associated with the proposed general plan was included in its last urban water management plan; and, an assessment for any major development projects "whether its total projected water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years as included in the 20-year projection contained in its urban water management plan will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the system's existing and planned future " uses. Senate Bill 610, which amended the State Water Code to make water availability a critical step in the CEQA process for specific types of projects, became effective January 1, 2002. The code requires cities to consider water supply assessments to determine whether projected water 3.7-9 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures supplies can meet the project's anticipated water demand. SB 610 also requires additional factors to be considered in the preparation of urban water management plans and water supply assessments. The requirements of SB 610 apply to specific types of projects; SB 610 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15083.7 identify those projects generally as residential developments of more than 500 dwelling units; commercial or industrial business employing more than 1,000 persons; or any other project that would have a water demand at least equal to a 500 dwelling unit project. The water supply assessment requirements under SB 610 do not apply to area plans but only to development projects as defined in the Water Code. The Water Code notes that if the demand expected from a project is accounted for in the most recently adopted UWMP, it may be used -in whole or in part -to establish supply availability under normal and drought conditions. If the project contains new demands, where the new water supply will come from must be stated. Therefore, one of the main planning tools in assessing water availability under SB 610 is the relevant Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). CWSC adopted the 2006 UWMP for the South San Francisco District in December, 2006. The degree of certainty required in demonstrating adequate water supply under the State law is lower for broader land use planning projects, for example, than for more specific development proposals. (See Vineyard Area Citizens For Responsible Growth v. City OJ Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Ca1.4th 412, 432-434.) SB X 7-7 Senate Bill X 7-7, passed in November 2009, supports the 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan, dated February 2010, which calls for a 20 percent per capita reduction in urban water use statewide by 2020. The bill requires that each urban retail water supplier develop urban water use targets and an interim urban water use target by July 1, 2011. The bill also provides regulations on the development of urban water use targets, data collection, agricultural water supply management. Due to this bill, the 2010 UWMPs, which would normally be due December 31, 2010, are now due July 1, 2011 in order for water suppliers to address the SB X 7- 7 requirements. Solid Waste California Integrated Waste Management Board The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) establishes the statewide regulations for solid waste collection and disposal, including state-mandated diversion goals. Regulations authored by CIWMB (Title 14) were integrated with related regulations adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board pertaining to landfills (Title 23, Chapter 15) to form Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations. The California Integrated Waste Management Act, AB 939 mandated that all jurisdictions in the State divert at least 50 percent by 2000 through source reduction, composting, and recycling activities. The Act gives the highest priority to source reduction and defines it as the act of reducing the amount of solid waste generated in the first place. Recycling and composting are given the next highest priority. The Act specifies that all other waste that is not diverted be properly and safely disposed of in a landfill or through incineration. The California 3.7-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Integrated Waste Management Act also mandates that each jurisdiction adopt a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), which specifies how the community will meet the 50 percent goals set forth in the Act. Each community is also required to take measures to reduce solid waste generation and to provide for the safe disposal of special and hazardous wastes. Local Regulations Water South San Francisco District Urban Water Management Plan (2006) The CWSC's Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) develops a long range plan for water supply to ensure adequate water supplies to meet existing and future demands for water. The UWMP presents forecasted supplies and demands, describes conservation programs, and includes a water shortage contingency analysis. The 2010 UWMP is due July 1, 2011. Usually, UWMPs are due on December 31 of years ending in 0 and 5, but a six-month extension has been granted for submittal of the 2010 UWMPs to provide additional time for water suppliers to address SB X 7-7 requirements. CWSC is currently working on updating the UWMP and a public review draft will be available in late spring/early summer of 2011. Wastewater RWQCB has the authority to enforce water quality regulations found in the Clean Water Act based on the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Issues related to treatment and distribution of recycled water are generally under the influence of the RWQCB, while issues related to use and quality of recycled water are the responsibility of the California Department of Public Health. The RWQCB administers regulations related to wastewater discharges under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended, more commonly known as the Clean Water Act. Wastewater discharges are guided by NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permits granted by the RWQCB. The South San Francisco Municipal Code contains regulations related to the sewer system, including sewage disposal and service fees, in Title 14. The City's storm drain outfalls operate under NPDES permits granted by the RWQCB. The South San Francisco Municipal Code also contains regulations related to stormwater management in Title 14. Solid Waste The CIWMB delegates local permitting, enforcement, and inspection responsibilities to Local Enforcement Agencies (LEA). The South San Francisco Municipal Code contains regulations related to solid waste and recycling in Title 8. South San Francisco General Plan (1999) The South San Francisco General Plan contains policies regarding schools, fire and police services, water supply and wastewater, and solid waste. 3.7-11 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Educational Facilities 5.2-G-l Support efforts by the South San Francisco Unified School District to maintain and improve educational facilities and services. 5.2-G-2 Work with the SSFUSD and local neighborhoods on appropriate land uses for school sites no longer needed for educational purposes. 5.2-G-3 Continue to coordinate with the District the joint use of school recreational facilities for community-wide use. 5.2-1-2 Investigate creation and application of a single-purpose school zone to all school sites. 5.2-1-1 Work with the SSFUSD on appropriate land uses for school sites no longer needed for educational facilities. Acquire closed school sites for recreation facilities and childcare purposes where appropriate. Law Enforcement 8.5-G-l Provide police services that are responsive to citizen's needs to ensure a safe and secure environment for people and property in the community. 8.5-G-2 Assist in crime prevention through physical planning and community design. 8.5-1 -1 Ensure adequate police staff to provide rapid and timely response to all emergencies and maintain the capability to have minimum average response times. 8.5-1-2 Control and/or intervene in conduct recognized as threatening to life and property. 8.5-1-5 Continue to coordinate law enforcement planning with local, regional, State and federal plans. Fire Hazards 8.4-G-l Minimize the risk to life and property from fire hazards in South San Francisco. 8.4-G-2 Provide fire protection that is responsive to citizens' needs. 8.4-1 -3 Require site design features, fire retardant building materials, and adequate access as conditions for approval of development or improvements to reduce the risk of fire within the City. Water Supply 5.3-G-l Promote the orderly and efficient operation and expansion of the water supply system to meet projected needs. 5.3-G-2 Encourage water conservation measures for both existing and proposed development. 3.7-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 5.3-G-3 Promote the equitable sharing of the costs of associated with providing water service to new development. 5.3-1-2 Establish guidelines and standards for water conservation and actively promote the use of water-conserving devices and practices in both new construction and major alterations and additions to existing buildings. 5.3-1 -3 Ensure that future residents and businesses equitably share costs associated with providing water service to new development in South San Francisco. 5.3-1-1 Work with California Water Service Company and Westborough County Water District to ensure coordinated capital improvements with respect to the extent and timing of growth. Wastewater 5.3-G-4 Promote the orderly and efficient operation and expansion of the wastewater system to meet projected needs. 5.3-G-5 Promote the equitable sharing of the costs of associated with providing wastewater service to new development. 5.3-G-6 Maintain environmentally appropriate wastewater management practices. 5.3-1-4 Ensure coordinated capital improvements with respect to the extent and timing of growth. 5.3-1 -5 Ensure that future residents and businesses equitably share costs associated with providing wastewater service to new development in South San Francisco. 5.3-1 -6 Monitor industrial discharges to ensure that wastewater quality continues to meet various federal, State, and regional standards; treatment costs should remain affordable. Waste Management and Recycling 8.3-G-l Reduce the generation of solid waste, including hazardous waste, and recycle those materials that are used, to slow the filling of local and regional landfills, in accord with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. 8.3-1-1 Continue to work toward reducing solid waste, increasing recycling, and complying with the San Mateo County Integrated Waste Management Plan. IMPACT ANALYSIS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA A significant impact would occur with full implementation of the proposed Plan if the following impacts would occur regarding schools, fire and police protection, water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste: 3.7-13 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • Student enrollment in schools exceed available school capacity; • Demand for police or fire services exceeds standards established by the South San Francisco Police and Fire Departments (e.g., response times); • Water demand exceeds available supply and distribution capacity; • New development requires or results in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or storm water drainage facilities, or expansion of such existing fa- cilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; • Solid waste levels are in non-compliance with federal, State, or local regulations related to solid waste (e.g., waste diversion requirements); or • Solid waste levels exceed available disposal capacity. METHODOLOGY & ASSUMPTIONS Methodology This analysis considered current General Plan policies, existing public and safety services within the city, applicable regulations and guidelines, and proposed Plan buildout estimates and policies. Schools This analysis determines the increase in students that would result from buildout and assesses potential impacts on local schools. The projected additional student population was calculated based on additional population under the proposed Plan. Student generation rates vary depending on the type of residential development and the type of family amenities provided in the development. High density multi-family residential development can have a student generation rate of approximately five students per 100 units (0.15) while townhomes can have a student generation rate of approximately 15 students per 100 units (0.05).16 Using these student generation rates, the proposed Plan will result in a 70-student increase. This may increase the projected enrollment to 9,370 students for the year 2022. This new student population is compared with existing school capacity to determine if new facilities are needed. Fire and Police This analysis looks at the location of demand for fire and police protection services that would result from buildout in relation to existing stations and assesses the average response time to the Planning Area. The need for additional stations is evaluated based on response times. Water Demand This analysis will address the effects of the land use change and future development on water resources in terms of changes in demand and in the adequacy of long-term water supplies. The California Supreme Court has noted that SB 610 does not require EIRs for large-scale land use plans to find that water supplies are assured, as requiring such certainty would be unworkable 16 Reed, Matthew, Project Manager, Schoolhouse Services, phone communication, March 20, 2009. 3.7-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures since it would require water planning to far outpace land use planning. (Vineyard Area Citizens For Responsible Growth v. City OJ Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Ca1.4th 412, 432.) Nevertheless, the analysis will consider how additional growth under the proposed Plan will impact projected water demand and resources planned for in the 2006 CWSC UWMP. Water demand, services, and facilities analysis is based on assumptions and data contained in the 2006 CWSC UWMP, projected buildout and ABAG population projections. Water Code § 10910, subd. (h) indicates that if an assessment has already been prepared that covers the project at issue, a new assessment need only be prepared if any of the following changes occur: (1) Changes in the project that result in a substantial increase in water demand for the project. (2) Changes in the circumstances or conditions substantially affecting the ability of the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), to provide a sufficient supply of water for the project. (3) Significant new information becomes available which was not known and could not have been known at the time when the assessment was prepared." Given that the proposed Plan is consistent with the existing UWMP, as further described in the Impact analysis below, and that none of the three changes outlined in the Water Code apply, the UWMP is considered an appropriate tool for evaluation of water availability for the proposed Plan, consistent with CEQA and SB 610. Wastewater Treatment The analysis of wastewater treatment demand will assess the impact of the proposed Plan on the sanitary sewer systems and identify whether adequate sewage treatment and conveyance exists to serve buildout under the proposed Plan. Wastewater generation, services, and facilities are based on assumptions and data from the City of South San Francisco, Department of Finance and ABAG projections. Solid Waste This analysis determines the potential increase in solid waste generation that would result from buildout under the proposed Plan and assesses potential impacts on local landfills and disposal services. This analysis considers existing landfill capacity and estimates solid waste generation at buildout based on data from the CIWMB. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS While development under the proposed Plan will result in a slight increase in student population, this new population is expected to be accommodated in existing school facilities. SSFUSD imposes a school impact fee on development which is used to pay for the capital 3.7-15 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures facility needs of the District. The fee is $2.63 per square foot for residential development and $0.47 for commercial development.17 The Planning Area will be served by existing police and fire facilities located within the Planning Area, ensuring an adequate response time. No new facilities are anticipated to serve the Planning Area. The UWMP accommodates the population growth projected under the proposed Plan. The estimated population at buildout in the South San Francisco service area is estimated to be lower than what is projected by the UWMP at 2030. Therefore, the proposed Plan is consistent with the assumptions made in the UWMP and the population growth in the Planning Area. In the event that demand exceeds supply, CWSC users would have to act in accordance with the Water Shortage Contingency Plan contained in the UWMP. Since the Planning Area is subject to the UWMP, impacts on water supply will be less than significant. The WQCP capacity will be sufficient to treat wastewater generated by new development in the Planning Area. Currently, the City of South San Francisco has an allocation of treatment capacity of 8.74 MGD, and is currently generating 5.6 MGD of wastewater. At buildout, wastewater generation is estimated to be 6.67 MGD, resulting in 2.07 MGD of unused capacity. The Planning Area is mostly built-out and currently served by municipal storm sewers. The majority of the area is developed with impervious surfaces including buildings, parking lots, and associated walkways and driveways. Given the amount of impervious surface on the site, future development would not result in a substantial physical change with respect to drainage patterns. There will be no impact on storm drainage. As noted above, in accordance with state mandates, cities and counties must achieve diversion rates of 50 percent through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities. With 50 percent diversion rate achieved in 2006, South San Francisco is compliant with the mandated diversion rate. As the City continues to promote additional diversion, there is expected to be no adverse impact on meeting waste diversion goals as a result of implementation of the proposed Plan. Additional waste generated by the proposed Plan would likely be further offset by increased diversion, though even at existing rates it is expected that there is sufficient landfill capacity to meet demand. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.7-1 Future development under the proposed Plan may increase the demand for school facilities. (Less than Significant) SSFUSD's projected enrollment for the year 2017 is 9,393 students and 9,240 students for the year 2022, with a capacity of 10,701. The current 2009-10 enrollment is 9,179 students. This is lower than the 2010 projected enrollment, which was 9,299 students. Compared to 2009-10, Ie South San Prancisco Unitled School District (SSPUSD), School Pee Certitlcation of Compliance, available at http://www.ssfusd.k12.ca.us/schoolcity/ ssb/ content. dIll ?ptc=/Ox9b04a389a2cd611 /Oxda460422c38ad611 /Ox3d520422c 38ad611/0x73520422c38ad611/0xlc530422c38ad611&si=0&t1=0, accessed Pebruary 1, 2011. 3.7-/6 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures enrollment for 2022 is projected to increase by only 0.06 percent. New housing within the District is projected to generate 186 new students a year by 2017, while a very modest decline of just under 200 students from existing homes is projected.l~ Enrollment from existing homes are projected to decline, reflecting the fact that mature households (households past the student generating stage) are becoming a larger portion of the District's households. Implementation of the proposed Plan is estimated to result in an increase in student population in the SSFUSD by approximately 70 students. This will increase the projected enrollment to 9,370 students for the year 2022, which is below the 10,701 estimated capacity and less than the 9,393 student enrollment the District is expected to reach in 2017. In addition, new development under the proposed Plan will be required to pay a School Facilities Impact Fee. This requirement and that the District is expected to have sufficient capacity to meet demand for school facilities, resulting in a less than significant impact on school facilities. Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.7-2 Future development under the proposed Plan may require additional fire and police protection services, but would not exceed the capacity of existing facilities. (Less than Significant) Fire Future development in the Planning Area will be served by Station #63. Station #63 is within the Planning Area, resulting in a response time of 4.99 minutes or less, which is compliant with Fire Department standards. The proposed Plan will result in a 2030 buildout population of 77,500. The South San Francisco Fire Department currently has 79 sworn personnel. If the current level of staffing is maintained, the South San Francisco Fire Department will be able to meet the current National Fire Protection Association (NFP A) standard of one firefighter per 1,000 at full buildout. It is not anticipated that new facilities or an expansion of existing facilities is required. In addition, future development will have to adhere to applicable General Plan policies as well as the California Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code and the City's Municipal Code. Given this, less than significant impacts to fire services are anticipated. Police Future development will be served by the police station at 33 Arroyo Drive which is within the Planning Area, resulting in a response time of five minutes or less. The Department is generally able to respond to high priority calls within the Department's response time goal of two to IN South San Prancisco UnWed School District (SSPUSD), Enrollment Projections, March 2008. 3.7-17 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures three minutes,19 though the Department does not have a formally adopted response time standard. The additional increase in population resulting from the proposed Plan may increase the demand for police assistance. The potential increase in demand is addressed by the General Plan Policy 8.5-1-1 Ensure adequate police staff to provide rapid and timely response to all emergencies and maintain the capability to have minimum response times. Actions listed under policy 8.5-I -1 that could be taken to ensure rapid and timely response to all emergencies can include maintaining a law enforcement standard of 1.5 police officers per 1,000 residents; analyzing and monitoring factors affecting response time (population growth, police staffing, community policing programs) and average response times as guidelines based on past experience; maintaining, training, and equipping special response teams for extraordinary or extremely hazardous emergency incidents; and developing and/or using the City's Geographic Information System (GIS) for analysis of issues including crime location trends and response routes. In addition, the proposed Plan is consistent with General Plan Policy 8.5-G-2 Assisting crime prevention through physical planning and community design through policies that ensure building design and site planning adequately address public safety concerns. General Plan policy 8.5-1 and other policies in the current General Plan ensure the provision of police service to meet the needs of future populations. The proposed Plan will require an additional four officers to be in accordance with a law enforcement standard of 1.5 police officers per 1,000 residents. The additional four officers would not require the construction of a new police station. A police station located at 33 Arroyo Drive is within the Planning Area, resulting in a response time of less than five minutes. In addition, a second police station, which is currently being constructed as part of the Miller Avenue Parking Structure and expected to be completed in mid-20ll, will be able to accommodate the additional officers that would be required.20 Therefore, additional facilities would not be required, resulting in less than significant impacts. Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.7-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not require additional water supply beyond that available from existing entitlements and resources, as planned for in the Urban Water Management Plan, or cause an exceedance of distribution capacity. (Less than Significant) Water Supply As the environmental document for a conceptual land use plan which does not authorize any specific development project, this EIR need not demonstrate certainty of availability of water supply. (See Vineyard Area Citizens For Responsible Growth v. City OJ Rancho Cordova (2007) [9 City of South San Prancisco, Centrum Logistics Project DEIR, Appendix B: Initial Study, June 2009. 21) Maida Ng, Administrative Assistant, South San Prancisco Police Department, phone and email communication Pebru- ary 23, 2011. 3.7-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 40 Ca1.4th 412, 432-434 ("the necessary degree of confidence [in available water supply] involved for approval of a conceptual plan is much lower than for issuance of building permits").) Nevertheless, the proposed Plan would not require additional water supply in excess of the supply contemplated in the UWMP. The UWMP for the California Water Service Company which serves the Planning Area was established in accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act, (Division 6 Part 2.6 of the Water Code §§10610 - 10656). As noted in Wat. Code, § 10910, subd. (c)(2), Gov. Code, § 66473.7, subd. (c)(l), it is acceptable to use the most recently adopted UWMP to assess water supply in accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act and SB 610. The 2006 UWMP considers the reliability of the water supply to the Planning Area, and Water. Code § 10910, subd. (h) indicates that if an assessment has already been prepared that covers the project at issue, a new assessment need only be prepared in certain circumstances, as described in the Regulatory Setting. None of the three changes are relevant to the proposed Plan; therefore the UWMP is used in the analysis of water availability for the proposed Plan. As part of the South San Francisco District, the Planning Area's water demand is considered in the 2006 CWSC UWMP. This EIR considers whether changes in population projections under the proposed Plan would make a significant difference in water demand currently planned for in the UWMP. The UWMP projected that the South San Francisco District population would increase from 55,024 in 2000 to 69,150 in the year 2030. The South San Francisco District population includes population in the South San Francisco service area, the City of Colma and the Broadmoor Area. This increase in population represents an increase of approximately 1.1 percent per year. Table 3.7-5 shows the population breakdown within the South San Francisco District. Table 3.7-5: UWMP Population Projections for the South San Francisco District Service Area 2000 2030 Broadmoor Area 4,026 1 5,060 City of Colma 1,191 1 1,497 City of South San Francisco (Partial) 2 49,8072 62,594 Total] 55,024 69,150 1 US Census 2000 Population. 2 Since the CWSC serves only a portion of South San Francisco, population for the service area within South San Francisco was calculated by subtracting the 2000 population for the Broadmoor Area and the City of Colma from the total 2000 South San Francisco District population estimated by CWSc. ] UWMP 2000 Population and 2030 Projected Population. Source: California Water Service Company, 2006; US Census, 2000; Dyett & Bhatia, 20/0. The population projected for the entire City of South San Francisco in 2005, when the 2006 CWSC UWMP was prepared, was 71,600Y The 2006 Westborough Water District UWMP projected its service area population in 2030 to be 14,300. This results in a South San Francisco service area population of 57,300. The additional population of 4,200 resulting from the proposed Plan would all be within the South San Francisco service area, increasing the service area population to 61,500. ABAG Projections, 2005. 3.7-/9 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.7-6: Population Projections for Service Area with Project South San Francisco South San Francisco Service Area Westborough Water District2 1 ABAG Projections, 2005. 2030 No Project 71,6001 57,300 14,3002 2030 with proposed Plan 75,800 61,500 14,300 2 2006-20 10 Westborough Water District Urban Water Management Plan 2030 Service Area Population Projection. Source: Source: California Water Service Company, 2006; Westborough Water District, 2005; Dyett & Bhatia, 20/0. The service area population with the proposed Plan is lower than the population projected for the service area in the UWMP for 2030. Therefore, the proposed Plant is consistent with the assumptions made in the UWMP and the population growth in the Planning Area has been accounted for in the UWMP. In addition, the Planning Area will have to comply with the UWMP and with water conservation policies in the General Plan, thereby ensuring that impacts to water supply will be less than significant. Distribution The extension of water mains will be required along with service connections to each new building. In addition, an extension of the water main in El Camino Real from the south entry of Kaiser Hospital to Chestnut Avenue will be required to provide services to the currently vacant land areas between Kaiser Hospital and Chestnut Avenue, west of the BART tunnel. These parcels are currently not served by an existing water main.22 The extension of the existing water system into the Planning Area will also require connections from Mission Road to the new water main extension in El Camino Real between Kaiser Hospital and Chestnut Avenue. This can be done as part of the planned Oak Avenue extension. The cross connections from Mission Road to El Camino Real are necessary to provide a looped network which ensures adequate pressure in the system. Based on discussions with CWSC, the existing water distribution system is generally in good condition and should be able to support the proposed development without the need for major repairs or upgrades to the existing system. Therefore impacts on distribution capacity will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures N one required. 22 Kimley Horn, 2010. 3.7-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.7-4 Future development under the proposed Plan would not cause wastewater treatment capacity of the WQCP to be exceeded and would not require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of facilities. (Less than Significant) Residential uses under the proposed Plan could result in approximately 336,105 gallons per day of wastewater. Flow rates for commercial uses vary greatly depending on the type of commercial use. Restaurants use a lot of water while small offices use very little water. Table 3.7-7: Wastewater Generated with Project Wastewater Generated (Gallons per Day) Population Per Capita 2010 5,600,000 65,000 86.1 2030 6,672,750 77,500 Source: California Department of Finance, 2009; City of South San Francisco, 2009; Dyett & Bhatia, 2009. Currently, the City of South San Francisco has an allocation of treatment capacity of 8.74 MGD at the WQCP, and is currently generating 5.6 MGD of wastewater. That results in a wastewater generation per capita rate of 86.1 gallons per day. Assuming that the per capita wastewater generation rate stays constant, the wastewater generated at buildout with the proposed Plan would be 6.67 MGD. This is below the capacity allocated to the City of South San Francisco and leaves 2.07 MGD of unused allocated capacity at buildout. The City is upgrading its sanitary sewer facilities to handle increased flows from new development. In order to recover the costs of these upgrades, the City charges new development a flat rate sewer connection fee and a monthly impact fee. Future development will be required to pay sanitary sewer fees imposed by the City of South San Francisco in order to mitigate the cost of the sewer system upgrades necessary to manage the wastewater flows generated by future development.23 New sanitary sewer lines within the Planning Area will be needed to serve each new development, but major expansion of off-site infrastructure will not be required. The resulting increase in flows is a small fraction of the total capacity of the existing trunk lines that serve the Planning Area. Based on the above analysis, it is expected that the proposed Plan will have less than significant impacts on wastewater facilities. Mitigation Measures N one required. City of South San francisco, 249 E Grand Draft Focused EIR, October 2005. 3.7-21 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.7-5 Future development under the proposed Plan will be served by a landfill with adequate permitted capacity and would not fail to fully comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. (Less than Significant) Waste generation and disposal data for South San Francisco is maintained by the CIWMB. According to the CIWMB, the total amount of solid waste landfilled in 2008 was 88,674 tons.21 This equals a solid waste generation rate of approximately 7.65 pounds per resident per day. The additional 4,200 residents projected under the proposed Plan would result in approximately 32,130 pounds (16.1 tons) oflandfilled solid waste per day. The totallandfilled solid waste at buildout for the City of South San Francisco would be 296 tons per day, or 108,040 tons per year. This analysis assumes the same waste diversion percentage as 2006, 50 percent as a conservative measure. If South San Francisco's diversion rate increases at buildout, the amount of solid waste landfilled would be less. Given that the Ox Mountain Landfill has a permitted maximum disposal rate of 3,598 tons per day, South San Francisco's solid waste generation in 2030 will represent 8.2 percent of daily permitted waste intake. The Ox Mountain Landfill has a current closure year of 2023, with a longer period of operation allowed pending renewal of the landfill's permit. Closure dates are dynamic and not binding in any way. The Ox Mountain Landfill does get re-evaluated for existing capacity by both operators and regulators, so the closure year may change. Currently, due to the downturn in the economy, the rate of disposal is down so the closure date will likely be further down the road.25 Therefore it is anticipated that waste generated by the proposed Plan will be accommodated under existing permitted capacity. While the expected additional waste generation is not expected to strain existing landfill capacity, the City acknowledges the importance of reducing waste and has policies in the General Plan that will ensure that the City maintains low solid waste flows through recycling and waste reduction programs. Implementation of these General Plan policies (such as 8.3-G-l and 8.3-I -1) will reduce solid waste impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures N one required. California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), Jurisdiction prome for City of South San Prancisco, avail- able at http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Promes/J uris/J ur Prome2.asp ?RG=Local %20Government&JURID=511 &JUR=South +San +Prancisco, accessed November 3, 2010. 25 Reinhard Hohlwein, Assistance and Permitting Branch, Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery, email communication November 3, 2010. 3.7-22 3.8 Aesthetics and Visual Resources This section presents the environmental setting and impact analysis for visual resources in the Planning Area. It evaluates how implementation of the proposed Plan will affect the Planning Area's visual and aesthetic character, including scenic views, as well as street level aesthetics and character. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PHYSICAL SETTING South San Francisco South San Francisco's urban character is one of contrasts within a visually well-defined setting. San Bruno Mountains to the northeast, the ridge along Skyline Boulevard to the west, and the San Francisco Bay to the east provide the city with distinctive edges. The city is contained in almost a bowl-like fashion by hills on three sides and flatlands along the water. Hills are visible in many parts of the city, and Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain are visual landmarks. El Camino Real El Camino Real is a curving, undulating street that skirts around San Bruno Mountain between South San Francisco and San Francisco. Maintaining its historical importance as a transportation route and commercial center, El Camino Real is one of the community's primary corridors. It is one of the most diverse areas of the city, with uses ranging from major employers such as See's Candies and Kaiser Permanente, to supermarkets and other neighborhood commercial uses, to housing. New development has occurred at the north end of El Camino Real next to the South San Francisco BART station, directly north of the Planning Area. These new higher density developments include the Fairfield/Solaire Mixed-Use project, a three-to four-story mixed- use, residential/commercial development, and the Park Station project, a four-story residential project. These changes have resulted in an inconsistent character along El Camino Real as some areas have redeveloped and others, including the Planning Area, have not. Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures North of the Planning Area: Fairfield/Solaire Mixed- Use Project. Existing Development within the Planning Area. Views North of the Planning Area, as viewed from Centennial Way Linear Park: Park Station Project Major views in the Planning Area include those to San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill. San Bruno Mountain San Bruno Mountain, the northernmost part of the Santa Cruz Mountains, is located to the east and north of the Planning Area. The Mountain's ridge line runs in an east-west configuration, with considerable slopes and elevations ranging from 250 feet to 1,314 feet at the summit. Periodic views to San Bruno Mountain exist throughout the Planning Area when facing east. Sign Hill Sign Hill is home to one of South San Francisco's national historic landmarks. In 1891, the J. Dunn Real Estate Company, South San Francisco's first realtor, installed a sign on Sign Hill proclaiming the City's identity as "The Industrial City" of the region. After a period of years during which the sign was absent, the Chamber of Commerce had the words "South San Francisco the Industrial City" whitewashed onto the hillside. The concrete letters were installed 3.8-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures in 1929. Although the ridgeline of Sign Hill can be seen along some of the street, existing buildings and elevation changes limit or prevent views of the actual sign. The view from the BART station facing east to San Bruno Mountain. The view from Oak Avenue where it dead-ends at Mission Road. Planning Area El Camino Real The view from the intersection of Mission Road and Chestnut Avenue, facing east; this is one of the few views in which Sign Hill is visible. The view from the intersection of EI Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue, facing east. El Camino Real is a wide, eight-lane road with a median that serves turn pockets. Sidewalks are narrow, and there is little pedestrian activity. On-street parking is permitted in some locations on El Camino Real in the Planning Area. Pedestrian crossing distances are at least 100 feet at the Chestnut Avenue intersection. The segment of El Camino Real that runs through the Planning Area is particularly unusual in that the Buri Buri neighborhood sits approximately 25 feet above El Camino Real marked by a steep bank along the west side of the street from Del Paso Drive to north of McLellan Drive. Along the El Camino Real's east side, the grade falls approximately 15 feet from the sidewalk between Chestnut Avenue and Kaiser Medical Center, 3.8-3 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures tapering northward to grade near the BART station. Major travel along El Camino Real is by car, so for many people, the visual experience is limited to what can be seen from inside a car. . Chestnut A venue Chestnut Avenue is an arterial that intersects with El Camino Real near the southern edge of the Planning Area. It is defined by its width, heavy traffic, and a lack of definition along its narrow sidewalks. Chestnut Avenue is called Westborough Road west of El Camino Real. This intersection is a major circulation gateway to South San Francisco, though no existing development, design, or streetscape features currently identify it as such. As a pedestrian on Chestnut, one may feel out of place and unsafe. Though clearly marked and signalized crosswalks exist, they are not highly used because of scale, signal timing, and a lack of pedestrian oriented destinations. Mission Road Mission Road connects local and cut-through traffic from Highway 101 and Grand Avenue to Sunshine Gardens and the BART station. Mission Road is wide, loosely defined along its edges, and does not invite pedestrian use on its narrow sidewalks, where they exist. Uses vary, including residential, civic, commercial, office, with a lack of continuity or specific identity. Oak A venue Extension A new extension of Oak Avenue from Mission Road to El Camino Real is planned and partially funded. The street will extend from Mission Road at the current Oak Avenue intersection westward to intersect with El Camino Real across from the Arroyo Drive intersection. The extension is currently proposed to be four lanes and will bridge over Colma Creek and the Linear Park bikeway. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment No more than a mile long, the area maintains a comfortable walking distance between BART and Chestnut Avenue along El Camino Real, Mission Road or the Centennial Way bike/ pedestrian path. However, in general El Camino Real and Mission Road are not pedestrian friendly, as they tend to be poorly defined with narrow (or missing) sidewalks, marginal landscaping, a lack of lighting or furnishings, and a lack of buildings that interact with the sidewalk. Centennial Way does provide a more pedestrian and bicycle friendly alternative. 3.8-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cars dominate the pedestrian realm as surface parking lots are built to the street edge. REGULATORY SETTING Local South San Francisco General Plan (1999) Chapter 2: Land Use Narrow s prov r pedestrians from the traffic along El Camino Real. 2-G-I Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and protect residents from changes in non-residential areas. 2-G-7 Encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office development in centers where they would support transit, in locations where they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and vitality. 2-G-8 Provide incentives to maximize community orientation of new development, and to promote alternative transportation modes. 2-1-2 Establish height limitations for specific areas as delineated on Figure 2-3 [of the General Plan]. For these specific areas, do not regulate heights separately by underlying base district uses. 2-1-7 Establish a comprehensive design standards and guidelines strategy. 2-1-8 As part of establishment of design guidelines and standards, and design review, improve the community orientation of new development. 2-1-9 Ensure that any design and development standards and guidelines that are adopted reflect the unique patterns and characteristics of individual neighborhoods. 3.8-5 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Chapter 3: Planning Subareas El Camino Real 3.4-G-I Develop El Camino Real as a boulevard, that accommodates its role as a regional corridor but with streetscape and development that provide identity to the street. 3.4-G-3 Develop the South San Francisco BART station area as a vital pedestrian-oriented center, with intensity and mix of uses that complement the area's new role as a regional center. 3.4-G-4 Develop more east-west crossings El Camino Real that connect the city's neighborhoods, and a continuous parallel street on the eastside to provide alternative travel routes. 3.4-G-5 Encourage the implementation of the Guiding Principles of the Grand Boulevard Initiative as adopted by the Grand Boulevard Task Force in April of 2007. 3.4-1 -I Work with Caltrans and other agencies to implement the El Camino Real Landscape Conceptual Master Plan for the entire stretch of El Camino Real through South San Francisco. 3.4-1-6 Prepare a focused plan for public improvements that includes: • Streets and other infrastructure improvements; and • Sidewalk design and construction within a I/2-mile of the BART station to integrate the station with the surroundings. South San Francisco El Camino Real Master Plan (2006) The South San Francisco El Camino Real Master Plan addresses the General Plan policy that directs the City to "Develop El Camino Real as a boulevard that accommodates its role as a regional corridor but with streetscape and development that provide identity to the street." The goals of the master plan are to improve streetscape aesthetics, increase pedestrian circulation and safety, increase the use of public transportation system, and improve vehicular circulation. IMPACT ANALYSIS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The proposed Plan would have a significant adverse effect on visual resources if it resulted in: • A substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; • Substantial damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock out- croppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; • Substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its sur- roundings; or • Creation of a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. 3.8-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures METHODOLOGY & ASSUMPTIONS To evaluate potential impacts on visual resources in the Planning Area, this analysis considered potential degradation to existing views and existing visual character of the Planning Area. As aesthetics and visual resources can be subjective by nature, the aesthetic and visual characteristics of the Planning Area are qualitatively evaluated. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS Infill development and redevelopment, along with planned landscape improvements, along El Camino Real, Mission Road, and Chestnut Avenue in the Planning Area will have a beneficial impact on the visual and aesthetic characteristics of El Camino Real as they will help to create a more unified, pedestrian-friendly and aesthetically pleasing streetscape along the corridor. New development could affect scenic views of the San Bruno Mountains and Sign Hill from some viewpoints in the Planning Area. Howeverthe establishment of development standards based on policies in the proposed Plan that limit tower dimensions and requires a minimum tower separation; and design guidelines contained in the proposed Plan will help ensure that views of Sign Hill and the San Bruno Mountains will be available. Additionally, design review for structures 120 to 160 feet tall will ensure best efforts to preserve views. New development under the proposed Plan is not expected to create new sources of light or glare that could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the Planning Area. The Planning Area is not visible from a State Scenic Highway. El Camino Real is a State Highway but it is not an officially designated State Scenic Highway nor is it an eligible state scenic highway.l The Planning Area is just over one mile to the east of U.S. Highway 101 which is not a scenic highway. Highway 280 is a state designated scenic highway located approximately one mile west of the Planning Area but is not visible from the Planning Area nor can the Planning Area be seen from it. Changes in elevation and landscaping along Highway 280 block views to the Planning Area. Therefore the project would have no impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.7-1 Future development under the proposed Plan would improve the existing visual character of the Planning Area. (Beneficial) The proposed Plan is aimed at improving the existing aesthetic value of the Planning Area and calls for the development of a vibrant corridor that is walkable and pedestrian-scaled. The development standards that will be established to govern new construction will be an integrated package of requirements for the street and building interface, land use, building height, and building setbacks which will help minimize negative aesthetic impacts and ensure harmony with the scale and character of surrounding development. I Caltrans. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm. accessed April 13, 2009. 3.8-7 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures The proposed Plan establishes a pedestrian oriented area by maximizing active frontages along key streets and open space connections, developing the area with an overall character and urban design scheme that promotes livability and sustain ability. The Plan will establish a comprehensive urban design scheme that specifies a palette for landscaping, pedestrian amenities, architectural features, and requires high quality design. Pedestrian orientation will be emphasized through finer grained development with highly articulated facades, changes in materials, ample fenestration and entries along pedestrian connections and pedestrian-oriented retail streets. These features of the Plan would unite the planning Area and signal key destinations. The Plan would emphasize sight lines and access to public spaces and parks via pedestrian connections through development, landscaping, and signage. Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact 3.3 Urban Design and the Public Realm UD-6 Establish a comprehensive urban design scheme that specifies a palette for landscaping, pedestrian amenities, and architectural features. The scheme should visually unite the entire area, highlight open space and Centennial Way, and signal key destinations to passing vehicular traffic. UD-8 Require high-quality design that reflects the area's visibility and role as a community destination. UD-9 Ensure that mid-and high-rise development is slender, and that towers are staggered to allow for sunlight and views into open spaces and from adjacent development. UD-ll Scale development along pedestrian connections and pedestrian-oriented retail streets to a finer grain with highly articulated facades, changes in materials, ample fenestration and entries. Employ building step-backs to ensure sunlight into open spaces and streets. UD-20 Design streetscape improvements consistent with Figure 3-5. UD-21 Create a unique identity for the new Civic District, with distinctive street trees, signage, crosswalk improvements, and other streetscape elements. UD-22 Integrate parks and plazas throughout new development along pedestrian connections, Centennial Way and Colma Creek to create a cohesive and connected public realm. UD-23 Emphasize sight lines and access to public spaces and parks via pedestrian connections through development, landscaping, and signage. UD-24 Equip pedestrian-oriented streets with trees, benches, outdoor seating, kiosks, and other amenities. 3.8-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.8-2 Future development under the proposed Plan may affect scenic views of Sign Hill and the San Bruno Mountains. (Less than Significant) The proposed Plan would allow buildings along El Camino Real up to 80 feet in height, consistent with El Camino Real north and south of the Planning Area, and 120 feet with discretionary review. The proposed Plan would allow buildings along Mission Road, south of Grand Avenue up to 120 feet in height and 160 feet with discretionary review. Buildings along Mission Road north of Grand Avenue would be allowed to reach 40 feet. This EIR considers the impact on views from the public realm, focusing on views from a pedestrian height along a sidewalk. The San Bruno Mountains and the Sign Hill are visible periodically from streets throughout the Planning Area when looking east, in particular including El Camino Real, Chestnut Avenue, and Mission Road. Views that exist along street intersections will remain uninterrupted, and in the instance of the extension of Oak Avenue view corridors will be added. In places where there are vacant sites or surface parking areas where distant hills can be seen, these views would be disrupted by any new building -including one-to two-story buildings. However, taller buildings will have a greater impact on views. The tallest development will be allowed on the parcels between the BART right-of-way and Mission Road, south of Grand Avenue and north of Oak Avenue, and will be add substantial development to currently vacant sites. From El Camino Real, the four-story Kaiser parking garage and medical facility already blocks views of San Bruno Mountain to the east. There is, however, a view to the east between the garage and the facility and south of the parking garage. Views from the linear park, however, which currently look over the vacant parcel to the east, would be blocked. The Plan, does however, propose a park within the vacant parcel which would help preserve some views of the San Bruno Mountain to the east. The Plan also proposes pedestrian and bicycle connections between El Camino Real and Mission Road, which would preserve views and neighborhood connectivity at key points. Finally, the view looking northeast from the corner of Chestnut and El Camino Real, which currently views a vacant parcel with the San Bruno Mountains in the background would instead be of a building of 80 or 120 feet tall. Views from Chestnut facing east that include a view of Sign Hill would not be impacted by development in the proposed Plan. 3.8-9 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures The view northeast from the intersection of EI Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. The vew west from Mission Road at Grand Avenue. The proposed zoning standards limit tower dimensions to 125 feet and require a minimum tower separation of thirty feet, which will help ensure that some views of Sign Hill and the San Bruno Mountains will be available. In addition, design guidelines in the proposed Plan and design review for taller structures will ensure best efforts to preserve views. Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, and proposed Plan policies and Design Guidelines would ensure that less than significant impacts occur on the City's scenic views of Sign Hill and the San Bruno Mountains, and visual character Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact 3.2 Building Heights H-I Maintain building heights along El Camino Real in concert with those established for the southern portion of the corridor. Allow taller buildings north of Chestnut Avenue, reflecting the area's proximity to BART and open space amenities. H-2 Establish an overall typical height range between four and six stories, with residential towers reaching up to 15 stories in select locations. H-3 Require building heights to vary within individual blocks, and do not permit monolithic, bulky developments. Taller towers may be appropriate on all blocks and should be distributed to provide both a dense urban fabric and sufficient open spaces. 3.3 Urban Design and the Public Realm UD-9 3.8-10 Ensure that mid-and high-rise development is slender, and that towers are staggered for sunlight and views into open spaces and from adjacent development. Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Design Guidelines in proposed Plan that Reduce Impact Building Massing DG-I DG-2 DG-3 DG-4 DG-5 DG-6 All buildings above five stories should incorporate a distinct base, middle, and top. The middle of the building should be stepped back from the base an average of 6 to 10 feet and the top should be further distinguished with a step back and/or architectural features. The apparent bulk of a building should be reduced by segmenting it into smaller masses that correspond to the internal function of the building. Repetitive elements or monolithic treatments should be avoided. Adjacent buildings and buildings on the same block should exhibit variation in height and massing. Buildings should establish a street wall that defines the physical space of the street. Along Chestnut Avenue and the Centennial Way pedestrian district, the height of the building base should be consistently 40 to 50 feet. Towers should be spaced to allow sunlight, air, and privacy for tenants while maintaining views and natural light at the street level. Towers should be slender in order to minimize the casting of large shadows and reducing apparent bulk at lower floors. Where large floorplates are necessary on lower floors, middle and upper floors should taper, step back, or otherwise employ a reduction in massing. Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.8-3 Future development under the proposed Plan could result in increased light and glare. (Less than Significant) The Planning Area is highly developed and has a number of existing light sources. The proposed Plan would allow residential uses in the Planning Area which may increase nighttime light. Nighttime lighting impacts are significant when they interfere with or intrude into neighboring residences. Light pollution is typically related to the use of high voltage light fixtures with inadequate shields and improper positioning or orientation. Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, which contains general standards for lighting as well as standards that control outdoor artificial light, would reduce potentially significant long-term light and glare impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures N one required. 3.8-11 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures This page intentionally left blank. 3.8-12 3.9 Land Use and Housing ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PHYSICAL SETTING South San Francisco South San Francisco has a distinctive land use pattern that reflects early land use planning that located industrial areas east of residential areas and businesses in order to take advantage of topography and winds on Point San Bruno. The second trend that shaped the arrangement of uses was extensive residential development that occurred during the 1940s and 1950s, creating large areas almost entirely developed with single-family housing. As a result, South San Francisco is largely comprised of single-use areas, with industry in the eastern and southeastern portions of the city, single-family homes to the north and west, commercial uses along a few transportation corridors, and multi-family housing clustered in those same corridors and on hillsides. The 1999 South San Francisco General Plan divides the city into 14 sub-areas, based on the types of uses, transportation routes, redevelopment plans or other plans within the area, and the types of change that may be occurring. One of those sub-areas is El Camino Real. The Planning Area is located in the northern part of El Camino Real, which is characterized by major commercial establishments and residential development, including Costco, Kaiser Hospital, and the South San Francisco BART Station and Transit Village. Planning Area Land uses in the Planning Area include commercial/office uses, high-density residential uses, automotive repair shops, vacant parcels, a former auto dealership, two shopping centers, the City's Municipal Services Building, and Kaiser Permanente Medical Center. Kaiser Permanente Medical Center occupies approximately 15 acres near the center of the Planning Area. The South San Francisco BART Linear Park runs roughly north-south through the center of the Planning Area. Within the City of South San Francisco, the BART Linear Park follows the 2.85- mile BART right-of-way between the South San Francisco BART station and the San Bruno BART station. The Planning Area encompasses approximately nine-tenths of a mile of the Linear Park alignment. Colma Creek, a regionally significant water body and flood control facility, is also within the Planning Area. Table 3.9-1 shows the existing and projected development in the Planning Area. Table 3.9-1: Existing and Projected Development Land Use Type Existing Existing Lost Retail and Services (sf) 250,900 194,000 Office (sf) 304,800 0 Public/Institutional (sf) 60,500 0 Residential (Units) 132 65 Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 20 I O. Projected within Focus Area 186,800 73,000 50,000 1,215 Projected Out- side of Focus Area 182,600 0 0 305 Net Total 426,300 377,800 110,500 1,587 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures REGULATORY SETTING State Regulations General Plan Consistency with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans Public Utilities Code 21675 requires each airport land use commission to formulate an airport land use compatibility plan. California Government Code 65302.3 further requires that general plans be consistent with airport land use compatibility plans. In addition, general plans and applicable specific plans must be amended to reflect amendments to the airport land use compatibility plan. The San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan is discussed below. Local Regulations South San Francisco General Plan (1999) South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Designations The South San Francisco General Plan is the current, applicable General Plan for the City. Adopted in 1999 and most recently amended in 2010, the South San Francisco General Plan provides strategies and specific implementing actions that serve as the basis for establishing and setting priorities for detailed plans and implementing programs, such as the Zoning Code, the Capital Improvements Program, facilities plans, and redevelopment and specific plans. It also allows City departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that will enhance the character of the community, preserve and enhance critical environmental resources, and minimize hazards. A wide range of land use classifications are designated throughout the Planning Area, including: Office corresponding with Kaiser Permanente Medical Center and one parcel along Mission Road; High Density Residential between the BART right-of-way and Mission Road and mixed with community commercial north of Kaiser Permanente Medical Center; Community Commercial focused along Chestnut Avenue near El Camino Real; Business Commercial south of Chestnut Avenue on the west side of El Camino Real; Public along Arroyo Drive; El Camino Real Mixed Use south of Chestnut on the east side of El Camino Real; and Transportation Center on the northernmost stretch of the Planning Area. Chapter 2: Land Use 2-G-I Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and protect residents from changes in non-residential areas. 2-G-2 Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities for continued economic growth, and building intensities that reflect South San Francisco's prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access. 2-G-3 Provide land use designations that maximize benefits of increased accessibility that will result from BART extension to the city and adjacent locations. 3.9-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 2-G-6 Maximize opportunities for residential development, including through infill and redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial operations. 2-G-7 Encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office development in centers where they would support transit, in locations where they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and vitality. 2-G-8 Provide incentives to maximize community orientation of new development, and to promote alternative transportation modes. 2-1-22 Require that all future development conforms with the relevant height, aircraft noise, and safety policies and compatibility criteria contained in the most recently adopted version of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the environs of San Francisco International Airport. Chapter 3: Planning Sub-Areas 3.4-G-I Develop El Camino Real as a boulevard that accommodates its role as a regional corridor but with streetscape and development that provide identity to the street. 3.4-G-2 Encourage development of a mix of uses, with pockets of concentrated activity that provide focii and identity to the different parts of El Camino Real. 3.4-G-3 Develop the South San Francisco BART station area as a vital pedestrian-oriented center, with intensity and mix of uses that complement the area's new role as a regional center. 3.4-G-4 Develop more east-west crossings El Camino Real that connect the city's neighborhoods, and a continuous parallel street on the eastside to provide alternative travel routes. 3.4-G-5 Encourage the implementation of the Guiding Principles of the Grand Boulevard Initiative as adopted by the Grand Boulevard Task Force in April of 2007. BART Linear Park Master Plan (2003) The goals and objectives of the BART Linear Park Master Plan include: • Create safe road crossings and highlight bike path intersections to ensure visibility of pedestrians from vehicles; • Maintain nighttime visibility throughout the park while eliminating excess light and glare that may interfere with neighboring residents; • Provide an interesting, comfortable, and enjoyable experience for the park user by pro- viding seating areas interpretive areas informational kiosks and easy to follow signage; • Integrate the experiences of both the commuter and the recreational user; and 3.9-3 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • Connect trail users to community centers parks, schools, hospitals corporations, down- town, and commercial districts. Specific proposals applicable to the Planning Area include: • Bike path directed along El Camino Real for commuters and along Mission Road for recreational use. • Remove on-street parking to provide sidewalk, pathway, and buffer planting. • Underpass proposed at El Camino Real under proposed Oak Avenue extension. • Existing linear park path at mission road widened for multi-use bike trail. • Shared use of Flood Control District maintenance road for bike trail. • Pedestrian bridges over Colma Creek Channel to El Camino Real and to Kaiser Hospital. • Potential trailhead at Mission Road and Sequoia Ave. South San Francisco El Camino Real Master Plan (2006) The South San Francisco El Camino Real Master Plan addresses the General Plan policy that directs the City to "Develop El Camino Real as a boulevard that accommodates its role as a regional corridor but with streetscape and development that provide identity to the street." The goals of the master plan are to improve streetscape aesthetics, increase pedestrian circulation and safety, increase the use of public transportation system, and improve vehicular circulation. Specific recommendations relevant to the Planning Area include: Kaiser Hospital Area • Provide a new sidewalk on the eastside from the Greenridge stairs to Arroyo Drive. This will improve pedestrian circulation and safety for those parking on the eastside and crossing over to Kaiser Hospital. • Provide pedestrian barrier to prevent pedestrian crossings. • Remove parking from BART to the north entrance of Kaiser to allow for a wider side- walk and street trees. • Provide sidewalk bulb-outs at the Kaiser crosswalk to reduce crossing length and im- prove pedestrian safety at the bus stop. • Encourage Kaiser to re-vegetate planting area. • Create plaza with significant art piece along the El Camino Real frontage road. Buri-Buri Center Area • Provide street trees and low screen fence along the Buri-Buri Center parking lot. • Provide pedestrian barrier to prevent pedestrian crossings. • Provide street trees along the west of side from West Borough to 1st Avenue. • Provide new four-way signalized intersection at 1st Avenue and El Camino Real to im- prove pedestrian circulation and safety. 3.9-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • Provide sidewalk bulb-outs on the east side of the lst Ave. intersection and West Orange intersection to calm traffic and reduce pedestrian crossing length. • Widen sidewalk and provide street trees on the west side from 1st Avenue to the mid- dle of the block. • Encourage lot reconsolidation and the widening of sidewalks. • Remove billboard to improve views. • Provide new bus shelter at the corner of West Orange Avenue. • Develop new monument for service club signage. Grand Boulevard Initiative Guiding Principles The Grand Boulevard Initiative is a collaboration of 19 cities in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties attempting to improve the performance, safety and aesthetics of El Camino Real along its route from the San Francisco City Limits to San Jose. In 2007 the following guiding principles were adopted. General Plan policies support the implementation of these principles. 1. Target housing and job growth in strategic areas along the corridor. 2. Encourage compact mixed-use development and high-quality urban design and con- struction. 3. Create a pedestrian-oriented environment and improve streetscapes, ensuring full access to and between public areas and private developments. 4. Develop a balanced multimodal corridor to maintain and improve mobility of people and vehicles along the corridor. S. Manage parking assets. 6. Provide vibrant public spaces and gathering places. 7. Preserve and accentuate unique and desirable community character and the existing quality of life in adjacent neighborhoods. 8. Improve safety and public health. 9. Strengthen pedestrian and bicycle connections with the corridor. 10. Pursue environmentally sustainable and economically viable development patterns. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (1996) The San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) develops and implements the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP). The current CLUP was adopted in December 1996. In San Mateo County, the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) is the designated ALUC. The CLUP establishes the procedures that C/CAG uses in reviewing proposed local agency actions that affect land use decisions in the vicinity of San Mateo County's airports. Airport planning boundaries define where height, noise, and safety standards, policies, and criteria are applied to certain proposed land use policy actions. 3.9-5 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures The ALUC is currently preparing an update of the 1996 CLUP, expected to be complete in 2011. The updated plan will include the 2008 FAA-accepted Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs). It will also include an updated diagram that illustrates the configuration of the preliminary Airport Influence Area (AlA) boundary area for SFIA as well as an updated diagram of the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 airspace protection surfaces. The Planning Area is not located within any runway end safety zones for the San Francisco International Airport. CLUP guidelines regarding noise are presented in Section 3.2. 4.4 Height Restrictions Exhibit 4D in the CLUP shows the F.A.R PART 77 airspace plan in the immediate San Francisco International Airport vicinity. The Planning Area is subject to height restrictions. The ALUC is currently preparing an update of the 1996 CLUP. The updated plan will include the 2008 FAA-accepted Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs). It will also include an updated diagram that illustrates the configuration of the preliminary Airport Influence Area (AlA) boundary area for SFIA as well as an updated diagram of the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 airspace protection surfaces. IMPACT ANALYSIS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Implementation of the proposed Plan would have a potentially significant adverse impact on land use and housing if the proposed Plan would: • Physically divide an established community; • Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, population, or jobs, necessitating the construction of replacement housing or relocation of services elsewhere; • Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with ju- risdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mi- tigating an environmental effect. METHODOLOGY & ASSUMPTIONS This analysis considers current policies and goals in the City's General Plan, existing and proposed land use conditions within the Planning Area, and applicable regulations and guidelines. Because the ALUC is still currently preparing an update of the 1996 CLUP, impacts are evaluated based on the most current adopted version of the plan, which is the 1996 CLUP, with 1998 Amendments, and in consultation with the San Francisco International Airport (SFO). SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The proposed Plan does not physically divide any established community. Rather, by increasing compatibility along El Camino Real, increasing opportunities for housing, and improving linkages, the proposed Plan provides improves connections to and continuity with surrounding communities. 3.9-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures The Planning Area primarily consists of commercial uses. The proposed will significantly increase the square footage of retail, services, and office space within the Planning Area. In addition, the proposed Plan will also significantly increase the number of housing units and removal of existing housing units as a result of the proposed Plan is not anticipated. Any housing removed as a result of the proposed Plan would be replaced through additional housing in the Planning Area. Overall, housing in the Planning Area is expected to increase from 132 units to 1,587 units. As part of adopting the proposed Plan, the General Plan will be amended and the Zoning Ordinance will be updated to ensure consistency between the three planning documents. The proposed Plan would adhere to policies set forth in the 1996 CLUP (Amended 1998). The Planning Area is outside all safety zones and outside of the 65 CNEL noise contour. The Planning Area is subject to height restrictions as identified in the CLUP. The ground elevation of all the parcels within the Planning Area are estimated to be at least 160 feet or more below SFO's critical airspace height limits. In addition, building heights will be required to adhere to the limits indicated in the most recently adopted CLUP. This requirement is reinforced by General Plan Policy 2-1-22, which requires that "all development conforms to the most recently adopted version of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan." The Planning Area is not in an area subject to any habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans; thus, there will be no impact with regard to habitat conservation plans. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.9-1 The proposed Plan makes substantial changes to the types of land uses in an area which may divide an established community. (Less than Significant) The proposed Plan would make areas within the Planning Area more compatible with Station Area Transit Village development to the north and the South El Camino Real area to the south. The proposed Plan would allow high-intensity mixed-use development and multi-family residential development on El Camino Real and along Mission Road, as well as permit heights and densities similar to those allowed to the north and south of the Planning Area. The proposed Plan would result in a corridor with more compatible land use and urban design patterns, resulting in a more cohesive community. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on an established community. Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact 3.1 Land use LU-I LU-5 Ensure an appropriate mix of uses, activities, and amenities, to help the area develop as a citywide and regional destination. Establish an identity for a "Civic District" containing the Municipal Services Building, a potential new City library, and other civic uses, through signage along El Camino Real and other places, landscape design, and connections (including better pedestrian access across El Camino Real). Cluster civic uses around the new 3.9-7 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures plaza/amphitheater and other community gathering places. Further synergies with shared resources such as joint parking facilities. LU-7 Ensure that the mix of commercial uses provides adequate neighborhood services for new residential development to reduce the need for driving for everyday needs. LU-8 Orient neighborhood-serving commercial establishments to the public realm and ensure easy access to pedestrian and bicycle connections. LU-IO Orient neighborhood-serving commercial establishments to the public realm and ensure easy access to pedestrian and bicycle connections. 3.3 Urban Design and the Public Realm UD-I UD-2 UD-3 UD-4 UD-5 UD-6 UD-8 Require active frontage along key streets, open spaces and linear connections, as shown in Figure 3-3. Ensure that the ground level of buildings along Chestnut Avenue and El Camino Real contains commercial uses, with other uses at higher levels. If a library is included as part of a mixed-use development on El Camino Real or Chestnut Avenue, locate the library on higher floors to retain a commercial frontage at the ground level. Line internal pedestrian connections through mixed-use development with active ground floor uses. Where residential development is adjacent to public spaces or connections, orient the development with townhomes at the ground level, multifamily units at upper floors, and open spaces facing onto the public space. Establish a comprehensive urban design scheme that specifies a palette for landscaping, pedestrian amenities, and architectural features. The scheme should visually unite the entire area, highlight open space and Centennial Way, and signal key destinations to passing vehicular traffic. Require high-quality design that reflects the area's visibility and role as a community destination. Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.9-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan may displace substantial numbers of existing housing, population, or jobs. (Less than Significant) The Planning Area mainly consists of non-residential development. Only approximately 135 residential units exist in the Planning Area, found in multi-family buildings located on Mission 3.9-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Road and Antoinette Lane, east of the BART right-of-way. The proposed Plan will allow continued residential uses and new residential uses in the Planning Area. In addition, the proposed Plan will substantially increase housing opportunities in the Planning Area by allowing residential uses in areas where previously they were not allowed. The proposed Plan will also allow continued commercial uses in the Planning Area, while also substantially increase the amount of retail and services, and office square footage in the Planning Area, resulting in an increased number of jobs. Therefore there will less than significant impacts relating to the displacement of housing, population, or jobs in the area. Overall, the Plan will result in an increase in housing, population, and jobs in the Planning Area. Because the Plan is long-range in nature, it is possible that some residential uses may convert to higher density residential or mixed uses; however, the overall proposed Plan will significantly increase the number of dwelling units in the Planning Area such that any displaced residents will be able to find accommodation in the same area. Similarly, while some businesses may be displaced during redevelopment, the additional commercial and retail space added by the Plan will accommodate relocation for many land use types within the Planning Area. Proposed Area Plan Policies that Reduce the Impact LU-3 LU-6 LU-7 LU-8 Provide new residential development to support and activate commercial and public uses in the area, with a minimum of 800 housing units, and up to 1,500 new housing units, for approximately 2,500 to 4,400 new residents. Provide a minimum of 100,000 to 200,000 square feet of additional regional and neighborhood-serving commercial uses in the Planning Area. Ensure that commercial spaces are sized and designed at an adequate depth and height to accommodate and attract a variety of uses. Require that spaces are equipped with the necessary building infrastructure (gas lines, etc.) to serve a range of commercial and retail uses, including food preparation and groceries. Provide at least one major space of 40,000 to 60,000 square feet that can accommodate a community-serving supermarket-either a new one or a relocated Safeway, currently located in the southeastern portion of the Planning Area. Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.9-3 The proposed Plan may conflict with the City General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. (Less than Significant) The project includes the adoption of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, as well as General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments. As discussed previously, an area plan is 3.9-9 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures adopted by resolution as an amendment to the general plan and is implemented by ordinances such as zoning. 1 The General Plan amendment will include amendments to the Land Use; Planning Sub-Areas; Transportation; and Parks, Public Facilities, and Services elements of the existing General Plan to ensure consistency. As discussed in Chapter 2 Project Description of the EIR, the Land Use element will be amended to include two new land use designations: El Camino Real Mixed use North, High Intensity and El Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity. The High Density Residential land use designation will be amended to allow for higher density within the Planning Area. Height limits will also be amended to allow for greater height within the Planning Area. The Planning Sub-Areas; Transportation; and Parks, Public Facilities, and Services elements will also be amended to incorporate references to the proposed Plan and improvements identified in the proposed Plan. These amendments will ensure consistency between the proposed Plan and General Plan. Where the proposed Plan does not address certain issues, new development under the proposed Plan would be subject to policies in the General Plan. New development under the proposed Plan would be required to adhere to policies in the General Plan, including policies in the Parks, Public Facilities, and Services; Open Space and Conservation; Health and Safety, and Noise elements which would help avoid or mitigate any potential impacts resulting from the proposed Plan. These General Plan policies and potential impacts are discussed in individual environmental topic sections in this Chapter. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance will include a new chapter to Division III: Specific and Area Plan Districts. This new chapter, Chapter 20.270 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan District will include development standards that will apply to the Planning Area. New development under the proposed Plan would have to adhere to all the applicable standards in the Zoning Ordinance, including Section 20.300.010 Performance Standards, which includes standards that will help avoid or mitigate potential impacts of the proposed Plan. These standards and potential impacts are discussed in individual environmental topic sections in this Chapter. As the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments will be concurrently adopted with the proposed Plan and the proposed Plan does not conflict with any policies or standards aimed at avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts, the impact is less than significant. Mitigation Measures N one required. Proposed General Plan Amendment Policies that Reduce the Impact 3.4-G-6 Use the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan as a guide for detailed implementation of General Plan policies for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area. 3.4-1-13 Develop the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area in accordance with the vision established for the area by the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan. I Statc of California C;ovcrnor's Otlicc of Planning and Rcscarch, C;cncral Plan C;uidclincs, 2003. 3.9-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.9-3 The proposed Plan may conflict with height limits established for the San Francisco International Airport airspace. (Less than Significant) The ground elevation of all the parcels in the Planning Area are estimated to be at least 160 feet or more below SFO's critical airspace height limits. As shown in Figure 3.9-1, Airport height limits are above the limits proposed in the plan, resulting in less than significant impacts. The proposed Planning Area does not lie below any current or projected future civil airport airspace protections surfaces associated with runways as defined in CFR Part 77 section 77.25. The Planning Area does lie below current airspace protection surfaces associated with United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) as included under CFR Part 77 section 77.23 and below current airspace protection surfaces associated with One- Engine Inoperative (OEI) departure procedures as described in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13. An initial analysis of the TERPS and OEI airspace protection surfaces, however, indicates that the maximum building heights in the proposed Plan would likely not penetrate these airspace protection surfaces. Prior to construction, developers may still be required to notify the FAA of any new construction or alteration within the Planning Area if proposed construction or alternation could result in penetration of the FAA notification surfaces as described in CFR Part 77 section 77.13.2 Mitigation Measures N one required. 2 John Bcrgcncr, Burcau of Planning & Environmcntal Aft~lirs, San francisco Intcrnational Airport, August 26, 2010. 3.9-11 Figure 3.9-1: Airport Height Limits Source: John Bergener, Bureau of Planning & Environmental Affairs at San Francisco International Airport, August 2010. San Francisco International EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Aeronautical Surface Height Limitations Com po site Aeronautical Surfaces Above Ground Level 0-40 40 -80 80-120 120-160 Above 160 N + 160 320 640 960 1.280 1:5,142 ASSET MANAGEMENT a,,"m .. , no hab,l1t'l for any "",,,ages "hat may a-",. from errors, amlss·ers, ~r 1n~~~UraCle~ 111 :~IS data. Feet 3.10 Geology, Soils and Seismicity ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PHYSICAL SETTING Geology and Soils The City of South San Francisco is located on the San Francisco Bay Peninsula in a region dominated by Quaternary sediments and bedrock of the Jurassic/Cretaceous Franciscan Assemblage. The Planning Area is located in the low-lying Colma Creek valley south of the base of the southern slope of Sign Hill which itself is located in the San Bruno Mountain foothills. Native surface sediments consist locally of Holocene alluvium and bay sediments consisting primarily of silty sand, silt or sandy silt Quaternary in age. These sediments may overlie unconsolidated, well sorted fine to medium-grained sands of the extensive Pleistocene Colma Formation. Bedrock of the Franciscan Assemblage can be expected to be encountered within 100 feet below ground surface in some parts of the Planning Area. This formation is comprised primarily of highly folded and fractured sedimentary and metamorphic rock.l Surface soils in the Planning Area are relatively non-expansive and well drained, with low permeability and low erosion potential. However, soil stability is considerably lower and erosion potential higher within occasional local pockets of clean sand that lack sufficient silt and clay binder. Faults and Seismicity Several faults traverse the Bay Area region, including the San Andreas, the San Gregorio, the Hayward, and the Calavaras faults. None of these faults are located within the Planning Area. The San Andreas Fault is located approximately two miles west of the Planning Area. The Planning Area is not within the Earthquake Safety Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone) although the General Plan EIR shows the inactive San Bruno Fault bisecting the Project Area.2 The San Francisco Bay area as a whole, including South San Francisco, is located in one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. There is a 62% probability of at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater quake, capable of causing widespread damage, striking the San Francisco Bay region before 2032.3 A shaking intensity map prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) shows that the Planning Area would experience a shaking I CSS Environmcntal Scrviccs, Inc., Environmental Site Assessment 1.12 Mile Corridor Owned by San Francisco Public Utili- ties Commission South San Francisco, CA, Octobcr 7,2005. 2 City of South San francisco, C;cncral Plan Draft Environmcntal Impact Rcport, figurc 4.11-1 C;cotcchnical Hazards, p. 4-147 'Association of Bay Arca C;ovcrnmcnts (ABAC;). Shaking Hazards, available at http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarca/cqmaps/fAQ.html. acccsscd August 4,2010. Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures intensity level of IX (Violent, Heavy Damage) from a rupture of the San Andreas Fault during an earthquake with a 7.2 magnitude. Most of the City would experience a shaking intensity level of IX, while areas adjacent to the San Andreas Fault would experience a shaking intensity level of X (Very Violent, Extreme Damage). The Planning Area would be subject to extremely high or very high levels of shaking amplification1 Liquefaction Liquefaction is the rapid transformation of saturated, loose, fine-grained sediment to a fluid- like state caused by seismic ground shaking. Soils susceptible to liquefaction include saturated loose to medium dense sands and gravels, low-plasticity silts, and some low-plasticity clay deposits. Liquefaction and associated failures could damage foundations, disrupt utility service, and cause damage to roadways. The liquefaction susceptibility map prepared by ABAG indicates the majority of the Planning Area has a liquefaction hazard of high, while the Colma Creek Channel has a liquefaction hazard of moderate.s Landslides A landslide is a mass of rock, soil and debris displaced down slope by sliding, flowing or falling. Landslide susceptibility maps prepared by ABAG show the Planning Area as "flatland."6 The Planning Area is approximately two miles east of the San Bruno Mountains. Potential slope hazards related to slope instability are minimal. Soil Erosion Soil erosion is the process by which soils are worn away from the earth's surface by precipitation and runoff or wind. The rate of erosion depends on many factors, including soil type and geologic parent materials (inherent erodibility), degree of surface disturbance and resulting vegetative cover and degree of compaction, degree and length of slope, rainfall and/or wind amount and intensity, and erosion control practices. Soils that are high in silt and low in clay and organic matter are the most inherently erodible; but, regardless of soil texture, erosion potential may be high in steep, unvegetated areas-especially those areas disturbed by cut -and- fill or other construction activities. Expansive Soils Expansive soils possess a "shrink-swell" behavior. Shrink-swell is the cyclic change in volume (expansion and contraction) that occurs in fine-grained clay sediments from the process of wetting and drying. Structural damage to buildings can occur over a long period of time, usually as a result of inadequate soil and foundation engineering or the placement of structures directly on expansive soils. Site soils west of Colma Creek and the San Francisco Bay have been 1 Association of Bay Area C;overnments (ABAC;). Hazard Maps Earthquake Shaking Potential, available at http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Shaking_Prob/viewer.htm, Accessed August 4, 2010. , Association of Bay Area C;overnments (ABAC;). Liquct~lction Susceptibility, available at http://gis.abag.ca.gov/W ebsite/liq/viewer.htm, accessed August 4, 2010. I, Association of Bay Area C;overnments (ABAC;). Landslides, available at http://gis.abag.ca.gov/Website/Landslides/viewer.htm, accessed August 4, 2010. 3.10-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures characterized as having a low expansion potential or shrink-swell behavior. Site soils around Colma, Creek, adjacent to the San Francisco Bay, and the base of the San Bruno Mountains have been characterized as having a moderate to high expansion potential. REGULATORY SETTING State Regulations Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (formerly the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act), signed into law December 1972, requires the delineation of zones along active faults in California. The Alquist-Priolo Act regulates development on or near active fault traces to reduce the hazard of fault rupture and to prohibit the location of most structures for human occupancy across these traces.7 Cities and counties must regulate certain development projects within the delineated zones, and regulations include withholding permits until geologic investigations demonstrate that development sites are not threatened by future surface displacement (Hart, 1997). Surface fault rupture, however, is not necessarily restricted to the area within an Alquist-Priolo Zone. Seismic Hazards Mapping Act The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 addresses non-surface fault rupture earthquake hazards, including liquefaction and seismically induced landslides, and its purpose is to protect public safety from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, other ground failure, and other hazards caused by earthquakes. The Act requires the State Geologist to delineate various seismic hazard zones and requires cities, counties, and other local permitting agencies to regulate certain development projects within these zones. Before a development permit is granted for a site within a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical investigation of the site must be conducted and appropriate mitigation measures incorporated into the project design. California Building Code The California Building Code is certified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 2, which is a portion of the California Building Standards Code. Title 24 is assigned to the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. Published by the International Conference of Building Officials, the Uniform Building Code (UBC) is a widely adopted model building code in the United States. The California Building Code incorporates by reference the UBC with necessary California amendments. About one-third of the text within the California Building Code has been tailored for California earthquake conditions. Although widely accepted and implemented throughout the United States, local, City and county jurisdictions can adopt the UBC either in whole or in part. A "structure for human occupancy" is defined by the Alquist-Priolo Act as any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy that has an occupancy rate of more than 2,000 person-hours per year. 3.10-3 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Local Regulations South San Francisco General Plan (1999) Section 8.1 Geologic and Seismic Hazards 8.1-G-l Minimize the risk to life and property from seismic activity and geologic hazards in South San Francisco. South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 19 Subdivisions Chapter 19.40 Standard Subdivision Procedure 19.40.040 Statements. The following statements, reports and information shall accompany the tentative map or shall be placed on the map: A. The existing zoning and proposed use of the subdivision; B. A preliminary soils report, prepared by a civil engineer registered in this state, and based upon adequate test borings. The requirement for a preliminary soils report may be waived by the city engineer if it is determined that, based on the information available to him concerning soils qualities of the soils of the subdivision, a preliminary analysis is not necessary. If a soils report is prepared, it shall comply with the requirements set forth in Chapters 29 and 70 of the Uniform Building Code ordinance of the city; C. If the preliminary soils report, as required by subsection B of this section, indicates the presence of critically expansive soils or other soils problems which, if not corrected, would lead to structural defects, a soils investigation of each lot in the subdivision may be required by the city engineer. Such soils investigation shall be done by a civil engineer registered in this state, who shall recommend the corrective action which is likely to prevent structural damage to each structure proposed to be constructed in the area where such soils problem exists. The city engineer may require these recommendations to be incorporated in the construction of each structure as a condition to the issuance of any building permit; D. A statement of the method by which the subdivider proposes to control erosion; E A statement indicating the improvements to be constructed by the subdivider, as required in Chapters 19.20 and 19.24, and other ordinances of the city; F. The depth of front yards and building setback lines; G. The proposed source of water supply and method of sewage disposal; H. The type and size of tree planting to be installed; I. A statement indicating proposed public areas to be dedicated or scenic easements proposed; 3.10-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures J. The type and location of street lighting proposed; K. A statement indicating the proposed development of lots (whether for sale as lots or fully developed house and lot); L. A statement indicating the subdivision purpose (whether for sale, lease, or financing); M. Four copies of the preliminary title report; N. Justification and reasons for any exceptions to the provisions of this title; O. The subdivider shall submit a copy of a letter to each serving utility agency requesting submission of utility easement requirements and a copy of the reply from each affected utility agency; P. A geological report shall be required in any area, so determined by the city engineer, where there are known geological hazards. (Ord. 861 § 10.04, 1981) Title 20 Zoning Chapter 20.170 Special Environmental Studies (ES) Overlay District 20.170.002 Applicability The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all areas of the City that the General Plan identified as ecologically sensitive habitat or susceptible to geologic hazards as well as other areas designated by State and federal agencies including Habitat Conservation areas, wetlands, and other areas identified on maps maintained by the City. In addition to the areas identified in the General Plan (Figure 7-2: Special Environmental Studies Required for Development Proposals), the City Engineer or Chief Planner may require biological assessments or geotechnical and engineering geology reports and apply other requirements in this chapter to properties outside the ES Overlay District based on maps and other studies, which document the existence of potential geologic hazards or sensitive habitats that warrant evaluation. 20.170.004 Seismic and Geologic Hazard Areas All permit applications for projects located within areas of the ES Overlay District that have been identified as susceptible to geologic hazards as shown on a map or maps maintained by the City require the preparation of site-specific soils and geologic reports as follows: A. Soil Report. A soil report, based upon adequate test borings or excavations, shall be prepared by a civil engineer licensed with the State of California, subject to the following requirements. 1. Contents. The soil report shall address potential problems of landsliding, ground shaking, and surface faulting. If the soil report indicates the presence of soil conditions which, if not corrected, could lead to structural defects, the report shall recommend corrective action that is likely to prevent structural damage to each structure proposed to be constructed. 3.10-5 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 2. Review of Report. The soil report shall be approved by the City Engineer if it is determined that the recommended action, where soil problems exist, is likely to prevent structural damage to each structure to be constructed. In order to make his or her determination, the City Engineer may have the soil report independently reviewed by a licensed geotechnical engineer, registered by the State of California, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant. The recommended action shall be incorporated in the construction of each structure as a condition to the issuance of any building permit. 3. Exemption. A soil report shall not be required for: a. Small Structures. Detached non-habitable structures that total 400 square feet in floor area or less. b. Additions. A soils report may not be required for small additions (less than 50 square feet in floor area), based upon the determination of the City Engineer. B. Geologic Report. A geologic report shall be prepared by a certified engineering geologist, subject to the following requirements: 1. Content. The report shall identify, describe and illustrate, where applicable, potential hazards of surface fault rupture, seismic shaking, liquefaction or landslide and shall include: 2. Review of Conditions. A review of the local and regional seismic and other geological conditions that significantly affect the proposed use. 3. Assessment. An assessment of conditions on or near the site that would contribute to the potential for damage of a proposed use from a seismic or other geological event, or the potential for a new use to create adverse effects upon existing uses because of identified geologic hazards. The conditions assessed are to include, where applicable, rainfall, soils, slopes, water table, bedrock geology, and any other substrate conditions that may affect seismic response, landslide risk or liquefaction potential. 4. Recommendations. Recommended building techniques, site preparation measures, or setbacks necessary to reduce risks to life and structural damage to property from seismic damage, landslide, groundwater and liquefaction to insignificant levels. 5. Exemption. A geologic report shall not be required for: 3.10-6 a. Individual Homes within Single Unit Subdivisions. Single-unit woodframe or steel- frame dwellings to be built on parcels of land for which geologic reports have already been approved. b. Small Structures. Detached non-habitable structures that total 400 square feet in floor area or less. c. Additions. Additions to existing structures. Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures C. Waiver of Reports. No report is required for an application located in an area for which the City Engineer determines that sufficient information exists because of previous geology or soils reports. IMPACT ANALYSIS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Implementation of the proposed Plan would have a potentially significant adverse impact if it would: • Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; b) Strong seismic ground shaking; c) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; d) Landslides • Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; • Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse; • Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table IS-I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as it may be revised), creating substantial risks to life or property; • Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewa- ter. METHODOLOGY & ASSUMPTIONS The impact analysis takes into account the geologic and seismic conditions within the Planning Area, and applicable regulations and guidelines. The proposed Plan would facilitate development and growth within the Planning Area. Consideration is given to erosion associated with future development, related construction activities, as well as potential geologic hazards posed by liquefaction, ground shaking, and underlying geologic materials. The potential for seismic activity to affect people and structures in the Planning Area and the protection from seismic hazards provided by existing standards are assessed. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS Because the Planning Area is not located within an Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone, the risk of surface fault rupture at the Planning Area is considered low. Potential geologic and soils 3.10-7 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures impacts to proposed structures and infrastructure are primarily related to ground shaking and associated ground failure (e.g., liquefaction), soil expansion, settlement, and subsidence. The potential for soil erosion would increase during construction, but would be addressed by mandatory compliance with existing regulations. ABAG designates the Planning Area as "flatland." There is no threat of landslides on the Planning Area; therefore the Project would have no impact with respect to landslides. The Planning Area is currently served by the City's municipal sewer system and future projects will continue to be required to be connected to the City's system. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on soils due to septic systems. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.10-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan may expose people or structures to the rupture of a known earthquake fault. (Less than Significant) The Planning Area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no active or potentially active faults traverse the Planning Area. The San Andreas Fault, located approximately two miles west of the Planning Area, is the nearest known active fault. Although surface fault rupture is not necessarily restricted to the area within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, the potential risk of surface rupture is highest along active faults. In addition, all development under the proposed Plan would be subject to the California Building Code and Chapters 19.40 and 20.170 of the Municipal Code, which would help reduce potential impacts related to surface fault rupture to less than significant. Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.10-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan may expose people or structures to seismic hazards such as ground shaking or liquefaction. (Less than Significant) Ground shaking generated during an earthquake could result in structural damage to structures and project-related infrastructure. Seismic-related ground shaking is an unavoidable hazard in the San Francisco Bay Area. Structures and associated infrastructure within the Planning Area would likely experience at least one major earthquake (greater than Richter magnitude 6.7) during their functional lifetime. The degree of hazard depends on the geologic condition of the site, construction materials, and construction quality. The intensity of such an event would depend on the causative fault and distance to the epicenter, the moment magnitude, and the duration of shaking. Although some structural damage is typically not avoidable, building codes and construction standards established by the California Building Code and contained in Title 24 of the CCR protect against building collapse and major injury during a seismic event. Future development in the Planning Area would be required to meet the requirements of the California Building Code to help prevent extensive structural damage due to seismic-related ground shaking. 3.10-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Future development in the Planning Area may also be susceptible to secondary seismic hazards such as liquefaction. Liquefaction susceptibility maps prepared by ABAG indicate the majority of the Planning Area has a liquefaction hazard of high. Liquefaction-induced ground failure can result in damage to underground utilities, shallow foundations, and paved areas. Mandatory compliance with the existing building codes and construction standards established in the California Building Code, and requirements in Chapters 15.08 and 19.40 of the Municipal Code would reduce seismic-related ground shaking and liquefaction to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.10-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan may expose people or structures to geologic hazards, including expansive soils and erosion. (Less than Significant) Due to the variability of soils in the Planning Area, it is possible that future development could be subject to soil expansion and settlement. Soils containing a high percentage of clays are generally most susceptible to expansion. If not properly engineered, loose, soft, soils composed of sand, silt, and clay have the potential to settle after a building or other load is placed on the surface. Differential settlement of loose soils would be a concern in areas that have not previously supported structures and where new structures would place loads heavier than the soils could tolerate. Erosion hazards would be highest during construction activities. Construction activities such as excavation, backfilling, grading, and demolition can remove stabilizing vegetation and expose areas of loose soil that, if not properly stabilized during construction, can be subject to soil loss and erosion by wind and storm water runoff. As required by the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, subdivision applications must be accompanied by a preliminary soils report and grading permit applications must be accompanied by a soils engineering report. In addition, the Municipal Code requires site- specific soils and geologic reports for seismic and geologic hazard areas. Furthermore, as discussed in Hydrology and Water Quality, proposed projects would be required to comply with NPDES General Construction Permit requirements. Project applicants would be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to minimize the discharge of pollutants, including silt and sediment, during construction. The SWPPP would include measures to control erosion and effectively manage runoff and retain sediment on-site during construction. Mandatory compliance with the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code and NPDES General Construction Permit requirements would reduce impacts to geologic hazards to less than significant levels. 3.10-9 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures N one required. 3.10-10 3.1 I Hydrology and Flooding ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PHYSICAL SETTING Flood Control Colma Creek which runs through the Plan Area is channelized and handles much of the City's stormwater flows and all of the Planning Area surface water run-off. Flood control and maintenance of stream channel improvements is the responsibility of the San Mateo County Flood Control District (SMCFCD). Downstream of the Planning Area, limited, localized flooding adjacent to the Colma Creek channel has occurred in the past during periods of heavy rainfall. Improvements by the SMCFCD as part of a larger Colma Creek Improvement Project have increased capacity and the channel to contain the 50 year recurrence interval storm, plus two feet of free board. 1 Figure 3.11-1 shows the flood zones within the Planning Area. The Colma Creek Channel is designated as Zone A "High Risk Flood Area" while the area east of the Colma Creek Channel is designated as Zone AE "High Rise Flood Area." Areas designated AE are subject to inundation by the I-percent-annual-chance flood event and where Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) have been determined. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements and floodplain management standards apply. Storm Drai nage Within the Planning Area, the majority of the storm water run-off is conveyed to a network of drain inlets and pipes that discharge to the Colma Creek. Because the Planning Area is largely developed with impermeable surfaces (approximately 80 percent) and the underlying soils are typically clays with low permeability, there is limited potential for infiltration. Development of the area is unlikely to cause significant change in the amount of storm water runoff, because the amount of impervious surface will remain mostly unchanged. Storm Water Treatment Surface water run-off in urbanized area is now subject to pollution control before discharge into a water body. This run-off is regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit process which is administered through the State Water Resources Control Board. In response to the new regulations the City has developed a Storm Water Management Plan and joined the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program. The City has selected a number of Best Management Practices (BMPs) which have been implemented for City owned drainage systems and will be required for all new development or redevelopment to reduce contaminants from entering the City's storm water system. Any new construction projects would require localized improvements to collect run- I Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Existing Conditions Report for Public Utilities: EI Camino Real/Chestnut Area Land Use Plan and Specific Plan, October 2008, Revised June 2009. Figure 3.11-1: Flood Zones ~ Kaiser Permanente Medical Center _ Zone A: High Risk Flood Area Planning Boundary Zone AE: High Risk Flood Area c::::::::J Parcels mITITITl> BART t:.f,:;,;! Base Flood Elevation Colma Creek Channel o 250 ,<:I~~~ \Jj 500 Feet Source: FEMA, 2009. San Mateo County, 2008; Dyett and Bhatia, 20 I O. 1,000 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures off as well as incorporate storm water quality treatment provisions, BMPs, in accordance with the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program.2 REGULATORY SETTING Federal Regulations Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CW A) was enacted in Congress in 1972 and amended several times since inception. It is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the u.S. and forms the basis for several state and local laws throughout the country. Its objective is to reduce or eliminate water pollution in the nation's rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The CWA prescribes the basic federal laws for regulating discharges of pollutants and sets minimum water quality standards for all surface waters in the u.S. At the federal level, the CW A is administered by the u.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). At the state and regional levels, the CW A is administered and enforced by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the RWQCBs. FEMA National Flood Insurance Program FEMA operates the National Flood Insurance Program, which issues maps of Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), based on water surface elevations of the 1 percent (lOO-year) flood event. For any project that would result in a change to the designated IOO-year floodplain, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) is required to be issued by FEMA prior to the initiation of any construction activities. Upon approval of the proposed changes, FEMA will then issue a CLOMR to modify the elevations and/or boundaries of the Special Flood Hazard Area in question (based on the IOO-year flood event). These revisions are then identified on FEMA Flood Insurance Maps (FIRMs). FEMA requires assurance by the participating community that mInImUm floodplain management requirements are complied with, including minimum floor elevations above the "base flood"; that existing lands and structures or proposed structures are "reasonably safe from flooding"; and that all supporting analysis and documentation used to make that determination is on file and available upon request. The supporting hydraulic analysis and documentation includes topographic data and certification by a registered professional engineer or licensed land surveyor. State Regulations Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act establishes the SWRCB and the RWQCBs as the principal state agencies having primary responsibility in coordinating and controlling water quality in California. The Porter-Cologne Act establishes the responsibility of the RWQCBs for adopting, implementing, and enforcing water quality control plans (i.e. Basin Plans), which set forth the state's water quality standards (i.e. beneficial uses of surface waters and 2 Ibid. 3.11-3 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures groundwaters) and the objectives or criteria necessary to protect those beneficial uses. The Project Site lies within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, which has adopted the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Region (Basin Plan) to implement plans, policies, and provisions for water quality management. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System In 1987, amendments to the CWA added section 402(p), which established a framework to protect water quality by regulating industrial, municipal, and construction-related sources of pollutant discharges to waters of the u.S. In California, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is administered by the SWRCB through the RWQCBs and requires that municipalities obtain permits which outline programs and activities to control storm water pollution. South San Francisco is part of the San Francisco Bay Region RWQCB. Municipal Storm Water NPDES Permit The San Francisco Bay RWQCB has issued Phase I (for medium and large municipal storm drainage systems with populations of 100,000 or more) NPDES permits primarily to county- wide collaboratives which include all of the cities in those counties, the county unincorporated area and the county flood control agency. South San Francisco is part of the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Order No. 99-059; amendment: Order No. R2-2003-0023. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is reissuing the region's Phase 1 permits as a single region-wide permit for four major urban counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara and San Mateo, and including the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City and Vallejo. Construction General NPDES Permit Construction activities on one acre or more are regulated by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB and are subject to the requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (General Construction Permit). The SWRCB established the General Construction Permit for the purpose of reducing impacts to surface waters that may occur due to construction activities. Therefore, depending upon the area of the site, construction projects would be required to apply for the General Construction Permit and prepare and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP is prepared before project construction begins and, in certain cases, before demolition begins and includes specifications for best management practices (BMPs) that would be implemented during construction. BMPs are measures undertaken to control degradation of surface water by preventing soil erosion or the discharge of pollutants from the construction area. Examples of typical construction BMPs include scheduling or limiting activities to certain times of the year, installing sediment barriers such as silt fence and fiber rolls, maintaining equipment and vehicles used for construction, tracking controls such as stabilizing entrances to the construction site, and developing and implementing a spill prevention and cleanup plan. Non-stormwater management includes installing specific discharge controls during activities such as paving operations, vehicle and equipment washing and fueling. Required elements of a SWPPP include: • Site description addressing the elements and characteristics specific to the site, • Descriptions of BMPs for erosion and sediment controls, 3.11-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • BMPs for construction waste handling and disposal, • Implementation of approved local plans, • Proposed post -construction controls, and • Non-stormwater management. Additionally, the SWPPP describes measures to prevent or control runoff after construction is complete and identifies procedures for inspecting and maintaining facilities or other project elements. Local Regulations San Mateo County San Mateo County Flood Control District The San Mateo County Flood Control District is empowered to study flood conditions and to construct facilities after the formation of zones consisting of the particular watersheds to be served. San Mateo County has flood control zones in the following areas: Colma Creek, Ravenswood, San Bruno Creek, and San Francisquito Creek. The District is responsible for property and facilities which it owns and maintains, generally consisting of walls and levees. Any proposed work involving property and facilities owned by the Flood Control District will require an Encroachment Permit. Colma Creek Flood Control Zone The Colma Creek Flood Control Zone was created in 1964 to construct flood control facilities in Colma Creek to alleviate flooding in the City of South San Francisco. South San Francisco General Plan (1999) Chapter 7: Open Space and Conservation Section 7.2 Water Quality 7.2-G-l Comply with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulations and standards to maintain and improve the quality of both surface water and groundwater resources. 7.2-G-2 Enhance the quality of surface water resources and prevent their contamination. 7.2-G-3 Discourage use of insecticides, herbicides, or toxic chemical substances within the city. 7.2-1-1 Continue working with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB in the implementation of the NPDES, and continue participation in STOPPP for the protection of surface water and groundwater quality. 7.2-1-2 Review and update the Best Management Practices adopted by the City and in STOPP as needed. 3.11-5 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 7.2-1-3 Prepare and disseminate information, including a page on the City's website, about the potentially harmful effects of toxic chemical substances and safe alternative measures, including information about safe alternatives to toxics for home and garden use. South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 14 Water and Sewage Chapter 14.04 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, also known as the City of South San Francisco Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance prohibits nonstormwater discharges to the City storm sewer system. The purpose of the Ordinance is to eliminate nonstormwater discharges to the municipal separate storm sewer, control the discharge to municipal separate storm sewers from spills, dumping or disposal of materials other than storm water, and reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable. Title 15 Buildings and Construction Chapter 15.56 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, provides regulations regarding flood damage prevention. No structure or land shall hereafter be constructed, located, extended, converted, or altered within areas of special flood hazards without full compliance with the terms of Chapter 15.56. According to Section 15.56.140, a development permit shall be obtained before any construction or other development, including manufactured homes, within any area of special flood hazard. Chapter 15.56 also provides standards for new construction, and for utilities, subdivisions and other proposed development within areas of special flood hazard. Section 15.56.160 provides the standards of construction: In all areas of special flood hazards the following standards are required: a) Anchoring. All new construction and substantial improvements of structures, including manufactured homes, shall be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy. b) Construction Materials and Methods. All new construction and substantial improvements of structures, including manufactured homes, shall be constructed: 1) With flood resistant materials, and utility equipment resistant to flood damage for areas below the base flood elevation; 2) Using methods and practices that minimize flood damage; 3) With electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from en- tering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding; and 4) Within zones AH or AO, so that there are adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes to guide flood waters around and away from proposed structures. c) Elevation and Floodproofing. 3.11-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 1) Residential construction. All new construction or substantial improvements of residen- tial structures shall have the lowest floor, including basement: A) In AE, AH, AI-30 zones, elevated to or above the base flood elevation; B) In an AO zone, elevated above the highest adjacent grade to a height equal to or ex- ceeding the depth number specified in feet on the FIRM, or elevated at least two feet above the highest adjacent grade if no depth number is specified. C) In an A zone, without BFEs specified on the FIRM (unnumbered A zone), elevated to or above the base flood elevation; as determined under Section 15.56.130( c) of this chapter. Upon the completion of the structure, the elevation of the lowest floor, including basement, shall be certified by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor, and verified by the community building inspector to be properly elevated. Such certification and verification shall be provided to the floodplain administrator. 2) Nonresidential construction. All new construction or substantial improvements of nonresidential structures shall either be elevated to conform with Section 15.56.160(c)(l) of this chapter or: A) Be floodproofed, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, below the elevation recommended under Section 15.56.160(c)(l), so that the structure is wa- tertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water; B) Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; and C) Be certified by a registered civil engineer or architect that the standards of Section 15.56.160(c)(2)(A) and (B) of this chapter are satisfied. Such certification shall be provided to the floodplain administrator. 3) Flood Openings. All new construction and substantial improvements of structures with fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor (excluding basements) that are usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage, and which are subject to flooding, shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwater. Designs for meeting this requirement must meet the following minimum criteria: A) For non engineered openings: (i) Have a minimum of two openings on different sides having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding; (ii) The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade; (iii) Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwater; and (iv) Buildings with more than one enclosed area must have openings on exterior walls for each area to allow floodwater to directly enter; or B) Be certified by a registered civil engineer or architect. 3.11-7 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4) Manufactured Homes. See Section IS.S6.190. S) Garages and Low Cost Accessory Structures. A) Attached garages. (i) A garage attached to a residential structure, constructed with the garage floor slab below the BFE, must be designed to allow for the automatic entry of flood waters per Section IS.S6.160 (c)(3) of this chapter. Areas of the garage below the BFE must be constructed with flood resistant materials per Section IS.S6.160(b) of this chapter. (ii) A garage attached to a nonresidential structure must meet the above require- ments or be dry floodproofed. For guidance on below grade parking areas, see FEMA Technical Bulletin TB-6. B) Detached Garages and Accessory Structures. (i) "Accessory structures" used solely for parking two-car detached garages or smaller) or limited storage (small, low-cost sheds), as defined in section IS.S6.040 of this chapter, may be constructed such that its floor is below the base flood elevation (BFE), provided the structure is designed and constructed in accordance with the following requirements: (a) Use of the accessory structure must be limited to parking or limited storage; (b) The portions of the accessory structure located below the BFE must be built using flood-resistant materials; (c) The accessory structure must be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse and lateral movement; (d) Any mechanical and utility equipment in the accessory structure must be elevated or floodproofed to or above the BFE; (e) The accessory structure must comply with floodplain encroachment provi- sions in Section IS.S6.210; and (f) The accessory structure must be designed to allow for the automatic entry of flood waters in accordance with section IS.S6.160(c)(3) of this chapter. (ii) Detached garages and accessory structures not meeting the above standards must be constructed in accordance with all applicable standards in section IS.S6.160 of this chapter. (Ord. 140S § 1, 2009) South San Francisco Best Management Practices The City requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for new development and construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City conditions of project approval by the Water Quality Control Division of the Public Works Department. These BMPs address both storm water quantity and quality. The BMPs required by the City include but are not limited to: • Treat or infiltrate stormwater to improve its quality prior to discharging to a creek, wetland, or other sensitive area. 3.11-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • Route stormwater runoff in parking lot design to vegetated swales or landscaped areas along roadways. • Incorporate design measures to infiltrate or detain storm water and separate directly- connected impervious areas. • New buildings shall provide a roofed and enclosed area for dumpsters and recycling containers. The area shall be designed to prevent run-on and run-off. • Runoff from trash enclosures, recycling areas, and/or food compactor enclosures shall not discharge into the storm drain system. IMPACT ANALYSIS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Implementation of the proposed Plan would have a significant impact if it would: • Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degrade water quality; • Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level; • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or by other means, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site; • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or, by other means, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on -or off-site; • Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of pol- luted runoff; • Place housing within a IOO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Ha- zard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other authoritative flood hazard delin- eation map; • Place within a IOO-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows; • Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flood- ing' including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; or • Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inun- dation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS The impact analysis considered hydrologic conditions within the Planning Area, and applicable regulations and guidelines. Consideration is given to potential increases in new impervious surface area, erosion associated with future development-related construction 3.11-9 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures activities, and other results of growth, as well as existing policies and regulations that minimize the impacts of growth on water resources. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS Potential impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Plan include increased rates of storm water runoff and subsequent flooding hazards, erosion, increase in nonpoint source pollutants affecting receiving water quality. These impacts would be reduced to less than significant through regulatory compliance. In regards to groundwater recharge, recharge is generally concentrated in the immediate near- stream areas where open space is present. Colma Creek is channelized through the Planning Area and most of area is built-out, mainly consisting of impermeable surface area. Potable water supply for the Planning Area is provided by the California Water Service Company through existing local infrastructure. Future development would rely on water service from the California Water Service Company to the Planning Area. Therefore, there will be no impacts on groundwater recharge and this impact is not discussed further. For levee or dam failure, the Dam Failure Inundation Areas map prepared by ABAG designates the Planning Area as urbanized and does not designate it as a dam failure inundation area. 3 There are no levees along Colma Creek in the Planning Area. Therefore, there will be no impacts regarding flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam and this impact is not discussed further. The Tsunami Inundation Emergency Planning map for the San Francisco Bay Region prepared by ABAG designates the Planning Area as urbanized and does not designate it as a tsunami inundation area.1 Only four water bodies in San Mateo County are believed to be large enough to pose significant seiche potential: Upper Crystal Springs Reservoir, Lower Crystal Springs Reservoir, San Andreas Lake and Pilarcitos Lake.s In addition, as Colma Creek is channelized through the Planning Area, there are no chances of mudflow. Therefore there will be no impacts regarding inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow and this impact is not discussed further. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.11-1 Future development under the proposed Plan may result in the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. (Less than Significant) Compliance with the municipal water NPDES Permit and the construction General Permit requires future development to provide permanent treatment for site runoff, prepare SWPPPs for construction related activities, and implement BMPs as part of its storm water management , ABAC;, Dam failurc Inundation Arcas, available at http://gis.abag.ca.gov/Wcbsitc/dam_inundation/vicwcr.htm, acccsscd August 11, 2010. I ABAC;, Tsunami Inundation Emcrgcncy Planning Map for thc San francisco Bay Rcgion, available at http://gis.abag.ca.gov/Wcbsitc/Tsunami-Maps/vicwcr.htm, acccsscd August 12,2010. , San Matco County, Background Issucs: Natural Hazards for thc San Matco County C;cncral Plan, 1986, p. 15.11. 3.11-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures program. Additionally, adherence to federal, state, and local laws would ensure that impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.1 1-2 Future development under the proposed Plan may substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation or runoff resulting in flooding. (Less than Significant) Within the Planning Area, the majority of the storm water run-off is conveyed to a network of drain inlets and pipes that discharge to the Colma Creek. The Planning Area is largely developed with impermeable surfaces and the underlying soils are typically clays with low permeability and erosivity. As buildout occurs, compliance with the General Permit would require the preparation of a SWPPP which would include BMPs that would reduce potential erosion and/or siltation impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.1 1-3 Future development under the proposed Plan may substantially create or contribute to runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or degrade water quality. (Less than significant) Future development will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the City's Storm Water Coordinator. Project proponents for future development will be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an Erosion Control Plan to the City Engineer and the Water Quality Control Division prior to the commencement of any grading or construction. The SWPPP is required to include storm water pollution control devices and filters to be installed to prevent pollutants from entering the City's storm drain system and the San Francisco Bay. Water quality measures are required to be included in the building permit packet; therefore all contractors are as a matter of law made aware of the requirements. Additionally, the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department as well as the Water Quality Control Division conducts routine inspections to insure compliance. Failure to comply with the approved construction BMPs would result in the issuance of correction notices, citations or a Stop Work Order. Plans for future development would as a matter of law include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system. As discussed above, the Planning Area is largely developed with impermeable surfaces. Furthermore, future residential development in the Planning Area will be required to have open space and landscaping, and landscaping that is part of the Centennial Way Linear Park will remain. The addition of a new 1.2S-acre community park will likely improve runoff in the 3.11-11 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures area. There will also be guidelines and incentives for projects to include plazas and open spaces with permeable surfaces into their design. This will help potentially decrease on-site stormwater runoff. The Planning Area is located within the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone. The Planning Area is not subject to hydromodification since the majority of Colma Creek through South San Francisco is concrete lined. However, the City does require projects to incorporate BMPs to help reduce stormwater runoff. In February 2009, the SF Bay RWQCB added Colma Creek as one of the Bay Area's impaired water bodies due to trash under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. BMPs required by the City address issues regarding trash. Upon project level review, the City has required some projects to provide trash cleanup on a daily basis to ensure that trash is kept out of Colma Creek. Policies and standards in the General Plan and Municipal code along with standard development conditions will ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.1 1-4 The proposed Plan may place housing within a IOO-year hazard area. (Less than significant) As shown in Figure 3.10-2, part of the Planning Area is in the 100 year floodplain. Most of the parcels located along Mission Road have a part of their site located in Zone AE "High Rise Flood Area." Figure 3.10-2 also shows the BFE's within the Planning Area, which range from approximately 40 to 70 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The elevation across the areas within Zone AE is approximately 40 to 65 feet MSL, increasing towards the northwest direction. The South San Francisco Municipal Code provides restrictions regarding residential development within Zone AE. South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 15.56.160(c) requires that residential construction in Zone AE have the lowest floor, including the basement, elevated to or above the BFE. An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure below the lowest floor that is usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building's lowest floor provided it conforms to non-elevation design requirements as specified in Chapter 15.56 of the Municipal Code. Upon the completion of a residential structure, the elevation of the lowest floor, including the basement, is required be certified by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor, and verified by the City's community building inspector to be properly elevated. This certification is then required to be provided to the City's floodplain administrator. In addition, a development permit must be obtained before construction or other development, including manufactured homes, within Zone AE can begin. The South San Francisco Municipal Code will ensure that residential development within Zone AE will be above the BFE, placing residential areas above the hazard area, resulting in less than significant impacts. 3.11-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.1 1-5 Future development under the proposed Plan within the IOO-year flood hazard area may impede or redirect flood flows. (Less than significant) Colma Creek trends in a roughly southeasterly direction through the center of the City and drains in to the San Francisco Bay. The portion of the Colma Creek Channel that runs through the Planning Area is a designated floodway area or Zone A "High Risk Flood Area." The proposed Plan does not include any plans to alter direction of flow of Colma Creek. Most of the parcels within Zone AE are built out and currently have existing buildings on site. Future development under the proposed Plan will not substantially impede or redirect flood flows compared to existing structures in the area. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures N one required. 3.11-13 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures This page intentionally left blank. 3.11-14 3.12 Impacts Not Potentially Significant This section provides evaluation of impacts for topics that were determined to have impacts that were not potentially significant: Agriculture and Forest Resources; Biological Resources;; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; and Mineral Resources. A checldist for each impact is followed by discussion. 3.12-1 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agri- cultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest re- sources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California De- partment of Forestry and Fire Protection re- garding the state's inventory of forest land, in- cluding the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement me- thodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farm- land, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Re- sources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricul- tural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section I 2220(g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Gov- ernment Code section 5 I I04(g)1 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures d) Result in the loss of forest land or con- version of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing en- vironment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farm- land, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The Planning Area does not contain any agriculture or forest resources within its limits. IMPACT ANALYSIS IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.12-1-1 Future development under the proposed Plan may affect agriculture and forest resources. (No Impact) There are no agriculture and forest resources in the Planning Area. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on any agriculture and forest resources. Mitigation Measures N one required. 3.12-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.12-2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensi- tive, or special status species in local or re- gional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the Cali- fornia Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on fed- erally protected wetlands as defined by Sec- tion 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the move- ment of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corri- dors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordin- ances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 3.12-3 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PHYSICAL SETTING South San Francisco Despite a century of urban development and bay fill, South San Francisco supports remnant areas of high biological value including San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill, wetlands and Bay communities, and scattered grasslands and scrub vegetation. South San Francisco's vegetative communities include annual grasslands, seasonal wetlands, fresh and saltwater marshes, mud flats, and open water, as well as disturbed grasslands and significant stands of trees. Planning Area The Planning Area is primarily developed with commercial and medical uses, and located within an urbanized area of South San Francisco. There is some vacant land, and parcels that are currently vacant are generally paved with asphalt and concrete. The one exception is a vacant site (APN 093-312-060) previously owned by the City of San Francisco Water Department and acquired by the City of South San Francisco. Although the site is not currently paved, it was previously developed as a driving range with a structure, the Courtyard Lounge. Colma Creek which runs through the Planning Area is channelized and paved in cement. The Centennial Way Linear Park also runs through the Planning Area. The paved path runs parallel to Colma Creek north of Oak Avenue and substantial landscaping serves as a buffer between the path and the properties to the east. The California Gap Analysisl designates this area as developed, without sensitive habitats. According to the Gap Analysis, there are no known riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities, wetlands, or wildlife corridors within the Planning Area. Additionally, there are no habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that have been adopted for the Planning Area. However, according to California Department of Fish and Game's Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for special-status species records within the Planning Area, three special status species have the potential to occur in the Planning Area. These species include Seaside tarplant (hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta), Alameda song sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula), and San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia). See Figure 3.12-1. I GAP Analysis Program (GAP) Land Cover Viewer, http://lc.gapanalysisprogram.comilandcoverviewer/, accessed Au- gust 3, 2010. 3.12-4 Figure 3.12-1: Special Status Species Alameda song sparrow ~ bent-flowered fiddleneck = seaside tarplant San Francisco garter snake Planning Boundary c::::::::J Pa rc e I s BART Colma Creek Channel o 250 500 Feet Source: CNDDB, 20 I 0; San Mateo County, 2008; Dyctt and Bhatia, 20 10. 1,000 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures The San Francisco garter snake is federally listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act and state listed as "endangered" under the California Endangered Species Act.2 Its California Department of Fish and Game designation is fully protected. Populations in South San Francisco are limited to a few wetlands near the San Francisco Airport.3 The closest reported population is located east of US 101 south of the city, which is outside of the Planning Area.1 Seaside tarplant is listed as rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere, on the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) list.s Its communities include northern coastal scrub and valley grassland. Observations of the seaside tarplant within San Mateo County have been limited to parks and biological reserves, which are located outside of the Planning Area.6 The Alameda song sparrow is designated as a species of special concern by the Department of Fish and Game? Currently, the Alameda Song Sparrow is confined to tidal salt marsh habitat located on the fringes of the south arm of San Francisco Bay east to El Cerrito, south to Alviso, and west to San Francisco. These sparrows are found in all relatively large marshes,~ which are not present in the Planning Area. REGULATORY SETTING Federal Regulations Federal Endangered Species Act Under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce jointly have the authority to list a species as threatened or endangered (16 USC lS33[c]). Pursuant to the requirements of FESA, an agency reviewing a proposed California Department of Pish and Game Natural Diversity Database, Special Animals, July 2009, available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPAnimals.pdt~ accessed August 6, 2010. J Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy. Endangered Species, available at http://www. parksconservancy.org/ our_ work/ stewardship/ endangered. asp ?species=4 77, accessed March 2009. " City of South San Prancisco, General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, June 1999, p. 4-174. California Department ofPish and Game Natural Diversity Database, Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens July 2010, available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPPlants.pdt~ accessed August 6, 2010. " Calt10ra Website, Hemizonia congesta, available at http://www.calt1ora.org/cgi-bin/species_query.cgi?where- calrecnum=4068, accessed March 2009. -California Department of Pish and Game Natural Diversity Database, Special Animals, July 2009, available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPAnimals.pdt~ accessed August 6, 2010. H W.D. Shuford and T. Gardali (Shuford and Gardali). California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct immediate conservation concern in California, Sacramento: Department of Pish and Game, 2008, p. 421. 3.12-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any federally listed threatened or endangered species may be present in the Planning Area and determine whether the proposed project will have a potentially significant impact on such species. In addition, the agency is required to determine whether the project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under FESA or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species (16 USC 1536[3], [4]). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) also publishes a list of candidate species. Species on this list receive special attention from federal agencies during environmental review, although they are not protected otherwise under FESA. The candidate species are taxa for which the USFWS has sufficient biological information to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC, Section 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. State Regulations California Endangered Species Act Under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has the responsibility for maintaining a list of threatened species and endangered species (California Fish and Game Code Section 2070). The CDFG also maintains a list of candidate species, which are species that the CDFG has formally noticed as under review for addition to the threatened or endangered species lists. The CDFG also maintains lists of Species of Special Concern that serve as watch lists. Pursuant to the requirements of CESA, an agency reviewing a proposed project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any state-listed endangered or threatened species may be present in the Planning Area, and determine whether the proposed project will have a potentially significant impact on such species. CDFG encourages informal consultation on any proposed project that may impact a candidate species. CEQA Guidelines Section 15380. Although threatened and endangered species are protected by specific federal and state statutes, CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(b) provides that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected species may be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definition in FESA and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants or animals. This section was included in the Guidelines primarily to deal with a situation in which a project may have a significant effect on a species that has not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFG. Thus, CEQA provides the ability to protect a species from potential project impacts until the respective government agencies have an opportunity to designate the species as protected, if warranted. 3.12-7 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures CEQA also calls for the protection of other locally or regionally significant resources, including natural communities. Although natural communities do not at present have legal protection, CEQA calls for an assessment of whether any such resources would be affected, and requires a finding of significance if there would be substantial losses. Natural communities listed in the California Natural Diversity Database as "high priority for inventory" are considered by CDFG to be significant resources and fall under the CEQA Guidelines for addressing impacts. Local planning documents such as General Plans often identify these resources as well. Section 15065. Sensitive plant and wildlife species that are not currently listed as endangered, threatened, or rare but would qualify for listing are afforded protection under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 ("Mandatory Findings of Significance") requires that a reduction in numbers of a rare or endangered species be considered a significant effect. CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 ("Rare or Endangered Species") provides for the assessment of unlisted species as rare or endangered under CEQA if the species can be shown to meet the criteria for listing. California Fish and Game Code Birds. Birds of prey are protected in California under the Fish and Game Code (Section 3503.5, 1992). Section 3503.5 states that it is "unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto." Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered "taking" by the CDFG. Any loss of fertile eggs, nesting rap tors, or any activities resulting in nest abandonment would constitute a significant impact. Non-raptor native birds receive similar protection under California Fish and Game Code Section 3503. Project impacts to these species would not be considered significant unless the species are known to, or have a high potential to, nest in the Planning Area or rely on it for primary foraging. Plants. The Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (Fish and Game Code Sections 1900 et seq.) gives the CDFG authority to designate state endangered, threatened, and rare plants and provides specific protection measures for identified populations. California Native Plant Society The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) maintains a list of special-status plant species based on collected scientific information. Designation of these species by the CNPS has no legal status or protection under federal or state endangered species legislation. CNPS designations are defined as follows: List 1A (plants presumed extinct); List 1B (plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere); List 2 (plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere); List 3 (plants about which more information is needed -a review list); and List 4 (plants of limited distribution -a watch list). In general, plants appearing on CNPS List lA, 1B, or 2 meetthe criteria of Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines; thus, substantial adverse effects to these species would be considered significant. 3.12-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Local Regulations South San Francisco General Plan (1999) The Open Space and Conservation Chapter of the General Plan provides policies for the protection of biological and habitat resources. The City of South San Francisco contains two areas that are set aside as habitat for the conservation of threatened and endangered species: San Bruno Mountain and a portion of Sign Hill. These areas are subject to the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 13 Public Improvements Chapter 13.30 establishes regulations for the preservation of trees. A tree is protected if it conforms to the following criteria: Any tree with a circumference of forty-eight inches or more when measured fifty-four inches above natural grade; or A tree or stand of trees so designated by the director based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical significance or other factor; or A stand of trees in which the director has determined each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. The removal or alternation of a "protected tree" requires a permit from the Director of the Parks, Recreation and Maintenance Services Department of the City of South San Francisco. IMPACT ANALYSIS IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.12-2-1 Future development under the proposed Plan may affect candidate, sensitive, or special- status plant or animal species. (No Impact) The 2010 CNDDB identified three special status species that have the potential to occur within the Planning Area. The San Francisco garter snake has already been identified by the 1999 General Plan DEIR as a special species known to occur or potentially occur within South San Francisco. The 2010 CNDDB identified two new special species, the Alameda song sparrow and the seaside tarplant, that have the potential to occur within the Planning Area. However, there have been no reported occurrences of these species in the Planning Area. The Planning Area is not near the coast, nor does it contain any wetlands or marshes. Therefore, there are no habitats within the Planning Area that would support these species. The habitats and observed occurrences of these species are outside the Planning Area and are more likely to occur in Sign Hill Park, San Bruno Mountain, or the wetlands and marshes along San Francisco Bay which the General Plan already identifies as sites with ecologically 3.12-9 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures sensitive habitats and where assessments of biological resources prior to approval of development are required. The 1999 DEIR for the General Plan identified biological resources and the occurrence of special status species within the city; no biological resources of significance were identified within the Planning Area.9 Occurrence data for special species within the city indicate that special species occur in Sign Hill Park, San Bruno Mountain, or wetlands and marshes along the San Francisco Bay. Figure 7-1 in the City's General Plan identifies these areas as sites with ecologically sensitive habitat. These sites with ecologically sensitive habitat are not within the Planning Area. Therefore, there will be no impact with regard to special species. Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.12-2-2 Future development under the proposed Plan may affect federally protected wetlands or migratory wildlife corridors. (No Impact) The Planning Area is located in a highly urbanized area and does not contain any migratory wildlife corridors. There are no protected wetlands within the Planning Area. Therefore, there will be no impact with regard to protected wetlands and the movement of wildlife. Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.12-2-3 The proposed Plan may conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. (No Impact) New development under the proposed Plan would be subject to Municipal Code Chapter 13.30 Tree preservation. In addition, the proposed Plan will not change nor conflict with the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. Additionally, the Planning Area is not in an area subject to the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. There will be no impact with regard to local policies and ordinances and Habitat Conservation Plans. Mitigation Measures N one required. ') City of South San Prancisco, General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, Pigure 4.13-1: Biological Resources, June 1999, p. 4-174. 3.12-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.12-3 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine trans- port, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foresee- able upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle ha- zardous or acutely hazardous materials, sub- stances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pur- suant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or work- ing in the Project area? f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically in- terfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are in- termixed with wildlands? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 3.12-11 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PHYSICAL SETTING Land uses within and around the Planning Area comprise a variety of land uses including medical, commercial, office, and residential. Activities associated with these land uses may pose potential environmental, health, and safety risks. These risks include accidents involving vehicles transporting hazardous materials or hazardous wastes, accidental spills or leaks, and improper use, handling, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. There are no open cases of soil or groundwater contamination within the Planning Area.lo The Planning Area does not contain any sites on the list of Hazardous Waste and Substances sites maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances ControlY There are two locations with permitted underground storage tanks (UST): • South City Gas at 988 El Camino Real • Kaiser Hospital at 1200 El Camino Real There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Planning Area. The Planning Area is not identified as a fire hazard management unit in the 1999 General Plan which identifies areas that need vegetation management or other measures to reduce wildland fire risk and increase the potential for successful fire suppression. REGULATORY SETTING Federal Regulations Resource Conservation and Recovery Act The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) enables EPA to administer a regulatory program that extends from the manufacture of hazardous materials to their disposal, thus regulating the generation, transport, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste at all facilities and sites in the nation. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA 1980), also known as Superfund, was passed to facilitate the cleanup of the nation's toxic waste sites. In 1986, Superfund was amended by the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act Title III (community right-to-know laws). Title III states that past and present owners of land contaminated with hazardous substances can be held liable for the entire cost of the cleanup, even if the material was dumped illegally when the property was under different ownership. II) California Department of Toxic Substance Control. Geotracker, available at http://geotrackeLwaterboards.ca.gov/map/, accessed August 4, 2010. II California Department of Toxic Substance Control. Cortese List, available at http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecieanup/corteselist/SectionA.htm. Accessed August 4, 2010. 3.12-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Title 49 of the Code ofPederal Regulations (CPR 49) Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR 49) contains lists of more than 2,400 hazardous materials and regulates the transport of hazardous materials. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has developed regulations pertaining to the transport of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes by all modes of transportation. The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has developed additional regulations for the transport of hazardous materials by mail. US EPA has also promulgated regulations for the transport of hazardous wastes. These more stringent requirements include tracking shipments with manifests to ensure that wastes are delivered to their intended destinations. Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) published standard 1910.120, addressing dangers that hazardous materials pose in the workplace. The standard requires that employers evaluate the potential health hazard that hazardous materials pose in the workplace and communicate information concerning hazards and appropriate protective measures to employees. State Regulations California regulations are equal to or more stringent than federal regulations. EPA has granted the State of California primary oversight responsibility to administer and enforce hazardous waste management programs. State regulations require planning and management to ensure that hazardous wastes are handled, stored, and disposed of properly to reduce risks to human health and the environment. Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act of 1985 The Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act, also known as the Business Plan Act, requires businesses using hazardous materials to prepare a plan that describes their facilities, inventories, emergency response plans, and training programs. The law requires businesses that use hazardous materials to provide inventories of those materials to designated emergency response agencies, illustrate on a diagram where the materials are stored, prepare an emergency response plan, and train employees to use the materials safely. Hazardous Waste Control Act The Hazardous Waste Control Act created the state hazardous waste management program, which is similar to, but more stringent than, the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act program. The act is implemented by regulations contained in Title 26 of the California Code of Regulations, which describes the following required aspects for the proper management of hazardous waste: • Identification and classification; • Generation and transport; • Design and permitting of recycling, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; • Treatment standards; 3.12-13 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • Operation of facilities and staff training; and • Closure of facilities and liability requirements. These regulations list more than 800 materials that may be hazardous and establish criteria for identifying, packaging, and disposing of them. Under the Hazardous Waste Control Act and Title 26, the generator of hazardous waste must complete a manifest that accompanies the waste from the generator to the transporter to the ultimate disposal location. Copies of the manifest must be filed with the DTSC. California Department of Toxic Substance Control The California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), an agency of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, and the California Health and Safety Code. DTSC is directly responsible for administrating the "Unified Program," which consolidates and coordinates the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities for environmental and emergency management programs. The Unified Program is intended to provide relief to businesses complying with the overlapping and sometimes conflicting requirements of formerly independently managed programs and is implemented at the local government level by Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA). State requirements assign "cradle-to-grave" responsibility for hazardous waste to hazardous waste generators. Anyone who creates a hazardous waste is considered a hazardous waste generator. Generators must ensure that their waste is disposed of properly, and legal requirements dictate the disposal requirements for many waste streams (e.g., banning many types of hazardous wastes from landfills). All hazardous waste generators must certify that, at a minimum, they make a good faith effort to minimize their waste and select the best waste management method available. State of California Water Resources Control Board The State of California Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) also regulates the handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances in construction projects. Permits and/or other action by the SWRCB may be required if contamination of water or soils occurs during the construction of the proposed project. Emergency Services Act Under the Emergency Services Act, the state developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state, and local agencies. Rapid response to incidents involving hazardous materials or hazardous waste is an important part of the plan, which is administered by the California Office of Emergency Services. The office coordinates the responses of other agencies, including EPA, the California Highway Patrol, regional water quality control boards, air quality management districts, and county disaster response offices. 3.12-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures General Plan Consistency with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans Public Utilities Code 21675 requires each airport land use commission to formulate an airport land use compatibility plan. California Government Code 65302.3 further requires that general plans be consistent with airport land use compatibility plans. In addition, general plans and applicable specific plans must be amended to reflect amendments to the airport land use compatibility plan. The San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan is discussed below. Local Regulations California Regional Water Quality Control Board In coordination with the SWRCB, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) adopts and implements water quality control plans that recognize the unique characteristics of each region with regard to natural water quality, actual and potential beneficial uses, and water quality problems. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (1996, amended 1998) The San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) develops and implements the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP). The current CLUP was adopted in December 1996, amended in 1998. In San Mateo County, the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) is the designated ALUC. The CLUP establishes the procedures that C/CAG uses in reviewing proposed local agency actions that affect land use decisions in the vicinity of San Mateo County's airports. Airport planning boundaries define where height, noise, and safety standards, policies, and criteria are applied to certain proposed land use policy actions. The ALUC is currently preparing an update of the 1996 CLUP. That plan is expected to be completed in final draft form in 2011. The updated plan will include the 2008 FAA-accepted Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs). It will also include an updated diagram that illustrates the configuration of the preliminary Airport Influence Area (AlA) boundary area for SFIA as well as an updated diagram of the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 airspace protection surfaces. South San Francisco General Plan (1999) The South San Francisco General Plan includes a Health and Safety chapter which addresses hazards in a comprehensive manner through hazard abatement policies and measures to reduce risks to life and property in existing and new development. IMPACT ANALYSIS IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.12-3-1 Future land uses proposed by the proposed Plan may involve the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. (No Impact) 3.12-15 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Future land uses in the proposed Plan include commercial and residential land uses. Potential hazardous materials handlers such as automobile/vehicle service and repair uses would not be permitted by the proposed Zoning as a future commercial land use. No hazardous materials handlers are anticipated to be built under the proposed Plan. Therefore, the proposed Plan would not result in any new impacts involving hazardous materials. Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.12-3-2 Future land uses in the proposed Plan may emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. (No Impact) There are five schools within a quarter mile of the Planning Area. They are El Camino High School, Baden Continuation High School, Buri Buri Elementary School, Urban Sprouts Pre- School and RW Drake Pre-School. As previously mentioned, no hazardous materials handlers are anticipated to be built under the proposed Plan indicating that there would be no impact. Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.12-3-3 Future development may be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 ("Cortese List"). (No Impact) The Planning Area does not contain any sites listed on the Department of Toxic Substances Control's Cortese List.12 There would be no impact posed by future development on a site listed on the Cortese List. Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.12-3-4 Future development may be located within an airport use, which may result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in area. (Less than Significant) The Planning Area is located north of San Francisco International Airport, and within the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) jurisdiction. The ALUC allows California Department of Toxic Substances Control, http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteClcanup/Cortese_List.cfm. accessed November 1, 2010. 3.12-/6 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures development within ALUC boundaries, provided that development is below a prescribed height limit and within certain CNEL ranges. The proposed Plan would adhere to policies set forth in the 1996 CLUP (amended 1998). For areas subject to airport-related height limitations, building heights will be required to adhere to the limits indicated in the most recently adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. The Planning Area is not located within any runway end safety zones for San Francisco International Airport. Therefore, runway safety is not an airport land use compatibility issue for future development on the project site.13 Future development will be required to conform to the most recently adopted CLUP requirements. This requirement is reinforced by Policy 2-1-22 of the General Plan, which requires that "all future development conforms with the relevant height, aircraft noise, and safety policies and compatibility criteria contained in to the most recently adopted version of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the environs of San Francisco International Airport." Compliance with height limitations are also addressed in Section 3.9: Land Use and Housing. Impacts related to noise are discussed in Section 3.5. Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.12-3-5 The proposed Plan may impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (No Impact) The proposed Plan would not result in blocking access to roadways and would not block on- site emergency vehicle access. New development under the proposed Plan would not interfere with and would comply with all applicable emergency response or evacuation plans. There would be no impact to emergency response or evacuation plan. Mitigation Measures N one required. Impact 3.12-3-6 Future development under the proposed Plan may expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss, injury or death involving wildland fires. (No Impact) There is no wildland risk in the vicinity of the Planning Area. The Planning Area is not within a fire hazard management unit in the 1999 General Plan. The proposed Plan would not expose people to the threat of wildland fires, thus there are is no impact. U David P. Carbone, Airport Land Use Commission Stat1~ C/CAG. C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Statl comments on a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and Associated General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Au- gust 3, 2010. 3.12-17 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures N one required. 3.12-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.12-4 MINERAL RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination of Environmental Impact MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a local- ly-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact The Planning Area does not contain any mineral resources within its limits. IMPACT ANALYSIS IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.12-4-1 No Impact Future development under the proposed Plan may affect mineral resources. (No Impact) No mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the state have been identified at the Planning Area. The Planning Area has not been delineated as a locally important mineral recovery site. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on any known mineral resources. Mitigation Measures N one required. 3.12-/9 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures This page intentionally left blank. 3.12-20 4 Analysis of Alternatives The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) mandates consideration and analysis of alternatives to the proposed Plan. According to CEQA Guidelines, the range of alternatives "shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant impacts" (Section 15126(d)(2)). The alternatives may result in new impacts that do not result from the proposed Plan. Case law suggests that the discussion of alternatives need not be exhaustive and that alternatives be subject to a construction of reasonableness. The impacts of the alternatives may be discussed "in less detail than the significant effects of the project proposed" (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(d)). Also, the Guidelines permit analysis of alternatives at a less detailed level for general plans and other program Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), compared to project EIRs. The Guidelines do not specify what would be an adequate level of detail. Quantified information on the alternatives is presented where available; however, in some cases only partial quantification can be provided because of data or analytical limitations. 4.1 BACKGROUND ON DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES The buildout for the proposed Plan assumes that the focus area will be redeveloped, resulting in approximately 1,587 housing units and 914,600 square feet of non-residential development. The current jobs/employed residents' ratio is 8.0, indicating that there is an imbalance between in-commuting and out-commuting. The majority of those working in the Planning Area do not reside in the Planning Area, due to the lack of existing and potential residential development. The lack of housing in proximity to jobs within the Planning Area results in high in-commuting and, subsequently, traffic. In addition, increasing housing opportunities in the Planning Area, in close proximity to the South San Francisco BART Station may help increase ridership and decrease out-commuting traffic. Because increases in traffic is the major impact associated with the proposed Plan, and the purpose of the alternatives is to minimize the adverse impacts of a project, the Alternative assumes the same amount of development potential, with different land use mix assumptions to evaluate whether this would lead to reduced traffic. Initial exploration of alternatives indicated that more non residential development would lead to greater traffic impacts. Therefore, an alternative that assumed greater residential development compared to the proposed Plan was considered. The Housing Center Alternative assumes that the Planning Area will include more housing units, compared to the proposed Plan. The No Project Alternative assumes continuation of the current General Plan. 4.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES This chapter describes and evaluates two alternatives, the Housing Center Alternative and the No Project Alternative, and compares them to the proposed Plan. The Housing Center Alternative assumes the same development potential but a greater number of residential units Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives in the Planning Area, compared to the proposed Plan. Consideration of the No Project Alternative is required by CEQA in all EIRs to help decision-makers compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The No Project scenario is based on the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan, which represents the continuation of the existing plans and policies. Table 4.2-1 summarizes the buildout of the proposed Plan, the Housing Center Alternative and the No Project scenario. Table 4.2-1 Comparison of Alternatives at Buildout No Project Proposed Plan Housing Center Alternative Population and Housing Population I 700 4,800 5,800 Housing Units 250 1,587 1,950 Households2 238 1,223 1,852 Non Residential and Jobs Retail and Services (sf) 328,200 426,300 92,200 Office (sf) 391,400 377,800 377,800 Public/Institutional (sf) 60,500 110,500 110,500 Jobs] 2,100 2,500 1,800 Employed Residents4 350 2,400 2,900 Jobs/Employed Residents 6.0 1.0 0.6 I Buildout population was calculated assuming 3.04 persons per household; totals are rounded to the nearest hundred. 2 Households are estimated as 95 percent of the total housing units, assuming a 5 percent vacancy rate. ] Jobs at buildout rounded to the nearest hundred. Jobs projected exclude any expansion of Kaiser that may result in the future. 4 Employed residents at buildout were calculated using the ratio of employed residents to total population as projected for 2030 in the City of South San Francisco by ABAG (50% of total population). Sources: ABAG Projections 2009; Dyett & Bhatia 20 I O. HOUSING CENTER ALTERNATIVE The Housing Center Alternative assumes the same amount of redevelopment potential as the proposed Plan. It also assumes that future development will be more residential compared to the proposed Plan. The Housing Center Alternative assumes 580,500 square feet of non- residential development which results in 1,800 jobs. The rest of the non-residential development projected in the proposed Plan is assumed to be residential. This results in 1,950 housing units and a buildout population of 5,800. Compared with the proposed Plan, the Alternative would result in 1,400 more housing units, but 700 fewer jobs at buildout. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The No Project Alternative assumes continuation of land use development under the 1999 General Plan. Buildout of the No Project Alternative would result in 250 residential units and 780,100 square feet of non-residential space. The No Project Alternative will accommodate a total population of 700 in 2030. Compared with the proposed Plan, the No Project scenario would result in 1,337 housing units, 4,100 fewer residents, and 400 fewer jobs, at buildout. 4-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives 4.3 COMPARATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS This comparative analysis of alternatives evaluates impacts in the same environmental issue areas analyzed in Chapter 3 of this EIR for the proposed Plan. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Appendix B includes a detailed section on methodology for analysis of the No Project, proposed Plan, and the Housing Center Alternative. Methodology for the No Project and proposed Plan is also detailed in section 3.1: Traffic and Circulation. Housing Center Alternative The Housing Center Alternative proposes less commercial uses but more residential units be constructed in the Planning Area. Table 4.3-1 compares the trip generating potential of both the Preferred Alternative and the Housing Center Alternative. As illustrated, the Preferred Alternative would generate an additional 9,984 daily vehicle trips, 103 trips during the AM peak hour, and 461 trips during the PM peak hour, compared to 2010 existing conditions. Due to the less intense level of development that would occur under the Housing Center Alternative, less traffic would be generated in the Planning Area. While reduced traffic volumes would benefit traffic operations, the Cumulative No Project analysis, which would generate less vehicle trips than the Housing Center Alternative, concluded that level of service impacts at several signalized intersections would be significant and unavoidable under build No Project buildout. In addition, the Environmental Impact Report for South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment (2009) had the same conclusions for several intersections along El Camino Real. This significant and unavoidable impact would also occur under build out of the Housing Center Alternative. The lesser densities of this alternative and the fewer vehicle trips would have less of an adverse cumulative impact (contribute fewer vehicle trips) at the intersections impacted by the Preferred Alternative. However, it is expected that these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable due the infeasibility of adding capacity at those intersections. Since the Housing Center Alternative proposes lower densities, it would provide less interaction between land uses and less opportunity for internalization of trips, walking, and biking. Therefore, while the Housing Center Alternative would result in fewer vehicle trips and less of an adverse effect on traffic operations, it would not optimize the mixing of land uses to the same degree as the Preferred Alternative, which will reduce the potential for job/work/shop interfaces and internal trip capture within the Planning Area. On balance, these alternatives are considered similar to each other. 4-3 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives Table 4.3-1: Trip Generating Potential Comparison Scenarios Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour -----------------------------------------------In Out Proposed Plan 16,467 303 561 Housing Center Alternative 6,483 160 601 Difference in Trips +9,984 +143 -40 Source: Kimley-Horn, 20 I O. No Project Alternative Total In 864 643 761 456 +103 +187 Out 500 226 +274 Total 1,143 682 +461 The Cumulative No Project alternative would result in development consistent with the City's existing General Plan. Since the General Plan calls for less development than the Area Plan, less traffic would be generated in the Planning Area as the residential population and commercial trips would not increase to the levels anticipated by the Preferred Alternative. While reduced traffic volumes would benefit traffic operations, the Cumulative No Project analysis concluded that level of service impacts at several signalized intersections would be significant and unavoidable under build out of the General Plan Amendment. In addition, the Environmental Impact Report for South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment (2009) had the same conclusions for several intersections along El Camino Real. Since the Cumulative No Project alternative proposes lower densities, it would provide less interaction between land uses and less opportunity for internalization of trips, walking, and biking. Therefore, while the Cumulative No Project Alternative would result in fewer vehicle trips and less of an adverse effect on traffic operations, it would not optimize the mixing of land uses to the same degree as the Preferred Alternative, which will reduce the potential for job/work/shop interfaces and internal trip capture within the Planning Area. On balance, these alternatives are considered similar to each other. AIR QUALITY For the analysis of air quality impacts of local plans, the BAAQMD recommends that the analysis focus on evaluating the consistency of the plan with the most recently adopted regional clean air plan (CAP). For a local plan to be consistent with the Clean Air Plan, the proposed plan must conform to the following: 1. Consistency with current air quality plan control measures, and 2. Projected VMT or vehicle trip increase is less than or equal to projected population increase. All of the alternatives are consistent with the CAP, and therefore all result in a less than significant impact. The No Project Alternative however does result in the smallest disparity between the increase in population and VMT. Table 4.3-2 compares population and VMT growth for the No Project, proposed Plan and the Housing Center Alternative. 4-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives Table 4.3-2: Alternatives Comparison for Population and VMT Growth % Increase % Increase % Increase from Housing from No from Existing Proposed Existing Center Existing 2005 Project Condition Plan Condition Alternative Condition Population 61,700 75,200 18.0 77,500 20.4 78,500 21.4 Annual VMT (million) 491 543 9.6 589 16.6 561 12.4 Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 20 I 0; Kimley-Horn, 20/0; MTC, 2008, ICLEI/ City of South San Francisco, 2009; Caltrans, 2005, ABAG Projections, 2009 Housing Center Alternative When compared to existing conditions, the Housing Center Alternative VMT is expected to increase by approximately 12.4 percent while population would increase by 21.4 percent. Since the rate of increase in VMT would not exceed the rate of increase in population, the Housing Center Alternative scenario would be consistent with the regional Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the Housing Center Alternative has a less than significant impact regarding air quality. Furthermore, in the Housing Center Alternative, the disparity between population and VMT growth is slightly lower than that of the proposed Plan, but higher than that of the No Project. However, the proposed Plan may be more consistent with air quality control measure TCM D- 3 -Local Land Use Strategies, which support and promote land use patterns, policies and infrastructure investments that support higher density mixed-use, residential and employment near transit in order to facilitate walking, bicycling, and transit use, compared to the Housing Center Alternative. The Housing Center Alternative would increase the amount of housing in the Planning Area but would not accommodate as much neighborhood serving retail that may be needed to sustain a larger Planning Area population, resulting in fewer opportunities to walk and bike to retail and services. Impacts due to exposure of people to T ACs are expected to be comparable to the proposed Plan since both the proposed Plan and the Housing Center Alternative would not allow additional industrial uses and permitted sources in the Planning Area would remain the same. In addition daily traffic volume along El Camino Real and Mission Road would not exceed 100,000 vehicles/day, as shown in Table 4.3-3, resulting in no impact from mobile sources of TAC. Table 4.3-3: Daily Traffic Volumes Along EI Camino Real and Mission EI Camino Real Mission Road North of North of South of North of North of Arroyo Chestnut Chestnut Oak Chestnut Existing 25,300 25,500 37,100 8,300 8,600 No Project 41,500 43,000 60,800 13,500 12,800 Proposed Plan 46,300 46,900 64,200 14,800 13,300 Housing Center Alternative 43,400 44,500 62,100 14,000 13,000 Source: Kimley-Horn, 20 I O. 4-5 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives Exposure of sensitive receptors to pollution may be somewhat higher than with the proposed Plan since there would be more housing units in the area under this Alternative. Exposure of people to odors is expected to be comparable to the proposed Plan since neither would allow additional industrial uses. No Project Alternative When compared to existing conditions, the No Project VMT is expected to increase by approximately 9.6 percent while population would increase by 18 percent. Since the rate of increase in VMT would not exceed the rate of increase in population, the No Project scenario would be consistent with the regional Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the No Project Alternative has a less than significant impact regarding air quality. Furthermore, in the No Project the disparity between population and VMT growth is slightly lower than that of the proposed Plan and Housing Alternative. However, the proposed Plan may be more consistent with air quality control measure TCM D-3. The No Project scenario would limit the amount of housing in the Planning Area, therefore resulting in fewer opportunities for transit use by residents in South San Francisco. Impacts due to exposure of people to T ACs are expected to be comparable to the proposed Plan since both the proposed Plan and the No Project Alternative would not allow additional industrial uses and permitted sources in the Planning Area would remain the same. In addition daily traffic volume along El Camino Real and Mission Road would not exceed 100,000 vehicles/day, as shown in Table 4.3-3, resulting in no impact from mobile sources ofTAC. Exposure of people to odors is expected to be more likely under the No Project, since it is the only alternative that would continue to allow uses such as gas stations and auto body shops. ENERGY AND GREENHOUSE GASES As described in the methodology and assumptions section of Section 3.3 Energy and Greenhouse Gases (GHG), this analysis includes fuel efficiency estimates for No Pavley, Pavley Phase 1, and Pavley Phase 2, the implementation of SB 1078 33 percent Renewables Portfolio, and Executive Order S-O 1-07 Low Carbon Fuel Standard. It also takes into account local measures as well as proposed Plan policies that may lead to further reductions. The Housing Center results in the most non-renewable residential energy use when compared to the No Project and proposed Plan. Commercial/Industrial energy use is comparable to that in the proposed Plan. However, the proposed Plan results in the most transportation energy use compared to the No Project and Housing Center Alternative. Overall, the proposed Plan results in the most GHG emissions when compared to the No Project and the Housing Center Alternative. However, when reductions from proposed Plan policies are taken into consideration, the Housing Center Alternative results in the most GHG emissions. The No Project Alternative results in the lowest GHG emissions of all of the alternatives. All three scenarios result in greenhouse gas emissions of 4.6 per service population. Energy Use Table 4.3-4 shows the amount of residential and commercial/industrial energy use in each scenario. Table 4.3-5 compares transportation energy use. 4-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives Housing Center Alternative The Housing Center Alternative results in slightly higher residential energy use compared to the proposed Plan and No Project. However, the Housing Center Alternative results in less transportation energy use than the proposed Plan. When considering total energy use, the Housing Center Alternative uses more energy than the No Project, but less than the proposed Plan. No Project Alternative The No Project results in slightly less residential, commercial/industrial, and transportation energy use than the proposed Plan and the Housing Center Alterative. When considering total energy use, the No Project Alternative is projected to use the least energy annually. Table 4.3-4: Annual BTU Use for Residential and Commercial/Industrial Annual BTUs (billions) No Project Proposed Plan Housing Center Alternative 2005 2030 2020 2030 2020 2030 2020 Residential Electricity' 342 316 288 325 288 329 288 Natural Gas 901 1,123 1,022 1,155 1,025 1,169 1,025 Commercialll nd ustrial Electricity' 1,318 1,217 1,107 1,388 1,218 1,388 1,218 Natural Gas 2,011 2,701 2,387 2,862 2,510 2,862 2,510 Total 4,573 5,357 4,804 5,730 5,041 5,748 5,041 I Renewable Portfolio Standard applied. Source: City of South San Francisco, 20 I 0; Dyett & Bhatia, 20 I I; ABAG Projections, 2009. 4-7 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives Table 4.3-5: Transportation Energy Use in BTUs Fuel Efficiency Annual Annual BTU (miles per Annual Fuel BTUs Change Annual VMT gallon) Consumption (Billions) from 2005 2005 491,093,265 17.5 28,062,472 3,507.81 No Project No Pavley 543,190,40 I 18.2 29,845,626 3,730.70 6.4% 2030 Pavley I 543,190,40 I 24.6 22,080,911 2,760.11 -21.3% Pavley I and" 543,190,40 I 27.3 19,897,084 2,487.14 -29.1% No Pavley 503,296,744 18.2 27,653,667 3,456.71 -1.5% 2020 Pavley I 503,296,744 24.6 20,459,217 2,557.40 -27.1% Pavley I and II 503,296,744 27.3 18,435,778 2,304.47 -34.3% Proposed Plan No Pavley 588,846,447 18.2 32,354,200 4,044.28 15.3% 2030 Pavley I 588,846,447 24.6 23,936,847 2,992.11 -14.7% Pavley I and" 588,846,447 27.3 21,569,467 2,696.18 -23.1% No Pavley 503,427,377 18.2 27,660,845 3,457.61 -1.4% 2020 Pavley I 503,427,377 24.6 20,464,528 2,558.07 -27.1% Pavley I and" 503,427,377 27.3 18,440,563 2,305.07 -34.3% Housing Center Alternative No Pavley 560,579,620 18.2 30,801,078 3,850.13 9.8% 2030 Pavley I 560,579,620 24.6 22,787,789 2,848.47 -18.8% Pavley I and" 560,579,620 27.3 20,534,052 2,567.76 -26.8% No Pavley 503,346,499 18.2 27,656,40 I 3,457.05 -1.4% 2020 Pavley I 503,346,499 24.6 20,461,240 2,558.65 -27.1% Pavley I and" 503,346,499 27.3 18,437,60 I 2,305.70 -34.3% Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 20 I 0; Kimley-Horn, 20/0; MTC, 2008, ICLEI/ City of South San Francisco, 2009; Caltrans, 2005. Greenhouse Gases Tables 4.3-6 and 4.3-7 compare greenhouse gas emissions for the No Project, proposed Plan and the Housing Center Alternative. 4-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives Table 4.3-6: 2020 Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG Emissions 2020 with State/Local Mandates and GHG Emissions 2020 Business-as-Usual GHG Emissions 2020 with State/Local proposed Plan Policies (MTCo2e) Mandates (MTCo2e)3 (MTCo2e)4 Proposed Housing Center No Proposed Housing Center Sectori,2 No Project Plan Alternative Project Plan Alternative Proposed Plan Residential 80,437 80,676 80,676 73,819 74,038 74,038 74,038 Commercial/Industrial 230,904 242,813 242,813 204,253 214,788 214,788 214,788 Transportation 1,2 246,337 246,40 I 246,40 I 195,591 195,642 195,642 166,296 BART 706 833 833 706 833 833 833 Caltrain 586 691 691 586 691 691 691 Waste 79,952 81,602 81,602 79,952 81,602 81,602 81,602 Water 1,819 1,862 1,862 1,819 1,862 1,862 1,862 Off Road 25,419 26,431 26,431 25,419 26,431 26,431 26,431 Total 666,160 681,310 681,310 554,907 567,595 567,595 566,541 Emissions Per Capita 9.6 9.7 9.7 8.0 8.1 8.1 7.3 Emissions Per Service PopulationS 5.6 5.6 5.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 Emission Factors and Calculation Methods: ICLEI, Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology for Bay Area Governments, prepared as part of the BAAQMD-ICLEI Workshop, December 6, 2007. 2. Forecast for transportation based on 2030 annual VMT projections. 3. Reductions for residential and commercial/ industrial reflect electricity savings, based on Senate Bill 1078. Reductions for transportation reflect fuel efficiency and low carbon fuel savings, based on Assembly Bill 1493: Pavley Phases I and 2 and Executive Order S-O 1-07. Reductions for waste based on reduction listed in 2005 Inventory. 4. Reductions for transportation based on proposed policies and corresponding sector reductions listed in 20 I 0 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Source: City of South San Francisco, 20 I 0; Dyett & Bhatia, 20 II; Kimley-Horn, 20 I 0; MTC, 2008, ICLEI/ City of South San Francisco, 2009; Caitrans, 2005, ABAG Projections, 2009; BAQQMD, 20 I O. 4-9 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives Table 4.3-7: 2030 Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG Emissions 2030 with State/Local Mandates and GHG Emissions 2030 Business-as-Usual GHG Emissions 2030 with State/Local Mandates proposed Plan Policies (MTCo2e) (MTCo2e)3 (MTCo2e)4 Housing Proposed Center Proposed Housing Center Sector No Project Plan Alternative No Project Plan Alternative Proposed Plan Residential 88,049 90,885 92,019 80,804 83,407 84,448 83,407 Commercial/Industrial 275,500 276,862 276,862 243,701 244,906 244,906 244,906 Transportation 1,2 265,862 288,209 274,373 211,095 228,838 217,853 185,607 BART 795 810 816 795 810 816 810 Caltrain 660 673 677 660 673 677 673 Waste 88,844 98,073 98,739 83,135 92,364 93,030 92,364 Water 2,050 2,089 2,103 2,050 2,089 2,103 2,089 Off Road 29,096 29,656 29,858 29,096 29,656 29,858 29,656 Total 750,856 787,256 775,448 620,190 650,997 641,730 639,511 Emissions Per Capita 10.0 10.2 10.0 8.2 8.4 8.3 8.3 Emissions Per Service Population 5.6 5.7 5.6 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.6 Emission Factors and Calculation Methods: ICLEI, Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology for Bay Area Governments, prepared as part of the BAAQMD-ICLEI Workshop, December 6, 2007. 2. Forecast for transportation based on 2030 annual VMT projections. 3. Reductions for residential and commercial/ industrial reflect electricity savings, based on Senate Bill 1078. Reductions for transportation reflect fuel efficiency and low carbon fuel savings, based on Assembly Bill 1493: Pavley Phases I and 2 and Executive Order S-O 1-07. Reductions for waste based on reduction listed in 2005 Inventory. 4. Reductions for transportation based on proposed policies sector reductions in 20 I 0 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Source: City of South San Francisco, 20 I 0; Dyett & Bhatia, 20 II; Kimley-Horn, 20 I 0; MTC, 2008, ICLEI/ City of South San Francisco, 2009; Caitrans, 2005, ABAG Projections, 2009; BAQQMD, 20 I 0, 4-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives Housing Center Alternative As shown in Table 4.3-7, the Housing Center Alternative, when considering State mandates, results in more GHG emissions than the No Project, and fewer GHG emissions than the proposed Plan. However, when emission reductions resulting from proposed Plan policies are taken into account in the Proposed Plan scenario, the Housing Center Alternative results in the most GHG emissions. The Housing Center, Proposed Plan, and No Project have the same emissions per service population .. No Project As shown in Table 4.3-7, the No Project, when considering state mandates, results in fewer GHG emissions than the Housing Center Alternative and the proposed Plan. However, the No Project Alternative results in the same GHG emissions per service population when compared to the Housing Center Alternative and the Proposed Plan. CULTURAL RESOURCES The proposed Plan would have less than significant impacts on cultural resources. There are no federal-, State-or locally-listed historic resources within the Planning Area. The NWIC identifies a recorded Native American archeological resource, CA-SMA-299, within the Planning Area, but evaluation of the site as part of the BART extension determined that the integrity of the site had been destroyed and that the resource was absent where it had previously been identified. Archeological resource CA-SMA-355 has been identified adjacent to the Planning Area and the extent of the resource boundaries is unknown and may extend into the Planning Area. However, potential impact is reduced to less than significant levels by federal, State, and local policies. The University of California Museum of Paleontology identifies a fossil locality in South San Francisco; however, the lithology of the fossil is not known to occur in the Planning Area so it is unlikely that the locality of the fossil is in the Planning Area. Housing Center Alternative Like the proposed Plan, this Alternative would result in less than significant impacts on cultural resources. This Alternative would impact the same sites as the proposed Plan, so the potential impacts would be the same. No Project Alternative Additional buildout that would occur under the 1999 General Plan would also impact the same sites as the proposed Plan. During the preparation of the 1999 General Plan, CA-SMA-355 had not been discovered yet; however it did identify CA-SMA-299. The No Project Alternative would not result in less than significant impacts on cultural resources. NOISE Noise is qualitatively evaluated here based on proposed and existing land uses for each alternative that would increase noise in the Planning Area or that would introduce sensitive receptors to the area. The No Project would be the preferred Alternative regarding noise impacts due to the lower traffic levels and the smaller number of potential sensitive receptors 4-1/ Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives introduced into the Planning Area. Table 4.3-8 shows the noise level increase along El Camino Real, Mission Road, and Chestnut Avenue for No Project, proposed Plan, and Housing Center Alternative scenarios. Table 4.3-8: Increase in Noise Levels in 2030 Comparison dB increase over Existing Condition Proposed Housing No Plan Housing Center No Project Proposed Average Center Alternative Street Section Project Average Plan Alternative Average EI Camino Real North of Arroyo 2.1 2.6 2.1 EI Camino Real Chestnut to Arroyo 2.3 2.2 2.6 2.6 2.3 2.2 EI Camino Real South of Chestnut 2.1 2.4 2.1 Mission North of Oak 2.1 2.5 2.1 South of Oak to 1.9 2.2 1.9 Mission Chestnut 1.7 1.9 1.7 EI Camino to Chestnut Antoinette Lane 1.9 2.2 1.9 Antoinette to 2.0 2.1 2.0 Chestnut Mission 1.9 2.0 1.9 Chestnut East of Mission 2.1 2.2 2.1 Source: Salter and Associates, 20 I 0; Kimley-Horn, 20 10. Housing Center Alternative The Housing Center Alternative is expected to have similar impacts as the proposed Plan regarding exposing existing noise-sensitive uses to construction-related temporary increases in ambient noise, since a comparable amount of construction is expected. More noise is expected than in the No Project scenario since the No Project Alternative includes less development overall. The Housing Center Alternative would increase noise levels by less than three dB, which is not expected to be noticeable. Noise level increase is expected to be the same as the No Project and slightly less than the proposed Plan. The Housing Center Alternative is not expected to expose people to excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. Similar to the proposed Plan, no new industrial uses are included in the Housing Center Alternative. No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative is expected to have the least impact regarding exposing existing noise-sensitive uses to construction-related temporary increases in ambient noise, since less development overall is expected for the No Project when compared to the proposed Plan and the Housing Center Alternative, resulting in less construction. 4-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives Because the smallest amount of development is expected in the No Project scenario, impacts to ambient noise levels along El Camino Real are expected to be minimal, and less than under the proposed Plan. While this is preferred to the increases expected under the proposed Plan and the Housing Center Alternative, the increases in noise levels are not expected to be noticeable in any of the alternatives. The No Project is not expected to expose people to excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels, though the continuation of industrial uses in the area under the No Project makes the chance of such vibration or noise more likely than under the proposed Plan or the Housing Center Alternative. PARKS AND RECREATION The City has a parldand ratio standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 new residents and one-half acre per 1,000 new employees in the General Plan. The proposed Plan increases the total citywide parkland need from 45.9 acres to 59.4 acres. The Housing Center Alternative would require more parkland to be provided, compared to the proposed Plan. Table 4.3-9 shows the amount of parkland needed in each scenario. Table 4.3-9: New Demand for Parks Comparison of Alternatives No Project Housing Center Alternative Proposed Plan Alternative Additional Additional Additional Standard Population Acres Population Acres Population Acres Parks in Residential 3.0 acres/ I ,000 Areas new residents 700 2.1 4,400 13.2 5,400 16.2 Parks in Employment 0.5 acres/ I ,000 Areas new employees 200 0.1 600 0.3 0 0 Total 2.2 13.5 16.2 Source: South San Francisco General Plan, 1999; Dyett & Bhatia, 20 I O. Housing Center Alternative The provision of parkland is contingent on new housing units and population, and new employees in the Planning Area. Because this Alternative supports more housing units and therefore a larger population, and fewer jobs, compared to the proposed Plan, the potential parkland needed is slightly more. Overall, similar to the proposed Plan, the impacts to parks will be less than significant because there is enough existing and proposed parldand to accommodate the projected population and employee increase, and limit the physical deterioration of existing parkland. No Project Alternative The provision of parkland is contingent on new housing units and population, and new employees in the Planning Area. Because the No Project scenario supports fewer housing units 4-13 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives and less population, and fewer jobs compared to the proposed Plan and Housing Center Alternative, the potential parkland needed is less. Overall, similar to the proposed Plan, the impacts to parks will be less significant because there is enough existing parkland to accommodate the projected residential and employee population, and limit the physical deterioration of existing parkland. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES The comparison of impacts on public facilities is based on the degree of increased demand on public schools, water supply, wastewater treatment, solid waste, and public safety facilities and services. The proposed Plan and the Housing Center Alternative result in some increased demand on these public services and utilities. With little new demand for public services, the No Project Alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative in this issue area. However, impacts on all public services and utilities were found to be less than significant for the proposed Plan given that there is enough existing capacity to accommodate future population. Schools The comparison of impacts on school facilities is based on the degree of increased student enrollment and demand for new school facilities. This analysis considered the same enrollment factors of 5 students per 100 multi-family residential units and 15 students per 100 townhome units for the Housing Center Alternative, as was used to evaluate the proposed Plan. Table 4.3- 10 shows the projected student enrollment for the proposed Plan, Housing Center and No Project scenario. All three scenarios would result in a student population below District capacity of 10,701 in 2022. Table 4.3-10: New Demand for Public Schools Comparison of Alternatives No Project Proposed Plan Housing Center Alternative Projected Enrollment for 2022' Total Capacity Remaining2 9,300 9,370 9,403 1,401 1,332 1,298 I Enrollment Projections prepared for the South San Francisco Unified School District forecasts up to the year 2022. 2 Total capacity is 10,70 I students. Source: South San Francisco General Plan, 1999; Schoolhouse Services, 2008; Dyett & Bhatia, 20 I O. Housing Center Alternative Under this scenario, there will be approximately 103 more students, resulting in a total projected enrollment of 9,403 which is well within the capacity of existing schools. No Project Alternative Under this scenario, projected enrollment is expected to be 9,300, also well within the capacity of existing schools. 4-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives Fire and Police Current police and fire protection is designed to meet the needs of the existing population and employment base. Implementation of the proposed Plan may potentially increase the long- term demand for police assistance and fire response citywide. However, because the Planning Area is served by existing police and fire stations within one to two miles away, response time to the Planning Area will be within response time goals. Water Supply As part of the California Water Service Company (CWSC) South San Francisco District, the Planning Area's water demand is considered in the CWSC 2006 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). This EIR considers whether the additional population projected in the proposed Plan or alternatives would make a significant difference on water demand currently planned for in the UWMP. The UWMP has projected that the population in the South San Francisco District will increase to approximately 69,150 in 2030. Within the South San Francisco District, population for the South San Francisco Service Area is projected to increase to 62,594. Table 4.3-11 projects population growth in the South San Francisco Service Area under each alternative. The proposed Plan and No Project alternative do not exceed the population projections in the UWMP. However, the Housing Center Alternative slightly exceeds the UWMP population due to a higher increase in population compared to the proposed Plan and No Project alternative. This indicates that the future population under the proposed Plan and No Project is sufficiently accounted for in CWSC's planning document and the CWSC is expected to be able to service this growth. However, the No Project Alternative will require less water because it has the lowest population growth compared to the proposed Plan and Housing Center Alternative. Table 4.3-11: South San Francisco Water Service Area Population Projection Comparison of Alternatives No Project Proposed Plan Housing Center Alternative South San Francisco Service Area Population 58,000 62,100 63,100 Population Exceeding 2006 UWMP Population Projections -4,594 -494 Source: ABAG Projections, 2005; California Water Service Company, 2006; US Census, 2000; Westborough Water District, 2005, Dyett & Bhatia, 20 I O. Housing Center Alternative 506 Under this scenario, population within the South San Francisco Service Area is projected to increase to 63,100 in 2030, which is above the projected population in the UWMP. Therefore CWSC capacity may not be sufficient under this Alternative. 4-15 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives No Project Alternative The No Project scenario results in the lowest South San Francisco Service Area population. CWSC capacity is expected to be sufficient under this Alternative. Wastewater All wastewater produced within the City of South San Francisco is treated at the City's Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP). Currently, the WQCP has the capacity to provide secondary treatment for 13 MGD in dry weather and 60 MGD in wet weather.1 The average wastewater flow was 9.2 MGD for 2008; average peak wet weather flows approach 30 MGD. The WQCP treats wastewater generated by South San Francisco and San Bruno. Currently, the City of South San Francisco has an allocation of treatment capacity of 8.74 MGD, and is currently generating 5.6 MGD.2 Wastewater generation varies depending on the type of development. A per capita wastewater generation rate of 86.1 was calculated using current wastewater generation and population to project future wastewater generation. Assuming that the per capita wastewater generation rate stays constant, the wastewater generated at buildout under the proposed Plan would be 6.67 MGD. Table 4.3-12 shows projected wastewater generation for the Housing Center Alternative and the No Project Alternative. For all three scenarios, projected wastewater generation would not exceed South San Francisco's existing allocated treatment capacity. Table 4.3-12: Wastewater Generation Comparison of Alternatives No Project Proposed Plan Housing Center Alternative Projected Population at Buildout 75,200 77,500 78,500 Wastewater Generation (MGD) 6.47 6.67 6.76 Wastewater Capacity Remaining (MGD)' 2.3 2.1 2.0 I Total capacity is 8.74 MGD. Source: US Census, 2009; City of South San Francisco, 2009; Dyett & Bhatia, 20/0. Housing Center Alternative This Alternative results in the second highest average daily wastewater demand. South San Francisco's existing allocated treatment capacity at the WQCP is still expected to be sufficient in this scenario. No Project Alternative The No Project scenario results in the lowest average daily wastewater generation. I City of South San Prancisco, 328 Roebling Road Initial Study, Pebruary 2009. City of South San Prancisco. Centrum Logistics Project DEIR, Appendix B: Initial Study, June 2009, p. 11-13. 4-/6 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives Solid Waste Waste generation rates for South San Francisco are maintained by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). According to the CIWMB, the total amount of solid waste landfilled in 2008 was 88,674 tons. This equals a solid waste generation rate of approximately 7.65 pounds per resident per day. As shown in Table 4.3-13, for all the alternatives, South San Francisco solid waste generation is approximately eight percent of the capacity at the Ox Mountain Landfill. Due to lower population growth, the No Project Alternative results in the smallest amount of waste generation. Table 4.3-13: Solid Waste Generation Comparison of Alternatives Home Center No Project Proposed Plan Alternative Projected Population at BuildOUT 75,200 77,500 78,500 Landfilled Waste (tons per day) 288 296 300 Percent of permitted waste at Ox Mountain Landfill (per day) 8.0% 8.2% 8.3% Source: CIWMB, 2008; Department of Finance, 2008; ABAG Projections, 2009; Dyett & Bhatia, 20 I O. Housing Center Alternative The Housing Center Alternative results in higher waste generation compared to the No Project and proposed Plan. Waste generation is approximately 8.3 percent of Ox Mountain Landfill's daily allowance. No Project Alternative The No Project scenario results in the lowest amount of waste generation. AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES Differences in impacts on visual resources relate primarily to the extent and type of development under each of the alternatives and to the streetscape character. The proposed Plan, Housing Center Alternative, and No Project Alternative would have similar impacts on visual resources, while the proposed Plan and Housing Center Alternative would provide some environmental benefits. Housing Center Alternative With less new development projected for housing units but more non-residential development, this Alternative would still include improved streetscape character. In addition, like the proposed Plan, this Alternative would be subject to building height policies, which call for an overall typical height range between four and six stories, with residential towers reaching up to 15 stories in select locations and disallow monolithic, bulky developments. As with the proposed Plan, impacts to adjacent neighborhoods and existing visual resources would be less than significant through the establishment of development standards in the Zoning Ordinance and design guidelines to minimize bulk at higher levels of buildings, which will help ensure that some views of Sign Hill and the San Bruno Mountains will be available. 4-17 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives No Project Alternative This Alternative would not have as much development as the Housing Center Alternative and buildings in the No Project Alternative would be limited to 50 feet. However, buildings 50 feet in height have similar impacts on existing neighborhoods and visual resources as buildings four to six stories in height and this Alternative would not afford as much protection of views or improved streetscape character as the proposed Plan and Housing Center Alternative. LAND USE AND HOUSING The proposed Plan and the Housing Alternative differ in the amount of residential and non- residential development assumed at buildout. Table 4.3-14 shows the buildout comparison between the alternatives. None of the alternatives would divide an established community or displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people. None are expected to create any land use incompatibilities. Because there are no agricultural lands in the Planning Area, no agricultural land would be converted. Table 4.3-14: Buildout Comparison of Alternatives No Project Proposed Plan Housing Center Alternative Housing Units 250 1,587 1,950 Retail and Services (sf) 391,400 426,300 92,200 Office (sf) 328,200 377,800 377,800 Public/Institutional (sf) 129,900 110,500 110,500 Non-Residential Total (sf) 849,500 914,600 580,500 Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 20 I 0 Housing Center Alternative This Alternative assumes more residential units and less non-residential development. This comes at a slight comparative loss of residential development, with this approach providing less retail and services development. The Housing Center Alternative, like the proposed Plan would increase connectivity between the northern and southern portions of El Camino Real, as well as to the South San Francisco BART Station. No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative would result in fewer housing units compared to the proposed Plan and the Housing Center Alternative. The No Project Alternative would result in less non- residential development than the proposed Plan but more non-residential development than the Housing Center Alternative. The No Project Alternative would also result in the least dense development. Furthermore, the No Project Alternative would not make any changes in terms of increasing connectivity. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY The potential impacts of geological and seismic hazards are considered less than significant under the proposed Plan based on the implementation of existing regulations. Mandatory 4-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives compliance with existing building codes and construction standards established in the California Building Code, the requirements of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, and policies contained in the South San Francisco General Plan would reduce potential impacts of development to less than significant. Housing Center Alternative This Alternative includes the same overall amount of development as the proposed Plan and therefore would have the same potential impacts from geological and seismic hazards as the proposed Plan. In addition, this Alternative would be subject to the same existing regulations as the proposed Plan. The potential impacts of geological and seismic hazards would be less than significant. No Project Alternative The No Project scenario includes less intensive development than the proposed Plan and would likely be less impacted by geological and seismic hazards than the proposed Plan. In addition, the No Project scenario would be subject to the same existing regulations as the proposed Plan, resulting in less than significant impacts. HYDROLOGY AND FLOODING The impacts of the proposed Plan on hydrology and flooding would be less than significant due to existing regulations such as General Plan policies, standard development conditions, and mandatory adherence to best management practices. Housing Center Alternative This Alternative would result in the same less than significant impacts to hydrology and flooding as identified for the proposed Plan. Additional development would occur on sites that are currently developed. When compared to the proposed Plan, impacts related to hydrology and flooding would be addressed by the same regulatory framework which requires new development to adhere to standard development conditions and best management practices, as well as existing General Plan policies that reduce impacts to less than significant. No Project The No Project Alternative would result in the same less than significant impacts as identified for the proposed Plan. The development that would occur under the No Project Alternative would be required to adhere to all local and state requirements related to storm water controls and permitting, like the proposed Plan and Housing Center Alternative. IMPACTS NOT POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT Agriculture and Forest Resources The Planning Area does not contain any agriculture or forest resources within its limits so there will be no impacts in the Housing Center and No Project alternatives. 4-/9 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives Biological Resources The proposed Plan would result in no impacts associated with biological resources. The Planning Area is urbanized and does not contain natural habitat that could be lost or degraded for biological resources. Three special-status species were identified to have the potential to occur within the Planning Area; however habitats and observed occurrences of these species are outside the Planning Area. Housing Center Alternative Like the proposed Plan, this Alternative would result in no impacts associated with biological resources. Although this Alternative assumes a higher amount of residential development compared to the proposed Plan, it would not vary the potential effects to biological resources. Since the Planning Area does not contain any habitats for special-status species, there would be no impacts associated with biological resources. No Project Alternative Like the proposed Plan, the No Project scenario would result in no impacts associated with biological resources. Although the No Project alternative assumes less development compared to the proposed Plan, it would not vary the potential effects to biological resources. Since the Planning Area does not contain any habitats for special-status species, there would be no impacts associated with biological resources. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The proposed Plan would have less than significant impacts on hazardous materials and safety based on adherence to existing regulatory framework that controls hazardous materials. In addition, potential hazardous materials handlers such as automobile/vehicle service and repair uses would not be permitted as a future commercial land use. No hazardous materials handlers are anticipated to be built under the proposed Plan. Housing Center Alternative This Alternative proposes development throughout the Planning Area, like the proposed Plan. Since this Alternative includes the same overall amount of development as the proposed Plan, it would have the same potential impacts from hazards and hazardous materials as the proposed Plan. Adherence to existing regulatory framework that controls hazardous materials would result in less than significant impacts. No Project Alternative The No Project scenario proposes less intense development throughout the Planning Area than anticipated under the proposed Plan. In the No Project scenario, potential hazardous materials handlers such as automobile/vehicle service and repair uses would be permitted with a conditional use permit as a future commercial land use. However, hazardous materials generation, storage and clean-up are heavily regulated by federal, State, and local regulations that would apply to all three scenarios; therefore potential impacts of hazardous materials are similar to those in the proposed Plan. 4-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives Mineral Resources The Planning Area does not contain any mineral resources within its limits so there will be no impacts in the Housing Center and No Project alternatives. 4.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA Guidelines (Section 15123(e)(2)) require the identification of an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives analyzed. The No Project Alternative, because of the lower amount of growth and the resulting lessening of adverse impacts, would in many cases, be environmentally superior. However, CEQA Guidelines mandate that if the No Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, then another environmentally superior alternative must be identified. Although the environmental superiority can vary depending on the topic, or even depending on analysis criteria for the same topic, overall the Housing Center Alternative represents the environmentally superior alternative. The Housing Center Alternative, would have less impact as it would generate less vehicle trips and VMT than the proposed Plan. The Housing Center Alternative would lead to fewer GHG emissions overall and would have less impact on air quality when compared to the proposed Plan. The Housing Center Alternative represents the environmentally superior alternative because it results in fewer impacts while achieving much of the purpose of the proposed Plan. Nonetheless, while the Housing Center Alternative represents the environmentally superior alternative, it is expected that traffic impacts from the Housing Center Alternative would remain significant and unavoidable due to the infeasibility of adding capacity at impacted intersections. In addition, since the Housing Center Alternative proposes a less diverse mix of land uses, it would result in less interaction between land uses and less opportunity for internalization of trips, walking and biking. Thus, the Housing Center Alternative would not be as successful in achieving a main purpose of the proposed Plan, which is to create a walkable mixed -use district. The Housing Center Alternative would result in a higher population and would require more public services, water, energy, and overall infrastructure compared to the proposed Plan. Since all new development under the proposed Plan would be in the form of infill development-the redevelopment of existing sites-each alternative expects development on the same set of sites. Therefore, impacts are no different for many issue areas, including land use and housing, cultural resources, and all of the impacts included in the impacts not potentially significant category. 4-21 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives This page intentionally left blank. 4-22 5 CEQA Required Conclusions 5.1 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The EIR must examine the potential growth-inducing impacts of the proposed Plan. More specifically, CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR "discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly" (CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(d)). This analysis must also consider the removal of obstacles to population growth, such as improvements in the regional transportation system. Growth-inducing impacts such as those associated with job increases that might affect housing and retail demand in other jurisdictions over an extended time period are difficult to assess with precision, since future economic and population trends may be influenced by unforeseeable events, such as natural disasters and business development cycles. Moreover, long-term changes in economic and population growth are often regional in scope; they are not influenced solely by changes in policies or specific development projects. Business trends are influenced by economic conditions throughout the state and country as well as around the world. Another consideration is that the creation of growth-inducing potential does not automatically lead to growth. Growth occurs through capital investment in new economic opportunities by the private or public sector. These investment patterns reflect, in turn, the desires of investors to mobilize and allocate their resources to development in particular localities and regions. These and other pressures serve to fashion policy. These factors, combined with the regulatory authority of local governments, serve to mediate the growth-inducing potential or pressure created by a proposed plan. Despite these limitations on the analysis, it is still possible to qualitatively assess the general potential growth-inducing impacts of the proposed Plan. PROJECTED GROWTH The proposed Plan allows for new residential and commercial development which will result in an increase in population, housing, and jobs. Population and Housing The current population within the Planning Area is estimated to be 400, comprising 0.06 percent of the City of South San Francisco's total population of 65,872.1 With the proposed Plan, the Planning Area would accommodate a population of approximately 4,800 people, an increase of about 4,400 people, representing a 92 percent increase in population. This represents an average annual growth rate of 13.2 percent. Although the population within the Planning Area is projected to increase substantially, the proposed Plan is not considered growth inducing, as it accommodates almost half of the I State of California, Department of Pi nance, E-4 Population Estimatesfor Cities, Counties and the State, 2001-2010, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, November 2010. Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions growth projected for the City of South San Francisco. As discussed in Chapter 2 Project Description, adoption of the Area Plan will result in an increase in population, housing, and jobs citywide. It is anticipated that the proposed Plan will increase housing by 727 units and population by 2,300 residents, beyond what has been projected for the City of South San Francisco by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).2 The methodology for this calculation is discussed in the Methodology subsection of the Citywide Buildout Section in Chapter 2. Table 5.1-1 shows the population increase citywide with the proposed Plan. Table 5.1-1: Projected Population for the City of South San Francisco Existing 2030 2030 with proposed Plan Population Population % Increase Population I % Increase 65,872 75,200 12 77,500 15 I. Assumes that population projected for Blocks A, B, C, I and half of D (currently vacant) are Included In the ABAG Projections 2009. Sources: ABAG Projections, 2009; Department of Finance, 20 I 0, Dyett & Bhatia, 20/0. Table 5.1-1 shows a fairly conservative scenario, considering the location of the Planning Area in proximity to transit and the availability of land. Due to these two factors, it can also be assumed that the substantial growth within the Planning Area will be the redistribution from other areas of the City rather than an addition to the growth estimated under the ABAG projections. Under the proposed Plan, the Planning Area would accommodate an additional 1,455 housing units, resulting in a total of 1,587 housing units. This represents about 1,382 additional households, when a five percent vacancy rate is taken into account. Employment The number of jobs in the Planning Area would increase by 16 percent from 1,900 to 2,500. The total net new jobs would make up only 1.6 percent of the total new jobs projected by ABAG for the City of South San Francisco. As discussed in the Methodology subsection of the Citywide Buildout Section in Chapter 2, jobs projected for 2030 used in this EIR was slightly higher than that projected by ABAG for a more conservative analysis. Table 5.1-2: Projected Jobs for the City of South San Francisco Existing 2030 2030 with proposed Plan Jobs Jobs % Increase Jobs % Increase 43,080 59,800 30.8 60,100 39.5 Sources: ABAG Projections, 2009; Department of Finance, 20 I 0, Dyett & Bhatia, 20/0. 2 ABAG Projections, 2009. 5-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions INCREASE IN REGIONAL HOUSING DEMAND As the employment base in South San Francisco continues to increase, more people may be drawn to South San Francisco and surrounding areas. As a result, housing demand may increase in both South San Francisco and other adjacent areas that are within commuting distance. The proposed Plan will result in development of approximately 1,455 new dwelling units by the year 2030, resulting in a total of 1,587 units in the Planning Area when added to the existing housing stock. This additional housing will help meet some of the increased housing need. South San Francisco adopted its most recent Housing Element in June 2009. The Housing Element contains an analysis of the community's housing needs, resources, constraints, and opportunities. The Housing Element identifies several parcels within the Planning Area as available sites for housing, which is being provided by the proposed Plan. It also contains goals, policies, and programs for housing and an action plan which details the actions to be taken by the City to respond to the community's evolving housing needs. JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE A city's jobs/employed residents' ratio would be 1.0 if the number of jobs in the city equaled the number of employed residents. In theory, such a balance would eliminate the need for commuting. More realistically, a balance means that in-commuting and out-commuting are matched, leading to efficient use of the transportation system, particularly during peak hours. According to ABAG, the jobs/employed residents' ratio for South San Francisco in 2010 was 1.6, which means that there were 1.6 jobs for every employed resident in the City. The proposed Plan would add more housing (l,455 net new units) than jobs (600 net new jobs) to the Planning Area. As Table 5.1-3 shows, the proposed Plan would be beneficial to the jobs/housing balance within the Planning Area. Table 5.1-3: Jobs per Employed Residents: Planning Area Ratios Existing 2030 2030 with proposed Plan Jobs Employed Residents Ratio 1,900 2001 8.0 2,100 3502 6.0 2,500 2,400 1.0 1 Existing employed residents were calculated using the ratio of employed residents to total population in 20 lOin the City of South San Francisco by ABAG (43% of total population). 2 Employed residents at buildout for the proposed Plan were calculated using the ratio of employed residents to total population projected for 2030 in the City of South San Francisco by ABAG (50% of total population). Sources: Califomia Department of Finance, 20 I 0; California Employment Development Department, 20 I 0; Dyett & Bhatia, 2010. Intensification of the Planning Area with mixed-use development containing residential uses would increase the number of housing units within the Planning Area. Higher densities are considered appropriate for this area, as it would provide a greater number of residents with convenient access to employment, shopping, and regional transit facilities such as BART. It is expected that housing growth in South San Francisco and a focus on transit-oriented development would relieve some of the pressure for housing elsewhere in the region and allow preservation of lower density neighborhoods in surrounding areas. 5-3 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions Physical changes needed to accommodate regional growth may have physical impacts on the environment. Potential effects of these physical changes are evaluated under their respective sections, such as 3.1: Traffic and Circulation, 3.2: Air Quality, 3.3 Energy and Greenhouse Gases, 3.5: Noise, and 3.7: Public Services. 5.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS CEQA requires that the EIR examine cumulative impacts. As discussed in CEQA Guidelines § IS130(a)(l), a cumulative impact "consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts." The analysis of cumulative impacts need not provide the level of detail required of the analysis of impacts from the project itself, but shall "reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence" (CEQA Guidelines § IS130(b)). In order to assess cumulative impacts, the EIR must analyze either a list of past, present, and probable future projects or a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document. The proposed Plan is essentially a set of projects, representing the cumulative development scenario for the reasonably foreseeable future in the Planning Area. This future scenario incorporates the likely effects of surrounding regional growth. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION By its nature, the transportation analysis presented in Chapter 3 represents a cumulative analysis of transportation conditions through 2030. As a result of increasing the amount of development through the proposed Plan, the travel demand and level of service operations produced by the proposed project is the cumulative condition for CEQA purposes. The contribution of the proposed Plan to intersection level of service was found to be considerable since traffic modeling indicates a worsening of already significant conditions under the proposed Plan (as compared to the No Project). Therefore, the proposed Plan is determined to have a considerable contribution to the significant impact regarding intersection LOS, despite the threshold being exceeded in the No Project scenario. These impacts are identified as significant and unavoidable and are discussed in greater detail in Section 3.1 of the EIR. AIR QUALITY, ENERGY AND GREENHOUSE GASES By its nature, the air quality, energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis presented in Chapter 3 represent a cumulative analysis of air quality conditions, energy usage, and GHG emissions through 2030. As a result of increasing the amount of development through the proposed Plan, the associated air quality, energy usage, and GHG emissions produced by the proposed project is the cumulative condition for CEQA purposes. Concurrent implementation of the proposed Plan and forecast development of residential and employment land uses in the region could result in increased air pollutants, thereby contributing to increased criteria air pollutants. It is reasonable to generalize that air quality are found to be cumulatively significant. However, the proposed Plan's contribution was found to be less than considerable as the proposed Plan's projected VMT is less than its projected population increase, as discussed in greater detail in Section 3.2 of the EIR. 5-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions Forecast population and employment growth would result in increased energy usage. However, energy use under the proposed Plan would be moderated by the application of State regulations and measures, which will ensure that energy use will not be wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary. This effect is not considered significant, as discussed in greater detail in Section 3.3 of the EIR. Concurrent implementation of the proposed Plan and forecast development of residential and employment land uses in the region could result in increased GHG emissions, thereby contributing to climate change. It is reasonable to generalize that climate change is found to be cumulatively significant. However, the proposed Plan's contribution was found to be less than considerable as the proposed Plan's per service population emissions did not exceed 4.6 MTC02e, as discussed in greater detail in Section 3.3 of the EIR. NOISE By its nature, the noise analysis presented in Chapter 3 represents a cumulative analysis of noise conditions through 2030. As a result of increasing the amount of development through the proposed Plan, the associated noise produced by the proposed project is the cumulative condition for CEQA purposes. Concurrent implementation of the proposed Plan and forecast development of residential and employment land uses in the region could result in increased noise, thereby contributing to increased noise levels in the Planning Area. The proposed Plan's contribution was found to be less than considerable as the increase in noise levels with the proposed Plan was less than three dB compared to existing conditions, as discussed in greater detail in Section 3.5 of the EIR. PARKS AND PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES By its nature, the parks and public services and utilities analyses presented in Chapter 3 represent a cumulative analysis of conditions through 2030. As a result of increasing the amount of development through the proposed Plan, the associated impacts on parks and public services and utilities is the cumulative condition for CEQA purposes. Concurrent implementation of the proposed Plan and forecast development of residential and employment land uses in the region would result in increased pressure on parks and public services and utilities. However, as discussed in greater detail in Sections 3.6 and 3.7, there is enough park, school, water, wastewater, and solid waste capacity to accommodate growth under the proposed Plan and regional growth and therefore impacts are not considered significant. Forecast population and employment growth would result in increased pressure on fire and police services. In addition, increased congestion due to population and employment growth will slightly increase fire and police service response times. This effect is not considered significant. ALL OTHER IMPACT AREAS As discussed in Chapter 3, impacts on cultural resources; aesthetics and visual resources; land use and housing; geology, soils and seismicity; and hydrology and flooding will be mitigated by 5-5 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 5: CEQA Required Conclusions existing regulations and/or proposed Plan policies. Therefore these effects are not considered significant. 5.3 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS According to CEQA Guidelines 15126(b), an EIR must discuss any significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided under full implementation of the proposed program. Also, this EIR must discuss why the program is being proposed, not withstanding such impacts. The policies of the proposed Plan, policies of the existing General Plan, and existing regulatory requirements described in Chapter 3 of this EIR would avoid or eliminate all potentially significant impacts except intersection LOS. Intersection LOS would both have significant and unavoidable impacts, as a result of the proposed Plan and regional growth. Intersection LOS would exceed the threshold of significance in the No Project scenario, indicating that the impact results in part from regional growth and is cumulative in nature. Delays do increase under the proposed Plan, and because this indicates a worsening of already significant conditions, the proposed Plan is determined to have a considerable contribution to the significant impact regarding intersection LOS. This impact is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3.1, Impact 3.1-1. 5.4 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE The EIR must also examine irreversible changes to the environment. More specifically, CEQA Guidelines require the EIR to consider whether "uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely" (CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(c)). "Nonrenewable resource" refers to the physical features of the natural environment, such as land, waterways, etc. ENERGY SOURCES New development under the proposed Plan would result in the commitment of existing and planned sources of energy, which would be necessary for the construction and daily use of new buildings and for transportation. Both residential and non-residential development use electricity, natural gas, and petroleum products for power, lighting, heating, and other indoor and outdoor services, while cars use both oil and gas. Use of these types of energy for new development would result in the overall increased use of non-renewable energy resources. This represents an irreversible environmental change. However, energy-reduction efforts may lower the rate of increase. CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IMPACTS Irreversible environmental changes could also occur during the course of constructing development projects made possible by the proposed Plan. New construction would result in the consumption of building materials, natural gas, electricity, water, and petroleum products. Construction equipment running on fossil fuels would be needed for excavation and the shipping of building materials. Due to the non-renewable or slowly renewable nature of these resources, this represents an irretrievable commitment of resources. 5-6 6 Bibliography TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. City of South San Francisco El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Traffic Impact Analysis, February 2011. AIR QUALITY Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Projections 2009,2009. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Ambient Air Quality Standards & Bay Area Attainment Status, available at http://hank.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambienCair_quality.htm, accessed December, 2010. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan: Volume I and IJ-Final Adopted. September 2010. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, December 2010. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Stationary Source Risk and Hazard Analysis Tool for San Mateo County kml file, available at http://www. baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and -Research/CEQA- GUIDELINES/Tools-and-Methodology.aspx, accessed January 2011. California Air Resources Board (ARB). Air Quality Trend Summaries, Top 4 Summary, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ adaml cgi -bini db2www I adamtop4b.d2w I start, accessed August 2010. California Air Resources Board (ARB). Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. California Air Resources Board (ARB). ARB Fact Sheet: Air Pollution Sources, Effects and Control, available at http://www.arb.ca.govlresearch/health/fs/fs2/fs2.htm. page last reviewed December 2009, accessed August 2010. California Air Resources Board (ARB). Air Quality Trend Summaries, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ adaml cgi -bini db2www Ipolltrendsb.d2w I start, accessed August 2010. California Air Resources Board (ARB). The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality, 2009. Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Bibliography California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California Public Road Data, available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hpms/ datalibrary.php, accessed December 2010. City of South San Francisco (SSF). 550 Gate Way Boulevard Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, October, 2008. City of South San Francisco (SSF). General Plan, October 1999. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. City of South San Francisco El Camino Real/Chestnut A venue Area Plan Traffic Impact Analysis, February 2011. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Travel Forecasts Data Summary for Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, December 2008. Michael, Sigalle, BAAQMD Senior Environmental Planner. Email communication, August 25, 2010. State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001-2010, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2010. ENERGY AND GREENHOUSE GASES Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Projections 2009,2009. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Joint Policy Committee memo regarding "Bay Area Regional Agency Climate Protection Program -Consolidated Recommendations," available at http://www.abag.ca.gov/jointpolicy/jpc_agenda_packages.htm. accessed May 4, 2007. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan: Volume I and IJ-Final Adopted. September 2010. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, December 2010. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, December 2008. California Air Resources Board (ARB). Health Effects of Diesel Particulate Matter pages 4-5, available at http://www.arb.ca.govlresearch/ diesel! dpm_drafC3-0 1-06.pdf California Air Resources Board (ARB). Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Reductions for the United States and Canada Under ARB GHG Regulations and Proposed Federal 2011- 2015 Model Year Fuel Economy Standards, Addendum to February 25 Technical Assessment, 2008. California Air Resources Board (ARB). Climate Change Scoping Plan, December 2008. 6-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Bibliography California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). C'EQA and Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, January 2008. California Climate Action Team. Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature, April 2006. California Energy Commission (CEC). California's Major Sources of Energy. http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/ overview/ energy _sources.html, 2008. California Energy Commission (CEC). Transportation Energy Forecasts for the 2007 Integrated Energy Policy Report, available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC- 600-2007 -009 / CEC-600-2007 -009-SF.PDF, September, 2007. California Climate Action Registry, General Reporting Protocol Version 2.2, 2006. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California Public Road Data, available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hpms/ datalibrary.php, accessed December 2010. City of South San Francisco (SSF). General Plan, October 1999. City of South San Francisco (SSF). 2005 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, November 2010. ICLE!. Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology for Bay Area Local Governments Prepared as part of Bay Area Air Quality Management District --ICLEI Workshop in San Mateo County on September 7, 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change OPCC). "Summary for Policymakers," Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, November 2007. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. City of South San Francisco El Camino Real/Chestnut A venue Area Plan Traffic Impact Analysis, February 2011. Governor's Office of Planning and Research. C'EQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review Technical Advisory, June 19,2008 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Draft Environmental Impact Report for Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, December 2008. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Travel Forecasts Data Summary for Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, December 2008. Office of the California Attorney General. Global Warming Measures, Updated December 9, 2008, available at http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW _mitigation_measures.pdf, accessed June 9, 2009. 6-3 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Bibliography PG&E, Company Profile, available at http://www.pge.com/about/company/profile/. accessed October 10, 2008. US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA) State Energy Data 2005: Consumption, http://www.eia.doe.gov/ emeu/ states/ sep _sum/htmllpdf/rank_use. pdf, accessed September 16,2008. CULTURAL RESOURCES City of South San Francisco (SSF), Citywide List of Designated and Potential Historic Resources, April 2005. City of South San Francisco (SSF). El Camino Corridor Program Final EIR: IVK Cultural Resources, April 1993 City of South San Francisco (SSF). General Plan, October 1999. City of South San Francisco (SSF). General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, June 1999. City of South San Francisco (SSF). Historic preservation, available at http://www.ssf.net/news/ displaynews.asp?N ewsID=518, accessed April 2, 2009. City of South San Francisco, Linden A venue Storm Drain Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, March 2005. Clark, Matthew R. Holman & Associates. Initial Subsurface Archeological Reconnaissance of Two Redevelopment Parcels on Chestnut A venue in the City of South San Francisco, California, April 17, 2000, Amended August 11, 2000. Clark, Matthew R. Holman & Associates. Final Report: Subsurface Archeological Reconnaissance, Assessment of Potential Project Impacts, and Resource Management Recommendations for the Chestnut Creek Senior Housing Project, South San Francisco, September 6, 2000. Clark, Matthew R. Holman & Associates. City of South San Francisco Wet Weather Program, Initial Historic Properties Research for Section 106 Compliance, Phase 5: Linden Storm Drain Improvements, January 2004. Giberti, B. and Brack, M.L. Historic Resources Inventory Form for 1281 Mission Road. On file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, 1993. Guldenbrein, Jillian E. Sonoma State Northwest Information Center. Record search results for the proposed El Camino ReallChestnut Avenue Area Plan, City of South San Francisco, October 13,2010. 6-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Bibliography Holman, Miley Paul. Holman & Associates. Archival Search and Field Inspection of the Chestnut Creek Site, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California Letter, March 16,2000. Rice, Carolyn Rice. Archeological Survey Report for BART San Francisco Airport Extension Project, June 1994, Revised December 1994. Rice, Carolyn Rice. BART-San Francisco Airport Extension Project Draft Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement Archeological Survey Report, June 1994, Revised December 1994. PG&E, Proposed jefferson-Martin 230 k V Transmission Project Final EIR, November 13, 2003. University of California Museum of Paleontology. Website available at http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu, accessed February 26,2009. NOISE California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, October, 1998. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects, October, 1998. Bert Ganoung, Bert. Manager, Aircraft Noise Abatement at San Francisco International Airport, email correspondence, August 2,2010. Ong, David. Noise System Manager Aircraft Noise Abatement San Francisco International Airport, email correspondence, 2008. San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), December 1996, amended 1998. PARKS AND RECREATION Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Projections 2009,2009. City of South San Francisco (SSF). South San Francisco Parks and Recreation 2010 Fall Leisure Guide, available at http://www.ci.ssf.ca.us/depts/rcs/ default. asp, accessed November 2010. City of South San Francisco (SSF). General Plan, October 1999. City of South San Francisco (SSF). South San Francisco BART Linear Park Master Plan, 2003. City of South San Francisco (SSF). Orange Memorial Park Master Plan Update, 2007. City of South San Francisco (SSF). South San Francisco Public Library Website available at http://www.ssflibrary.net/home/newmain. accessed March 5, 2009. 6-5 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Bibliography Ranals, Sharon (Ranals). Director of Parks and Recreation, City of South San Francisco Parks & Recreation Department, email communication, June 29, 2009. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTIL TITlES Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Projections 2009,2009. California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). Solid Waste Facility Permit, SWIS No. 41-AA-0002, Issued June 26, 2001. California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). Jurisdiction Profile for City of South San Francisco, available at http://www.calrecycle.ca. gov /Profiles/J uris/J ur Profile2.asp?R G= Local %20Governmen t &JURID=511&JUR=South+San+Francisco, accessed November 3, 2010. California Water Service Company (CWSC). 2006 Urban Water Management Plan for the South San Francisco District, December 15, 2006. City of South San Francisco (SSF). General Plan, October 1999. City of South San Francisco (SSF). 249 E Grand Draft Focused EIR, October 2005. City of South San Francisco (SSF). Fire Suppression, available at http://www.ssf.net/depts/fire/ suppression/ stations. asp, accessed April 15, 2009. City of South San Francisco (SSF). Centrum Logistics Project DEIR, Appendix B: Initial Study, June 2009. City of South San Francisco (SSF). 328 Roebling Road Initial Study, February 2009. Grima, Charlotte. Executive Assistant, South San Francisco Unified School District, email communication, August 2,2010. Hohlwein, Reinhard Hohlwein. Assistance and Permitting Branch, Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery, email communication on November 3, 2010. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Existing Conditions Report for Public Utilities: El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Land Use Plan and Specific Plan, October 2008, Revised June 2009. McLarand, Vasquez, Emsiek & Partners (MVE & Partners). City of South San Francisco El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Land Use Plan and Specific Plan Existing Setting Memorandum, November 2008. Reed, Matthew (Reed). Project Manager, Schoolhouse Services, phone communication, March 20,2009. State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001-2010, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2010. 6-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Bibliography South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD). Enrollment Projections, March 2008. South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD). 2007-2008 School Accountability Report Card, 2008-2009. South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD). School Fee Certification of Compliance, available at http://www.ssfusd.k12.ca.us/schoolcity/ssb/content.cfm?ptc=/Ox9fa04a389a2cd611/0xd a460422c38ad611/0x3d520422c38ad611/0x73520422c38ad611/Ox1c530422c38ad611&s i=O&fi=O, accessed July 6,2009. Prudhel, Cassie. Technical Services Supervisor, City of South San Francisco Public Works, email communication, March 5 and March 9, 2009. US Census, 2000. WalIzer, Mercy (WalIzer). Receptionist, South San Francisco Unified School District, phone communication, July 6,2009. Westborough Water District. Urban Water Management Plan 2006-2010, December 2005. AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES Caltrans. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highwayslindex.htm. accessed April 13, 2009. City of San Bruno. Redevelopment activities, available at http://sanbruno.ca.gov/ comdev _nonhousing.html, accessed July 8, 2009. City of South San Francisco (SSF). South San Francisco El Camino Real Master Plan, July 2006. LAND USE AND HOUSING Bergener, John. Bureau of Planning & Environmental Affairs, San Francisco International Airport, email communication August 26, 2010. City of South San Francisco (SSF). General Plan, October 1999. San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), December 1996. State of California. Governor's Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines, 2003. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Shaking Hazards, available at http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/FAQ.html. accessed August 4,2010. 6-7 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Bibliography Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Hazard Maps -Earthquake Shaking Potential, available at http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Shaking_Prob/viewer.htm, Accessed August 4,2010. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Liquefaction Susceptibility, available at http://gis.abag.ca.gov/Websitelliq/viewer.htm, accessed August 4,2010. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Landslides, available at http://gis.abag.ca.gov/Website/Landslides/viewer.htm, accessed August 4, 2010 City of South San Francisco (SSF). General Plan, October 1999. City of South San Francisco (SSF). General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, June 1999. CSS Environmental Services, Inc. Environmental Site Assessment 1.12 Mile Corridor Owned by San Francisco Public Utilities Commission South San Francisco, CA, October 7, 2005. HYDROLOGY AND FLOODING Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Flood Map, available at http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/eqfloodslfloods.html. accessed February 27, 2009. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Dam Failure Inundation Areas, available at http://gis.abag.ca.gov/Website/dam_inundation/viewer.htm, accessed August 11, 2010. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Tsunami Inundation Emergency Planning Map for the San Francisco Bay Region, available at http://gis.abag.ca.gov/Website/Tsunami-Maps/viewer.htm, accessed August 12, 2010. City of South San Francisco (SSF). General Plan, October 1999. City of South San Francisco (SSF). General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, June 1999. Prudhel, Cassie (Prudhel). Technical Services Supervisor, City of South San Francisco Public Works, email communication, July, 13 2009. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Existing Conditions Report for Public Utilities: El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Land Use Plan and Specific Plan, October 2008, Revised June 2009. San Mateo County. Background Issues: Natural Hazards for the San Mateo County General Plan, 1986. IMPACTS NOT SIGNIFICANT AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES City of South San Francisco (SSF). General Plan, October 1999. 6-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Bibliography City of South San Francisco (SSF). General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, June 1999. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Calflora Website, Hemizonia congesta, available at http://www.calflora.org/cgi- bin/species_query.cgi?where-calrecnum=4068, accessed March 2009. California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database, Special Animals, July 2009, available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/ cnddb/pdfs/SP Animals.pdf, accessed August 6,2010 City of South San Francisco (SSF). General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, June 1999. GAP Analysis Program (GAP) Land Cover Viewer, http://Ie.gapanalysisprogram.co m/landcoverviewer /, accessed August 3, 2010. Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy. Endangered Species, available at http://www. parksconservancy.org/ our_ work/ stewardship/ endangered. asp ?species=4 77, accessed March 2009. W.D. Shuford and T. Gardali (Shuford and Gardali). California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct immediate conservation concern in California, Sacramento: Department of Fish and Game, 2008. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS California Department of Toxic Substance Control. Geotracker, available at http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/, accessed August 4,2010. California Department of Toxic Substance Control. Cortese List, available at http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/SectionA.htm. Accessed August 4, 2010. City of South San Francisco (SSF). General Plan, October 1999. City of South San Francisco (SSF). General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, June 1999. San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), December 1996. MINERAL RESOURCES City of South San Francisco (SSF). General Plan, October 1999. City of South San Francisco (SSF). General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, June 1999. 6-9 Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Bibliography CEQA REQUIRED CONCLUSIONS Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Projections 2009,2009. State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001-2010, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2010. 6-10 7 Report Authors The City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Ave. South San Francisco, CA 94080 Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner Mike Lappen, Economic Development Coordinator Girard H. Beaudin, Senior Planner CONSULTING TEAM Dyett & Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners 755 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Rajeev Bhatia, Principal Melinda Hue, Planner Hannah Lindelof, Associate Melissa McMahon, Associate Rose Abbors, Senior GIS Specialist Charles M Salter Associates Inc 130 Sutter Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94104-4207 Noise Randy D Waldeck, Principal Consultant Draft Environmental Impact Report for EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 7: Report Authors Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 1000 Broadway, Suite 450 6130 Stone ridge Mall Road, Suite 370 Pleasanton, California 94588 James Daisa, Principal Traffic and Circulation Peter W. Reinhofer, Project Manager Infrastructure Felicia C. Dean, Project Manager 7-2 APPENDIX A: NOTICE OF PREPARATION DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (650) 829-6620 FAX (650) 829-6623 July 5, 2010 To: Interesting Agencies and Individuals CITY COU:\fCIL 2010 MARK N. ADDIEGO. MAYOR KEVIN MULLIN. VICE MAYOR RIC lIARD A. GARBARINO. COUNCILMEMBER PEDRO GONZALEZ. COUNCILMEMBER KARYL MATSUMOTO. COUNCILMEMBER BARRY M. NAGEL CITY MANAGER Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Lead Agency: Consulting Firm: Agency Name: City of South San Francisco Firm Name: Dyett & Bhatia, Urban and Department of Economic and Regional Planners Community Development Street Address: 400 Grand Ave. Street Address: 755 Sansome Street South San Francisco, CA Suite 400 94080 San Francisco, CA 94111 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 E-mail: Mike.Lappen@ssf.net Contact: Mike Lappen, Economic Contact: Rajeev Bhatia, Principal Development Coordinator The City of South San Francisco will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information that is relevant to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. CITY HALL, 400 GRAND AVENUE· P.O. BOX 711 . SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 NOP -EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Page 2 of 7 July 5, 2010 The purpose of the EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan is summarized below. In accordance with Section 15060( d) of the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study was not prepared for the project because it was determined that an EIR would be required for this project. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your comments should be submitted by the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after your receipt of this notice per CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(b). Please send your written response, with the name of your agency contact person, to Mike Lappen at the address shown above. A project scoping meeting will be held on July 16,2010 from 3:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the City Hall Annex Conference Room at 315 Maple Ave. South San Francisco, CA 94080. Date: Jul 5,2010 Mike Lappen, Economic Development Coordinator Telephone: (650) 829-6620 NOP -EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Page 3 of 7 July 5, 2010 Project Title EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan. Introduction Located in the heart of the city, just south of the South San Francisco BART station, the EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Planning Area (Planning Area) has the potential to become a distinct, vibrant district within the South San Francisco community. The EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, currently under preparation, seeks to allow for higher density development in the area, with a full complement of uses that capitalize on the area's strategic location and development potential. Project Location and Boundaries Location The Planning Area is located in the City of South San Francisco. The regional location of the city and Planning Area is provided in Figure 1. Planning Boundaries The Planning Area extends approximately 98 acres, generally between EI Camino Real and Mission Boulevard, from Southwood Drive to just north of Sequoia Avenue, as the well as some land west of EI Camino Real corridor. Figure 2 shows the Planning Area boundaries. The Planning Area is anchored by several public amenities, including Orange Memorial Park to the south, the Centennial Way pedestrian and bikeway, the Municipal Services Building, and the South San Francisco BART Station just to the north. The South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency owns 11 acres of land north of Chestnut Avenue, which is currently vacant. Planning Context Over the past decade the City of South San Francisco has pursued a long-term and comprehensive effort to help the community find solutions for land use, housing, economic development, transportation, and conservation along the EI Camino Real corridor. These include: South San Francisco Transit Oriented Developnzent Initiatives The South San Francisco BART Station created new opportunities for innovative planning along EI Camino Real. With the adoption of the South San Francisco General Plan in 1999, the City Council recognized that the SSF BART Station area could be a new activity node that would serve local residents and attract people to our city. Specific to the EI Camino Real Corridor, the City has: 1) adopted the SSF General Plan which encourages transit oriented development; 2) implemented the SSF BART Transit Village Plan and Ordinance; 3) prepared plans to extend Oak Avenue from Mission Road to EI Camino Real; 4) constructed the majority of Centennial Way over the BART-SFO right-of-way; and 5) purchased 14 acres of vacant land from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and Ron Price Motors to ensure high quality mix-use development. The City's Housing Element identifies the area as a significant housing opportunity site. NOP -EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Page 4 of 7 July 5, 2010 The Grand Boulevard Initiative The City is a member of a task force to rethink the corridor's potential for housing and urban development, balancing the need for cars and parking with viable options for transit, walking and biking, and have supported the ten guiding principles to direct future development in the area. South El Camino Real General Plan Anzendnzent This year, the City adopted the South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment, with the goal to develop EI Camino as a boulevard that accommodates its role as a regional corridor with mixed- use, high-density residential and commercial uses. The amendment also focuses on streetscape improvements (sidewalks, crosswalks, landscaping, signage, lighting, bus shelters, etc.). Kaiser Hospital Rebuild Kaiser Permanente operates a large medical facility on an approximately 14+ acre site that fronts EI Camino Real near Chestnut Avenue. In accordance with State law, hospital buildings must be completely redeveloped for seismic safety by 2030. While replacement is not anticipated until 2017-2030, the City is interested in working with Kaiser to encourage a thoughtful approach to its redevelopment in the area. Description of Project El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan The proposed Plan will facilitate development of mixed-use high-density residential and commercial development, open space, environmental stewardship, and potential new civic facilities. Adoption of the Area Plan is likely to require amendments to the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as well as separate guidelines for development in the Planning Area. These policies, regulations, and guidelines will provide specific design and development standards for future projects in the area, and address elements such as use types, building heights, transit and pedestrian connections, streetscape improvements, parking requirements, among others. The EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan is being designed to be consistent with the intent of the Grand Boulevard Initiative for EI Camino Real and with smart growth principles, which include but are not limited to creating: mixed land uses, a range of housing opportunities and choices, walkable neighborhoods, compact urban form, opportunities for transportation/transit alternatives, and effective use of available infrastructure. Further, the City believes that by allowing more dense, mixed-use development in the EI Camino Real corridor, it is progressively addressing issues identified in the State of California 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32) and the State's greenhouse gas emissions law (SB375). General Plan Anzendnzent The South San Francisco General Plan establishes land use designations for the area within the EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan boundaries. Concurrent with the Area Plan, the City expects to prepare and propose changes to the General Plan that will ensure consistency between the two documents. Zoning Ordinance Anzendnzent The City's Zoning Code implements the General Plan land use designations within the EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan boundaries. Amendments will likely be needed to NOP -EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Page 5 of 7 July 5, 2010 make zoning consistent with any General Plan amendment(s) and the EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan land use regulations, and to implement some of the new development and design directives. The specific scope and nature of the zoning amendments will be determined after the draft EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan has been prepared. Adoption of the EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan will include adoption of any required zoning amendments. EIR At the time of publication of this NOP, the City anticipates that the key impact categories for analysis in this EIR will include: • Traffic and Circulation • Air Quality • Energy and Greenhouse Gases • Cultural Resources • Noise • Parks and Recreation • Public Services and Utilities • Visual Resources • Land Use and Housing • Biological Resources • Geology, Soils and Seismicity • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Flooding Impact categories not expected to be specifically addressed in this EIR include agriculture and forestry, and mineral resources due to a lack of agricultural and forest land, and mineral resources, in the City of South San Francisco. In addition to the potential environmental effects listed above, the EIR will evaluate potential cumulative effects of the proposed EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan as well as alternatives to the proposed Plan. The No Project alternative will evaluate the impacts resulting from continued implementation of existing plans, policies, and regulations that govern the City. As appropriate, other alternatives that would avoid or lessen environmental effects related to the proposed Plan will be discussed. NOP -EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Page 6 of 7 July 5, 2010 Figure 1: Regional Location MILES EI Camino Reali NOP -EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Page 7 of 7 June 14,2010 Figure 2: Planning Area Winston- Setr.a . tt·.~.i 9 h bOr,J::i 0 0 d , / II .ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER GOVERNOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE o/PLANNING AND RESEARCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT CYNTIilA BRYANT DIRECTOR Notice of Preparation '~~:~Il>IQ~ July 8, 2010 To: Reviewing Agencies Re: EI Camino Reali Chestnut Avenue Area Plan SCH# 2010072015 RECEIVED JUL 1 2 LO'iu ECD DEPARTMENT Attached for your review and comment is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) forthe EI Camino Reali Chestnut Avenue Area Plan draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Responsible agencies must transmit their comments on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of the NOP from the Lead ,Agency. This is a courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghouse with a reminder for you to comment in a timely manner. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process. Please direct your comments to: Mike Lappen City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCH number noted above in all correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions about the environmental document review process, please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613. Sin",ey + Scott Morgan Acting Director, State Clearinghouse Attachments cc: Lead Agency 1400 10th Street P.O. Box: 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 I01£'\ A Ar· nC1 'J lJA v Im.::\ ~~~ ~1I1 0 SCH# 2010072015 Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base Project Title EI Camino Real/ Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Lead Agency South San Francisco, City of Type NOP Notice of Preparation Description The proposed Plan will facilitate development of mixed-use high-density residential and commercial development, open space, environmental stewardship, and potential new civic facilities. Adoption of the Area Pla.n is likely to require amendments to the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as well as separate guidelines for development in the Planning Area. These policies, regulations, and guidelines will provide specific design and development standards for future projects in the area, and address elements such as use types, building heights, transit and pedestrian connections, streetscape improvements, parking requirements, among others. The EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan is being designed to be consistent with the intent of the Grand Boulevard Initiative for EI Camino Real and with smart growth principles, which include but are not limited to creating: mixed land uses, a range of housing opportunities and choices, walk able neighborhoods, compact urban form, opportunities for transportation/transit alternatives, and effective use of available infrastructure. Further, the City believes that by allowing more dense, mixed-use development in the EI Camino Real corridor, it is progressively addressing issues identified in the State of California 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32) and the State's greenhouse gas emissions law (SB375). Lead Agency Contact Name Agency Phone email Address City Mike Lappen City of South San Francisco 650-829-6620 Mike.Lappen@ssf.net 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco Project Location County San Francisco City San Francisco Region Fax State CA Zip 94080 Cross Streets Between EI Camino Real and Mission Blvd., from Southwood Drive to north of Sequoia Ave Lat/Long Parcel No. Township Proximity to: Highways Airports Railways BART Waterways Schools Land Use Range Section Base Project Issues Traffic/Circulation; Air Quality; Other Issues; Noise; Recreation/Parks; Public Services; AestheticNisual; Landuse; Housing; Biological Resources; Geologic/Seismic; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Flood Plain/Flooding Reviewing Resources Agency; Office of Historic Preservation; San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Agencies Commission; Department of Water Resources; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3; Native American Heritage Commission; Public Utilities Commission; California Highway Patrol; Department of Housing and Community Development; Caltrans, District 4; Air Resources Board, Transportation Projects; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Department of Parks and Recreation Date Received 07/08/2010 Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base Start of Review 07/08/2010 End of Review 08/06/2010 Jurces Agency Resources Agency . Nadell Gayou Dept. of Boating & Waterways Milm Sotelo California Coastal Commission Elizabeth A. Fuchs Colorado River Board Gerald R. Zimmerman Dept. of Conservation Rebecca Salazar California Energy Commission Eric Knight Cal Fire Allen Robertson Central Valley Flood Protection Board James Herota Office of Historic Preservation Wayne Donaldson lJept of Parks & Recreation Environmental Stewardship Section California Department of Resources, Recycling & Recovery Sue O'Leary S.F: Bay Conservation & Dev't. Comm. Steve McAdam Dept. of Water Resources Resources Agency Nadell Gayou Conservancy I and Game Depart. of Fish & Game Scott Flint Environmental Services Division Fish & Game Region 1 Donald Koch . o Fish & Game Region 1E Laurie Hamsberger o Fish & Game Region 2 . Jeff Drongesen a Fish & Game Region 3 Charles Armor o Fish & Game Region 4 Julie Vance o Fish & Game Region 5 Don Chadwick Habitat Conservation Program o Fish & Game Region 6 Gabrina Gatchel Habitat Conservation Program o Fish & Game Region 6 11M Brad Henderson Inyo/Mono, Habitat Conservation Program o Dept. of Fish & Game M George Isaac Marine Region Other Departments o Food & Agriculture' Steve Shaffer o o o Dept of Food and Agriculture Depart. of General Services· Public School Construction Dept. of General Services Anna GarbeW Environmental Services Section Dept. of Public Health Bridgette Binning Dept of HealthlDrinklng Water "'" Independent Commissions,Boards . o o Delta Protection Commission linda Flack Cal EMA (Emergency Managem,ent Agency) Dennis Castrillo o Governor's Office of Planning & Research , State Clearinghouse \.0 /\,1. r ,.At, ',-<,'->=.A.,/ II Native American Heritage 0 Caltrans, District 8 Comm. Dan Kopulsky c(}o IB Debbie Treadway Public Utilities Commission Leo Wong· . 0 Santa Monica Bay Restoration Guangyu Wang o State Lands Commission Marina Brand o Tahoe Regional Plannirig Agency (TRP A) Cherry Jacques Business. Trans & Housing o Caltrans· Division of Aeronautics S.andy Hesnard D· Caltrans • Planning Terri Pencovic fD California Highway patrol Scott Loetscher Office of Special Projects • Housing & Community Development CEQA Coordinator Housing Polley Division Dept. of Transportation o Caltrans, District 1 Rex Jackman ·0 Caltrans, District 2 Marcelino Gonzalez o Caltrans, District 3 Bruce de Terra II' Caltrans, District 4 Lisa Carboni o Caltrans, District 5 David Murray o Caitrans, District 6 Michael Navarro o Cal trans, District 7 Elmer Alvarez , o Cal trans, District 9 Gayle Rosander . o Caltrans, District 10 Tom Dumas o Caltrans, District 11 Jacob Armstrong o Caltrans, District 12 Chris Herre Cal EPA Air Resources Board o Airport Projects Jim Lerner Illl Transportation Projects Douglas'lto ' o Industrial Projects Mike Tollstrup o State Water Resources Control . Board . Regional Programs Unit Division of Financial Assistance o State Water Resources Control . Board . Student Intern, 401 Water Quality Certification Unit Division of Water Quality o State Water Resouces Control Board Steven Herrera o o Division of Water Rights Dept of Toxic Substances Control CEQA Tracking Center Department of Pesticide Regulation CEQA Coordinator . r~ . ..L '" v . Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) , o RWQC81 Cathleen Hudson North Coast Region (1) um RWQC82 Environmental Document Coordinator San Francisco Bay Region (2) o RWQCB3 Central.Coast Region (3) o RWQCEi4 Teresa Rodgers Los Angeles Region, (4) o RWQCB5S Central Valley Region (5) o RWQCB5F Central Valley Region (5) Fresno Branch Office o RWQCB5R Central Valley Region (5) Redding Branch Offi.ce o RWQC~6 Lahontan Region (6) o RWQCB6V Lahontan Region (6) Victorville Branch Office o RWQCB7 Colorado Rlver Basin Region (7) o RWQC88 Santa Ana Region (8) o RWQCB9 San Diego Region (9) [j Other _______ _ Last Updated on 03/24/10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 @" ~ .. '-" : !. i tb : ~, • a OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 622-5491 FAX (510) 286-5559 TTY 711 August 3,2010 Mr. Mike Lappen City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Lappen: RECEIVED AUG 1 0 20iO ECD DEPARTMENT EI Camino Real/Chestnut A venue Area Plan -Notice of Preparation Flex your power! Be energy efficient! SM082265 SM-82-20.65-21.17 SCH#2010072015 Thank you for including the California Depattment of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the El Camino Real/Chestnut A venue Area Plan. The following comments are based on the Notice of Preparation. As lead agency, the City of South San Francisco is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to State highways. The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, and implementation responsibilities as well as lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures and the project's traffic mitigation fees should be specifically identified in the environmental document. Any required roadway improvements should be completed prior to issuance of project occupancy permits. An encroachment permit is required when the project involves work in the State's right of way (ROW). The Depattment will not issue an encroachment permit until our concerns are adequately addressed. Therefore, we strongly recommend that the lead agency ensure resolution of the Department's California Environmental Quality Act concerns prior to submittal of the encroachment permit application; see the end of this letter for more information regarding the encroachment permit process. Community Planning The Department encourages the City of South San Francisco to provide a street configuration that facilitates walking and biking to the South San Francisco BART station. We also recommend that the City refer to, "Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth," a Metropolitan Transportation Commission study funded by the Depattment, for sample parking ratios and strategies that support Transit Oriented Development. These actions will encourage alternate forms of transportation, reduce regional vehicle miles traveled and help alleviate future traffic impacts on the state highways. Traffic Impact Study The environmental document should include .an analysis of the impacts of the p~oposed project on State highway facilities in the vicinity of the project site. Please ensure that a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is prepared providing the information detailed as follows: "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Mr. Mike Lappen/Ci ty of South San Francisco August 3,2010 Page 2 1. Information on the plan's traffic impacts in terms of trip generation, distribution, and assignment. The assumptions and methodologies used in compiling this information should be addressed. The study should clearly show the percentage of project trips assigned to State facilities. 2. Cun'ent Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and AM and PM peak hour volumes on all significantly affected streets, highway segments and intersections. 3. Schematic illustration and level of service (LOS) analysis for the following scenarios: 1) existing, 2) existing plus project, 3) cumulative and 4) cumulative plus project for the roadways and intersections in the project area. 4. Calculation of cumulative traffic volumes should consider all traffic-generating developments, both existing and future, that would affect the State highway facilities being evaluated. 5. The procedures contained in the 2000 update of the Highway Capacity Manual should be used as a guide for the analysis. We also recommend using the Department's "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies"; it is available on the following web site: http://www.dot.ca. gov Ihq/traffops/ developserv I operationalsystems/reports/tis guide. pdf. 6. Mitigation measures should be identified where plan implementation is expected to have a significant impact. Mitigation measures proposed should be fully discussed, including financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities, and lead agency monitoring. Encroachment Permit Any work or traffic control within the State ROW requires an encroachment permit that is issued by the Department. Traffic-related mitigation measures will be incorporated into the construction plans dUling the encroachment permit process. See the following website link for more information: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits/ To apply for an encroachment permit, submit a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans which clearly indicate State ROW to the address at the top of this letterhead, marked ATTN: Michael Condie, Mail Stop #5E. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call Sandra Finegan of my staff at (510) 622-1644. Sincerely, ~~ Gr~~ LISA CARBONI District Branch Chief Local Development -Intergovernmental Review c: State Clearinghouse "Caltrans improves mobility across California" STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 622-5491 FAX (510) 286-5559 TTY 711 October 20,2010 Mr. Mike Lappen Planning Division City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Lappen: ARNOLD SCHW ARZENEGGER. Governor Flex your power! Be energy efficient! SM082265 SM-82-20.65-21.17 SCH#2010072015 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan -Traffic Impact Study Scope of Work Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the EI Camino Real (ECR)/Chestnut A venue Area Plan project. The following comments are based on your request for a review of the scope of work of the traffic impact study. Highway, Traffic, and Signal Operations 1. Please include the following study intersections: a. Chestnut Avenue/Grand Avenue b. McLellan Boulevard!ECR c. Orange A venue/ECR d. Junipero Serra Boulevard! Arroyo Drive 2. You can exclude the following intersections and freeway segments: a. Sneath Lane/ECR b. 1-380/ECR c. 1-380 mainline between US-101 and ECR d. 1-380 mainline between 1-280 and ECR e. 1-280 between Avalon Drive and 1-380 Please forward at least one hard copy and one CD of the environmental document, TIS and its transportation related technical appendices including the Synchro output sheets to the address below as soon as they are available. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Mr. Mike Lappen October 20,2010 Page 2 Sandra Finegan, Associate Transportation Planner Community Planning Office, Mail Station 10D California DOT, District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Please feel free to call or email Sandra Finegan of my staff at (510) 622-1644 or sandra finegan@dot.ca.gov with any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, ~ LISA CARBONI District Branch Chief Local Development -" Intergovernmental Review c: Ms. Terry Roberts, State Clearinghouse "Caltrans improves mobility across California" (1·1Y 11110 (OliNTY or SAN 'i!ANUS(O July 28, 2010 Mike Lappen Economic Development Coordinator City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development P. O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 SiB1 ~rafi(i>w> CA 941)3 ,<21 65\).821.5000 Subject: EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area P/tln, Draft Environmental Impact Report-City of South San Francisco Dear :tvrr. Lappen: Thank you for notifying San Francisco International Airport (the Airport) of the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the E1 Camino ReaVChestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment. We appreciate this opportunity to coordinate with the City of South San Francisco (the City) in considering and evaluating potential land use compatibility issues that this and similar projects may pose. With regard to the project description statement provided in your letter, the Airport has no comments at this time. Airport staff members understand that within the project area, the City's General Plan establishes building height limitations, which are based on Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. As additional details of the project become available, the Airport requests the opportunity to again review the proposal. The Airport appreciates your consideration. If I can be of assistance as the City considers airport land use compatibility as they relate to this project or future projects, please do not hesitate to contact me at (650) 821-7867 or atjohn.bergener@f1ysfo.com. Sincerely, John Bergener Airport Planning Manager San Francisco International Airport Bureau of Planning and Environmental Affairs cc: Nixon Lam, SFO, Manager of Environmental Affairs RECEIVED AUG 4 lOlO ECD DEPARTMENT C/CAG City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Atherton. Belmont· Brisbane· Burlingame· Colma· Daly City· East Palo Alto • Foster City • Half Moon Bay • Hillsborough • Menlo Park • Millbrae • Pacifica • Portola Valley • Redwood City • San Bruno • San Carlos • San Mateo • San Mateo County • South San Francisco • Woodside August 3, 2010 Michael Lappen, Economic Development Coordinator City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Ave. South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Mr. Lappen: RE: C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Staff Comments on a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and Associated General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above-referenced document. The following are ALUC Staff comments regarding the airport/land use compatibility- related content of the DEIR and the ALUC/CCAG review process. ALUC/C/CAG Review of the Proposed Land Use Policy Actions The proposed land use policy actions (Le. the General Plan amendment and the Zoning Ordinance amendment) must be submitted to the ALUC and the C/CAG Board of Directors for review/action as required by state law. That review process will include detailed review by the ALUC, which will forward a recommendation to the C/CAG Board of Directors, acting as the state-mandated Airport Land Use Commission, regarding the consistency of the proposed actions with the relevant airport land use compatibility policies, criteria, regulations, and guidelines for the environs of San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The Board (Commission) will take the official action to determine the consistency of the proposed actions Relevant Airport/land Use Compa~ibilitY Content to be Addressed in the DEIR The airport/land use compatibility issues of concern to the C/CAG Board are (1) height of structures/airspace protection, (2) aircraft noise impacts, and (3) runway end safety issues. Each issue related to the proposed project is addressed on the next page. ALUC Chairperson: Richard Newman Aviation Representative ALUC Vice Chairperson: Mark Church, Supervisor County of San Mateo C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Staff David F. Carbone, Transportation Systems Coordinator County of San Mateo Planning and Building Department 555 COUNTY CENTER, 5TH FLOOR, REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 • 650/599-1406 Letter to Michael Lappen, City of South San Francisco, Re: C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Staff Comments oil a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR),f6rthe EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and Associated General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment August 5,2010 Page 2 of 2 Height of Structures/Airspace Protection. The 98-acre EI Camino Real Chestnut Avenue Area Plan site is located within the airspace protection boundaries for SFO. All maximum building heights (based upon height above mean sea level) must be below the lowest critical airspace protection surface for SFO that affects the site. Please contact John Bergener, SFO Planning Manager, for assistance to address this issue. Aircraft Noise Impacts. The EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan site is not located within the 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour or higher contour level, as shown on the most recent FAA-accepted Noise Exposure Map (NEMH2001) for SFO. Therefore, implementation of mitigation actions for airport exposure noise is not required for future development on the project site. , I .. Runway Safety Issues/Zones. The EI Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan is not located within any runway end safety zones for San Francisco International Airport. Therefore, runway safety is not an airport land use compatibility issue for future development on the project site. If you have any questions about these comments, please contact me at 650/363-4417 or via email.atdcarbone@co.sanmateo.ca.us SinZfJ~ (J~",----_ David f. carbot.·AL~C Staff cc: C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Members Richard Napier, C/CAG Executive Director Richard Newman, ALUC Chairperson John Bergener, SFO Planning Manager ALUCstaffcomletSSFEICaminoRealChestnutAreaPlan0710.doc State of California -The Natural Resources Agency ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Bay Delta Region John McCamman, Director 7329 Silverado Trail Napa, CA 94558 (707) 944-5500 www.dfg.ca.gov July 27,2010 Mr. Michael Lappen City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Mr. Lappen: Subject: EI Camino Real-Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, Notice of Preparation, SCH #2010072015, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has reviewed the documents provided for the subject project, and we have the following comments. Please provide a complete assessment (including but not limited to type, quantity .and locations) of the habitats, flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area, including endangered, threatened, and locally unique species and sensitive habitats. The assessment should include the reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect changes (temporary and permanent) that may occur with implementation of the project. Rare, threatened and endangered species to be addressed should include all those which meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definition (see CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380). DFG recommended survey and monitoring protocols and guidelines are available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts. pdf. Please be advised that a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit must be obtained if the project has the potential to result in take of species of plants or animals listed under CESA, either during construction or over the life of the project. Issuance of a CESA Permit is subject to CEQA documentation; therefore, the CEQA document must specify impacts, mitigation measures, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. If the project will impact CESA listed species, early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to the project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA Permit. For any activity that will divert or obstruct thenaturaljloYl(,.or change the bed, channel, or bank (which may include associated riparian resources) of a river or stream, or use material from a streambed, DFG may require a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) , pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code, with the applicant. Issuance of an LSAA is subject to CEQA. DFG, as a responsible agency under CEQA, will"'c~o~n~~E"""'IV-E-D-- JUL 28 2010 Conserving Ca{ifornia's Wi{d{ife Since 1870 ECD DEPARTMENT Mr. Michael Lappen July 27, 2010 Page 2 the CEQA document for the project. The CEQA document should fully identify the potential impacts to the stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments for completion of the agreement. To obtain information about the LSAA notification process, please access our website at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/1600/; or to request a notification package, contact the Lake and Streambed Alteration Program at (707) 944-5520. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Suzanne Deleon, Environmental Scientist, at (831) 440-9433; or Mr. Richard Fitzgerald, Coastal Habitat Conservation Supervisor, at (707) 944-5568. Sincerely, 5~~cr-.. FoR. Charles Armor Regional Manager Bay Delta Region cc: State Clearinghouse STATE OF CALIFORNIA-NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION 1516 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-5512 www.energy.ca.gov Mike Lappen City of South San Francisco RECEIVED NOV 1 2 2010 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor Eel\) DEPARTMENT November 9, 2010 Department of Economic and Community Development P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Mr. Lappen: The California Energy Commission has received the City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development's Notice of Preparation titled EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, General Plan Amendment, Zoning Ordinance Amendment, SCH 2010072015 that was submitted on 7/5/2010 for comments due by 8/5/2010. After careful review, the California Energy Commission has no comment at this time and would like to share the following only as a resource of information. The Energy Commission would like to assist in reducing the energy usage involved in your project. Please refer to the enclosed Appendix F of the California Environmental Quality Act for how to achieve energy conservation. In addition, the Energy Commission's Energy Aware Planning Guide is also available as a tool to assist in your land use planning and other future projects. For further information on how to utilize this guide, please visit www.energy.ca.gov/energyawareguide/index.html. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to review the City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development's Notice of Preparation. We hope that the above mentioned resources will serve helpful in your project's environmental review process. If you have any further questions, please call Gigi Tien at (916) 651-0566. Enclosure Sincerely, BILL PFANNER Supervisor, Local Energy & Land Use Assistance Unit Special Projects Office Fuels and Transportation Division California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street, MS 23 Sacramento, CA 95814 CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act ________________________________ _ Appendix F ENERGY CONSERVATION 1. Introduction The goal of conserving energy implies the wise and effi- cient use of energy. The means of achieving this goal include: (I) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, (2) decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In order to assure that energy implications are considered in project decisions, the Califomia Environmental Quality Act requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy. Energy conservation implies that a project's cost effective- ness be reviewed not only in dollars, but also in terms of energy requirements. For many projects, lifetime costs may be deter- mined more by energy efficiency than by initial dollar costs. II. EIR Contents Potentially significant energy implications of a project should be considered in an ErR. The following list of energy impact possibilities and potential conservation measures is designed to assist in the preparation of an EIR. In many instances, specific items may not apply or additional items may be needed. A. Project Description may include the following items: 1. Energy consuming equipment and processes which will be used during construction, operation, and/or removal of the project. If appropriate, this discussion should consider the energy intensiveness of materials and equipment required for the project. 2. Total energy requirements of the project by fuel type and end use. 3. Energy conservation equipment and design features. 4. Initial and life-cycle energy costs or supplies. 5. Total estimated daily trips to be generated by the project and the additional energy consumed per trip by mode. B. Environmental Setting may include existing energy sup- plies and energy use pattems in the region and locality. C. Environmental Impacts may include: 1. The project's energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project's life cycle including construction, opera- 154 • APPENDICES tion, maintenance and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may be discussed. 2. The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity. 3. The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other fonns of energy. 4. The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards. 5. The effects of the project on energy resources. 6. The project's projected transportation energy use re- quirements and its overall use of efficient transportation altematives. D. Mitigation Measures may include: 1. Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during construc- tion, operation, maintenance and/or removal. The dis- cussion should explain why certain measures were incorporated in the project and why other measures were dismissed. 2. The potential of siting, orientation, and design to mini- mize energy consumption, including transportation energy. 3. The potential for reducing peak energy demand. 4. Altemate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems. 5. Energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts. E. Altematives should be compared in tenns of overall energy consumption and in terms of reducing wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy. F. Unavoidable Adverse Effects may include wasteful, inef- ficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during the project construction, operation, maintenance and/or re- moval that cannot be feasibly mitigated. G. Irreversible Commitment of Resources may include a discussion of how the project preempts future energy development or future energy conservation. H. Short-Teml Gains versus Long-Tenn Impacts can be com- pared bi calculating the energy costs over the lifetime of the project. 1. Growth Inducing Effects may include the estimated energy consumption of growth induced by the project. Land Services, 111 Almaden Blvd., Rm. 814, San Jose, CA 95115 August 4, 2010 Dept. of Economic & Community Development City of South San Francisco PO Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Attn: Mike Lappen Email: mike.Lappen@ssf.net RE: Response to NOP DEIR -EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, SSF Dear Mr. Lappen, RECEIVED AUG 9 2010 ECD DEPARTMENT Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation ( NOP) of a Environmental Impact Report ( EIR ) for the above project. Information provided in the NOP did not specifically indicate the direct impacts on our gas and electric facilities. However, since PG&E has an obligation to provide the public with a reliable and safe energy supply as mandated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and to comply with the guidelines outlined in General Orders 95 and 112, PG&E should be consulted during the development of the project to ensure that the capacity, operational and maintenance requirements for its gas and electric facilities are taken into consideration prior to approval of the final plan of the project. Early involvement will allow us to assess cumulative impacts to our systems and to identify facilities that may need to be installed, relocated and or realigned as a result of any proposed project revision. Because engineering and construction of our facilities may require long lead times, we encourage you to consult with us during the initial stages of your planning process. We would like to note that expansion of utility facilities is a necessary consequence of growth and development. As development occurs, the cumulative impacts of new energy load growth use up available capacity in the utility system. In addition to adding new distribution feeders, the range of electric system improvements needed to accommodate growth may include upgrading existing substations and building new SUbstations and interconnecting transmission line. Comparable upgrades or additions would be required for our gas system as well. Environmental impacts associated with new and or relocated gas or electric facilities as a result of the proposed project should be fully addressed in the Final EIR and, if appropriate, mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate such impacts should be incorporated into the document as well. PG&E owns and operates a 230 KV underground transmission electric line, and 115 KV Tower line; and also a 30" gas line which are located within the proposed project area. The 230 underground transmission electric line runs crossing your project area from north to south, starting from south'of Evergreen Dr., and leaves the project site at Chestnut Ave., runs continuously southeasterly. The 115 KV Tower line runs northeasterly near the northwesterly boundary of the project site. The 30 " diameter gas line runs southeasterly along Mission Rd., and enters your project site near Oak Avenue, and continues southeasterly towards 1st Street. To promote the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of these utility facilities, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has mandated specific clearance requirements between utility facilities and surrounding objects or construction activities. To ensure compliance with these standards, planners and project proponents should coordinate with PG&E early in the development of their project. Any proposed development plans should provide for unrestricted utility access and prevent easement encroachments that might impair the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of PG&E's facilities. Developers will be responsible for the costs associated with the relocation of existing PG&E facilities to accommodate their proposed development. Because these facilities relocations require long lead times and are not always feasible, developers should be encouraged to consult with PG&E as early in their planning stages as possible. We would also like to note that continued development consistent with your project will have a cumulative impact on PG&E's gas and electric systems and may require on-site and off-site additions and improvements to the facilities which supply these services. Because utility facilities are operated as an integrated system, the presence of an existing gas or electric transmission or distribution facility does not necessarily mean the facility has capacity to connect new loads. Expansion of distribution and transmission lines and related facilities is a necessary consequence of growth and development. In addition to adding new distribution feeders, the range of electric system improvements needed to accommodate growth may include upgrading existing substation and transmission line equipment, expanding existing sUbstations to their ultimate buildout capacity, and building new substations and interconnecting transmission lines. Comparable upgrades or additions needed to accommodate additional load on the gas system could include facilities such as regulator stations, odorizer stations, valve lots, distribution and transmission lines." We would like to recommend that environmental documents for proposed project include adequate evaluation of cumulative impacts to utility systems, the utility facilities needed to serve the future developments and any potential environmental issues associated with extending utility service to the proposed project. This will assure the project's compliance with CEQA and reduce potential delays to the project schedule. PG&E remains committed to working with the City to provide timely, reliable and cost effective gas and electric service to South San Francisco area. Please contact Alfred Poon at (408) 282-7544 if you have any questions regarding our comments. We would also request that we be copied on future correspondence regarding this subject as this project develops and that we be placed on the list to review the DEIR. Should you require any additional information or have any questions, please call me at (408) 282-7544. Sincerely, , ,7 ",,"" ~ ~'J, '/ '7 t./Jffcc-c·f ( ~·t1.; Alfred Poon Land Rights Protection Southern Area APPENDIX B: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Draft Traffic Impact Analysis Prepared by: ........-1-.... Kimley-Hom a........J _ r , and Associates, Inc. February 2011 Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT OYERYIEW ............................................................................................................................. 1 STllDY AREA ........................................................................................................................................ 1 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS .......................................................................................................................... 2 STllDY METHODOLOGY AND IJ\IPACT ..................................................................................................... 2 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ....................................................................................................................... -J. EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 8 ROADWAY NETWORK ........................................................................................................................... 8 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................. 9 FREEWAY OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 11 TRANSIT NETWORK ............................................................................................................................ I-J. BICYCLE FACILITIES ........................................................................................................................... 18 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ...................................................................................................................... 18 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 20 ANTICIPATED CHANGES IN TRA YEL PATTERNS .................................................................................... 20 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ................................................................................................................ 20 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBllTION AND ASSIGNJ\IENT .................................................................................. 21 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................ 23 FREEWAY OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 27 PEDESTRIAN. BICYCLE AND TRANSIT FACILITIES ................................................................................. 28 CUMULATIVE (2030) NO PROJECT CONDITIONS ...................................................................... 30 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................ 32 FREEWAY OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 33 BICYCLE. PEDESTRIAN. AND TRANSIT FACILITIES ................................................................................ 33 CUMULATIVE (2030) PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS ................................................................... 3-J. INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................ 3-J. FREEWAY OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................... -J.l PEDESTRIAN. BICYCLE AND TRANSIT FACILITIES ................................................................................. -J.2 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... -J.3 APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................................... -J.-J. K BA Y_TPTO ()9-XXXXXX -SSF SpecIfic Plan DOCllmellt:-> Dwft EIR 2()11-()2-()2 Dwft EIR docx City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Leyel of Sen ice Definitions ........................................................................................................ 3 Table 2: Leyel of Sen ice Definitions for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections .................................. 3 Table 3: Existing Conditions Freeway LOS ............................................................................................... -J. Table -J.: Existing Conditions -Intersection Leyels of Sen ice .................................................................. 11 Table 5: Existing Conditions -Freeway Segment Leyels of Sen ice ........................................................ 11 Table 6: Project Trip Generation by Deyelopment Block ......................................................................... 21 Table 7: Existing Plus Project Conditions -Intersection Leyels of Sen ice ............................................... 23 Table 8: Existing Plus Project Mitigation -Intersection Leyels of Sen ice ............................................... 27 Table 9: Existing Plus Project Conditions -Freeway Segment Leyels of Sen ice ..................................... 28 Table 10: Cumulatiye (2030) No Project Conditions -Intersection Leyels of Sen ice .............................. 32 Table 11: Cumulatiye (2030) No Project Conditions -Freeway Segment Leyels of Sen ice ..................... 33 Table 12: Cumulatiye (2030) Plus Project Conditions -Intersection Leyels of Sen ice ............................. 3-J. Table 13: Cumulatiye (2030) Plus Project Mitigation -Intersection Leyels of Sen ice ............................. -J.l Table I-J.: Cumulatiye (2030) Plus Project Conditions -Freeway Segment Leyels of Sen ice ................... -J.l LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Existing Study Area and Intersection Locations .......................................................................... 7 Figure 2: Existing Intersection Geometry and Traffic Control.. ................................................................ 12 Figure 3: Existing Peak Hour Intersection Turning Mmement Volumes .................................................. 13 Figure -J.: Existing Transit Network ......................................................................................................... 17 Figure 5: Existing Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................................................ 19 Figure 6: Project Trip Distribution .......................................................................................................... 22 Figure 7: Proposed Project Intersection Geometry and Traffic ControL .................................................... 2-J. Figure 8: Existing Plus Project Turning Mmement Volumes ................................................................... 25 Figure 9: Cumulatiye No Project Condition Peak Hour Turning Mmement Volumes ............................... 31 Figure 10: Cumulatiye plus Project Peak Hour Turning Mmement Volumes ........................................... 35 City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. INTRODUCTION Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn) has been retained by Dyett & Bhatia to prepare a traffic study for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan in South San Francisco, California. The analysis concentrated on the Area Plan's projected impacts to intersection and free\\ay operations, parking, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and the transit net\\ork. PROJECT OVERVIEW Located to the \\est of Dm\lltm\ll South San Francisco, the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan proposes to establish a land use plan to create a ne\\ \\alkable, distinctive, mixed-use district. A net\\ork of open spaces \\ill form the armature of ne\\ development. and ne\\ streets and pedestrian connections \\ill extend through the area, enabling easy movement on foot. The BART right-of-\\ay that extends through the length of the Planning Area \\ill be transformed into a linear park and a pedestrian-oriented "Main StreeC lined \\ith restaurants, cafes, and outdoor seating, in a portion of the right-of-\\ay. Development \\ill be at high densities, reflecting easy transit access. The area is advantageously located at the city's busies crossroads, \\ith visibility from both Chestnut Avenue and El Camino ReaL \\ith the South San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station just to the north, and 1-280 less than mile to the \\est. The Planning Area is anchored by key public amenities including Orange Memorial Park. the Centennial Way pedestrian and bike-\\ay, the Municipal Services Building (location of City Council meetings and other community functions). The potential addition of a ne\\ library in or near the Planning Area \\ould further establish the area as a civic district and key destination in the city. This ne\\ neighborhood of up to 4AOO ne\\ residents, housed in 10\\ to high-rise buildings, \\ill provide a range of commercial uses, offering \\alking access to everyday amenities; ne\\ civic uses, including potentially a ne\\ City Library; as \\ell as parks, plazas, and gathering spaces for the entire South San Francisco community. Taller residential buildings \\ill have tm\llhouses \\ith individual entrances at the lo\\er leveL oriented to streets and pedestrian spines. Parking \\ill be belmv grade or in structures, enabling efficient use ofland. The core of the Planning Area is currently vacant. offering opportunity to structure development. connections, and open space in an integrated manner. Centennial Way-a bicycle and pedestrian trail along the Colma Creek and BART rights-of-\\ay -extends north\\ard to the South San Francisco BART station. This net\\ork \\ill provide an important direct connection bet\\een the South San Francisco BART Station to the north and Orange Memorial Park to the south. Pedestrian and bicycle paths \\ill connect ne\\ development and surrounding neighborhood to the Centennial Way spine. Buildings, and parks and plazas, \\ill be oriented to the open space net\\ork. STUDY AREA The project study area and study intersection locations are illustrated in Figure 1. The study area stretches along El Camino Real \\ithin the City of South San Francisco, \\ith additional frontage on Arroyo Drive, Mission Road, Chestnut Avenue, and Antoinette Lane. It is located bet\\een the t\\O regional free\\ays in the area, 1-280 and US-lO 1. Access to 1-280 is provided either via Westborough Boulevard (the \\est leg of the El Camino Real & Chestnut Avenue intersection) or City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. to the north of project area via Hickey Boulevard (via EI Camino Real). 1-280 runs parallel and to the \\est of US-l 0 L connecting San Francisco and San Jose. Within South San Francisco. 1- 280 has annual average daily volumes of approximately 187.000 (Caltrans. 2007). US-lOl is further from the study area than 1-280 and its most direct access from the project area is via Grand Avenue. through dO\\lltO\\ll South San Francisco. US-lO 1 is a primary north-south state high\\ay connecting Northern California cities in Sonoma. Marin. San Francisco. San Mateo. Santa Clara. and Monterey Counties. Within South San Francisco. US-l 0 1 has an annual average daily volume of approximately 203.000. Located bet\\een 1-280 and US-I0L EI Camino Real (SR-82) stretches from San Francisco to San Jose. Over this stretch. EI Camino Real carries bet\\een 17.000 and 50.000 annual average daily vehicles. Within South San Francisco. it ranges from 17.000 daily trips in the north to approximately 45.000 daily trips in the south. Locally. Grand Avenue. accessed from either Chestnut Avenue or Mission Road. provides access to dO\\lltO\\ll South San Francisco. Orange Avenue City Park is located to the south of the study area and is accessed via El Camino Real or Grand Avenue. ANAL YSIS SCENARIOS For purposes of CEQA and identification of project-specific impacts and mitigation measures. this report evaluates the study area intersection and free\\ay traffic conditions for the AM and PM peak hours under the follo\\ing scenarios: • Existing Conditions: Existing traffic volumes obtained from current \\eekday peak hour traffic counts. • Existing Plus Project: Existing traffic volumes obtained from counts plus additional vehicular trips generated by the land uses proposed in the Area Plan. • 2030 Cumulative Conditions -No Project: Estimated traffic volumes for the year 2030 based on gro\\th factors derived from the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) travel forecasting model. • 2030 Cumulative Conditions Plus Project: 2030 No Project volumes plus additional vehicular trips generated by the land uses proposed in the Area Plan. Baseline conditions (Existing and Cumulative No Project) establish background conditions for the evaluation of the project in the future and form the basis for determining and comparing Project and Cumulative impacts. STUDY METHODOLOGY AND IMPACT The traffic analysis of the study intersections \\as conducted in accordance \\ith the requirements from Appendix B of the C/CAG's Congestion Management Plan/or 2009. This requires that the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) or the Transportation Board's Circular 212 methodology be used to calculate levels of service. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative term describing operating conditions a driver \\ill experience \\hile traveling on a particular street or at an intersection during a specific time interval. It ranges from LOS A (very little delay) to LOS F (long delays and congestion). Table 1 provides a definition for each level of service category. City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 2 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Table 1: Level of Service Definitions Level of Description Service Free flow with no delays. Users are yiliually unaffected by others in the traffic stream. At A signalized intersections. turning moyements are easily made and all queues clear in a single signal cycle. B Stable traffic. Traffic flows smoothly with few delays. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized. DriYers begin to feel somewhat restricted within platoons of yehicles. Stable flow but the operation of indiyidual users becomes affected by other yelucles. C Modest delays. Major approach phases fully utilized. Backups may deyelop behind turning yelucles. Approaching unstable flow. Operation of indhidual users becomes sigllificantly affected D by other yelucles. Delays may be more than one cycle during peak hours. Queues may deyelop but dissipate rapidly. without excessiye delays. E Unstable flow with operating conditions at or near the capacity leyel. Long delays and yehicle queuing. F Forced or breakdown flow that causes reduced capacity. Traffic demand exceeds the capacity. Stop and go traffic conditions. Excessiye long delays and yehicle queuing. Somee: TmnsportatJo11 Rese,1[eh Board, Highway ('opacity "\J01111012000, NatJolLll Rese,1[eh Con11ed, 2UUU. Signalized Intersections Signalized intersection level of service is measured as the average control delay in seconds per vehicle. Control delay is the portion of the total delay experienced by drivers at intersections that is attributable to traffic signal operation. It includes the delay for decelerating to a stop at a signaL moving slo\\ly in a queue of vehicles. stopped delay. and acceleration after the signal turns green. Table 2 summarizes the relationship bet\\een the level of service rating and control delay for signalized intersections. To evaluate signalized intersections. the operations method of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Transportation Research Board. National Research CounciL 2000 \\as utilized. Unsignalized Intersections Unsignalized intersection level of service evaluation also utilized the HCM 2000 operations methodology. This methodology determines the LOS based on delay. Similar to signalized intersections. the measure of effectiveness of an unsignalized intersection is measured in average control delay; ho\\ever. the delay is reported for the \\orst-case approach of the intersection. The LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections are summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Level of Service Definitions for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Control Delay Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) (seconds/vehicle) A <10 o to 10 B > 10 -20 >10 to 15 C > 20 -35 > 15 to 25 D > 35 -55 > 25 to 35 E > 55 -80 > 35 to 50 F > 80 > 50 Somee: TmnsportatJo11 Rese,1[eh Board, Highway ('opacity "\J01111012000, NatJolLll Rese,1[eh Con11ed, 2UUU. City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 3 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Freeway Segments Performance measures such as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuvec traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience are used to describe free\\ay operation conditions. These measures are related to the density of traffic and volume to capacity ratio and LOS is a quality measure describing operation conditions \\ithin the stream of traffic during the peak hours. The 2000 HCM defines six LOS grades for each type of facility. LOS is designated from A to E \\ith LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the \\orst. For this study, the LOS for a basic free\\ay segment is based on the volume to capacity ratio, assuming that one free\\ay travel lane has a capacity of 2200 vehicles per hour. Table 3 describes the relationship bet\\een free\\ay LOS, density, and volume to capacity. Table 3: Existing Conditions Freeway LOS Estimated Freeway LOS Density Range Volume to Capacity (pc/milln) Ratio A 0-II 0.30 B > II -18 0.50 C > 18 -26 0.71 D >26 -35 0.89 E >35 -45 1.00 F >45 > 1.00 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The City of South San Francisco requires that LOS D be maintained for intersections during the AM and PM peak periods. A project \\ill be considered to have an impact if the trips generated by the project \\ill cause the intersection to operate at a level of service that does not meet the City standard. If the existing intersection currently meets the City LOS standard, a project \\ill also be considered to have an impact if the cumulative scenario sho\\s that the combination of the project traffic and future cumulative traffic \\ill result in the intersection to not meet the City LOS standard and the proposed project traffic increases the average control delay for the intersection by four seconds. If the existing intersection operations do not meet the current City LOS standard, the project is considered to have an impact if the trips generated by the project \\ill add any additional traffic to that intersection. The San Mateo County Congestion Management Program 2009 (CMP) sets the LOS standards for the free\\ays \\ithin the County, including the segments analyzed as part of this study. For free\\ay segments, a project is considered to have an impact if the trips generated by the project cause a free\\ay segment to operate at a level of service that does not meet the CMP standard. If the free\\ay segment does not currently meet the CMP standard, the project is considered to have an impact if the trips generated by the proj ect add one percent or more of the free\\ay capacity or the volume to capacity ratio increases by one percent. The project \\ill also cause an impact if the future cumulative analysis sho\\s that the addition of background traffic and project traffic result in the free\\ay segment not meeting the CMP standard and the project traffic increases demand on the free\\ay by one percent or the volume to capacity ratio increases by one percent. City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 4 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. In particulac the Transportation Element of the General Plan contains policies that \\ill guide the development of the Plan's transportation recommendations. Specifically. the follo\\ing are relevant General Plan guiding and implementing policies: Street System • Policy 4.2-G-3: Where appropriate. use abandoned railroad rights-of-\\ay and the BART right-of-\\ay to establish ne\\ streets. • Policy 4.2-G-5: Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and. through the arrangement of land uses. improve alternate modes. and enhanced integration of various transportation systems serving South San Francisco. strive to reduce the total vehicle- miles traveled. • Policy 4.2-G-6: Coordinate local actions \\ith regional agencies. and undertake active efforts to undertake transportation improvements. • Policy 4.2-G-8: Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets. at all intersections. and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours. • Policy 4.2-G-9: Accept LOS E or F after finding that: o There is no practical and feasible \\ay to mitigate the lo\\er level of service: and o The uses resulting in the lo\\er level of service are of cleac overall public benefit. • Policy 4.2-G-IO: Exempt development \\ithin one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART station. or a City-designated ferry terminal. from LOS standards. • Policy 4.2-1-2: Undertake street improvements identified in the General Plan including: o Connection bet\\een Hillside Boulevard and EI Camino Real near the BART station. o Arroyo Drive/Oak Avenue connection. o Signal coordination on EI Camino Real. o Mission Road extension from Chestnut Avenue to South Linden Avenue extension on the BART right-of-\\ay. Alternative Transportation Systems • • Policy4.3-G-l Develop a comprehensive and integrated system ofbike\\ays that promote bicycle riding for transportation and recreation. Policy 4.3-G-2 Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bike\\ays bet\\een and through residential neighborhoods. and to transit centers. Alternative Transportation System implementing policies include: • Policy 4.3-1-2 As part of the Bike\\ays Master Plan. include improvements identified in the General Plan. and identify additional improvements that include abandoned railroad rights-of-\\ay and other potential connections including: City of South San Francisco February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 5 o Transit Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Bike Path on linear park on the BART right-of-\\ay, extending from the South San Francisco BART Station to the San Bruno BART station. • Policy 4.4-1-3: Explore the feasibility a shuttle system bet\\een the DO\\lltO\\ll/multi- modal station and South San Francisco and San Bruno stations. Caltrans and the Grand Boulevard Initiative None of the study area intersections are listed in the San Mateo County (CMP). Ho\\evec the free\\ay segments along 1-280 analyzed as part of the study are included in the CMP. Impact criteria for parking, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit system are in accordance \\ith standard measures. Pedestrian impacts are considered significant if the project disrupts existing, or interferes \\ith planned pedestrian facilities, or creates inconsistencies \\ith adopted pedestrian system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards. Bicycle impacts are considered significant if the project disrupts existing, or interferes \\ith planned bicycle facilities, or creates inconsistencies \\ith adopted pedestrian system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards. Transit impacts are considered significant if the project disrupts existing, or interferes \\ith planned transit services or facilities, creates demand for public transit services above that \\hich is provided or planned, or creates inconsistencies \\ith adopted transit system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards. City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 6 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis 1IIII"'l-" Kimley-Horn IiIIII.....J _ U and Associates, Inc. ©2011 PR-097XXXXXX NOVEMBER 2010 N EB NOT TO SCALE LEGEND II STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS ~ •• ~ EL CAMINO -CHESTNLJT ~ •• .i PLAN AREA FIGURE 1 STUDY AREA & INTERSECTION LOCATIONS EL CAMINO REAL CHESTNUT AREA PLAN EIR Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. EXISTING CONDITIONS This section describes the current transportation net\\ork \\ithin the study area, including road\\ay, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. The existing traffic operations of the study area intersections are analyzed and discussed. ROADWA Y NETWORK The existing circulation net\\ork is composed of free\\ays, arterial streets, collector streets, and local streets. The City of South San Francisco General Plan provides the definitions belm\ for street classifications. Freeways Free\\ays are limited-access, high-speed traveh\ays included in the State and federal high\\ay systems. These roads carry regional through traffic and access is provided by interchanges at intervals of one-mile or greater. No access is provided to adjacent land uses. There are 1\\0 free\\ays in South San Francisco -U.S. 101 and 1-280. Arterials Arterials are major streets that primarily serve through traffic and provide access to abutting properties as a secondary function. Arterials are generally designed \\ith four to six travel lanes and major intersections are signalized. In South San Francisco, there are 1\\0 types of arterials: major arterials and minor arterials. Major arterials are typically divided (have raised medians), have more travel lanes, and carry more traffic than minor arterials. Major arterials in the city include EI Camino ReaL Sisters Cities Boulevard, Junipero Serra Boulevard, and East Grand Avenue. Minor arterials include Mission Road and Orange Avenue. Collectors Collectors connect arterials \\ith local streets, and provide access and circulation \\ithin neighborhoods. Collectors are typically designed \\ith 1\\0 travel lanes, parking lanes, planter strips, and side\\alks. Examples of collectors in South San Francisco are Commercial Avenue and Del Monte Avenue. Local Streets Local streets provide direct access to abutting properties as their primary function. Local streets have no more than 1\\0 travel lanes. Regional Access The City of South San Francisco is connected to several regional high\\ays, including 1-280, 1- 380, and US 101. 1-280 is an eight-lane free\\ay that provides regional access to San Francisco, the Peninsula, and San Jose. 1-380 is a six-lane free\\ay that provides access to the San Francisco International Airport, 1-280, and US 101. US 101 is an eight-lane free\\ay that provides regional access to San Francisco, and the Peninsula. US 101 is a major north-south high\\ay connecting Southern and Northern California. Local Access The project study area is \\ithin the South San Francisco city limits and consists of arterials, collectors, and local streets. The follo\\ing describes the road\\ays in the vicinity of the study area. City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 8 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. El Camino Real (SR-82) is a six-lane Major Arterial \\ith a raised, landscaped median. The median has openings for left-turn pockets at all intersections and some major drive\\ays. On- street parking is allo\\ed on some segments on the road\\ay. It is classified as a Class III bike route in the City's General Plan. The speed limit is 40 miles per hour. Several SamTrans bus routes operate along the segment of El Camino Real \\ith the study area. Gaps in the side\\alk system occur on El Camino Real on the \\est side bet\\een Arroyo Drive and BART Road. Mission Road is a four-lane Minor Arterial \\ith no median or center turn lane, except from Oak Avenue to Chestnut Avenue \\here a raised median exists. On-street parking is not allo\\ed on this street \\ithin the study area. The speed limit is 30 miles per hour. Mission Road does not have a side\\alk on the \\est side of the street bet\\een Oak Avenue and Grand Avenue. Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue is a four-lane Major Arterial \\ith a raised median \\est of Mission Road. Except for a short segment in the eastbound direction bet\\een EI Camino Real and Mission Road, on-street parking is not allo\\ed. The speed limit is not posted on the street in the area of the project but is posted at 45 miles per hour to the \\est of Camaritas Avenue and is posted at 30 miles per hour to the east of Mission Road. In the vicinity of the project area Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue has side\\alks on both sides of the street. Arroyo Drive is a t\\o-lane Collector \\ith a double yello\\ centerline, except for a short segment \\ith a raised median near EI Camino Real. There are 1wo pedestrian crossings \\ith ladder-style markings bet\\een Camaritas Avenue and EI Camino Real. On-street parking is allo\\ed \\ithin the study area. On the south side of Arroyo Drive bet\\een Camaritas Avenue and El Camino ReaL in front of the City's municipal building, the on-street parking is angled. The speed limit is 25 miles per hour. Arroyo Drive has a side\\alk on both sides of the street \\ithin the study area. West of Camaritas Avenue this street is designated as a Class III bike route. Camaritas A venue is classified as an Other Street in the City's General Plan. It is four lanes bet\\een Arroyo Drive and Westborough Road, othemise it is 1\\0 lanes. Over the four-lane section, on-street parking is allo\\ed in the southbound direction. North of Arroyo Drive, on- street parking is allo\\ed in both directions. The four-lane section is designated as a Class III bike route. The four-lane section does not have a posted speed limit. Side\\alks are provided on both sides of the street on Camaritas Avenue. Oak Avenue is a 1\\o-lane Collector \\ith a double yello\\ centerline. It has a 1\\o-\\ay left-turn lane east of Commercial Avenue. It has on-street parking on both sides of the street and the posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour. Side\\alks are provided on both sides of the street. This street is proposed to be extended to El Camino Real. INTERSECTION OPERA TlONS Intersection turning movement counts \\ere collected on a typical \\eekday bet\\een 7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM at all of the study area intersections. The traffic counts \\ere conducted on November 3 and November 4, 2010. A field visit \\as also conducted to observe intersection geometf), intersection controL pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, and queue lengths. The existing intersection geometf) and traffic control is illustrated in Figure 2. The existing conditions traffic volumes are sho\\n in Figure 3. City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 9 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Observations \\ere made of traffic conditions \\ithin the study area during a typical mid-\\eek PM peak hour. A fe\\ intersections. particularly along El Camino ReaL \\ere noted to become congested during peak traffic conditions. At the intersection of EI Camino Real and Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. delays \\ere observed to be fairly high for the northbound. southbound and \\estbound approaches. \\ith substantial vehicle queuing. Westbound queues at the closely-spaced intersection of Camaritas AvenueIWest Orange Avenue extended into the El Camino Real intersection at times. \\hich impacted \\estbound thru and northbound left-turn movements and resulted in queues \\ithin the intersection. The intersection of El Camino Real and McLellan Drive had moderate congestion during the PM peak hour. \\ith higher vehicle demand in the northbound and \\estbound directions. A large share of vehicles going in the northbound direction \\ere in the far left lane in anticipation of turning left onto Hickey Boulevard to\\ards 1-280. Peak-hour congestion \\as not observed to be occurring on Mission Road or Arroyo Drive. Pedestrian activity \\as concentrated near the BART station on EI Camino Real and Mission Road. EI Camino High School also generated pedestrian traffic in the late afternoon along Mission Road. Evergreen Drive. Sequoia Avenue and Holly Avenue. The follo\\ing intersections \\ere evaluated under existing conditions for the AM and PM peak hours: 1. El Camino ReallHickey Boulevard 2. EI Camino Real/McLellan Boulevard 3. EI Camino ReaV Arroyo Drive/Oak Extension 4. EI Camino ReaVChestnut Avenue 5. EI Camino ReaVOrange Avenue 6. Mission Road/Grand Avenue 7. Chestnut Avenue/Grand Avenue 8. Mission Road/Oak Avenue 9. Mission Road/Chestnut Avenue 10. Junipero Serra Boulevard/Arroyo Drive 11. Westborough Boulevard/I-280 SB Off Ramp 12. Westborough Boulevard/I-280 NB On Ramp/Junipero Serra Boulevard A traffic operations model \\as developed for the study area using TRAFFIX soft\\are. Table 4 summarizes the existing intersection levels of service for the AM and PM peak hour. As Table 4 illustrates. all of the study area intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. meeting the current City LOS standards. \\ith the exception of Westborough Boulevard/I-280 Northbound On Ramp/Junipero Serra Boulevard during the PM peak hour and Junipero Serra Boulevard/Arroyo Drive during the AM and PM peak hours. City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 10 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Table 4: Existing Conditions -Intersection Levels of Service Existing LOS Intersection Control AM Peak PM Peak Standard Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 EI Camino RealIHickey Bouleyard Signal 35.9 D 38.5 D D 2 EI Camino RealIMcLellan Bouleyard Signal 31.2 C 30.5 C D 3 EI Camino Real/Arroyo Driye/Oak Signal 19.8 B 15.9 B D Extension 4 EI Camino Real/Chestnut A yenue Signal 39.7 D 38.1 D D 5 EI Camino Real/Orange A yenue Signal 33.1 C 32.7 C D 6 Mission Road/Grand Ayenue AWSC 13.2 B 12.-1-B D 7 Chestnut Ayenue/Grand Ayenue Signal 29.0 C 29.0 C D 8 Mission Road/Oak A yenue TWSC 15.-1-C 12.2 B D 9 Mission Road/Chestnut Ayenue Signal 24.-1-C 22.5 C D 10 Junipero Serra Bouleyard/ Arroyo Driye TWSC 47.8 E 62.6 F D 11 Westborough Bouleyard/I-280 SB Off Signal 15.8 B 41.9 D D Ramp 12 Westborough Bouleyard/I-280 NB On Signal 41.3 D 78.0 E D Ramp/Junipero Serra Bouleyard A WSC -All-Way Stop-controlled (DelaY reported ic)r overall intersection) TWSC -Two-way Stop-controlled (DelaY reported ic)r worst case approach) Leyel of service based on the 2000 Highway Capacity J\Ianual signalized and unsignalized operations analysis methods. LOS Standard per City of South San Francisco standards FREEWA Y OPERA TlONS It \\as requested by Caltrans that four free\\ay mainline segments be analyzed to determine if the trips generated by the project impact the free\\ay. Table 5 summarizes the existing free\\ay levels of service the AM and PM peak hour. As Table 5 illustrates. all of the study area free\\ay segments currently operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. meeting the current CMP LOS standards. Table 5: Existing Conditions -Freeway Segment Levels of Service Freeway Capacity # Total LOS Segment per lane Lanes Capacity Standard 1-280 NB- Avalon to 2200 4 8.800 D Westborough 1-280 NB- Westborough 2200 4 8.800 D to Hickey 1-280 SB- Hickey to 2200 4 8.800 D Westborough 1-280 SB- Westborough 2200 4 8.800 D to Avalon City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 11 Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour Volume VIC LOS (veh/hr) 4.722 0.537 C 5.056 0.575 C 5.708 0.649 C 6.305 0.716 D PM Peak Hour Volume VIC LOS (veh/hr) 7.327 0.833 D 7'()91 0.806 D 6214 0.706 D 5.155 0.586 C February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis ~ ~ )) \. ~ ~ j ~ChestnutAve. 1l "-gt= 41 \.\. g ~ ~MCLeilanDr ~ 1 iii ( Grand Ave • ~ ~ ~~ 8l 11 \. 1 2- Arroyo Dr 1IIII"'l-" Kimley-Horn IiIIII.....J _ U and Associates, Inc. ©2011 PR-097XXXXXX NOVEMBER 2010 .q/. ~ .. westboroU9h .Blvd ~ N EB 1l )111\.\.! Westborough Blvd ~ .. Chestnut Ave ::: llii( ~ 11 ~ ~ 8l )11\.1 Oak Ave ~ .. westboroU9h .Bivd ::: l11r ~ LEGEND II STUDY AREA INTERSEC110NS r··~ EL CAMINO -CHES11NUT Lj PLANAREA ~ TRAFFIC SIGNAL § STOP SIGN XX STORAGE LENGTH NOT TO SCALE L..-________ ----I FIGURE 2 EXISTING CONDITION LANE GEOMETRY AND TRAFFIC CONTROL EL CAMINO REAL CHESTNUT AREA PLAN EIR 122(151) --'" 6(24) ---+ 654(563)~ 152(111) --'" 111(71) ---+ 48(48)~ 347(279) --'" 731 (735) ---+ "--6(10) +-24(15) ,r-23(12) Hickey Blvd "--186(221) +-61(44) ,r-115(145) Orange Ave "--99(60) +-693(688) Chestnut Ave • 47(32) --'" 36(12) ---+ 57(25)~ 1(1) --'" l{O) ---+ 4(1)~ 1IIII"'l-" Kimley-Horn IiIIII.....J _ U and Associates, Inc. ©2011 PR-097XXXXXX NOVEMBER 2010 "--375(400) +-30(18) ,r-212(191) McLellan Dr "--228(188) +-1(4) ,r-51(48) Grand Ave "--45(71) ,r-158(92) Arroyo Dr t r 298(87) --'" 263(151)~ 88(107) --'" 322(314) ---+ 149(116)~ 1252(772) ---+ 1160(517)~ .q/. "--93(54) +-300(359) ,r-45(51) Grand Ave +-938(1671) Westborough Blvd N EB Westborough Blvd 214(153) --'" 664(521) ---+ 424(356)~ u -@'~ ~ NN ...... I:::: N--Q) _co C) r.J) J!~i 71 (146) --'" 923(901) ---+ 676(351)~ EI LEGEND STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS "--131(124) +-589(599) ,r-349(327) Chestnut Ave "--29(14) ,r-42(20) Oak Ave t r "--70(178) +-843(1077) ,r-171(188) Westborough Blvd EL CAMINO -CHESTNUT PlAN AREA AM/(PM) AM (PM) PEAK HOUR VOULMES NOT TO SCALE '--__________ ----' FIGURE 3 EXISTING CONDITION PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES EL CAMINO REAL CHESTNUT AREA PLAN EIR Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. TRANSIT NETWORK Public transportation is provided by BART and the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans). BART connects the San Francisco Peninsula \\ith Oakland. Berkeley. Fremont. Walnut Creek Dublin/Pleasanton and other East Bay cities via above-and belmv-ground heavy rail. From the project area. BART provides service to the north to San Francisco and across the bay. BART also provides direct access to San Francisco International Airport. SamTrans operates fixed-route bus. community-based shuttles. paratransit. and BART COlmnuter shuttles \\ithin San Mateo County. A number of bus routes and shuttles operate through South San Francisco and the project vicinity. is the study area is also served by Caltrain. a commuter rail system connecting Gilroy to San Francisco \\ith a station located approximately 2 miles from the study area. just to the east of US-l 0 1 near the Grand Avenue interchange. Transfers bet\\een the Caltrain and the BART system can occur at the Millbrae BART station. Access from the study area is provided to Caltrain via BART or a number of SamTrans bus routes. Public transportation routes. stops and stations \\ithin the project vicinity are shm\ll in Figure 4. BART The South San Francisco BART station is located just to the north of the study area. Its primary drop-off area and parking garage are accessed from BART Road via EI Camino Real or Mission Road. Pedestrian access is provided via EI Camino Real. Mission Road or McLellan Drive. Additional pedestrians and bicycles access is proposed via the Linear Park currently under construction. The South San Francisco BART station opened in 2003 as part of the BART extension from Colma to San Francisco International Airport/Millbrae. It operates underground in the project vicinity. bisecting the project area. It takes 20 minutes via BART to travel from the South San Francisco station to the Civic Center station in San Francisco and 36 minutes via BART to travel to the lih Street Station in Oakland. Ridership at the South San Francisco station has more than doubled since it first opened in 2003. There \\as an average of 2.837 exits from the South San Francisco BART in 2008. compared to 1.198 in 2003. Station counts from 2008 sho\\ there \\ere an average of 2.996 daily exits from the South San Francisco station. The BART station is adjoined by a large. free daily parking garage that is discussed in the parking chapter of this report. SamTrans Bus routes in the project vicinity are operated by SamTrans. A number of SamTrans fixed bus routes and BART commuter shuttles provide local and regional service to the South San Francisco BART station. As a result. bus stops \\ithin or adjacent to the project area are served by multiple bus routes. Fixed Route Bus Service Route 122 travels bet\\een San Francisco and the South San Francisco BART station. providing service to the Colma BART Station. San Francisco State University and a number of retail and medical centers along the \\ay. On \\eekdays. it operates \\ith 20 minute head\\ays during the peak hours and approximately 30 minute head\\ays for the rest of the day. from 6 AM to 9 PM. It City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 14 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. operates on \\eekends and holidays \\ith 30 minute head\\ays. In the project vicinity. it travels on EI Camino Real and Arroyo Drive. On school days the route also provides service during school start and dismissal times to Baden High SchooL located \\est of El Camino Real and south of Westborough Boulevard. In 2006. Route 132 averaged 2.580 \\eekday riders (36.9 passengers per trip). Route 130 travels bet\\een the Daly City BART station and the intersection of Airport Boulevard & Linden Avenue in South San Francisco. It also provides service to the Colma BART and South San Francisco BART stations. On \\eekdays. it operates \\ith 20 minute head\\ays during the peak hours and approximately 30 minute head\\ays for the rest of the day. from 5 :30 AM to 11 PM. It operates on Saturdays \\ith 30 minute head\\ays and on Sundays and holidays \\ith 60 minute head\\ays. In the project vicinity it travels on Mission Road and Grand Avenue. In 2006. Route 130 averaged 1.991 \\eekday riders (24.9 passengers per trip). Route 132 travels in a loop around South San Francisco. Points on the route include the South San Francisco BART station. the Airport Boulevard & Linden Avenue intersection. City Hall. the City Library and other shopping centers. On \\eekdays. it operates in each direction on \\eekdays \\ith 30 minute head\\ays during the peak hours and 60 minute head\\ays for the rest of the day. from 5:30 AM to 7:30 PM. It operates on Saturdays \\ith 60 minute head\\ays and does not operate on holidays or Sundays. The route travels on El Camino Real. Arroyo Drive. Camaritas Avenue. and West Orange Avenue \\ithin the project area. It also operates 1\\0 morning busses and one afternoon bus on school days only that provide service to Buri Buri Elementary School and the surrounding neighborhood \\est ofEl Camino Real. north of Westborough Boulevard. In 2006. Route 132 averaged 452 \\eekday riders (10.5 passengers per trip). Route 133 travels bet\\een the South San Francisco BART station and the intersection of Airport Boulevard & Linden Avenue. It also stops at the Serramonte Shopping Center. the Tanforan Shopping Center and the San Bruno BART station. On \\eekdays. it operates \\ith 30 minute head\\ays during the peak hours and 60 minute head\\ays for the rest of the day. from 6 AM to 6:30 PM. On Saturdays it operates \\ith 60 minute head\\ays and does not operate on holidays or Sundays. The route travels on El Camino Real. Camaritas Avenue and West Orange Avenue \\ith the project vicinity. It also operates one morning and one afternoon bus on school days only that provides service to Alta Loma Junior High School. In 2006. Route 133 averaged 771 \\eekday riders (19.3 passengers per trip). Route 390 travels bet\\een Daly City BART station and the Palo Alto Caltrain station via EI Camino Real. Along the route it connects \\ith the South San Francisco BART station. the Millbrae Intermodal Station. and various Caltrain stations. regional shopping centers and hospitals in the cities of Daly City. Colma. South San Francisco. San Bruno. Millbrae. Burlingame. San Mateo. Belmont. San Carlos. Red\\ood City. Atherton. Menlo Park and Palo Alto. On \\eekdays. it operates \\ith 30 minute head\\ays during the peak hours and 60 minute head\\ays for the rest of the day. from 5 :30 AM to 11 :30 PM. It operates \\ith 30 minute head\\ays except late evening on Saturdays. Sundays and holidays. This route and Route 391 experience the highest ridership demand on the SamTrans system. In 2006. Route 390 averaged 6288 \\eekday riders (87.3 passengers per trip). Route 391 travels bet\\een Daly City and Red\\ood City via El Camino Real. During peak periods on \\eekdays it continues to the north to the intersection of Mission Street & 1st Street in do\\nto\\n San Francisco. providing access to the San Francisco Transbay Terminal. It provides City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 15 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. service to the Colma BART station, the South San Francisco BART station, the San Bruno BART station, the Millbrae Intermodal Station and various Caltrain stations, regional shopping centers and hospitals in the cities of Daly City, Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno, Millbrae, Burlingame, San Mateo, Belmont San Carlos, and Red\\ood City. On \\eekdays, it operates \\ith 30 minute head\\ays throughout the day, from 4 AM to 1 AM. It operates \\ith 30 minute head\\ays except late evening on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. This route and Route 390 experience the highest ridership demand on the SamTrans system. In 2006, Route 391 averaged 5,822 \\eekday riders (71.9 passengers per trip). Routes 35/36 provide community service from several South San Francisco neighborhoods to Evergreen Drive & Mission Road, adjacent to the South San Francisco BART station. It does not provide service to the project area at any closer points than the BART station. This service only operates three AM loops (one via Route 35 and 1\\0 via Route 36) and four PM loops (one via Route 35 and three via Route 36). The service is only provided on school days. In 2006, route 35 averaged 79 \\eekday riders (19.9 passengers per trip) and Route 36 averaged 103 \\eekday riders (17.2 passengers per trip). Paratransit Service In addition, SamTrans operates demand-responsive paratransit service \\ithin the project area. City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 16 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Note: Routes 122,132, and 133 have slightly different routes during school start and dismissal times. _Y_sM!, __ _ 1IIII"'l-'" Kimley-Horn IIIIII.....J _ U and Associates, Inc. ©2011 PR-097XXXXXX NOVEMBER 201 0 Route 121 Route 130 Route 132 Route 133 Route 390 Route 391 Route 35 Route 36 FIGURE 4 EXISTING TRANSIT NElWORK EL CAMINO REAL -CHESTNUT AREA PLAN EIR Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. BICYCLE FACILITIES Bicycle facilities are classified either as Class L Class IL or Class III. Class I facilities are paved paths separated from the road\\ay. Class II facilities are bike lanes striped on the road\\ay and include associated signage. Class III facilities are bike routes along road\\ays that are designated by signs only and mayor may not include additional pavement \\idth in the road\\ay. Bike\\ays in the study area are mostly limited to on-street non-demarcated bicycle routes. El Camino Real is designated a Class III bike route throughout its extents \\ithin the City of South San Francisco. Grand Avenue is designated a Class III bike route from Mission Road to Chestnut Avenue. Westborough Boulevard has Class II bike lanes from Junipero Serra Boulevard. just east of 1-280. to Camaritas AvenueIWest Orange Avenue. East of Camaritas Avenue. Westborough Boulevard is designated a Class III bike route. \\hich continues on Chestnut Avenue until the street terminates at Hillside Boulevard. A Class III bike route exists on West Orange A venue \\hich continues on Camaritas Avenue north of Westborough Boulevard before turning \\est onto Arroyo Drive. A Class I bike path exists bet\\een the San Bruno and South San Francisco BART stations as part of Centennial Way Linear Park. Bicycle facilities in the project vicinity are shO\\ll in Figure 5. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Most roads \\ithin the study area have pedestrian side\\alks and are ADA (Americans \\ith Disabilities Act) accessible. All signalized intersections in the area have pedestrian crossings at all or most approaches \\ith pedestrian signals and pushbuttons. The Centennial Way trail is a multi-use bicycle and pedestrian path that has recently been completed and travels through the study area. There are a fe\\ gaps \\ithin the side\\alk net\\ork in the vicinity of the project area. Most prominently is the lack of a side\\alk on the \\est side of EI Camino Real from BART Road to just north of Arroyo Drive. This is identified and an improvement is recommended by the City's EI Camino Real Master Plan. prepared in 2006. There is also a lack of a side\\alk on the \\est side of Mission Road from approximately Oak Avenue to Grand Avenue. The need for this \\allmay may be reduced \\ith the construction of the Linear Park. although \\ith the development of parcels on the \\est side of Mission Road and the extension of Oak A venue. there may be a need for a side\\alk adjacent to the road\\ay. There are limited pedestrian crossing points of EI Camino Real. Only one cross\\alk is provided bet\\een BART Road and Arroyo Drive. at the Kaiser Hospital Drive\\ay. The lack of marked cross\\alks results in a number of illegal pedestrian crossings. particularly near Arroyo Drive. according to the EI Camino Real Master Plan. The cross\\alk at the Kaiser Hospital Drive\\ay is heavily used to access the bus stop on the \\est side of El Camino Real. Access from the Buri Buri neighborhood. located \\est of EI Camino Real. to the study area is limited to Arroyo Drive and a staimay opposite the BART road due to steep grades bet\\een the neighborhood and EI Camino Real. Access from the east side of Mission Road to the study area is currently limited to Chestnut Avenue and a pedestrian bridge near Oak Avenue to Antoinette Lane due to the Colma Creek channel cutting through the study area. City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 18 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Class I Bike Path (Future) Class II Bike Lane Class III Bike Route 1IIII"'l-'" Kimley-Horn IIIIII.....J _ U and Associates, Inc. ©2011 PR-097XXXXXX NOVEMBER 2010 FIGURE 5 EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES EL CAMINO REAL -CHESTNUT AREA PLAN EIR Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS The existing plus project scenario is an artificial scenario that identifies specific impacts of the proposed plan for comparative purposes. The peak hour traffic volumes for this scenario \\ere developed by adding the net ne\\ trips generated by the land use plan to the existing traffic volumes. It \\ill also evaluate potential ramifications to pedestrian. bicycle. and transit circulation. OveralL traffic patterns are not anticipated to change significantly. because the primary road\\ay net\\ork remains the same. ANTICIPATED CHANGES IN TRAVEL PATTERNS It is anticipated that the Oak Avenue extension from its current terminus at Mission Road to El Camino Real at Arroyo Drive \\ill be constructed to alleviate traffic congestion in the area. Existing vehicle trips \\ere redistributed to account for this ne\\ road\\ay segment. PROJECT TRIP GENERA TlON The Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th Edition. \\as used to estimate daily and peak-hour trip generation that can be attributed to the proposed Area Plan development. Trip generation rates are the number of trips generated by a particular land use per an independent variable of d\\elling units. employees. or square feet. These rates are developed through many studies conducted throughout the country and. therefore. the rates represent a national average for similar land use types. Trip generation rates can vary depending on \\here the studies \\ere conducted. and ITE provides a range of rates. A trip is defined in Trip Generation as a single or one-directional vehicle movement \\ith either the origin or destination at the project site. In other \\ords. a trip can be either "to" or "from" the site. In addition. a single customer visit to a site is counted as 1\\0 trips (i.e .. one to and one from the site). For purposes of determining the \\orst-case impacts of traffic on the surrounding street net\\ork. the trips generated by a proposed development are typically estimated bet\\een the hours of 7:00- 9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM. While the project itself may generate more traffic occurring some other time of the day such as around noon. the peak of "adjacent street traffic" represents the time period \\hen the uses generally contribute to the greatest amount of congestion. \\ith the PM peak commonly being the greatest congestion period. Although the trips generated by the project may be greater during certain hours of the day. the background volumes on the street net\\ork \\ould be relatively 10\\ compared to \\eekday peak traffic volumes. For this reason. this section of the traffic report focused on the \\eekday AM and PM peak hours. This methodology is in harmony \\ith typical City of South San Francisco practice in the preparation of other traffic impact studies. Net ne\\ proposed land uses \\ere used to calculate the potential trip generation of the Area Plan. Trip generation \\as calculated based on the proposed development for each individual block and then added together to estimate the overall Plan's trips. Table 6 presents the total trip generation for the site on a per block basis. Additional trip generation calculations are provided in the Appendix. City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 20 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Table 6: Project Trip Generation by Development Block Land Use Designation Daily AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Trips In Out Total In Out Total Block A 2.3-1-3 36 1..J...I. 180 l..J.l 77 218 BlocksB & C 1.078 15 ..J.9 6..J. 52 32 8..J. BlocksD & E 3.78..J. 57 100 157 l..J.l 111 252 BlocksF & G 3.778 112 21 133 37 111 1..J.8 Blocks H. L & J 1.716 26 123 1..J.9 115 57 172 Outside Focus Area 3.768 57 12..J. 181 157 112 269 TOTAL Trip Generation 16,..J.67 303 561 86..J. 6..J.3 500 1,l..J.3 As noted in Table 6. the net ne\\ development \\ithin the Area Plan \\i11 generate approximately 864 ne\\ AM peak hour trips and L 143 ne\\ PM peak hour trips. Internal Capture With multi-use development. there is the potential for interaction among uses \\ithin the site. These types of trips are considered internal to the site and are "captured" \\ithin the site. Internal capture reductions for each use on the development blocks \\ere calculated separately based on data published in ITE's Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition. Internal capture reductions reasonably range from 5.5 percent to 14.3 percent based on ITE data for individual uses and \\ere applied. Additional internal capture calculations are contained in the Appendix. Project Transit Trip Reduction Developments constructed in close proxImIty to an eXIstmg BART station outside central business districts have lo\\er trip generation due to transit use. The fo11o\\ing transit trip reductions \\ere taken to the land uses in the project as fo11o\\s: • Residential: 15 percent • Office: 15 percent • Retail: 5 percent Project Trip Pass-By Pass-by trips represent trips already on the road \\hich stop as they pass by the site as a matter of convenience on their path to another destination. These trips enter and exit the site at the drive\\ays but are not ne\\ trips to the study area. The most complete source of data regarding average pass-by rates for various land uses is found in Trip Generation Handbook. PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Because of the nature of the development. the majority of customers to the project are expected to travel from nearby locations throughout South San Francisco and neighboring cities. Project distribution \\as developed based on existing traffic count information. traffic volumes in the C/CAG travel demand modeL and the general orientation of similar land uses to the site and population and employment sources to the stud area. Figure 6 presents the traffic distributions assumed for this traffic study. City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 21 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis /®. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. ©2011 PR-097XXXXXX NOVEMBER 2010 N EB NOT TO SCALE LEGEND II STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS :----: EL CAMINO -CHESTNUT : ___ J PLAN AREA XX% PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 6 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION EL CAMINO REAL CHESTNUT AREA PLAN EIR Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. INTERSECTION OPERA TlONS Each study area intersection \\as analyzed using the proposed intersection geometry and traffic control illustrated in Figure 7. Using the trip generation from Table 6 and the trip distribution percentages from Figure 6, the project trips \\ere calculated and added to the existing traffic volumes to develop the existing plus project traffic volumes. Figure 8 illustrates the Existing plus Project peak hour volumes. Results of the capacity analysis are shO\\ll in Table 7. Table 7: Existing Plus Project Conditions -Intersection Levels of Service Existing Plus Project LOS Intersection Control AM Peak PM Peak Delay LOS Delay LOS Standard 1 EI Camino RealIHickey Bouleyard Signal -1-0.5 D 58.8 E D 2 EI Camino RealIMcLellan Bouleyard Signal :32.-J. C 33.0 C D 3 EI Camino Real/Arroyo Driye/Oak Signal 29.7 C 26.1 C D Extension -I-EI Camino Real/Chestnut A yenue Signal -J.-J..7 D -1-3.9 D D 5 EI Camino Real/Orange A yenue Signal 33.2 C 33.9 C D 6 Mission Road/Grand Ayenue AWSC 1-1-.9 B 1-1-.0 B D 7 Chestnut Ayenue/Grand Ayenue Signal 29.3 C 29.3 C D 8 Mission Road/Oak A yenue TWSC 18.-J. C 16.0 C D 9 Mission Road/Chestnut Ayenue Signal 2-1-.5 C 23.7 C D 10 Junipero Serra Bouleyard/ Arroyo Driye TWSC -1-7.8 E 62.6 F D 11 Westborough Bouleyard/I-280 SB Off Signal 15.9 B -1-3.0 D D Ramp 12 Westborough Bouleyard/I-280 NB On Signal -I-9.-J. D 97.3 F D Ramp/Junipero Serra Bouleyard A WSC -All-Way Stop-controlled (DelaY reported ic)r overall intersection) TWSC -Two-way Stop-controlled (DelaY reported ic)r worst case approach) Leyel of service based on the 2000 Highway Capacity J\Ianual signalized and unsignalized operations analysis methods. LOS Standard per City of South San Francisco standards Shaded cells represent an impact associated with the project. City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 23 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis u ~ ~ ~ )4 \. ~ r ~ChestnutAve. :::~ ---<:t ~ "-gt= 41 \.\. g ~ ~MCLeilanDr ~ "1iii(' Grand Ave ir • ~ ~ ~~ 8l 11 \. 1 2- Arroyo Dr ir 1IIII"'l-" Kimley-Horn IiIIII.....J _ U and Associates, Inc. ©2011 PR-097XXXXXX NOVEMBER 2010 .q/. ~ .. westboroU9h .Blvd ~ N EB ~ )111\.\.! Westborough Blvd ~ .. Chestnut Ave ::: "1"1ii(' ~ ~ ~ 8l )11\.1 Oak Ave ~ .. westboroU9h Blvd ::: "1"11r ---<:t LEGEND • STUDYAREA INTERSEC110NS r··~ EL CAMINO -CHESTNUT Lj PLANAREA ~ TRAFFIC SIGNAL § STOP SIGN XX STORAGE LENGTH NOT TO SCALE L..-________ ----I FIGURE 7 FUTURE CONDITION LANE GEOMETRY AND TRAFFIC CONTROL EL CAMINO REAL CHESTNUT AREA PLAN EIR 122(151) --'" 6(24) ---+ 699(659)~ 152(111) --'" 111(71) ---+ 48(48)~ 313(265) --'" 730(730) ---+ "--6(10) +-24(15) ,r-23(12) Hickey Blvd "--186(221) +-61(44) ,r-115(145) Orange Ave "--113(74) +-696(701) ,r-2(7) Chestnut Ave t r • 47(32) --'" 36(12) ---+ 57(25)~ 1IIII"'l-" Kimley-Horn IiIIII.....J _ U and Associates, Inc. ©2011 PR-097XXXXXX NOVEMBER 2010 "--422(425) +-30(18) ,r-221 (206) McLellan Dr "--228(188) ,r-53(56) Grand Ave "--45(71) ,r-158(92) Arroyo Dr t r 298(87) --'" 3(2) ---+ 260(149)~ 88(107) --'" 342(332) ---+ 156(123)~ 1267(804) ---+ 1160(517)~ .q/. "--83(75) +-2(3) ,r-140(108) "--95(62) +-313(384) ,r-45(51) Grand Ave +-966(1696) Westborough Blvd N EB Westborough Blvd 342(258) --'" 654(573) ---+ 432(381)~ 59(95) --'" 6(7) ---+ 27(69)~ u -@'~ ~ NN ...... I:::: N--Q) _co C) r.J) J!~i 71 (146) --'" 968(997) ---+ 676(351)~ EI LEGEND STUDY AREA INTERSEC110NS "--155(130) +-617(635) ,r-364(350) Chestnut Ave "--29(16) +-3(5) ,r-40(17) Oak Ave "--70(178) +-927(1152) ,r-227(238) Westborough Bllvd El CAMINO -CHESTNUT PLAN AREA AM/(PM) AM (PM) PEAK HOUR VOUlMES NOT TO SCALE '--__________ ----' FIGURE 8 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITION PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES EL CAMINO REAL CHESTNUT AREA PLAN EIR Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Impact TRAF-l: Traffic generated by the project \\ould affect levels of service at study intersections under Existing plus Project conditions. As shm\ll in Table 7. the study intersections in the Existing plus Project scenario \\ould continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. except for the follo\\ing intersections: • EI Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard (PM peak) • Junipero Serra Boulevard and Arroyo Drive (PM Peak) • Junipero Serra Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard (PM Peak) The intersection of EI Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard operates at an acceptable LOS under existing conditions. By adding the trips generated by the Area Plan. the intersection \\ould operate at an unacceptable level. No project trips are being added to the Junipero Serra Boulevard and Arroyo Drive intersection: therefore. there is no impact at this intersection and mitigation is not required The intersection of Junipero Serra Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard currently operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour under existing conditions: ho\\ever. the Area Plan \\ill add trips to the intersection. \\hich contribute to the continuing operational failure. Impact TRAF-la: Traffic generated by the proposed project \\ould cause the intersection ofEI Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard to operate belmv acceptable levels of service in the PM peak hour. Mitigation Measure TRAF-la: Modify traffic signal operations to include an eastbound right turn overlap phase. This intersection currently operates at LOS D during the PM peak hour. and is projected to operate at LOS E \\ith the addition of the project generated trips under the Existing plus Project scenario. The mitigation measure \\ould mitigate the project's impact at this intersection. The proposed mitigation \\ould improve the intersection to LOS C during the PM peak hour and therefore \\ould reduce the project impact to less than significant. Significance: Less-than-Significant with Mitigation. Impact TRAF-lb: Traffic generated by the proposed project \\ould continue to cause the intersection of Junipero Serra Boulevard/I-280 Northbound On Ramp and Westborough Boulevard to operate belmv acceptable levels of service in the PM peak hour. Mitigation Measure TRAF -1 b: Stripe westbound right turn lane and restripe existing westbound shared through/right turn lane to a through only lane. In addition, stripe eastbound right turn lane and restripe existing eastbound shared through/right turn lane to a through only lane. The Junipero Serra Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard intersection operates at unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour under existing traffic conditions. The intersection \\ill operate at LOS F \\ith the addition of the traffic generated by the project. The proposed mitigation measure \\ould mitigate the project's impact at this intersection. Westbound Westborough Boulevard currently has a free-flo\\. channelized right turn lane onto northbound Junipero Serra Boulevard. City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 26 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis 1 12 Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. \\ith adequate road\\ay \\idth to stripe a right turn lane. Eastbound Westborough Boulevard has a \\ide shared through/right turn lane as it approaches Junipero Serra Boulevard \\hich could be striped to provide a channelized right turn lane. Adding the dedicated right turn lanes and modifying the shared through/right turn lane to a dedicated through lane in each direction \\ould improve the operations of the intersection to LOS E during the PM peak hour \\ith an overall intersection delay less than existing conditions and therefore \\ould reduce the project impact to less than significant. Significance: Less-than-Significant with Mitigation. The Existing plus Project and Existing plus Project plus Mitigation levels of serVIce are summarized in Table 8. Table 8: Existing Plus Project Mitigation -Intersection Levels of Service Existing Plus Project Existing Plus Project Plus Mitigation Intersection AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay El Camino ReallHickey Bouleyard -1-0.5 D 58.8 E 2-1-.6 C 22.9 Westborough Bouleyard/I-280 NB On -I-9.-J. D 97.3 F -1-2.1 D 73.3 Ramp/Junipero Serra Bouleyard FREEWA Y OPERA TlONS Table 9 summarizes the free\\ay segment analysis for Existing Plus Project conditions and compares to the Existing conditions. All free\\ay segments are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. meeting the eMP LOS standard. City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 27 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis LOS C E Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Table 9: Existing Plus Project Conditions -Freeway Segment Levels of Service AM Peak Hour Freeway Segment Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project Volume Volume Change (veh/hr) VIC LOS (veh/hr) VIC LOS in VIC 1-280 NB--1..722 0.537 C -J..752 0.5-1-0 C 0.003 A,alon to Westborough 1-280 NB-5.056 0.575 C 5.112 0.581 C 0.006 Westborough to Hickey 1-280 SB-5.708 0.6-1-9 C 5.738 0.652 C 0.003 Hickey to Westborough 1-280 SB-6.305 0.716 D 6.361 0.723 D O.OC)7 Westborough to A ,alon PM Peak Hour Freeway Segment Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project Conditions Volume VIC LOS Volume VIC LOS Change (veh/hr) (veh/hr) in VIC 1-280 NB-7.327 0.833 D 7.391 0.8-1-0 D O.OC)7 A,alon to Westborough 1-280 NB-7.091 0.806 D 7.1-1-1 0.811 D 0.005 Westborough to Hickey 1-280 SB-6.21-1-0.706 D 6.278 C>.713 D O.OC)7 Hickey to Westborough 1-280 SB-5.155 0.586 C 5.205 0.591 C 0.005 Westborough to A ,alon PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND TRANSIT FACILITIES Impact TRAF -2: Implementation of the project under Existing plus Project conditions would generate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips, which would use the existing and planned circulation network in the project area. (Less than significant) As noted previously. the project \\ould be considered to have a significant impact if it conflicted \\ith adopted policies. plans. or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g .. bus turnouts. bicycle racks) or generate pedestrian. bicycle. or transit travel demand that \\ould not be accommodated by current pedestrian facilities. bicycle development plans. or long-range transit plans. Currently. side\\alks and pedestrian paths exist along the vast majority of road\\ays \\ithin the Plan Area. The project \\ould potentially generate pedestrian demand: ho\\ever. the project is not anticipated to interfere \\ith any of the existing or planned pedestrian facilities. Currently. there are several bicycle facilities \\ithin the vicinity of the proposed project. There are also several planned and proposed bicycle facilities \\ithin the Plan Area. as identified in current bike plans. The Project's traffic generation or site access \\ould not create any changes to the existing or planned bicycle facilities. In addition. there are several additional bicycle facilities proposed as part of the Area Plan. The proposed project \\ould not interfere \\ith any of the existing or proposed bicycle facilities. or conflict \\ith currently adopted pedestrian goals or policies. Therefore. the project \\ould not result in any adverse impacts to bicyclists. City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 28 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. The development of the proposed land use plan is expected to generate transit ridership. Additional passengers generated by the project \\ould be accommodated by the existing service and impact to transit services \\ould not be considered significant as current services have reserve capacity. The proposed project \\ould not interfere \\ith existing or planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities. transit service or transit stops and dispersion of the project-generated riders to the various planned bus routes is expected to result in a minimal effect on transit capacity. Thus. the project's impact on pedestrian. bicycle. and transit facilities is determined to be less than significant. Mitigation Measure TRAF-2: None Required. Significance after Mitigation: Less-than-Significant. City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 29 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. CUMULATIVE (2030) NO PROJECT CONDITIONS Cumulative baseline traffic projections establish background conditions for the evaluation of the project in the future and form the basis for determining and comparing cumulative impacts. This step in the analysis makes it possible to identify long-term traffic impacts. regardless of the proposed project. The Cumulative traffic volumes at the study area intersections and road\\ays \\ere estimated for year 2030 by using gro\\th rates derived from the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) travel demand forecasting model. Land use data is included in the model on a traffic analysis zone (T AZ) level of detail. Model trip generation is performed \\ith algorithms that reflect land use. population. employment. income levels. auto o\\nership. persons per household and other socio-economic factors specific to the area. The model's trip generation is "calibrated" to match local conditions. Using the land use. socioeconomic data. and net\\ork (street and intersection) data. the model distributes or allocates trips to/from each T AZ. or land use area. The model then assigns the trips to the road\\ay net\\ork based on least cost (time and/or distance) path. The model output is in the form of directional link volumes. The C/CAG model includes a \\eekday AM peak period and PM peak period volume component. Model output files. including directional link volumes. \\ere received from C/CAG and utilized to develop future traffic projections. Volumes from the model \\ere used to forecast \\eekday AM and PM peak hour volumes for the Cumulative (2030) No Project scenario. The gro\\th in the link volumes bet\\een the base year model (2005) and the forecast year model (2030) \\as used to develop an annual gro\\th rate. The gro\\th rate \\as applied to existing link volumes on road\\ays and at intersections. resulting in Cumulative (2030) No Project forecast volumes. Many of the local streets \\ithin the study area are not represented in the current C/CAG model. Traffic volumes from the base year model and forecast year model \\ere compared for the study area road\\ays in the current model. \\hich consist of EI Camino Real. Hickey Boulevard. and Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. An average overall gro\\th rate of 2.5 percent per year \\as calculated and applied to the existing (2010) traffic counts to project intersection turning movement volumes for the Cumulative (2030) No Project conditions on major and local streets. This is considered conservative since local streets are not anticipated to experience the same level of gro\\th in traffic as major streets. The Cumulative No Project traffic volumes are shO\\ll in Figure 9. City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 30 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis 200(247) --'" 10(39) ---+ 1072(923)~ 249(182) --'" 182(116) ---+ 79(79)~ 506(408) --'" 1169(1170) ---+ "--10(16) +-39(25) ,r-38(20) Hickey Blvd "--305(362) +-100(72) ,r-188(238) Orange Ave "--184(118) +-1115(1108) Chestnut Ave • 77(52) --'" 59(20) ---+ 93(41)~ 1IIII"'l-" Kimley-Horn IiIIII.....J _ U and Associates, Inc. ©2011 PR-097XXXXXX NOVEMBER 2010 "--615(656) +-49(30) ,r-347(313) McLellan Dr "--374(188) ,r-84(48) Grand Ave t r "--74(116) ,r-259(151) Arroyo Dr t r 488(143) --'" 5(3) ---+ 426(244)~ 144(175) --'" 528(515) ---+ 244(190)~ 2052(1265) ---+ 1901(847)~ .q/. "--21 (20) +-3(5) ,r-116(113) "--152(89) +-492(588) ,r-74(84) Grand Ave +-1537(2739) Westborough Blvd N EB Westborough Blvd 408(297) --'" 1031 (808) ---+ 695(583)~ 57(46) --'" 5(3) ---+ 30(34)~ 116(239) --'" 1513(1477) ---+ 1108(575)~ EI LEGEND STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS "--190(179) +-906(923) ,r-515(482) Chestnut Ave "--48(23) +-3(5) ,r-66(28) Oak Ave "--115(292) +-1382(1765) ,r-280(308) Westborough Blvd EL CAMINO -CHESTNUT PlAN AREA AM/(PM) AM (PM) PEAK HOUR VOULMES NOT TO SCALE '--__________ ----' FIGURE 9 CUMULATIVE CONDITION PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES EL CAMINO REAL CHESTNUT AREA PLAN EIR Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. INTERSECTION OPERA TlONS Each study area intersection \\as analyzed based on the volumes sho\\n in Figure 9 and the intersection geometry and traffic control illustrated in Figure 7. Results of the traffic operations analysis are summarized in Table 10. A number of intersections are projected to deteriorate to unacceptable levels of service during a peak hour prior to adding trips generated by the proposed Plan. including: • EI Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard (AM peak and PM peak) • El Camino Real and McLellan Drive (AM peak and PM peak) • El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue (AM peak and PM peak) • El Camino Real and Orange Avenue (AM peak and PM peak) • Mission Road and Grand Avenue (AM Peak) • Mission Road and Oak Avenue (AM Peak) • Mission Road and Chestnut Avenue (AM Peak) • Junipero Serra Boulevard and Arroyo Dr (AM peak and PM peak) • Westborough Boulevard and 1-280 Southbound Off Ramp (PM Peak) • Westborough Boulevard and Junipero Serra Boulevard (AM peak and PM peak) Table 10: Cumulative (2030) No Project Conditions -Intersection Levels of Service Cumulative (2030) No Project LOS Intersection Control AM Peak PM Peak Standard Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 EI Camino RealIHickey Bouleyard Signal 152.3 F 187.6 F D 2 EI Camino RealIMcLellan Bouleyard Signal 73.5 E 103.5 F D 3 EI Camino Real/Arroyo Driye/Oak Signal -J.6.-J. D 36.3 D D Extension -J. EI Camino Real/Chestnut A yenue Signal 1-I--J..5 F 138.5 F D 5 EI Camino Real/Orange A yenue Signal 118.9 F 153.9 F D 6 Mission Road/Grand Ayenue AWSC -J.0.9 E 12.-J. B D 7 Chestnut Ayenue/Grand Ayenue Signal 50.9 D -J.3.-J. D D 8 Mission Road/Oak A yenue TWSC 67.1 F 22.2 C D 9 Mission Road/Chestnut Ayenue Signal 62.5 E 36.-J. D D 10 Junipero Serra Bouleyard/ Arroyo Driye TWSC 1005.7 F 1710.9 F D 11 Westborough Bouleyard/I-280 SB Off Signal 3-J..3 C 21-1-.6 F D Ramp 12 Westborough Bouleyard/I-280 NB On Signal 193.8 F 355.5 F D Ramp/Junipero Serra Bouleyard A WSC -All-Way Stop-controlled (DelaY reported ic)r overall intersection) TWSC -Two-way Stop-controlled (DelaY reported ic)r worst case approach) Leyel of service based on the 2000 Highway Capacity J\Ianual signalized and unsignalized operations analysis methods. LOS Standard per City of South San Francisco standards City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 32 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. FREEWA Y OPERA TlONS Table 11 summarizes the free\\ay segment analysis for Cumulative (2030) No Project conditions. The results indicate that three free\\ay segments are projected to operate at LOS E in the study area, not meeting the CMP LOS standard. Table 11: Cumulative (2030) No Project Conditions -Freeway Segment Levels of Service Cumulative (2030) No Project Conditions Freeway Capacity # Total LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Segment per lane Lanes Capacity Standard Volume VIC LOS Volume VIC LOS (veh/hr) (veh/hr) 1-280 NB - Avalon to 2200 4 8,800 D 5,969 0.678 C 8,187 0.930 E Westborough 1-280 NB - Westborough 2200 4 8,800 D 7.374 0.838 D 8,043 0.914 E to Hickey 1-280 SB - Hickey to 2200 4 8,800 D 6.400 0.727 D 8,446 0.960 E Westborough 1-280 SB - Westborough 2200 4 8,800 D 7269 0.826 D 6,633 0.754 D to Avalon BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND TRANSIT FACILITIES No modifications to the bicycle, pedestrian, and transit net\\orks surrounding the project site are planned or approved as part of any other project. City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 33 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. CUMULATIVE (2030) PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Turning movement volumes for the Cumulative (2030) plus Project scenario \\ere calculated by applying the gro\\th rate (as described in the Cumulative No Project Conditions section) to the existing traffic volumes and adding the net ne\\ trips generated by the land use plan. The Cumulative plus Project traffic volumes are shO\\ll in Figure 10. INTERSECTION OPERA TlONS Each study area intersection \\as analyzed based on the proposed intersection geometry and traffic control illustrated in Figure 7 and the peak hour turning movement volumes sho\\n in Figure 10. Results of the capacity analysis are shO\\ll in Table 12. Table 12: Cumulative (2030) Plus Project Conditions -Intersection Levels of Service Cumulative (2030) No Project Cumulative (2030) Plus Project Intersection AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 El Camino ReallHickey Bouleyard 152.3 F 187.6 F 178.8 F 230.3 F 2 El Camino ReallMcLellan Bouleyard 73.5 E 103.5 F 86.1 F 142.1 F 3 El Camino Real/Arroyo Driye/Oak -J.6.-J. D 36.3 D 59.7 E -J.7.-J. D Extension -J. El Camino Real/Chestnut A yenue U-J..5 F 138.5 F 173.7 F 173.2 F 5 El Camino Real/Orange A yenue 118.9 F 153.9 F 123.9 F 162.8 F 6 Mission Road/Grand Ayenue -J.0.9 E 12.-J. B 58.3 F I-J..O B 7 Chestnut Ayenue/Grand Ayenue 50.9 D -J.3.-J. D 5-J..-J. D -J.6.0 D 8 Mission Road/Oak A yenue 67.1 F 22.2 C 91.9 F 41.6 E 9 Mission Road/Chestnut Ayenue 62.5 E 36.-J. D 72.4 E -J.5.9 D 10 Junipero Serra Bouleyard/ Arroyo Driye 1005.7 F 1710.9 F 1005.7 F 1710.9 F 11 Westborough Bouleyard/I-280 SB Off 3-J..3 C 2U.6 F 35.3 D 215.1 F Ramp 12 Westborough Bouleyard/I-280 NB On 193.8 F 355.5 F 216.3 F 382.6 F Ramp/Junipero Serra Bouleyard A wsc -All-Way Stop-controlled (DelaY reported ic)r oyerall intersection) TWSC -Two-way Stop-controlled (DelaY reported ic)r worst case approach) Leyel of seryice based on the 2000 Highway Capacity J\Ianual signalized and unsignalized operations analysis methods. Shaded cells represent an impact associated with the project. City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 34 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis 200(247) --'" 10(39) ---+ 1117(1019)~ 249(182) --'" 182(116) ---+ 79(79)~ 510(424) --'" 1186(1186) ---+ "--10(16) +-39(25) ,r-38(20) Hickey Blvd "--305(362) +-100(72) ,r-188(238) Orange Ave "--185(120) +-1131(1133) ,r-2(7) Chestnut Ave t r • 77(52) --'" 59(20) ---+ 93(41)~ 1IIII"'l-" Kimley-Horn IiIIII.....J _ U and Associates, Inc. ©2011 PR-097XXXXXX NOVEMBER 2010 "--662(681) +-49(30) ,r-356(328) McLellan Dr "--374(188) ,r-86(56) Grand Ave "--74(116) ,r-259(151) Arroyo Dr t r 488(143) --'" 5(3) ---+ 426(244)~ 144(175) --'" 548(533) ---+ 251(197)~ 2067(1297) ---+ 1901(847)~ .q/. "--91 (83) +-3(5) ,r-185(152) "--154(97) +-505(613) ,r-74(84) Grand Ave +-1565(2764) Westborough Blvd N EB Westborough Blvd 501 (374) --'" 1056(888) ---+ 703(608)~ 81(113) --'" 8(8) ---+ 39(82)~ 116(239) --'" 1558(1573) ---+ 1108(575)~ EI LEGEND STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS "--229(200) +-970(995) ,r-565(538) Chestnut Ave "--48(25) +-4(7) ,r-66(28) Oak Ave "--115(292) +-1466(1840) ,r-336(358) Westborough Blvd EL CAMINO -CHESTNUT PlAN AREA AM/(PM) AM (PM) PEAK HOUR VOULMES NOT TO SCALE '--__________ ----' FIGURE 10 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITION PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES EL CAMINO REAL CHESTNUT AREA PLAN EIR Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Impact TRAF-3: Traffic generated by the project \\ould affect levels of service at study intersections under Cumulative plus Project conditions. As shm\ll in Table 12. there are impacts at several intersections. including: • EI Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard (AM peak and PM peak) • El Camino Real and McLellan Drive (AM peak and PM peak) • EI Camino Real and Arroyo Drive/Oak Avenue (AM peak) • El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue (AM peak and PM peak) • El Camino Real and Orange Avenue (AM peak and PM peak) • Mission Road and Grand Avenue (AM Peak) • Mission Road and Oak Avenue (AM peak and PM peak) • Mission Road and Chestnut Avenue (AM Peak) • Westborough Boulevard and Junipero Serra Boulevard (AM peak and PM peak) The intersections of Westborough Boulevard/I-280 Southbound Off Ramp and Junipero Serra Boulevard/Arroyo Drive are not impacted as the trips generated by the project do not increase the intersection control delay by more than four seconds. Impact TRAF-3a: Traffic generated by the proposed project \\ould cause the intersection of EI Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard to continue operating belmv acceptable levels of service for the AM and PM peak periods \\ith an increase of more than four seconds of delay at the intersection. Mitigation Measure TRAF-3a: Modify traffic signal operations to include an eastbound right turn overlap phase. This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours under the Cumulative (2030) No Project scenario and is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours \\ith the addition of the project generated trips under the Cumulative (2030) plus Project scenario. The mitigation measure \\ould mitigate the project's impact at this intersection. With this proposed mitigation. the intersection \\ould operate at LOS D and LOS E during the AM and PM peak hours. respectively. Therefore. the project's impacts \\ill be mitigated. Significance: Cumulatively Significant, Project Contribution Less than Significant with Mitigation. Impact TRAF-3b: Traffic generated by the proposed project \\ould cause the intersection of EI Camino Real and McLellan Drive to continue operating belmv acceptable levels of service for the AM and PM peak periods \\ith an increase of more than four seconds of delay at the intersection. This intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour under the Cumulative (2030) No Project scenario and is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours \\ith the addition of the project generated trips under the Cumulative (2030) plus Project scenario. In order to mitigate the project's impact. a third southbound through lane \\ould need to be constructed along EI Camino Real. Ho\\ever. even \\ith this improvement. the intersection \\ould continue to operate at LOS E during the AM peak City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 36 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour \\ith a lo\\er average intersection delay compared to the Cumulative (2030) No Project scenario. Constructing an additional lane \\ould require additional right-of-\\ay and relocation of utilities. \\hich is infeasible. In addition. the construction of additional lanes \\ould contradict the purpose of the Area Plan to create a pedestrian. bicycle. and transit oriented development. The LOS standard only applies to automobile traffic and not the many other users of the transportation net\\ork including pedestrians and bicyclists. This intersection is also a state controlled intersection and under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Policy 4.2-G-9 of the South San Francisco General Plan states that "if there is no practical and feasible \\ay to mitigate the lo\\er level of service and the uses resulting in the lo\\er level of service are of clear. overall public benefit" then LOS E or F is acceptable. As this is the case \\ith the EI Camino Real/Chestnut Area development. the project \\ould not result in a significant impact at this intersection. Significance: Significant and Unavoidable. Impact TRAF-3c: Traffic generated by the proposed project \\ould cause the intersection of EI Camino Real and Arroyo Drive/Oak Avenue to operate at belmv acceptable levels of service for the AM peak hour. Mitigation Measure TRAF-3c: Restripe westbound shared through/right turn lane to shared left turn/through/right turn lane. This intersection is projected to operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour in the Cumulative (2030) No Project scenario. and is projected to operate at LOS E \\ith the addition of the project generated trips under the Cumulative (2030) plus Project scenario. The mitigation measure \\ould mitigate the project's impact at this intersection. The proposed mitigation \\ould improve the intersection to LOS D during the AM peak hour and therefore \\ould reduce the project impact to less than significant. Significance: Less-than-Significant with Mitigation. Impact TRAF-3d: Traffic generated by the proposed project \\ould cause the intersection of EI Camino Real and Chestnut A venue to continue operating belmv acceptable levels of service for the AM and PM peak periods \\ith an increase of more than four seconds of delay at the intersection. This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours under the Cumulative (2030) No Project scenario and is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours \\ith the addition of the project generated trips under the Cumulative (2030) plus Project scenario. In order to mitigate the project's impacts. a second eastbound right turn lane and second eastbound left turn lane \\ould need to be constructed. Ho\\ever. even \\ith this improvement. the intersection \\ould continue to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours \\ith a lo\\er average intersection delay compared to the Cumulative (2030) No Project scenario. Therefore. the project's impacts \\ould be mitigated. Constructing additional lanes \\ould require additional right-of-\\ay and relocation of utilities. \\hich is infeasible. In addition. the construction of additional lanes \\ould contradict the purpose of the Area Plan to create a pedestrian. bicycle. and transit oriented development. The LOS City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 37 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. standard only applies to automobile traffic and not the many other users of the transportation net\\ork including pedestrians and bicyclists. This intersection is also a state controlled intersection and under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Policy 4.2-G-9 of the South San Francisco General Plan states that "if there is no practical and feasible \\ay to mitigate the lo\\er level of service and the uses resulting in the lo\\er level of service are of cleac overall public benefit" then LOS E or F is acceptable. As this is the case \\ith the EI Camino Real/Chestnut Area development the project \\ould not result in a significant impact at this intersection. Significance: Significant and Unavoidable. Impact TRAF-3e: Traffic generated by the proposed project \\ould cause the intersection of EI Camino Real and Orange Avenue to continue operating belmv acceptable levels of service for the AM and PM peak periods \\ith an increase of more than four seconds of delay at the intersection. This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours under the Cumulative (2030) No Project scenario and is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours \\ith the addition of the project generated trips under the Cumulative (2030) plus Project scenario. In order to mitigate the project's impacts. a second \\estbound right turn lane \\ould need to be constructed and the eastbound approach \\ould need to be restriped to a left turn lane and a shared through lane/right turn lane. Ho\\ever. even \\ith this improvement. the intersection \\ould continue to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours \\ith a lo\\er average intersection delay compared to the Cumulative (2030) No Project scenario. Constructing an additional lane \\ould require additional right-of-\\ay and relocation of utilities. \\hich is infeasible. In addition. the construction of additional lanes \\ould contradict the purpose of the Area Plan to create a pedestrian. bicycle. and transit oriented development. The LOS standard only applies to automobile traffic and not the many other users of the transportation net\\ork including pedestrians and bicyclists. This intersection is also a state controlled intersection and under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Policy 4.2-G-9 of the South San Francisco General Plan states that "if there is no practical and feasible \\ay to mitigate the lo\\er level of service and the uses resulting in the lo\\er level of service are of cleac overall public benefit" then LOS E or F is acceptable. As this is the case \\ith the EI Camino Real/Chestnut Area development the project \\ould not result in a significant impact at this intersection. Significance: Significant and Unavoidable. Impact TRAF-3f: Traffic generated by the proposed project \\ould cause the intersection of Mission Road and Grand Avenue to continue operating belmv acceptable levels of service for the AM peak period \\ith an increase of more than four seconds of delay at the intersection. Mitigation Measure TRAF -3f: If warranted in the future, signalize intersection. Restripe southbound shared left turn/through lane to dedicated left turn lane. This intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour under the Cumulative (2030) No Project scenario and is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour \\ith the addition of the project generated trips under the Cumulative (2030) plus Project scenario. The AM peak hour meets the peak hour \\arrants for signalization. The mitigation measure \\ould City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 38 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. mitigate the project's impact at this intersection. With this proposed mitigation. the intersection \\ould operate at LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore. the project's impacts \\ill be mitigated. Significance: Less-than-Significant with Mitigation. Impact TRAF-3g: Traffic generated by the proposed project \\ould cause the \\orst approach of the stop-controlled Mission Road and Oak Avenue intersection to continue operating belmv acceptable levels of service for the AM peak period \\ith an increase of more than four seconds of delay at the intersection. Eastbound and \\estbound traffic along Oak Avenue is stop controlled \\hile northbound and southbound traffic along Mission Avenue does not stop. The eastbound approach is projected to operate at LOS E and the \\estbound approach is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour under the Cumulative (2030) No Project scenario. Both approaches are projected to operate at LOS C during the PM peak hour. The addition of the project generated trips under the Cumulative (2030) plus Project scenario results in the eastbound and \\estbound approaches operating at LOS F during the AM peak hour and the eastbound approach operating at LOS E during the PM peak hour. The \\estbound approach could be mitigated by removing several on street parking spaces and striping a dedicated left turn lane and a shared through/right turn lane. \\hich \\ould result in LOS F \\ith a lo\\er average delay \\hen compared the Cumulative (2030) No Project scenario. A traffic signal \\arrant analysis \\as conducted at this intersection. but the projected AM and PM peak hour volumes do not meet the peak hour \\arrant analysis: therefore. a traffic signal is not a practical mitigation. It is possible for an unsignalized intersection to not meet signalization \\arrants \\hile having one or more movements not meeting the City LOS standard. The signal \\arrant considers a balance bet\\een major street and minor street delays. and may indicate an overall benefit of long delays for the minor street if the major street experiences no additional delays. At this intersection. \\hile the lo\\er volume traffic along Oak Avenue may experience long delays. there \\ould not be an overall benefit if the higher volume traffic along Mission Road is stopped in favor in of the Oak Avenue traffic. Additional travel lanes \\ould have to be constructed at this intersection to result in an acceptable level of service. Constructing an additional lane \\ould require additional right-of-\\ay and relocation of utilities. \\hich is infeasible. In addition. the construction of additional lanes \\ould contradict the purpose of the Area Plan to create a pedestrian. bicycle. and transit oriented development. Adding lanes at this intersection \\ould create longer pedestrian crossings. The LOS standard only applies to automobile traffic and not the many other users of the transportation net\\ork including pedestrians and bicyclists. Policy 4.2-G-9 of the South San Francisco General Plan states that "if there is no practical and feasible \\ay to mitigate the lo\\er level of service and the uses resulting in the lo\\er level of service are of clear. overall public benefit" then LOS E or F is acceptable. As this is the case \\ith the EI Camino Real/Chestnut Area development. the project \\ould not result in a significant impact at this intersection. Significance: Significant and Unavoidable. City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 39 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Impact TRAF-3h: Traffic generated by the proposed project \\ould cause the intersection of Mission Road and Chestnut Avenue to continue operating belmv acceptable levels of service for the AM peak period \\ith an increase of more than four seconds of delay at the intersection. This intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour under the Cumulative (2030) No Project scenario and is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour \\ith the addition of the project generated trips under the Cumulative (2030) plus Project scenario. In order to mitigate the project's impacts. an eastbound right turn lane \\ould need to be constructed. With this improvement. the intersection \\ould operate at LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore. the project's impacts \\ould be mitigated. Constructing an additional lane \\ould require additional right-of-\\ay. relocation of utilities. and the expansion of a bridge over the canaL \\hich is infeasible. In addition. the construction of additional lanes \\ould contradict the purpose of the Area Plan to create a pedestrian. bicycle. and transit oriented development. The LOS standard only applies to automobile traffic and not the many other users of the transportation net\vork including pedestrians and bicyclists. Policy 4.2-G-9 of the South San Francisco General Plan states that "if there is no practical and feasible \\ay to mitigate the lo\\er level of service and the uses resulting in the lo\\er level of service are of clear. overall public benefit'· then LOS E or F is acceptable. As this is the case \\ith the EI Camino Real/Chestnut Area development. the project \\ould not result in a significant impact at this intersection. Significance: Significant and Unavoidable. Impact TRAF-3i: Traffic generated by the proposed project \\ould cause the intersection of Junipero Serra Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard to continue operating belmv acceptable levels of service for the AM and PM peak periods \\ith an increase of more than four seconds of delay at the intersection. Mitigation Measure TRAF-3i: Stripe eastbound right turn lane and westbound right turn lane. Restripe existing eastbound shared through/right turn lane to a through lane and westbound shared through/right turn lane to a through lane. This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours under the Cumulative (2030) No Project scenario and is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours \\ith the addition of the project generated trips under the Cumulative (2030) plus Project scenario. Eastbound and \\estbound Westborough Boulevard currently have channelized right turns onto Junipero Serra Boulevard \\ith adequate road\\ay \\idth to stripe dedicated right turn lanes. By adding the dedicated right turn lanes and modifying the shared through/right turn lanes to dedicated through lanes in the eastbound and \\estbound directions. the intersection \\ould continue to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours but \\ith a lo\\er average intersection delay \\hen compared to the Cumulative (2030) No Project scenario. Therefore. the project's impacts \\ill be mitigated. Significance: Cumulatively Significant, Project Contribution Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Cumulative (2030) plus Project and Cumulative (2030) plus Project plus Mitigation levels of service are summarized in Table 13. City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 40 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Table 13: Cumulative (2030) Plus Project Mitigation -Intersection Levels of Service Cumulative (2030) Plus Project Cumulative (2030) Plus Project Intersection Plus Mitigation AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 EI Camino RealIHickey Bouleyard 178.8 F 230.3 F 53.6 D 78.2 E 3 EI Camino Real! Arroyo Driye/Oak 59.7 E -J.7.-J. D 47.1 D 37.3 D Extension 6 Mission Road/Grand Ayenue 58.3 F 14.0 B 26.1 C 21.7 C 12 Westborough Bouleyard/l-280 NB On 216.3 F 382.6 F 172.5 F 322.1 F Ramp/Junipero Serra Bouleyard Mitigations proposed for intersections 2. 4. 5. 8. and 9 determined to be infeasible. FREEWA Y OPERA TlONS Table 14 summarizes the free\\ay segment analysis for Cumulative (2030) Plus Project conditions and compares to the Cumulative (2030) No Project conditions. While the project does add trips to the three free\\ay segments that are projected to operate at LOS E in the Cumulative (2030) No Project scenario. project trips do not account for an increase of one percent of the volume to capacity ratio. Therefore. the project does not impact these free\\ay segments. Table 14: Cumulative (2030) Plus Project Conditions -Freeway Segment Levels of Service AM Peak Hour Cumulative (2030) No Project Cumulative (2030) Plus Project Freeway Segment Conditions Conditions Volume VIC LOS Volume VIC LOS Change (veh/hr) (veh/hr) in VIC 1-280 NB-5.969 0.678 C 5.999 0.682 C 0.005 Ayalon to Westborough 1-280 NB-7.374 0.838 D 7.-J.30 0.8H D 0.006 Westborough to Hickey 1-280 SB-6.-J.00 0.727 D 6.-J.30 0.731 D 0.004 Hickey to Westborough 1-280 SB-7.269 0.826 D 7.325 0.832 D 0.006 Westborough to A yalon PM Peak Hour Cumulative (2030) No Project Cumulative (2030) Plus Project Freeway Segment Conditions Conditions Volume VIC LOS Volume VIC LOS Change (veh/hr) (veh/hr) in VIC 1-280 NB-8.187 0.930 E 8.251 0.938 E 0.008 Ayalon to Westborough 1-280 NB-8.043 0.914 E 8.093 0.920 E 0.006 Westborough to Hickey 1-280 SB-8.-J.46 0.960 E 8.510 0.967 E O.OC17 Hickey to Westborough 1-280 SB-6.633 0.754 D 6.683 0.759 D 0.005 Westborough to A yalon City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 41 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND TRANSIT FACILITIES Impact TRAF-4: Implementation of the project under Cumulative plus Project conditions would generate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips, which would use the existing and planned circulation network in the project area. (Less than significant) Refer to Impact TRAF-2 for discussion Mitigation Measure TRAF-4: None required. Significance after Mitigation: Less-than-Significant. City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 42 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. REFERENCES City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, Congestion Management Program 2009. City of South San Francisco General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report for South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment, November 2009 Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2009. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Handbook 2nd Edition, 2003. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation User's Guide, 7th Edition, 2003. South San Francisco Municipal Code. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 43 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. APPENDIX City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 44 February 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix A. Existing Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Counts B. EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Land Use Projections C. Project Trip Generation Calculations D. Project Volume Figure E. Intersection LOS Analysis Sheets -Existing AM F. Intersection LOS Analysis Sheets -Existing PM G. Intersection LOS Analysis Sheets -Existing + Project AM H. Intersection LOS Analysis Sheets -Existing + Project PM 1. Intersection LOS Analysis Sheets -Existing + Project + Mitigation AM J. Intersection LOS Analysis Sheets -Existing + Project + Mitigation PM K. Intersection LOS Analysis Sheets -Cumulative No Project AM L. Intersection LOS Analysis Sheets -Cumulative No Project PM M. Intersection LOS Analysis Sheets -Cumulative + Project AM N. Intersection LOS Analysis Sheets -Cumulative + Project PM O. Intersection LOS Analysis Sheets -Cumulative + Project + Mitigation AM P. Intersection LOS Analysis Sheets -Cumulative + Project + Mitigation PM Q. C/CAG Model Output City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan A. Existing Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Counts City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. TERSECTI MMARY PROJECT: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO TR.\FFIC STllDY SllRYEY DATE: 11/4/2010 DAY: THllRSDAY N-S APPROACH: HICKEY BOllLEYARD E-W APPROACH: EL CAMINO REAL I-__ -=P..,EAK HOlr-=TR=..:..-__ --, 1I7 -+) ~~ll TO I 1I8 -+) ~~ll I 6 I 468 ~::: I 48 EL CAl\IINO REAL 6 122 24 TOTAL I 2,184 I 6 23 654 mCKEY BOllLEYARD TIME PERIOD F.·om 71111~~1 7 1)~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+)~~l 81111~~1 8 I) ~~l 8 :W~~l 8 -+) ~~l 71111~~1 7 1)~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+)~~l 81111~~1 8 I) ~~l 8 :W~~l 8 -+) ~~l 71111~~1 7 1)~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+)~~l 81111~~1 NORTHBOllND To Left 71)~~1 IS 7 :W~~l 35 7 -+) ~~l 58 81111~~1 86 8 1)~~1 117 8 :W~~l 140 8-+)~~1 180 91111~~1 206 71)~~1 IS 7 :W~~l 20 7-+)~~1 23 81111~~1 28 81)~~1 31 8 :W~~l 23 8-+)~~1 40 91111~~1 26 81111~~1 86 8 I) ~~l 102 8 :W~~l lOS 8 -+) ~~l 122 91111 ~~l 120 Thm Right 6 7 8 8 10 14 o 2 ~, 8 7 4 6 6 66 166 292 480 689 826 946 L041 66 100 126 188 209 U7 120 95 480 623 660 654 561 SllRYEY TIME: 7:00 AM TO 9:00AM CITY: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO FILE: 3011077-1AM t ARRIYAL 1 DEPARTllRE YOLllMES NORTH 11 I 276 I 540 I PHF= 1--..:..40,-,4'---1:~: : 522 PHF= 0.80 :~: 0.70 53 23 .' '1'" .. ·r···· . . . .. . :::::: ::::: . .. . .. -:."-: :--:. "."... . .. " .. I PHF= I 0.86 :~: 827 ~: 1,145 612 782 PHF= 0.81 SOllTHBOllND EASTBOllND WESTBOllND Left Thm SURVEY 8 l7 22 28 40 49 2 8 16 21 29 :;2 40 Right Left DATA 2 ~, 6 8 11 11 2 4 7 10 10 12 TOTAL BY PERIOD 7 9 6 8 4 9 2 6 8 8 ~, 8 ~, 2 2 2 ~, o 2 2 2 ~, o 2 HOURLY TOTALS 22 27 28 27 21 27 24 24 22 6 6 8 6 7 6 8 6 7 Thm 172 290 :;92 5:;9 640 754 38 55 79 118 102 147 101 114 290 354 446 468 464 Right 6 10 l7 27 52 65 80 6 4 7 10 12 IS 27 42 48 53 Left 59 U7 248 :;55 502 6:;5 788 868 59 78 III 107 147 133 153 80 355 498 540 5U Thm 28 71 120 l70 2:;2 :;96 472 28 49 50 62 81 83 76 l70 204 242 276 302 Right TOTAL ~, 6 7 11 16 19 2 2 ~, 6 6 8 11 220 5-12 961 1,-176 2,058 2,615 3,1-15 3,571 220 322 -119 515 582 557 530 -126 1,-176 1,838 2,073 2,18-1 2,095 Telephone: (510)232-1271 Fax: (510)232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO TR.\FFIC STllDY SllRYEY DATE: 11/4/2010 DAY: THllRSDAY N-S APPROACH: HICKEY BOllLEYARD E-W APPROACH: EL CAMINO REAL I--_----'P::..;;EAK HOlr-=TR"--_----, 1I5 1I1i P111 TO I 1I6 1I1i P111 I 5 I 496 ~::: I 99 EL CAl\IINO REAL 10 151 15 TOTAL I 3,043 I 24 12 563 mCKEY BOllLEYARD TIME PERIOD F.·om .+1I11P11 .+ 15 P11 .+ 01lP11 .+.+5 P11 51111P11 515 P11 501lP11 5.+5 P11 .+1I11P11 .+ 15 P11 .+ 01lP11 .+.+5 P11 51111P11 515 P11 501lP11 5.+5 P11 .+1I11P11 .+ 15 P11 .+ 01lP11 .+.+5 P11 51111P11 NORTHBOllND To Left .+ 15 P11 ~5 .+01lP11 6~ .+.+5P11 81 5 1I1i P11 127 5 15 P11 158 5 oll P11 192 .5 -1-5 PJ\! 232 61111 P11 278 .+ 15 P11 ~5 .+01lP11 28 .+.+5P11 18 51111P11 46 515P11 ~1 5 01lP11 ~4 5.+5P11 40 61111P11 46 5 1I1i P11 127 5 15 P11 123 5 oll P11 129 5.+5P11 151 61111P11151 Thl"U Right 7 15 18 21 26 29 45 7 8 .' .' .' 7 9 21 19 14 18 24 145 282 406 560 696 824 9~8 145 137 124 154 136 128 114 185 560 551 542 5~2 563 SllRYEY TIME: 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM CITY: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO FILE: 3011077-1PM .~ 21 I 676 I 971 I t NORTH SOllTHBOllND ARRIYAL 1 DEPARTllRE YOLllMES PHF= 0.66 37 50 .' '1'" .. ·r···· . . . .. . :::::: ::::: . .. . .. -:."-: :--:. "."... . .. " .. I PHF= I 0.90 1---'..83,-7---l:~: : :~: 1,668 600 PHF= 0.95 :~: 1,085 EASTBOllND ~: 1,071 738 PHF= 0.77 WESTBOllND Left Thl"U Right Left Thl"U Right Left Thl"U Right TOTAL SURVEY 10 11 14 l7 18 2:; 26 8 20 2:; 28 :;2 :;5 DATA 8 8 11 l7 20 21 6 9 11 14 15 16 16 TOTAL BY PERIOD .' .' 7 .' .' .' .' 4 o .' 2 4 .' .' 2 .' o HOURLY TOTALS 14 12 8 12 12 20 18 20 19 15 11 9 9 12 10 11 9 9 7 129 225 ~47 464 584 716 8~1 960 129 96 122 117 120 132 115 129 464 455 491 484 496 21 41 45 69 95 120 144 168 21 20 4 24 26 25 24 24 69 74 79 99 99 240 160 425 ~OI 594 415 819 580 L054 751 U19 940 U~O L08~ L790 1256 240 185 169 225 235 265 211 260 819 814 894 9~6 97l 160 141 114 165 17l 189 14~ l7~ 580 591 6~9 668 676 15 20 25 :;2 41 4 9 2 7 7 2 20 21 19 24 21 760 1,397 1,962 2,716 3,-156 -1,250 -1,92-1 5,759 760 637 565 75-1 7-10 79-1 67-1 835 2,716 2,696 2,853 2,962 3,043 Telephone: (510)232-1271 Fax: (510)232-1272 PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1114/2010 N-S APPROACH: HICKEY BOULEVARD DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH EL CAMINO REAL CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 7:00AM TO 9:00AM FILE: 3011077-1AM(B) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0715 AM I TO I 0815 AM I TOTAL BICYCLE VOLUMES NORTH I 9 I +---B 2 ~ -----+ A 0 +-+ I 0 1 G&HI 1 ! 1 ! 1 1 1 H G C D EL CAMINO REAL 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 0 1 I1111111111111111111 1 C&D 1 +---E I 5 +--+ 4 -----+ F E&F HICKEY BOULE V ARD TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 1 0 " 0 0 .j ,) 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 1 0 1 1 " 1 0 7 ,) OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 2 0 1 1 5 1 0 10 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 2 0 1 1 5 1 0 10 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 2 1 1 1 6 1 0 12 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 2 1 1 1 6 1 0 12 TOTAL BY PERIOD 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOURLY TOTALS 07.00 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 1 0 1 1 3 1 0 7 0715 AM ---OS15 AM 0 2 0 1 1 4 1 0 9 07.30 AM ---OS.30AM 0 2 0 0 1 3 1 0 7 0745 AM ---OS45 AM 0 2 1 0 1 3 1 0 8 OS 00 AM ---09 00 AM 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 5 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. BICYCLE MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1114/2010 N-S APPROACH: HICKEY BOULEVARD DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH EL CAMINO REAL CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3011077-1PM(B) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 05 00 PM I TO I 0600PM I TOTAL BICYCLE VOLUMES NORTH I 3 I +---B 0 ~ -----+ A 0 +-+ I 0 0 G&HI 0 ! 1 1 1 1 1 H G C D EL CAMINO REAL 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 0 0 11111111111111111111 0 C&D 0 +---E I 3 +--+ 3 -----+ F E&F HICKEY BOULE V ARD TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 1 0 0 0 " 0 0 .j ,) TOTAL BY PERIOD 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 HOURLY TOTALS 0400 PM ---0500 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0415 PM ---0515 PM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0430 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0445 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0500 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1114/2010 N-S APPROACH: HICKEY BOULEVARD DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH EL CAMINO REAL CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 7:00AM TO 9:00AM FILE: 3011077-1AM(PED) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0730AM I TO I 0830AM I TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES NORTH I 37 I +---B* 0 I A~B' I -----+ A* 1 +-+ I 10 12 G&HI 22 ! 1 ! 1 1 1 H G C* D* EL CAMINO REAL 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 0 1 11111111111111111111 1 C&D* 8 +---E I 13 +--+ 5 -----+ F E&F l\1)E\\'.\LK HICKEY BOULE V ARD l\1)E\\'.\LK TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A ,\ B'\ C'\ J)'\ E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 1 " " 8 .1 .1 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 1 0 0 4 1 6 5 17 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 1 0 0 6 " S 5 23 .1 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 1 1 0 0 6 4 13 12 37 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 1 1 0 1 S 6 15 13 -15 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 1 2 1 2 9 6 16 13 50 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 1 2 1 2 11 6 IS 15 56 TOTAL BY PERIOD 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 5 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 2 9 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 6 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 7 U OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 1 8 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 5 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 6 HOURLY TOTALS 07.00 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 1 0 0 6 3 S 5 23 0715 AM ---OS15 AM 1 0 0 0 6 4 13 10 3-1 07.30 AM ---OS.30AM 1 0 0 1 S 5 12 10 37 0745 AM ---OS45 AM 1 1 1 2 5 5 10 S 33 OS 00 AM ---09 00 AM 1 1 1 2 5 3 10 10 33 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1114/2010 N-S APPROACH: HICKEY BOULEVARD DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH EL CAMINO REAL CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3011077-PM(PED) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 05 00 PM I TO I 0600PM I TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES NORTH I 26 I +---B* 6 I A~B' I -----+ A* 0 +-+ I 3 7 G&HI 10 ! 1 1 1 1 1 H G C* D* EL CAMINO REAL 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 2 0 1111111111111111111 2 C&D* 7 +---E I 8 +--+ 1 -----+ F E&F l\1)E\\'.\LK HICKEY BOULE V ARD l\1)E\\'.\LK TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A ,\ B'\ C'\ J)'\ E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 5 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 1 0 0 2 2 5 5 15 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 1 0 0 4 4 5 7 21 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 1 0 0 4 5 6 8 2-1 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 1 0 0 4 6 7 9 27 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 " 1 0 7 6 10 9 36 .1 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 5 1 0 8 6 11 10 -11 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 7 2 0 11 6 13 11 50 TOTAL BY PERIOD 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 5 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 1 0 0 2 1 3 3 10 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 6 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 2 1 0 3 0 3 0 9 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 5 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 2 1 0 3 0 2 1 9 HOURLY TOTALS 0400 PM ---0500 PM 0 1 0 0 4 5 6 8 2-1 0415 PM ---0515 PM 0 1 0 0 4 5 5 7 22 0430 PM ---0530 PM 0 2 1 0 5 4 5 4 21 0445 PM ---0545 PM 0 4 1 0 4 2 6 3 20 0500 PM ---0600 PM 0 6 2 0 7 1 7 3 26 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 MMARY PROJECT: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO TR.\FFIC STllDY SllRYEY DATE: 11/4/2010 DAY: THllRSDAY N-S APPROACH: McLELLAN DRIYE E-W APPROACH: EL CAMINO REAL I--_----'P::..;;EAK HOlr-=TR"--_----, lI7 -+5 ~~ll TO I lI8 -+5 ~~ll I 395 I 904 ~::: I 26 EL CAl\IINO REAL 375 47 30 TOTAL I 2,630 I 36 l\IcLELLAN DRIYE 212 57 TIME PERIOD NORTHBOllND F.·om 7l1l1~~1 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+5~~1 8l1l1~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 :W~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 7l1l1~~1 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+5~~1 8l1l1~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 :W~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 7l1l1~~1 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+5~~1 8l1l1~~1 To Left 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 26 7-+5~~1 44 8l1l1~~1 54 8 15 ~~l 69 8 :W~~l 81 8 -+5 ~~l 91 9l1l1~~1 97 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 21 7-+5~~1 18 8l1l1~~1 10 815~~1 15 8 :W~~l 12 8-+5~~1 10 9l1l1~~1 6 8l1l1~~1 54 8 15 ~~l 64 8 :W~~l 55 8-+5~~1 47 9l1l1~~1 4~ Thm Right 2 9 l7 23 45 48 2 ~, 4 8 6 10 12 ~, l7 21 28 36 ~1 6 14 21 45 69 78 86 6 8 7 15 9 24 9 8 36 39 55 57 50 SllRYEY TIME: 7:00 AM TO 9:00AM CITY: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO FILE: 3011077-2AM 120 I 394 I 34 I t NORTH SOllTHBOllND ARRIYAL 1 DEPARTllRE YOLllMES PHF= 0.82 617 551 .' '1'" .. ·r···· . . . .. . :::::: ::::: . .. . .. -:."-: :--:. "."... . .. " .. I PHF= I 0.83 1---,-,81::..;6---l:~: : :~: 548 1,325 PHF= 0.86 :~: EASTBOllND 90 ~: 1,173 140 PHF= 0.76 WESTBOllND Left Thm Right Left Thm Right Left Thm Right TOTAL SURVEY 2:; 61 92 147 206 268 ~04 2 ~, ~, 24 DATA 81 U7 217 4~4 512 551 20 69 120 2:;9 445 515 558 TOTAL BY PERIOD 23 ~8 ~1 55 59 62 36 2 o 2 8 11 9 ~, 47 56 80 122 95 78 39 20 49 51 119 144 62 70 HOURLY TOTALS 147 18~ 207 212 191 11 21 ~o ~1 217 ~05 353 ~75 239 363 ~76 ~95 ~19 97 218 57~ 804 L074 1267 lA60 97 121 145 210 231 270 19~ 19~ 573 707 856 904 887 ~, 8 11 19 24 2 ~, 8 10 ~, 11 18 21 26 26 4 4 10 12 18 44 45 4 o 6 2 6 15 11 12 14 29 47 lU l79 270 469 57~ 672 47 66 66 91 75 124 104 99 270 298 356 ~94 402 14 60 88 129 155 180 197 14 16 ~o 28 41 26 25 l7 88 115 125 120 109 255 627 1,046 1,669 2,393 3,109 3,676 4,125 255 372 419 623 724 716 567 449 1,669 2,138 2,482 2,630 2,456 Telephone: (510)232-1271 Fax: (510)232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO TR.\FFIC STllDY SllRYEY DATE: 11/4/2010 DAY: THllRSDAY N-S APPROACH: McLELLAN DRIYE E-W APPROACH: EL CAMINO REAL I--_----'P::..;;EAK HOlr-=TR"--_----, 1I5 1I1i P111 TO I 1I6 1I1i P111 I 252 I 704 ~::: I 34 EL CAl\IINO REAL 400 32 18 TOTAL I 2,876 I 12 l\IcLELLAN DRlYE 191 25 TIME PERIOD NORTHBOllND F.·om .+1I11P11 .+ 15 P11 .+:WP11 .+.+5 P11 51111P11 515 P11 5311P11 5.+5 P11 .+1I11P11 .+ 15 P11 .+ 311P11 .+.+5 P11 51111P11 515 P11 5311P11 5.+5 P11 .+1I11P11 .+ 15 P11 .+ 311P11 .+.+5 P11 51111P11 To Left .+ 15 P11 .' .+:WP11 .+.+5 P11 9 51111P11 11 515P11 16 5311P11 27 5.+5 P11 ~6 61111P11 4~ .+ 15 P11 .+ 311P11 .+.+5 P11 51111P11 515 P11 .' 2 4 2 5311P11 11 5.+5P11 9 61111P11 7 51111P11 11 515P11 D 5 311 P11 22 5.+5P11 27 61111P11 ~2 Thl"U Right 10 12 12 l7 20 24 2 o .' 12 8 7 8 12 .' 9 12 l7 2:; 29 ~7 42 .' 6 .' 6 6 8 l7 20 20 25 25 SllRYEY TIME: 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM CITY: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO FILE: 3011077-2PM t NORTH .~ 147 I 1,015 I 46 I 1,447 990 PHF= 0.67 ARRIYAL 1 DEPARTllRE YOLllMES PHF= 0.74 609 411 .' '1'" .. ·r···· . . . .. . :::::: ::::: . .. . .. -:."-: :--:. "."... . .. " .. I PHF= I 0.80 :~:: :~: 1,208 :~: ~: 920 98 69 PHF= 0.82 SOllTHBOllND EASTBOllND WESTBOllND Left Thl"U SURVEY 115 156 181 227 27l ~72 4 10 14 19 2:; 27 :;5 ~7 Right Left DATA 78 202 279 ~27 429 519 642 727 46 D2 194 215 279 402 467 TOTAL BY PERIOD 39 76 41 25 46 H 52 49 6 4 4 8 2 78 124 77 48 102 90 123 85 46 86 62 21 64 55 68 65 HOURLY TOTALS 181 188 156 167 191 19 19 l7 21 18 ~27 ~51 ~l7 363 400 215 233 202 208 252 Thl"U 192 464 6~4 7~6 918 L062 1275 LHO 192 272 l70 102 182 IH 2D 165 736 726 598 641 704 Right 19 29 41 52 62 68 14 10 7 11 10 6 36 Left 18 19 ~1 55 65 8 12 11 10 19 26 ~1 ~7 46 Thl"U 2:;5 561 790 9~1 1201 lA07 U04 L946 235 ~26 229 141 270 206 297 242 9~1 966 846 914 LOIS Right TOTAL 42 84 112 129 17l 204 248 276 42 42 28 l7 42 H 28 129 129 120 D6 147 657 1,62-1 2,259 2,631 3,372 3,993 -1,839 5,507 657 967 635 372 7-11 621 8-16 668 2,631 2,715 2,369 2,580 2,876 Telephone: (510)232-1271 Fax: (510)232-1272 PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1114/2010 N-S APPROACH: McLELLAN DRIVE DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH EL CAMINO REAL CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 7:00AM TO 9:00AM FILE: 3011077-2AM(B) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0715 AM I TO I 0815 AM I TOTAL BICYCLE VOLUMES NORTH I 2 I +---B 0 A&B -----+ A 0 +-+ 0 I 0 0 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 0 11111111111111111111 ! 1 ! 1 1 1 H G C D EL CAMINO REAL 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 0 1 I1111111111111111111 1 C&D 0 +---E I 1 +--+ 1 -----+ F E&F McLELLAN DRIVE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 3 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 .j OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 .j TOTAL BY PERIOD 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOURLY TOTALS 07.00 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0715 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 07.30 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0745 AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 OS 00 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. BICYCLE MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1114/2010 N-S APPROACH: McLELLAN DRIVE DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH EL CAMINO REAL CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3011077-2PM(B) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0415 PM I TO I 0515PM I TOTAL BICYCLE VOLUMES NORTH I 1 I +---B 1 A&B -----+ A 0 +-+ 1 I 0 0 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 0 11111111111111111111 ! 1 1 1 1 1 H G C D EL CAMINO REAL 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 0 0 11111111111111111111 0 C&D 0 +---E I 0 +--+ 0 -----+ F E&F McLELLAN DRIVE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 TOTAL BY PERIOD 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 HOURLY TOTALS 0400 PM ---0500 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0415 PM ---0515 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0430 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1114/2010 N-S APPROACH: McLELLAN DRIVE DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH EL CAMINO REAL CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 7:00AM TO 9:00AM FILE: 30 11077-2AM(PED) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0730AM I TO I 0830AM I TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES NORTH I 105 I +---B 0 A&B -----+ A 8 +-+ 8 I 0 0 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 0 11111111111111111111 ! 1 1 1 1 1 H G C D EL CAMINO REAL 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 17 69 11111111111111111111 86 C&D 3 +---E I 11 +--+ 8 -----+ F E&F McLELLAN DRIVE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 2 1 8 0 0 0 0 11 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 1 2 6 16 0 2 0 0 27 0745 AM ---08 00 AM " 2 9 36 1 4 0 0 55 ,) 08 00 AM ---0815 AM 6 2 13 67 2 6 0 0 96 0815 AM ---08.30 AM 8 2 18 77 " 8 0 0 116 ,) 08.30 AM ---0845 AM 8 4 19 77 " 8 0 0 119 ,) 0845 AM ---09 00 AM 11 4 19 81 " 10 0 0 128 ,) TOTAL BY PERIOD 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 8 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 1 0 5 8 0 2 0 0 16 0745 AM ---08 00 AM 2 0 3 20 1 2 0 0 28 08 00 AM ---0815 AM 3 0 4 31 1 2 0 0 .jJ 0815 AM ---08.30 AM 2 0 5 10 1 2 0 0 20 08.30 AM ---0845 AM 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0845 AM ---09 00 AM 3 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 9 HOURLY TOTALS 07.00 AM ---08 00 AM 3 2 9 36 1 4 0 0 55 0715 AM ---0815 AM 6 2 12 65 2 6 0 0 93 07.30 AM ---08.30 AM 8 0 17 69 3 8 0 0 105 0745 AM ---0845 AM 7 2 13 61 3 6 0 0 92 08 00 AM ---09 00 AM 8 2 10 45 2 6 0 0 73 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1114/2010 N-S APPROACH: McLELLAN DRIVE DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH EL CAMINO REAL CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3011077 -2PM(PED) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0430PM I TO I 0530PM I TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES NORTH I 75 I +---B 23 A&B -----+ A 9 +-+ 32 I 0 0 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 0 11111111111111111111 ! 1 1 1 1 1 H G C D EL CAMINO REAL 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 16 23 11111111111111111111 39 C&D 2 +---E I 4 +--+ 2 -----+ F E&F McLELLAN DRIVE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0400 PM ---0415 PM 1 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 7 0415 PM ---0430 PM " 1 5 7 2 " 0 0 21 ,) ,) 0430 PM ---0445 PM 4 " 9 14 " 4 0 0 37 ,) ,) 0445 PM ---0500 PM 7 7 14 19 " 4 0 0 5-1 ,) 0500 PM ---0515 PM 10 16 17 22 " 5 0 0 73 ,) 0515 PM ---0530 PM 12 24 21 30 4 5 0 0 96 0530 PM ---0545 PM 17 26 27 31 4 5 0 0 110 0545 PM ---0600 PM 19 28 34 "" 6 7 0 0 127 ,),) TOTAL BY PERIOD 0400 PM ---0415 PM 1 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 7 0415 PM ---0430 PM 2 0 1 7 1 3 0 0 1-1 0430 PM ---0445 PM 1 2 4 7 1 1 0 0 16 0445 PM ---0500 PM 3 4 5 5 0 0 0 0 17 0500 PM ---0515 PM 3 9 3 3 0 1 0 0 19 0515 PM ---0530 PM 2 8 4 8 1 0 0 0 23 0530 PM ---0545 PM 5 2 6 1 0 0 0 0 1-1 0545 PM ---0600 PM 2 2 7 2 2 2 0 0 17 HOURLY TOTALS 0400 PM ---0500 PM 7 7 14 19 3 4 0 0 5-1 0415 PM ---0515 PM 9 15 13 22 2 5 0 0 66 0430 PM ---0530 PM 9 23 16 23 2 2 0 0 75 0445 PM ---0545 PM 13 23 18 17 1 1 0 0 73 0500 PM ---0600 PM 12 21 20 14 3 3 0 0 73 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 PROJECT: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO TR.\FFIC STllDY N-S APPROACH: GR.\ND A YENllE E-W APPROACH: MISSION ROAD I--_----'P::..;;EAK HOlr-=TR"--_----, 1I8 1I1i ~~ll TO I 1I9 1I1i ~~ll I 124 I 319 I 1 J\IISSION ROAD ~::: I 228 I 1 I 51 I TOTAL I 1,109 I 111 1 I 4 I GR~AYENllE 29 I 348 I MMARY SllRYEY DATE: 11/3/2010 DAY: WEDNESDAY SllRYEY TIME: 7:00 AM TO 9:00AM CITY: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO FILE: 3011077-3AM t ARRIYAL 1 DEPARTllRE YOLllMES NORTH I PHF= I 0.90 I 1---'-.57 __ 7---l:~: : PHF= 0.92 :~: I 280 I 154 I ... .' '1'" . ·r···· '. 'l' t * ... I 4 I 6 I I PHF= I 0.74 :~: 379 ~: 374 I PHF= I 0.30 I TIME PERIOD NORTHBOllND SOllTHBOllND EASTBOllND WESTBOllND F.·om 71111~~1 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+5~~1 81111~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 :W~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 71111~~1 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+5~~1 81111~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 :W~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 71111~~1 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+5~~1 81111~~1 To 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+5~~1 81111~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 :W~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 91111~~1 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+5~~1 81111~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 :W~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 91111~~1 81111~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 :W~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 91111~~1 Left I) I) ~, ~, o o ~, o 1 o o o ~, 4 4 1 1 Thm Right I) I) I) I) I) I) I) 1 o o o o o o o 1 o o o o 1 1 4 4 4 8 8 8 8 ~, o o 4 o o o 4 7 4 4 4 Left Thm SURVEY 8 l7 25 42 56 76 87 2 2 2 2 Right Left DATA 42 64 114 158 221 27~ ~28 ~86 22 64 91) 117 148 l79 214 TOTAL BY PERIOD 8 9 8 l7 14 20 11 6 1 o o o 1 o o o 42 22 50 44 63 52 55 58 22 16 26 26 27 ~1 ~1 35 HOURLY TOTALS 42 48 59 62 51 158 l79 209 214 228 90 95 110 115 124 Telephone: (510)232-1271 Thm :;2 54 In 199 29:; ~72 449 518 ~2 22 69 76 94 79 77 69 199 261 ~18 ~26 ~19 Right I) 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 o 1 o o o o 1 o 1 1 o 1 1 Fax: (510)232-1272 Left I) I) I) I) 2 2 2 2 o o o o 2 o o o o 2 2 2 2 Thm 45 72 145 222 428 496 571) 45 27 77 120 86 68 74 222 297 356 ~51 ~48 Right TOTAL 7 II) 14 16 22 :;5 45 7 ~, 4 2 6 8 10 16 15 20 21 29 158 261 -19-1 736 1,068 1,3-1-1 1,592 1,8-15 158 103 233 2-12 332 276 2-18 253 736 910 1,083 1,098 1,109 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO TR.\FFIC STllDY SllRYEY DATE: 11/3/2010 DAY: WEDNESDAY N-S APPROACH: GR.\ND A YENllE E-W APPROACH: MISSION ROAD I--_----'P::..;;EAK HOlr-=TR"--_----, lI-+ 311 P111 TO I lI5 311 P111 I 185 I 321 I 4 J\IISSION ROAD TIME PERIOD F.·om -+lIlIP11 -+ 15 P11 -+ 3l1P11 -+-+5 P11 5l1l1P11 515 P11 53l1P11 5 -+5 P11 -+lIlIP11 -+ 15 P11 -+ 3l1P11 -+-+5 P11 5l1l1P11 515 P11 53l1P11 5 -+5 P11 -+lIlIP11 -+ 15 P11 -+ 3l1P11 -+-+5 P11 5l1l1P11 ~::: To -+ 15 P11 -+ 3l1P11 -+-+5 P11 5l1l1P11 515 P11 53l1P11 5 -+5 P11 6l1l1P11 -+ 15 P11 -+ 3l1P11 -+-+5 P11 5l1l1P11 515 P11 53l1P11 5 -+5 P11 6l1l1P11 5l1l1P11 515 P11 53l1P11 5 -+5 P11 6l1l1P11 188 TOTAL I 1,092 I o 48 GRAND A YENllE NORTHBOllND Left I) I) I) I) 2 2 o o o o o o o 2 2 Thm Right I) I) I) I) I) I) o o o o o o o o o o I) 2 2 2 2 o o o o .' o 2 2 .' .' SllRYEY TIME: 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM CITY: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO FILE: 3011077-3PM t NORTH .~ 50 I 287 I SOllTHBOllND ARRIYAL 1 DEPARTllRE YOLllMES PHF= 0.88 240 235 .' '1'" .. ·r···· . . . .. . :::::: ::::: . .. . .. -:."-: :--:. "."... . .. " .. I PHF= I 0.89 1--..:..47....:6---l:~: : :~: 340 510 PHF= 0.92 :~: EASTBOllND 11 ~: 370 2 PHF= 0.10 WESTBOllND Left Thm Right Left Thm Right Left Thm Right TOTAL SURVEY 4 II) 19 :;5 48 58 66 81) 2 2 .' 7 7 DATA ~7 79 l76 nl) 267 ~11 ~51 :;5 87 U2 l76 221) 272 ~12 :;59 TOTAL BY PERIOD 6 9 16 10 8 14 o o 2 2 o ~7 42 54 54 ~7 44 40 35 52 45 44 44 52 40 47 HOURLY TOTALS 35 44 48 47 45 2 2 4 l76 19~ 188 l78 l75 l76 185 185 180 18~ 76 149 221) ~1)8 471) 556 647 76 71 88 86 76 86 91 ~08 ~18 ~21 336 339 I) I) I) .' 4 4 4 4 o o o .' o o o .' 4 4 4 I) 2 2 4 6 6 o o o 2 2 o 2 2 .' (1) 125 21)5 267 412 477 5:;2 60 65 80 62 79 66 65 55 267 286 287 272 265 II) 21 ~1 41) 56 71 95 10 11 10 9 16 15 12 12 40 46 50 52 55 223 -17-1 7-15 1,011 1,306 1,566 1,830 2,089 223 251 271 266 295 260 26-1 259 1,011 1,083 1,092 1,085 1,078 Telephone: (510)232-1271 Fax: (510)232-1272 PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1113/2010 N-S APPROACH: GRAND A VENUE DAY: WEDNESDAY E-W APPROACH MISSION ROAD CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 7:00AM TO 9:00AM FILE: 3011077-3AM(B) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0130 PM I TO I 0630PM I TOTAL BICYCLE VOLUMES NORTH I 0 I +---B 0 A&B -----+ A 0 +-+ 0 I 0 0 "'f!!!!!!!!I1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 0 11111111111111111111 ! 1 1 1 1 1 H G C D MISSION ROAD 0 0 paD 0 +---E I 0 +--+ 0 -----+ F E&F GRAND A VENUE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL BY PERIOD 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOURLY TOTALS 07.00 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07.30 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745 AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS 00 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. BICYCLE MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1113/2010 N-S APPROACH: GRAND A VENUE DAY: WEDNESDAY E-W APPROACH MISSION ROAD CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3011077-3PM(B) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0445 PM I TO I 0545 PM I TOTAL BICYCLE VOLUMES NORTH I 4 I +---B 3 A&B -----+ A 1 +-+ 4 I 0 0 "'f!!!!!!!!I1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 0 11111111111111111111 ! 1 ! 1 1 1 H G C D MISSION ROAD 0 0 paD 0 +---E I 0 +--+ 0 -----+ F E&F GRAND A VENUE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0515 PM ---0530 PM 1 " 0 0 0 0 0 0 .j ,) 0530 PM ---0545 PM 1 " 0 0 0 0 0 0 .j ,) 0545 PM ---0600 PM 1 " 0 0 0 0 0 0 .j ,) TOTAL BY PERIOD 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0515 PM ---0530 PM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOURLY TOTALS 0400 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415 PM ---0515 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0430 PM ---0530 PM 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 .j 0445 PM ---0545 PM 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 .j 0500 PM ---0600 PM 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 .j Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1113/2010 N-S APPROACH: GRAND A VENUE DAY: WEDNESDAY E-W APPROACH MISSION ROAD CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 7:00AM TO 9:00AM FILE: 3011077-3AM(PED) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0800AM I TO I 09 00 AM I TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES NORTH I 31 I +---B 7 A&B -----+ A 14 +-+ 21 I 1 9 "'f!!!!!!!!I1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 10 11111111111111111111 ! 1 1 1 1 1 H G C D MISSION ROAD 0 0 paD 0 +---E I 0 +--+ 0 -----+ F E&F GRAND A VENUE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 .j 0715 AM ---07.30 AM " 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 ,) 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 4 S 0 0 0 0 1 0 13 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 4 S 0 0 0 0 7 0 19 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 7 12 0 0 0 0 S 0 27 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 9 12 0 0 0 0 9 0 30 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM IS 15 0 0 0 0 10 1 .j.j TOTAL BY PERIOD 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 .j 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 .j 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 3 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 9 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 u HOURLY TOTALS 07.00 AM ---OS 00 AM 4 S 0 0 0 0 1 0 13 0715 AM ---OS15 AM 2 6 0 0 0 0 7 0 15 07.30 AM ---OS.30AM 4 S 0 0 0 0 S 0 20 0745 AM ---OS45 AM 5 5 0 0 0 0 9 0 19 OS 00 AM ---09 00 AM 14 7 0 0 0 0 9 1 31 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1113/2010 N-S APPROACH: GRAND A VENUE DAY: WEDNESDAY E-W APPROACH MISSION ROAD CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3011077-3PM(PED) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 04 00 PM I TO I 05 00 PM I TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES NORTH I 33 I +---B 10 A&B -----+ A 14 +-+ 24 I 3 6 "'f!!!!!!!!I1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 9 11111111111111111111 ! 1 ! 1 1 1 H G C D MISSION ROAD 0 0 paD 0 +---E I 0 +--+ 0 -----+ F E&F GRAND A VENUE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0400 PM ---0415 PM " 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 10 ,) 0415 PM ---0430 PM 12 5 0 0 0 0 5 1 23 0430 PM ---0445 PM 13 10 0 0 0 0 6 2 31 0445 PM ---0500 PM 14 10 0 0 0 0 6 " 33 ,) 0500 PM ---0515 PM 14 12 0 0 0 0 7 4 37 0515 PM ---0530 PM 14 13 0 0 0 0 8 5 -10 0530 PM ---0545 PM 16 16 0 0 0 0 8 5 -15 0545 PM ---0600 PM 19 18 0 0 0 0 10 5 52 TOTAL BY PERIOD 0400 PM ---0415 PM 3 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 10 0415 PM ---0430 PM 9 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 13 0430 PM ---0445 PM 1 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 8 0445 PM ---0500 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 -I 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0530 PM ---0545 PM 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0545 PM ---0600 PM 3 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 7 HOURLY TOTALS 0400 PM ---0500 PM 14 10 0 0 0 0 6 3 33 0415 PM ---0515 PM 11 7 0 0 0 0 6 3 27 0430 PM ---0530 PM 2 8 0 0 0 0 3 4 17 0445 PM ---0545 PM 3 6 0 0 0 0 2 3 U 0500 PM ---0600 PM 5 8 0 0 0 0 4 2 19 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 PROJECT: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO TR.\FFIC STllDY N-S APPROACH: OAK A YENllE E-W APPROACH: MISSION ROAD I-__ -=P..,EAK HOlr:TR=-=--__ -, lI7 -+5 _~ll TO I lI8 -+5 _~ll I 10 I 363 I 0 J\IISSION ROAD ~::: I 29 I 0 I 42 I TOTAL I 875 I I 0 I 0 I 0 I OAK A YENllE 7 I 424 I MMARY SllRYEY DATE: 11/3/2010 DAY: WEDNESDAY SllRYEY TIME: 7:00 AM TO 9:00AM CITY: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO FILE: 3011077--UM t ARRIYAL 1 DEPARTllRE YOLllMES NORTH I PHF= I 0_77 I 1--..:..45,-,,3---l:~: : 373 PHF= 0_86 :~: I 71 I 17 I ------1-----r---- ---l-t * --- I 0 I 0 I I PHF= I 0_82 :~: 431 ~: 405 I PHF= I #DIY/OI I TIME PERIOD NORTHBOllND SOllTHBOllND EASTBOllND WESTBOllND F.-om 7l1l1_~1 7 j5_~1 7:W_~1 7-+5_~1 8l1l1_~1 8 j5_~1 8:W_~1 8-+5_~1 7l1l1_~1 7 j5_~1 7:W_~1 7-+5_~1 8l1l1_~1 8 j5_~1 8:W_~1 8-+5_~1 7l1l1_~1 7 j5_~1 7:W_~1 7-+5_~1 8l1l1_~1 To 7 j5_~1 7:W_~1 7-+5_~1 8l1l1_~1 8 j5_~1 8:W_~1 8-+5_~1 9l1l1_~1 7 j5_~1 7:W_~1 7-+5_~1 8l1l1_~1 8 j5_~1 8:W_~1 8-+5_~1 9l1l1_~1 8l1l1_~1 8 j5_~1 8:W_~1 8-+5_~1 9l1l1_~1 Left I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) o o o o o o o o o o o o o Thl"U Right I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) o o o o o o o o o o o o o I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) o o o o o o o o o o o o o Left Thl"U SURVEY 8 8 15 26 41 46 57 I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) Right Left DATA 2 5 12 21 29 :;5 41 H I) I) 2 4 7 12 12 15 TOTAL BY PERIOD 8 o 7 11 15 5 11 6 o o o o o o o o 2 .' 7 9 8 6 6 .' o o 2 2 .' o .' HOURLY TOTALS 26 ~8 42 ~7 o o o o o 21 27 ~o 29 4 7 12 10 11 Telephone: (510)232-1271 Thl"U :;2 77 142 225 51)5 568 ~2 45 65 8~ 106 101 63 225 299 355 363 Right I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) o o o o o o o o o o o o o Fax: (510)232-1272 Left I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) o o o o o o o o o o o o o Thl"U 51 11)8 186 274 41)~ 527 (11) 71)1) 51 57 78 88 129 124 8~ 90 274 ~52 419 424 426 Right TOTAL .' 6 8 8 II) 12 15 16 .' .' 2 o 2 2 .' 8 7 6 7 8 96 204 365 558 821 1,06-1 1,240 1,406 96 108 161 193 263 243 176 166 558 725 860 875 848 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO TR.\FFIC STllDY SllRYEY DATE: 11/3/2010 DAY: WEDNESDAY N-S APPROACH: OAK A YENllE E-W APPROACH: MISSION ROAD I-__ -=P..,EAK HOlr-=TR=..:..-__ --, 1I5 1I1i P111 TO I 1I6 1I1i P111 I 14 I 0 I 20 I I 16 I 389 I 0 J\IISSION ROAD TIME PERIOD F.·om ·HIlIP11 -+ 15 P11 -+:WP11 -+-+5 P11 51111P11 515 P11 5311P11 5 -+5 P11 ~::: To -+ 15 P11 -+:WP11 -+-+5 P11 51111P11 515 P11 5311P11 5 -+5 P11 61111P11 TOTAL I 756 I I 0 I 0 I 0 I OAK AYENllE NORTHBOllND Left Thm Right I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) 17 I 300 I SllRYEY TIME: 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM CITY: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO FILE: 3011077-4PM t ARRIYAL 1 DEPARTllRE YOLllMES NORTH I PHF= I 0.77 I 1---,-,31:...c4'--l:~: : 405 PHF= 0.95 :~: I 34 I 33 I ... .' '1'" . ·r···· '. 'l' t * ... I 0 I 0 I I PHF= I 0.90 :~: 317 ~: 409 I PHF= I #DIY/OI I SOllTHBOllND EASTBOllND WESTBOllND Left Thm SURVEY 2 9 16 21) 27 41) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) Right Left DATA .' 6 II) 14 18 21) 24 28 6 11 l7 21) 27 Thm 84 172 251 :;52 457 551) 641 741 Right I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) Left I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) Thm 78 158 2:;5 ~87 462 541 (1)~ Right TOTAL 5 9 12 14 18 22 25 ~1 173 355 530 71-1 920 1,101 1,285 1,-170 TOTAL BY PERIOD -+1I11P11 -+ 15 P11 -+ 311P11 -+-+5 P11 51111P11 515 P11 5311P11 5 -+5 P11 -+1I11P11 -+ 15 P11 -+ 311P11 -+-+5 P11 51111P11 -+ 15 P11 -+ 311P11 -+-+5 P11 51111P11 515 P11 5311P11 5 -+5 P11 61111P11 51111P11 515 P11 5311P11 5 -+5 P11 61111P11 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 2 7 7 4 7 .' 6 o o o o o o o o .' .' 4 2 4 4 1 o 2 4 .' 7 HOURLY TOTALS o o o o o o o o o o Telephone: (510)232-1271 20 25 21 18 20 o o o o o 14 15 14 14 14 11 12 16 14 16 84 88 79 101 lOS 93 91 100 ~52 3T3 ~78 ~90 ~89 o o o o o o o o o o o o o Fax: (510)232-1272 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 78 80 77 68 84 75 79 62 303 ~09 ~04 ~06 ~OO .' 2 .' 6 14 l7 173 182 175 18-1 206 181 18-1 185 71-1 7-17 7-16 755 756 PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1113/2010 N-S APPROACH: OAK A VENUE DAY: WEDNESDAY E-W APPROACH MISSION ROAD CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 7:00AM TO 9:00AM FILE: 3011077-4AM(B) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0130 PM I TO I 0630PM I TOTAL BICYCLE VOLUMES NORTH I 0 I +---B 0 A&B -----+ A 0 +-+ 0 I 0 0 "'f!!!!!!!!I1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 0 11111111111111111111 ! 1 1 1 1 1 H G C D MISSION ROAD 0 0 paD 0 +---E I 0 +--+ 0 -----+ F E&F OAK AVENUE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL BY PERIOD 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOURLY TOTALS 07.00 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07.30 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745 AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS 00 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. BICYCLE MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1113/2010 N-S APPROACH: OAK A VENUE DAY: WEDNESDAY E-W APPROACH MISSION ROAD CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3011077-4PM(B) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0415 PM I TO I 0515PM I TOTAL BICYCLE VOLUMES NORTH I 5 I +---B 2 A&B -----+ A 2 +-+ 4 I 1 0 "'f!!!!!!!!I1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 1 11111111111111111111 ! 1 ! 1 1 1 H G C D MISSION ROAD 0 0 paD 0 +---E I 0 +--+ 0 -----+ F E&F OAK AVENUE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0500 PM ---0515 PM 2 " 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 ,) 0515 PM ---0530 PM 2 " 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 ,) 0530 PM ---0545 PM 2 " 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 ,) 0545 PM ---0600 PM " " 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 ,) ,) TOTAL BY PERIOD 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0515 PM 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545 PM ---0600 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HOURLY TOTALS 0400 PM ---0500 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0415 PM ---0515 PM 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0430 PM ---0530 PM 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 .j 0445 PM ---0545 PM 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0500 PM ---0600 PM 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 .j Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1113/2010 N-S APPROACH: OAK A VENUE DAY: WEDNESDAY E-W APPROACH MISSION ROAD CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 7:00AM TO 9:00AM FILE: 30 11077-4AM(PED) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0730AM I TO I 0830AM I TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES NORTH I 28 I +---B 8 A&B -----+ A 4 +-+ 12 I 11 5 "'f!!!!!!!!I1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 16 11111111111111111111 ! 1 1 1 1 1 H G C D MISSION ROAD 0 0 paD 0 +---E I 0 +--+ 0 -----+ F E&F OAK AVENUE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0715 AM ---07.30 AM " 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 6 ,) 07.30 AM ---0745 AM " 1 0 0 0 0 2 " 9 ,) ,) 0745 AM ---08 00 AM 5 5 0 0 0 0 " 9 22 ,) 08 00 AM ---0815 AM 5 7 0 0 0 0 4 11 27 0815 AM ---08.30 AM 7 8 0 0 0 0 6 13 3-1 08.30 AM ---0845 AM 8 8 0 0 0 0 6 13 35 0845 AM ---09 00 AM 11 9 0 0 0 0 7 15 -12 TOTAL BY PERIOD 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0745 AM ---08 00 AM 2 4 0 0 0 0 1 6 13 08 00 AM ---0815 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 0815 AM ---08.30 AM 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 7 08.30 AM ---0845 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0845 AM ---09 00 AM 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 7 HOURLY TOTALS 07.00 AM ---08 00 AM 5 5 0 0 0 0 3 9 22 0715 AM ---0815 AM 5 7 0 0 0 0 3 11 26 07.30 AM ---08.30 AM 4 8 0 0 0 0 5 11 28 0745 AM ---0845 AM 5 7 0 0 0 0 4 10 26 08 00 AM ---09 00 AM 6 4 0 0 0 0 4 6 20 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1113/2010 N-S APPROACH: OAK A VENUE DAY: WEDNESDAY E-W APPROACH MISSION ROAD CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3011077-4PM(PED) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 04 00 PM I TO I 05 00 PM I TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES NORTH I 37 I +---B 10 A&B -----+ A 10 +-+ 20 I 8 9 "'f!!!!!!!!I1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 17 11111111111111111111 ! 1 ! 1 1 1 H G C D MISSION ROAD 0 0 paD 0 +---E I 0 +--+ 0 -----+ F E&F OAK AVENUE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0400 PM ---0415 PM 4 5 0 0 0 0 " 2 ].I ,) 0415 PM ---0430 PM 7 8 0 0 0 0 6 2 23 0430 PM ---0445 PM 7 10 0 0 0 0 8 4 29 0445 PM ---0500 PM 10 10 0 0 0 0 9 8 37 0500 PM ---0515 PM 11 11 0 0 0 0 10 8 -10 0515 PM ---0530 PM 13 11 0 0 0 0 11 10 -15 0530 PM ---0545 PM 15 11 0 0 0 0 11 11 -18 0545 PM ---0600 PM 18 11 0 0 0 0 11 11 51 TOTAL BY PERIOD 0400 PM ---0415 PM 4 5 0 0 0 0 3 2 ].I 0415 PM ---0430 PM 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 9 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 6 0445 PM ---0500 PM 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 8 0500 PM ---0515 PM 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0515 PM ---0530 PM 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 0530 PM ---0545 PM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0545 PM ---0600 PM 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 HOURLY TOTALS 0400 PM ---0500 PM 10 10 0 0 0 0 9 8 37 0415 PM ---0515 PM 7 6 0 0 0 0 7 6 26 0430 PM ---0530 PM 6 3 0 0 0 0 5 8 22 0445 PM ---0545 PM 8 1 0 0 0 0 3 7 19 0500 PM ---0600 PM 8 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 ].I Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 MMARY PROJECT: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO TR.\FFIC STllDY SllRYEY DATE: 11/3/2010 DAY: WEDNESDAY N-S APPROACH: CHESTNllT A YENllE SllRYEY TIME: 7:00 AM TO 9:00AM E-W APPROACH: MISSION ROAD CITY: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO FILE: 3011077-5AM I-__ -=P..,EAK HOlr-=TR=..:..-__ --, lI7 -+5 ~~ll TO I lI8 -+5 ~~ll I 57 I o ~::: I 357 MISSION ROAD TIME PERIOD 99 lH 693 TOTAL I 2,288 I 337 CHESTNllT A YENllE o 731 NORTHBOllND F.·om To ll-Tlim I Left Thm 7l1l1~~1 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+5~~1 8l1l1~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 :W~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+5~~1 8l1l1~~1 ~, 8 15 ~~l 8 8 :W~~l 12 8 -+5 ~~l 14 9l1l1~~1 14 42 96 15~ 419 491) 558 142 261 442 625 822 992 U(1) t ARRIYAL 1 DEPARTllRE YOLllMES PHF= 0.80 792 788 .' '1'" .. ·r···· . . . .. . :::::: ::::: . .. . .. -:."-: :--:. "."... . .. " .. PHF= #DIY/OI ~: 1----'-0_+-_4;:..:.3...;.6---1:~: : :~:I--_O_--, PHF= 0.84 1,060 SOllTHBOllND EASTBOllND Right Thm SURVEY I) I) ~, 77 21)2 517 889 LI)~9 U8~ Right Left DATA 2:; 41) In U9 1(1) 16 :;2 58 75 89 11)~ Thm Right I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) 81) U8 229 416 495 551) 1,082 PHF= 0.91 WESTBOllND Left Thm Right I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) TOTAL BY PERIOD 7l1l1~~1 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+5~~1 8l1l1~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 :W~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 7l1l1~~1 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+5~~1 8l1l1~~1 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+5~~1 8l1l1~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 :W~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 9l1l1~~1 8l1l1~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 :W~~l ~, o ~, 4 2 o 8 8-+5~~1 10 9l1l1~~1 9 42 54 57 81 89 96 7l 68 63 79 119 181 18~ 197 l70 168 o o 2 2 o o o 77 125 144 17l 216 156 ISO 144 10 l7 ~o ~O 16 21 11 16 6 20 l7 14 14 HOURLY TOTALS 281 323 337 ~24 442 562 680 731 718 Telephone: (510)232-1271 ~, 4 2 517 656 687 69~ 666 63 80 100 99 97 ~8 53 59 57 65 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 36 44 58 91 10~ 84 79 55 229 296 336 ~57 ~21 Fax: (510)232-1272 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o TOTAL 239 563 975 1,531 2,177 2,761 3,263 3,733 239 32-1 -112 556 6-16 58-1 502 -170 1,531 1,938 2,198 2,288 2,202 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO TR.\FFIC STllDY SllRYEY DATE: 11/3/2010 DAY: WEDNESDAY N-S APPROACH: CHESTNllT A YENllE SllRYEY TIME: 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM E-W APPROACH: MISSION ROAD CITY: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO FILE: 3011077-5PM PEAK HOllR t ARRIYAL 1 DEPARTllRE YOLllMES lI-+-+5 P111 TO I lI5 -+5 P111 I 60 I 688 I 0 I I PHF= I 0.89 I ::::::::::W:::::t:::::W::I.:.:.:.: I 748 I 802 I -: 'r "r' PHF= I 67 3' . C 0 #DIY/OI TOTAL I 0 ~::: I 2,193 I ~: 0 325 :~:: :~: 0 I 362 :::\::: r:' 0 429 :~: ~: 2 · ........... "'r l' ··················1···· . ... . .... r·· · . . . .. .. .. MISSION ROAD ··n····sY'··· .... PHF= .. . ....... : :-: : . : : : : : : : : : : :: :::: 0.86 · . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 1-1 I 265 I 735 I 2 I I 1,064 I 1,016 I CHESTNllT A YENllE I PHF= I 0.88 I TIME PERIOD NORTHBOllND SOllTHBOllND EASTBOllND WESTBOllND F.·om To {T-l'm'" I Left Thm Right Thm Right Left Thm Right Left Thm Right TOTAL SURVEY DATA -+lIlIP11 ----+ 15 P11 6 72 161 1 124 l7 20 0 70 0 0 0 ./71 -+ 15 P11 ----+:WP11 11 U7 ~O9 1 279 ~7 ~7 0 148 0 0 0 959 -+:WP11 ----+-+5 P11 l7 201 462 1 419 56 55 0 2:;5 0 0 0 1.·/.16 -+-+5 P11 ---5l1l1P11 19 259 650 2 570 72 75 0 :;25 0 0 0 1.972 5l1l1P11 ---515 P11 25 ~41 851 2 765 88 99 0 425 0 0 0 2.596 515 P11 ---53l1P11 26 ~94 990 2 9~O 102 110 0 SOl 0 0 0 3.0.15 53l1P11 ---5 -+5 P11 ~1 466 U97 .' U07 116 122 0 597 0 0 0 3.639 5 -+5 P11 ---6l1l1P11 :;9 528 U41 .' 1265 125 147 0 679 0 0 0 -1.127 TOTAL BY PERIOD -+lIlIP11 ----+ 15 P11 6 72 161 1 124 l7 20 0 70 0 0 0 ./71 -+ 15 P11 ----+ 3l1P11 5 65 148 0 155 20 l7 0 78 0 0 0 -188 -+ 3l1P11 ----+-+5 P11 6 64 15~ 0 140 19 18 0 87 0 0 0 -187 -+-+5 P11 ---5l1l1P11 2 58 188 1 151 16 20 0 90 0 0 0 526 5l1l1P11 ---515 P11 6 82 201 0 195 16 24 0 100 0 0 0 62-1 515 P11 ---53l1P11 1 53 U9 0 165 14 11 0 76 0 0 0 -159 53l1P11 ---5 -+5 P11 5 72 207 1 177 14 12 0 96 0 0 0 58-1 5 -+5 P11 ---6l1l1P11 8 62 144 0 158 9 25 0 82 0 0 0 -188 HOURLY TOTALS -+lIlIP11 ---5l1l1P11 19 259 650 2 570 72 75 0 ~25 0 0 0 1.972 -+ 15 P11 ---515 P11 19 269 690 1 641 71 79 0 355 0 0 0 2.125 -+ 3l1P11 ---53l1P11 15 257 681 1 651 65 73 0 353 0 0 0 2.096 -+-+5 P11 ---5 -+5 P11 14 265 735 2 688 60 67 0 ~62 0 0 0 2.193 5l1l1P11 ---6l1l1P11 20 269 691 1 695 53 72 0 ~54 0 0 0 2.155 Telephone: (510)232-1271 Fax: (510)232-1272 PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1113/2010 N-S APPROACH: CHESTNUT A VENUE DAY: WEDNESDAY E-W APPROACH MISSION ROAD CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 7:00AM TO 9:00AM FILE: 3011077-5AM(B) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0745 AM I TO I 0845 AM I TOTAL BICYCLE VOLUMES NORTH I 3 I +---B 0 A&B -----+ A 0 +-+ 0 I 2 1 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 3 11111111111111111111 ! 1 1 1 1 1 H G C D MISSION ROAD 0 0 paD 0 +---E I 0 +--+ 0 -----+ F E&F CHESTNUT A VENUE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 .j OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 .j TOTAL BY PERIOD 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOURLY TOTALS 07.00 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0715 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 07.30 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0745 AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 OS 00 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. BICYCLE MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1113/2010 N-S APPROACH: CHESTNUT A VENUE DAY: WEDNESDAY E-W APPROACH MISSION ROAD CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3011077-5PM(B) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0445 PM I TO I 0545 PM I TOTAL BICYCLE VOLUMES NORTH I 7 I +---B 0 A&B -----+ A 1 +-+ 1 I 3 3 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 6 11111111111111111111 ! 1 ! 1 1 1 H G C D MISSION ROAD 0 0 paD 0 +---E I 0 +--+ 0 -----+ F E&F CHESTNUT A VENUE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0400 PM ---0415 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0415 PM ---0430 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0430 PM ---0445 PM 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 5 0445 PM ---0500 PM 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 5 0500 PM ---0515 PM 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 4 8 0515 PM ---0530 PM 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 4 8 0530 PM ---0545 PM 2 1 0 0 0 0 5 4 12 0545 PM ---0600 PM 2 1 0 0 0 0 5 4 12 TOTAL BY PERIOD 0400 PM ---0415 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0530 PM ---0545 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 .j 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOURLY TOTALS 0400 PM ---0500 PM 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 5 0415 PM ---0515 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 6 0430 PM ---0530 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 0445 PM ---0545 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 7 0500 PM ---0600 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 7 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1113/2010 N-S APPROACH: CHESTNUT A VENUE DAY: WEDNESDAY E-W APPROACH MISSION ROAD CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 7:00AM TO 9:00AM FILE: 3011077 -5AM(PED) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0800AM I TO I 09 00 AM I TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES NORTH I 18 I +---B 11 A&B -----+ A 2 +-+ 13 I 5 0 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 5 11111111111111111111 ! 1 1 1 1 1 H G C D MISSION ROAD 0 0 paD 0 +---E I 0 +--+ 0 -----+ F E&F CHESTNUT A VENUE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0715 AM ---07.30 AM " 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 ,) 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 5 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 9 0745 AM ---08 00 AM 7 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 12 08 00 AM ---0815 AM 8 4 0 0 0 0 1 2 15 0815 AM ---08.30 AM 8 7 0 0 0 0 1 2 18 08.30 AM ---0845 AM 9 8 0 0 0 0 1 " 21 ,) 0845 AM ---09 00 AM 9 13 0 0 0 0 1 7 30 TOTAL BY PERIOD 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .j 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 .j 0745 AM ---08 00 AM 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 08 00 AM ---0815 AM 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0815 AM ---08.30 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 08.30 AM ---0845 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0845 AM ---09 00 AM 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 9 HOURLY TOTALS 07.00 AM ---08 00 AM 7 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 12 0715 AM ---0815 AM 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 U 07.30 AM ---08.30 AM 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 0745 AM ---0845 AM 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 08 00 AM ---09 00 AM 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 5 18 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1113/2010 N-S APPROACH: CHESTNUT A VENUE DAY: WEDNESDAY E-W APPROACH MISSION ROAD CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3011077 -5PM(PED) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0430PM I TO I 0530PM I TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES NORTH I 13 I +---B 3 A&B -----+ A 9 +-+ 12 I 1 0 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 1 11111111111111111111 ! 1 ! 1 1 1 H G C D MISSION ROAD 0 0 paD 0 +---E I 0 +--+ 0 -----+ F E&F CHESTNUT A VENUE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0400 PM ---0415 PM 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0415 PM ---0430 PM 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0430 PM ---0445 PM 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0445 PM ---0500 PM 5 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 9 0500 PM ---0515 PM 8 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 ].I 0515 PM ---0530 PM 11 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 18 0530 PM ---0545 PM 11 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 18 0545 PM ---0600 PM 11 6 0 0 0 0 1 2 20 TOTAL BY PERIOD 0400 PM ---0415 PM 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445 PM ---0500 PM 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .j 0500 PM ---0515 PM 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0515 PM ---0530 PM 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 .j 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 HOURLY TOTALS 0400 PM ---0500 PM 5 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 9 0415 PM ---0515 PM 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 0430 PM ---0530 PM 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 0445 PM ---0545 PM 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 0500 PM ---0600 PM 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 MMARY PROJECT: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO TR.\FFIC STllDY SllRYEY DATE: 11/3/2010 DAY: WEDNESDAY N-S APPROACH: CHESTNllT A YENllE E-W APPROACH: GR.\ND A YENllE I--_----'P::..;;EAK HOlr-=TR"--_----, lI7 -+5 ~~ll TO I lI8 -+5 ~~ll I 57 1 190 ~::: I 73 GR~AYENllE 93 88 300 TOTAL I 1,677 I 322 CHESTNllT A YENllE 45 149 TIME PERIOD NORTHBOllND F.·om 7l1l1~~1 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+5~~1 8l1l1~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 :W~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 7l1l1~~1 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+5~~1 8l1l1~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 :W~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 7l1l1~~1 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+5~~1 8l1l1~~1 To Left 7 15 ~~l 11 7 :W~~l 22 8l1l1~~1 55 8 15 ~~l 65 8 :W~~l 95 8 -+5 ~~l 120 9l1l1~~1 U7 7 15 ~~l 11 7 :W~~l 11 7-+5~~1 10 8l1l1~~1 n 815~~1 10 8 :W~~l ~O 8 -+5 ~~l 25 9l1l1~~1 l7 8l1l1~~1 55 8 15 ~~l 54 8 :W~~l 73 8 -+5 ~~l 88 9l1l1~~1 82 Thm Right 27 58 112 18~ 277 :;69 52:; 27 ~1 54 7l 94 92 65 89 18~ 250 ~11 ~22 ~40 8 ~1 61 117 152 18~ 210 250 8 ~o 56 35 ~1 27 40 117 144 152 149 133 SllRYEY TIME: 7:00 AM TO 9:00AM CITY: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO FILE: 3011077-6AM t NORTH 59 I 1721 129 I SOllTHBOllND ARRIYAL 1 DEPARTllRE YOLllMES PHF= 0.90 438 438 .' '1'" .. ·r···· . . . .. . :::::: ::::: . .. . .. -:."-: :--:. "."... . .. " .. I PHF= I 0.97 1--.:....35'-"3---l:~: : :~: 360 320 PHF= 0.91 :~: EASTBOllND 502 ~: 384 559 PHF= 0.91 WESTBOllND Left Thm Right Left Thm Right Left Thm Right TOTAL SURVEY 8 12 2:; 45 57 7l 99 165 249 405 465 551 DATA 10 22 29 55 7~ lOS 122 140 10 18 47 58 10~ TOTAL BY PERIOD ~, 4 11 7 15 12 14 39 60 66 84 93 63 60 86 10 12 7 26 18 ~2 l7 18 10 8 18 11 11 25 10 10 HOURLY TOTALS 25 ~7 45 48 249 303 ~06 ~OO ~02 55 63 8~ 93 85 47 48 65 57 56 2:; 61 100 149 191 2:;9 290 ~42 n ~8 39 49 42 48 51 52 149 168 l78 190 19~ 50 76 90 lOS In 140 20 l7 26 14 15 18 l7 76 77 72 64 11 :;2 61 87 114 151 190 224 11 21 29 26 27 ~7 39 87 10~ 119 129 U7 22 48 68 lU 157 194 240 284 22 26 20 45 ~7 lU US 146 172 17l 7 12 14 48 65 7~ 78 7 2 19 15 l7 8 41 53 59 45 186 -1-1-1 7-10 1,187 1,597 2,039 2,-117 2,8-13 186 258 296 -1-17 -110 -1-12 378 -126 1,187 1,-111 1,595 1,677 1,656 Telephone: (510)232-1271 Fax: (510)232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO TR.\FFIC STllDY SllRYEY DATE: 11/3/2010 DAY: WEDNESDAY N-S APPROACH: CHESTNllT A YENllE E-W APPROACH: GR.\ND A YENllE I--_----'P::.;;EAK HOlr=TR"--_---, lI.+.+5 P111 TO I lI5 .+5 P111 I 57 I 189 ~::: I 61 GRAND A YENllE 54 107 359 TOTAL I 1,714 I 314 CHESTNllT A YENllE 51 116 TIME PERIOD NORTHBOllND F.'om .+lIlIP11 .+ 15 P11 .+:'OP11 .+.+5 P11 5l1l1P11 515 P11 53l1P11 5.+5 P11 .+lIlIP11 .+ 15 P11 .+ 3l1P11 .+.+5 P11 5l1l1P11 515 P11 53l1P11 5.+5 P11 .+lIlIP11 .+ 15 P11 .+ 3l1P11 .+.+5 P11 5l1l1P11 To Left .+ 15 P11 27 .+ :'OP11 ~5 .+.+5P11 64 5l1l1P11 9~ 5 15 P11 125 5 :'0 P11 146 5.+5P11 17l 6l1l1P11 18~ .+ 15 P11 27 .+ 3l1P11 8 .+.+5P11 29 5l1l1P11 29 5 15 P11 ~2 53l1P11 21 5.+5 P11 25 6l1l1P11 12 5l1l1P11 9~ 5 15 P11 98 53l1P11 111 5.+5P11 107 6l1l1P11 90 Thm Right 76 118 187 265 416 SOl 582 76 42 69 78 65 86 85 81 265 254 298 ~14 ~l7 41 77 99 D7 164 185 215 246 41 36 22 ~8 27 21 ~O ~1 D7 In 108 116 109 SllRYEY TIME: 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM CITY: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO FILE: 3011077-6PM .~ 60 I 212 I 134 I t NORTH SOllTHBOllND ARRIYAL 1 DEPARTllRE YOLllMES PHF= 0.90 464 431 .' '1'" .. ·r···· . . . .. . :::::: ::::: . .. . .. -:."-: :--:. "."... . .. " .. I PHF= I 0.87 1--.:...37...:.3---l:~: : :~: 406 307 PHF= 0.85 :~: EASTBOllND 554 ~: 356 537 PHF= 0.93 WESTBOllND Left Thm Right Left Thm Right Left Thm Right TOTAL SURVEY 10 21 27 45 5:; 68 78 85 45 115 l78 26:; 4~5 5~7 615 DATA 15 25 48 64 74 85 102 120 15 60 70 86 101 111 TOTAL BY PERIOD 10 11 6 18 8 15 10 7 45 70 63 85 77 95 102 78 15 10 16 10 11 l7 18 15 19 10 16 10 16 15 10 HOURLY TOTALS 45 47 51 40 26~ 295 ~20 ~59 ~52 64 59 60 54 56 60 55 52 57 51 91 DO 165 226 269 ~19 ~72 ~8 53 39 35 61 50 53 165 188 l78 189 207 28 H 67 82 101 110 128 ISO 28 16 15 19 9 18 22 82 66 61 68 :;5 74 96 DO 159 202 no 255 35 39 22 29 28 25 DO 124 128 D4 125 47 87 142 189 260 ~12 ~54 ~85 47 40 55 47 7l 52 42 ~1 189 2D 225 212 196 8 2:; ~1 47 64 75 91 108 8 15 8 16 l7 11 16 l7 47 56 52 60 61 385 7·/-1 1,113 1,5-10 1,966 2,389 2,827 3,212 385 359 369 -127 -126 -123 -138 385 1,5-10 1,581 1,6-15 1,71-1 1,672 Telephone: (510)232-1271 Fax: (510)232-1272 PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1113/2010 N-S APPROACH: CHESTNUT A VENUE DAY: WEDNESDAY E-W APPROACH GRAND ANENUE CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 7:00AM TO 9:00AM FILE: 3011077-6AM(B) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 07 00 AM I TO I 0800AM I TOTAL BICYCLE VOLUMES NORTH I 7 I +---B 2 A&B -----+ A 1 +-+ 3 I 1 0 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 1 111111111111111111111 ! 1 1 1 1 1 H G C D GRAND ANENUE 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 0 1 111111111111111111111 1 C&D 2 +---E I 2 +--+ 0 -----+ F E&F CHESTNUT A VENUE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 .j 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 7 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 7 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 1 2 0 1 " 0 0 1 8 ,) OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 1 2 0 1 " 0 0 1 8 ,) OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 1 " 0 1 " 0 0 1 9 ,) ,) TOTAL BY PERIOD 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HOURLY TOTALS 07.00 AM ---OS 00 AM 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 7 0715 AM ---OS15 AM 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 5 07.30 AM ---OS.30AM 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 5 0745 AM ---OS45 AM 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 .j OS 00 AM ---09 00 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. BICYCLE MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1113/2010 N-S APPROACH: CHESTNUT A VENUE DAY: WEDNESDAY E-W APPROACH GRAND ANENUE CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3011077-PM(B) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0415 PM I TO I 0515PM I TOTAL BICYCLE VOLUMES NORTH I 5 I +---B 2 A&B -----+ A 0 +-+ 2 I 0 0 I1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 0 111111111111111111111 ! 1 ! 1 1 1 H G C D GRAND ANENUE 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 0 2 11111111111111111111 2 C&D 0 +---E I 1 +--+ 1 -----+ F E&F CHESTNUT A VENUE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 .j 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 2 0 " 0 1 0 0 6 ,) 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 2 0 " 0 1 0 0 6 ,) 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 2 0 " 0 1 0 0 6 ,) 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 2 0 4 0 1 0 0 7 TOTAL BY PERIOD 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 HOURLY TOTALS 0400 PM ---0500 PM 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 .j 0415 PM ---0515 PM 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 5 0430 PM ---0530 PM 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0445 PM ---0545 PM 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0500 PM ---0600 PM 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1113/2010 N-S APPROACH: CHESTNUT A VENUE DAY: WEDNESDAY E-W APPROACH GRAND ANENUE CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 7:00AM TO 9:00AM FILE: 3011077 -6AM(PED) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0715 AM I TO I 0815 AM I TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES NORTH I 70 I +---B 6 A&B -----+ A 13 +-+ 19 I 11 5 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 16 111111111111111111111 ! 1 1 1 1 1 H G C D GRAND ANENUE 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 12 3 111111111111111111111 15 C&D 1 +---E I 20 +--+ 19 -----+ F E&F CHESTNUT A VENUE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 8 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 4 2 " 1 1 4 " " 21 ,) ,) ,) 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 9 4 6 2 1 8 4 7 .jJ 0745 AM ---08 00 AM 12 6 11 2 2 16 5 10 6.f 08 00 AM ---0815 AM 14 7 13 " 2 20 7 12 78 ,) 0815 AM ---08.30 AM 16 9 14 " 4 22 8 14 90 ,) 08.30 AM ---0845 AM 17 10 15 4 4 24 8 15 97 0845 AM ---09 00 AM 18 11 15 4 5 26 9 15 103 TOTAL BY PERIOD 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 8 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 3 1 2 1 0 3 1 2 13 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 5 2 3 1 0 4 1 4 20 0745 AM ---08 00 AM 3 2 5 0 1 8 1 3 23 08 00 AM ---0815 AM 2 1 2 1 0 4 2 2 ].I 0815 AM ---08.30 AM 2 2 1 0 2 2 1 2 12 08.30 AM ---0845 AM 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 7 0845 AM ---09 00 AM 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 6 HOURLY TOTALS 07.00 AM ---08 00 AM 12 6 11 2 2 16 5 10 6.f 0715 AM ---0815 AM 13 6 12 3 1 19 5 11 70 07.30 AM ---08.30 AM 12 7 11 2 3 18 5 11 69 0745 AM ---0845 AM 8 6 9 2 3 16 4 8 56 08 00 AM ---09 00 AM 6 5 4 2 3 10 4 5 39 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1113/2010 N-S APPROACH: CHESTNUT A VENUE DAY: WEDNESDAY E-W APPROACH GRAND ANENUE CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3011077 -6PM(PED) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 04 00 PM I TO I 05 00 PM I TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES NORTH I 39 I +---B 6 A&B -----+ A 7 +-+ 13 I 1 5 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 6 111111111111111111111 ! 1 ! 1 1 1 H G C D GRAND ANENUE 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 2 4 I1111111111111111111 6 C&D 9 +---E I 14 +--+ 5 -----+ F E&F CHESTNUT A VENUE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0400 PM ---0415 PM 1 0 0 2 " 4 1 0 11 ,) 0415 PM ---0430 PM " 2 1 " 6 4 " 1 23 ,) ,) ,) 0430 PM ---0445 PM 5 " 2 " 8 5 4 1 31 ,) ,) 0445 PM ---0500 PM 7 6 2 4 9 5 5 1 39 0500 PM ---0515 PM 8 8 " 4 10 5 6 2 ./6 ,) 0515 PM ---0530 PM 8 8 " 4 11 6 6 2 ./8 ,) 0530 PM ---0545 PM 9 9 5 5 13 7 7 2 57 0545 PM ---0600 PM 9 10 5 6 14 8 7 " 62 ,) TOTAL BY PERIOD 0400 PM ---0415 PM 1 0 0 2 3 4 1 0 11 0415 PM ---0430 PM 2 2 1 1 3 0 2 1 12 0430 PM ---0445 PM 2 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 8 0445 PM ---0500 PM 2 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 8 0500 PM ---0515 PM 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 7 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0530 PM ---0545 PM 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 9 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 5 HOURLY TOTALS 0400 PM ---0500 PM 7 6 2 4 9 5 5 1 39 0415 PM ---0515 PM 7 8 3 2 7 1 5 2 35 0430 PM ---0530 PM 5 6 2 1 5 2 3 1 25 0445 PM ---0545 PM 4 6 3 2 5 2 3 1 26 0500 PM ---0600 PM 2 4 3 2 5 3 2 2 23 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE: 11/4/2010 DAY: THURSDAY N-S APPROACH: IJUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD SURVEY TIME: 7:00 AM TO 9:00AM E-W APPROACH: IWESTBOROUGHBOULEVARD CITY: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FILE: 3011077-7AM PEAK HOUR t ARRIVAL/DEPARTURE VOLUMES 1--07-:3-0 A-Mol TO 'I -08-:3-0 A-Mol 1-280 NB ON-RAMP I 71 h~'" :::6:::::::: I 923 l::: :.:-:.: I 165 f'~': I 511 k.:-:-1> WESTBOROUGH BLVD o 0 0 0 -:-:-:E!-:.:-:. 1-280 NB ON-RAMP :~: NORTH JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD 101 I 86 I 438 230 J :~:::: iX::: J Y: ©':::IWESTBOROUGH BLVD TOTAL ~ 1::8:::::::::j::::~::::::t:::::::tt] 352 I 169 I 211 I 284 JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD .-:l;:;::: 70 ::::t;;.:-:. 350 :::::E::::: 1-280 NB ON-RAMP JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD I PHF-I #DIV/O! I PHF= 0.90 WESTBOROUGH BLVD ~:.:.:;.;:;:,:.: :-:.~.:-:.:-: -----:~:-'. 1 PHF= 1 0.93 o 1,131 ~":::::::::::::t' . : ::::::B::::::: .::::::::::::::.: 855 352 I:::::EH::::]:::H ~ I::::::~:::]:::::n:::::l 774 1,016 I PHF= I 0.87 JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD 1(17:::1 ~,o:: WESTBOROUGH BLVD TIME PERIOD IA NB JUNIPERO SERRA BLVD B 1-280 NB ON-RAMP I D SB JUNIPERO SERRA BLVD I CEB WESTBOROUGH BLVD I EWB WESTBOROUGH BLVD I From 7:00AM 7:15AM 7:30AM 7:45 AM 8:00AM 8:15AM 8:30AM 8:45 AM 7:00AM 7:15AM 7:30AM 7:45 AM 8:00AM 8:15AM 8:30AM 8:45 AM 7:00AM 7:15AM 7:30AM 7:45 AM 8:00AM To I AC I AB I AD I AE I BD I BE I BA I BC I DE I DA I DC I DB I CB I 7:15 AM 53 7:30 AM 109 7:45 AM 191 8:00 AM 287 8:15 AM 399 8:30 AM 461 8:45 AM 534 9:00 AM 596 7:15 AM 53 7:30 AM 56 7:45 AM 82 8:00 AM 96 8:15 AM 112 8:30 AM 62 8:45 AM 73 9:00 AM 62 8:00 AM 287 8:15 AM 346 8:30 AM 352 8:45 AM 343 9:00 AM 309 29 54 100 147 197 223 259 285 29 25 46 47 50 26 36 26 147 168 169 159 138 13 44 81 127 186 255 304 324 13 31 37 46 59 69 49 20 127 173 211 223 197 17 32 63 ISS 225 316 387 447 17 IS 31 92 70 91 71 60 ISS 208 284 324 292 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o SURVEY DATA 12 23 62 144 205 253 302 338 60 118 235 355 467 556 664 745 TOTAL BY PERIOD o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 12 II 39 82 61 48 49 36 60 58 117 120 112 89 108 81 HOURLY TOTALS o o o o o o o o o o 144 193 230 240 194 355 407 438 429 390 Telephone: (510)232-1271 12 20 39 55 81 106 118 132 12 19 16 26 25 12 14 55 69 86 79 77 19 33 63 83 103 134 145 160 19 14 30 20 20 31 II IS 83 84 101 82 77 lIS 231 392 519 635 742 867 954 lIS 116 161 127 116 107 125 87 519 520 511 475 435 Fax: (510)232-1272 CD CE 9 19 30 44 62 90 116 138 9 10 II 14 18 28 26 22 44 53 71 86 94 101 209 407 641 920 1,132 1,313 1,470 101 108 198 234 279 212 181 157 641 819 923 906 829 CA I 16 35 65 114 148 200 233 256 16 19 30 49 34 52 33 23 114 132 165 168 142 EA I 26 47 95 ISO 178 218 253 276 26 21 48 55 28 40 35 23 ISO 152 171 158 126 EC EB 53 III 176 279 432 604 710 799 53 58 65 103 153 172 106 89 279 379 493 534 520 65 129 238 310 401 479 570 629 65 64 109 72 91 78 91 59 310 336 350 332 319 ED I TOTAL 10 18 29 42 69 88 113 126 10 II 13 27 19 25 13 42 59 70 84 84 610 1,232 2,266 3,452 4,708 5,857 6,888 7,675 610 622 1,034 1,186 1,256 1,149 1,031 787 3,452 4,098 4,625 4,622 4,223 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE: 11/4/2010 DAY: THURSDAY N-S APPROACH: IJUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD SURVEY TIME: 4:00 PM TO 6:00PM E-W APPROACH: IWESTBOROUGHBOULEVARD CITY: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FILE: 3011077-7AM PEAK HOUR t ARRIVAL/DEPARTURE VOLUMES 1--04-:4-5 -PM'I TO 'I -05-:4-5 -PM'I 1-280 NB ON-RAMP o 0 0 0 I 146 h~'" :::6:::::::: I 901 l : : : :.:-:.: I 104 f'~': I 247 k.:-:-1> WESTBOROUGH BLVD -:-:-:E!-:.:-:. 1-280 NB ON-RAMP :~: NORTH JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD 104 1 22 1 245 154 J :~:::: iX::: J Y: ©':::IWESTBOROUGH BLVD TOTAL ~ 1::8:::::::::j::::~::::::t:::::::tt] 860 1 58 1 533 1 225 JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD ::::W: 178 ::::t;;.:-:. 288 :::::E::::: 1-280 NB ON-RAMP JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD 1 PHF-1 #DIV/O! 1 PHF= 0.84 WESTBOROUGH BLVD ~ ............. . , :-~.:-: :-:.~.:-:.:-: -----:~:-'. 1 PHF= 1 0.95 o 697 ~":::::::::::::t' . : ::::::B::::::: .::::::::::::::.: 525 857 I:::::EH::::]:::H ~ I::::::~:::]:::::n:::::l 537 1,676 1 PHF= 1 0.72 JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD 1(17:::1 ~'~:~ WESTBOROUGH BLVD TIME PERIOD IA NB JUNIPERO SERRA BLVD B 1-280 NB ON-RAMP I D SB JUNIPERO SERRA BLVD I CEB WESTBOROUGH BLVD I EWB WESTBOROUGH BLVD I From 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM To I AC I AB I AD I AE I BD I BE I BA I BC I DE I DA I DC I DB I CB I 4:15 PM 195 4:30 PM 382 4:45 PM 570 5:00 PM 776 5:15 PM 942 5:30 PM 1,203 5:45 PM 1,430 6:00 PM 1,586 4:15 PM 195 4:30 PM 187 4:45 PM 188 5:00 PM 206 5:15 PM 166 5:30 PM 261 5:45 PM 227 6:00 PM 156 5:00 PM 776 5:15 PM 747 5:30 PM 821 5:45 PM 860 6:00 PM 810 26 36 45 53 59 85 103 III 26 10 9 6 26 18 53 33 49 58 58 79 172 289 414 477 680 822 946 79 93 117 125 63 203 142 124 414 398 508 533 532 31 82 135 191 220 316 360 395 31 51 53 56 29 96 44 35 191 189 234 225 204 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o SURVEY DATA 24 41 66 107 148 180 220 242 39 78 122 193 263 303 367 413 TOT AL BY PERIOD o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 24 17 25 41 41 32 40 22 39 39 44 71 70 40 64 46 HOURLY TOTALS o o o o o o o o o o 107 124 139 154 135 193 224 225 245 220 Telephone: (510)232-1271 12 21 27 29 34 36 4 9 6 2 2 21 22 21 22 15 13 30 52 87 109 132 156 185 13 17 22 35 22 23 24 29 87 96 102 104 98 46 102 176 251 280 368 423 488 46 56 74 75 29 88 55 65 251 234 266 247 237 Fax: (510)232-1272 CD CE 29 50 87 130 151 205 233 266 29 21 37 43 21 54 28 33 130 122 155 146 136 221 448 652 877 1,154 1,330 1,553 1,762 221 227 204 225 277 176 223 209 877 933 882 901 885 CA I 22 42 76 101 114 153 180 214 22 20 34 25 13 39 27 34 101 92 III 104 113 EA I 48 90 138 174 211 285 326 381 48 42 48 36 37 74 41 55 174 163 195 188 207 EC EB 123 292 497 698 874 1,056 1,286 1,518 123 169 205 201 176 182 230 232 698 751 764 789 820 79 173 240 311 364 458 528 597 79 94 67 71 53 94 70 69 311 285 285 288 286 ED I TOTAL 40 84 113 148 171 237 291 335 40 44 29 35 23 66 54 44 148 131 153 178 187 ~~ ~110 vm ~~ ~~ ~~ ~n2 ~~ 1,020 1,090 1,160 1,262 1,032 1,456 1,292 1,163 4,532 4,544 4,910 5,042 4,943 PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1114/2010 N-S APPROACH: JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 7:00AM TO 9:00AM FILE: 3011077-7AM(B) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0745 AM I TO I 0845 AM I TOTAL BICYCLE VOLUMES NORTH I 1 I +---B 0 G~-~ -----+ A 0 I 0 I 0 ! 1 ! 1 1 1 H G C D WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD 0 0 paD EEl +---E ~------+ F E&F JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 TOTAL BY PERIOD 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOURLY TOTALS 07.00 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0715 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 07.30 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0745 AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 OS 00 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. BICYCLE MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1114/2010 N-S APPROACH: JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3011077-7PM(B) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0415 PM I TO I 0515PM I TOTAL BICYCLE VOLUMES NORTH I 2 I +---B 0 G~-~ -----+ A 0 I 1 I 0 ! 1 1 1 1 1 H G C D WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD 0 0 paD EEl +---E ~------+ F E&F JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 TOTAL BY PERIOD 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOURLY TOTALS 0400 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0415 PM ---0515 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0430 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0445 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0500 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1114/2010 N-S APPROACH: JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 7:00AM TO 9:00AM FILE: 3011077-7AM(PED) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0130 PM I TO I 0630PM I TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES NORTH I 0 I +---B 0 G~-~ -----+ A 0 I 0 I 0 ! 1 ! 1 1 1 H G C D WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD 0 0 paD EEl +---E ~------+ F E&F JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL BY PERIOD 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOURLY TOTALS 07.00 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07.30 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745 AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS 00 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1114/2010 N-S APPROACH: JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3011077 -7PM(PED) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 1030AM I TO I 0330PM I TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES NORTH I 0 I +---B 0 G~-~ -----+ A 0 I 0 I 0 ! 1 1 1 1 1 H G C D WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD 0 0 paD EEl +---E ~------+ F E&F JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL BY PERIOD 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOURLY TOTALS 0400 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415 PM ---0515 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 MMARY PROJECT: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO TR.\FFIC STllDY SllRYEY DATE: 11/4/2010 DAY: THllRSDAY N-S APPROACH: 1-280 SB OFF-R'\MP -1-280 SB ON-R'\MP SllRYEY TIME: 7:00 AM TO 9:00AM E-W APPROACH: WESTBOROllGH BOllLEYARD CITY: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO FILE: 3011077-8AM I-__ -=P..,EAK HOlr-=TR=..:..-__ --, lI7 oll ~~ll TO I lI8 oll ~~111-280 SB OFF-R\I\IP . .;.......;...... :. ..... I 1,252 I 257 I 0 I 405 I TOTAL I 4,012 I ........... WESTBOROllGH BOllLEYARD :: :Tl: : : : : : : :t' : : : : : r' : : : : ::::: ::::: ::::: :::: ........... . . . . . . . . . . . I 0 I 0 I 0 I 1-280 SB ON-R~IP t NORTH o I ~: 938 I 1,195 2,412 PHF= 0.94 ARRIYAL 1 DEPARTllRE YOLllMES I PHF= I 0.83 I I 662 I 0 I .' '1'" . ·r···· ... I PHF= I 0.79 :~:: :~: 938 :~: ~: 1,657 '. 'l' t * ... I 1,160 I 0 I I PHF= I #DIY/OI I TIME PERIOD NORTHBOllND SOllTHBOllND EASTBOllND WESTBOllND F.·om 7l1l1~~1 7 15~~1 7 oll~~l 7 -+5~~1 8l1l1~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 oll~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 7l1l1~~1 7 15~~1 7 oll~~l 7 -+5~~1 8l1l1~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 oll~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 7l1l1~~1 7 15~~1 7 oll~~l 7 -+5~~1 8l1l1~~1 To 7 15~~1 7 oll~~l 7 -+5~~1 8l1l1~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 oll~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 9l1l1~~1 7 15~~1 7 oll~~l 7 -+5~~1 8l1l1~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 oll~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 9l1l1~~1 8l1l1~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 oll~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 9l1l1~~1 Left I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) o o o o o o o o o o o o o Thl"U Right I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) o o o o o o o o o o o o o I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) o o o o o o o o o o o o o Left Thl"U SURVEY 78 141 215 :;22 4~7 546 62:; 715 I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) Right Left DATA 11)4 168 217 ~1)1 ~61 41)5 467 I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) TOTAL BY PERIOD 78 63 74 107 115 109 77 92 o o o o o o o o 61 64 49 84 60 44 62 o o o o o o o o HOURLY TOTALS ~22 ~59 405 408 393 o o o o o 217 258 257 n7 250 o o o o o Telephone: (510)232-1271 Thl"U l79 ~84 71)~ LI)21) U47 L6~6 L9n 2.126 l79 205 ~19 ~l7 ~27 289 287 20~ UJ20 1.168 1.252 1.220 Right 264 476 796 LI)82 U57 L6~6 264 212 ~20 286 275 279 261 220 L082 L09~ 1.160 1.101 1.106 UB5 Fax: (510)232-1272 Left I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) o o o o o o o o o o o o o Thl"U lU 228 ~89 (1)4 91)1 1.166 U51) 1.51)5 lU 115 161 215 297 265 184 155 604 788 9~8 961 901 Right TOTAL I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) o o o o o o o o o o o o o 677 1,333 2,271 3,2-15 -1,3-13 5,3-15 6,198 6,930 677 656 938 97-1 1,098 1,002 853 732 3,2-15 3,666 -1,012 3,927 3,685 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO TR.\FFIC STllDY SllRYEY DATE: 11/4/2010 DAY: THllRSDAY N-S APPROACH: 1-280 SB OFF-R'\MP -1-280 SB ON-R'\MP SllRYEY TIME: 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM E-W APPROACH: WESTBOROllGH BOllLEYARD CITY: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO FILE: 3011077-8PM I-__ -=P..,EAK HOlr-=TR=..:..-__ --, lI-+ -+5 P111 TO I lI5 -+5 P1111-280 SB OFF-RAl\IP I 772 . .;.......;...... :. '----=-----1. . . . . I 517 I 597 I 0 I 635 I TOTAL I 4,192 I ........... WESTBOROllGH BOllLEYARD :: :Tl: : : : : : : :t' : : : : : r' : : : : ::::: ::::: ::::: :::: ........... . . . . . . . . . . . I 0 I 0 I 0 I 1-280 SB ON-RAl\IP t NORTH o I ~: 1,671 I 2,268 1,289 PHF= 0.87 ARRIYAL 1 DEPARTllRE YOLllMES I PHF= I 0,86 I I 1,232 I 0 I .' '1'" . ·r···· ... I PHF= I 0.90 :~:: :~: 1,671 :~: ~: 1,407 '. 'l' t * ... I 517 I 0 I I PHF= I #DIY/OI I TIME PERIOD NORTHBOllND SOllTHBOllND EASTBOllND WESTBOllND F.'om -+lIlIP11 -+ 15 P11 -+:WP11 -+-+5 P11 5l1l1P11 515 P11 53l1P11 5 -+5 P11 -+lIlIP11 -+ 15 P11 -+ 3l1P11 -+-+5 P11 5l1l1P11 515 P11 53l1P11 5 -+5 P11 -+lIlIP11 -+ 15 P11 -+ 3l1P11 -+-+5 P11 5l1l1P11 To -+ 15 P11 -+:WP11 -+-+5 P11 5l1l1P11 515 P11 53l1P11 5 -+5 P11 6l1l1P11 -+ 15 P11 -+ 3l1P11 -+-+5 P11 5l1l1P11 515 P11 53l1P11 5 -+5 P11 6l1l1P11 5l1l1P11 515 P11 53l1P11 5 -+5 P11 6l1l1P11 Left o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Thm Right o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Left Thm SURVEY 128 274 405 564 711 876 L040 U9~ o o o o o o o o Right Left DATA 14~ 258 ~90 524 654 792 987 U27 o o o o o o o o TOTAL BY PERIOD 128 146 131 159 147 165 164 15~ o o o o o o o o 14~ 115 132 134 130 138 195 140 o o o o o o o o HOURLY TOTALS 564 58~ 602 635 629 o o o o o 524 511 5~4 597 60~ o o o o o Telephone: (510)232-1271 Thm 194 ~72 588 797 994 U86 U60 U45 194 l78 216 209 197 192 l74 185 797 800 814 772 Right 116 2:;5 ~91 527 647 767 908 LO~4 116 119 156 136 120 120 141 126 527 5~1 5~2 517 748 507 Fax: (510)232-1272 Left o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Thm ~19 678 L07l U87 L8~5 2280 2-742 ~19 ~59 393 416 ~48 445 462 393 U87 U16 L602 L67l L648 Right TOTAL o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 900 1,817 2,8-15 3,899 -1,8-11 5,901 7,037 8,0,14 900 917 1,028 1,05-1 9-12 1,060 1,136 997 3,899 3,9-11 -1,08-1 -1,192 -1,135 PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1114/2010 N-S APPROACH: 1-280 SB RAMPS DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 7:00AM TO 9:00AM FILE: 3011077-8AM(B) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 07 00 AM I TO I 0800AM I TOTAL BICYCLE VOLUMES NORTH I 2 I +---B 1 G~-~ -----+ A 1 I 0 I 0 ! 1 ! 1 1 1 H G C D WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD 0 0 paD EEl +---E ~------+ F E&F 1-280 SB RAMPS TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 TOTAL BY PERIOD 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOURLY TOTALS 07.00 AM ---OS 00 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0715 AM ---OS15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 07.30 AM ---OS.30AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0745 AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS 00 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. BICYCLE MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1114/2010 N-S APPROACH: 1-280 SB RAMPS DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3011077-8PM(B) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 04 00 PM I TO I 05 00 PM I TOTAL BICYCLE VOLUMES NORTH I 1 I +---B 0 G~-~ -----+ A 1 I 0 I 0 ! 1 1 1 1 1 H G C D WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD 0 0 paD EEl +---E ~------+ F E&F 1-280 SB RAMPS TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0400 PM ---0415 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0415 PM ---0430 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0430 PM ---0445 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0445 PM ---0500 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0500 PM ---0515 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0515 PM ---0530 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0530 PM ---0545 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0545 PM ---0600 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TOTAL BY PERIOD 0400 PM ---0415 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOURLY TOTALS 0400 PM ---0500 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0415 PM ---0515 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1114/2010 N-S APPROACH: 1-280 SB RAMPS DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 7:00AM TO 9:00AM FILE: 3011077 -8AM(PED) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 07 00 AM I TO I 0800AM I TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES NORTH I 1 I I I +---B 0 I I-I A&B -----+ A 1 1 I I 0 I 0 G&HI 0 ! 1 ! 1 1 1 H G C D WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD 0 I 0 paD EEl +---E ~------+ F E&F 1-280 SB RAMPS TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 TOTAL BY PERIOD 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOURLY TOTALS 07.00 AM ---OS 00 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0715 AM ---OS15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 07.30 AM ---OS.30AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0745 AM ---OS45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 OS 00 AM ---09 00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1114/2010 N-S APPROACH: 1-280 SB RAMPS DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3011077 -8PM(PED) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 1030AM I TO I 0330PM I TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES NORTH I 0 I I I +---B 0 I I-I A&B -----+ A 0 0 I I 0 I 0 G&HI 0 ! 1 1 1 1 1 H G C D WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD 0 I 0 paD EEl +---E ~------+ F E&F 1-280 SB RAMPS TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL BY PERIOD 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOURLY TOTALS 0400 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415 PM ---0515 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 MMARY PROJECT: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO TR.\FFIC STllDY SllRYEY DATE: 11/4/2010 DAY: THllRSDAY N-S APPROACH: ARROYO DRIYE SllRYEY TIME: 7:00 AM TO 9:00AM E-W APPROACH: EL CAMINO REAL CITY: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO FILE: 3011077-9AM I-__ -=P..,EAK HOlr:TR=..:..-__ --, 1I7-+5~~11 TO L-l=-:)8_-+,,-5-'-~~=JI_:~: :~:_:~:_:~: :~:_:~:_:~: :~:_:~:_:~: :~:---' ........... . . . . . . . . . . . ........... . . . . . . . . . . . ,....--::----:-..--,--.---::-'"': . :-:-: . :-:-: . :-:-: . :-EL CAl\IINO REAL I 4 TOTAL .------1 ..... I 730 :s-:-+: : : 2,429 .------l ..... I 171 :~:: I 19 I 10 DEL PASO DRIYE 298 0 263 ARROYO DRIYE TIME PERIOD NORTHBOllND F.·om 71111~~1 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+5~~1 81111~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 :W~~l 8 -+5 ~~l ARROYO DRIVE To Left Thl"U 7 :W~~l 68 7 -+5 ~~l 119 8 1I1i ~~l 192 8 15 ~~l 297 8 :W~~l ~69 o o o o o o o o Right 22 50 98 166 218 298 ~61 400 :~: : : if:::: : : :r:::: 777 I 52 I 93 I ·G· 12 I EB DEL PASO t ARRIYAL 1 DEPARTllRE YOLllMES NORTH PHF= 0.83 1,079 924 .~.: :~: 71 :~:: 10 PHF= 0.63 EASTBOllND o o ....... '. ·1······ 'r'" "." ... "." .. " .. . . . . . . . . -:-:-:-:-:. -: . : : :-: : : : : :: ::: ........ 274 561 PHF= 0.00 I PHF= I 0.85 . ~ 934 ~ 1,005 I PHF= I 0.89 WESTBOllND EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL Right {T-l'm'" Th.·u Right n~1 I'a,,, {T-l'm'" Left n~1 I'a,,, Thl"U SURVEY DATA 8 12 15 l7 64 165 278 465 6~8 841 L008 U56 59 88 149 212 no 249 4 10 19 26 29 o .' 6 8 l7 18 18 7 16 28 ~7 69 104 121 US 4 8 14 28 48 60 64 91 n7 ~85 561 757 97~ U62 U15 TOTAL BY PERIOD 71111~~1 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+5~~1 81111~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 :W~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 71111~~1 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+5~~1 81111~~1 7 15 ~~l ~2 7 :W~~l ~6 7-+5~~1 51 81111~~1 73 8 15 ~~l lOS 8 :W~~l 72 8-+5~~1 48 91111~~1 19 o o o o o o o o 22 28 48 68 52 80 63 39 o .' 2 2 o o o o 4 o o 64 101 113 187 l7~ 20~ 167 148 25 21 29 61 63 18 19 HOURLY TOTALS 8 1I1i ~~l 192 8 15 ~~l 265 8 :W~~l ~OI 8 -+5 ~~l 298 91111 ~~l 244 o o o o o 166 196 248 26~ Telephone: (510)232-1271 8 8 8 10 9 o 4 4 4 465 574 676 730 691 88 136 l74 171 161 .' 6 .' 6 7 .' 18 22 19 20 o .' .' 2 o 8 14 12 10 Fax: (510)232-1272 7 9 12 9 ~2 35 l7 14 ~7 62 88 93 98 .' 6 14 20 12 4 14 27 44 52 50 91 146 148 l76 196 216 189 15~ 561 666 736 777 754 TOTAL 236 591 997 1,553 2,201 2,906 3,-126 3,828 236 355 -106 556 6./8 705 520 -102 1,553 1,965 2,315 2,-129 2,275 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO TR.\FFIC STllDY SllRYEY DATE: 11/4/2010 DAY: THllRSDAY N-S APPROACH: ARROYO DRIYE SllRYEY TIME: 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM E-W APPROACH: EL CAMINO REAL CITY: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO FILE: 3011077-9PM I-__ -=P..,EAK HOlr:TR=..:..-__ --, 0-+ 00 P111 TO L-.:.:05,--,0,-,0-='-=-'1"l1_: ~: :~:_:~: _: ~: :~:_:~: _: ~: :~:_:~: _: ~: :~:---' ........... . . . . . . . . . . . ........... . . . . . . . . . . . ,....--::----:-..--,--.---::-'"': . :-:-: . :-:-: . :-:-: . :-EL CAl\IINO REAL I 6 .------1 ..... I 975 :s-:-+: : : I 30 I 31 DEL PASO DRIYE TOTAL 2,577 87 0 151 ARROYO DRIYE TIME PERIOD NORTHBOllND F.·om -+00P11 -+ 15 P11 -+ 00P11 -+-+5 P11 500P11 515 P11 500P11 5 -+5 P11 ARROYO DRIVE To Left Thl"U -+ 15 P11 ~9 -+00P11 7l -+ -+5 P11 87 500 P11 106 5 15 P11 127 500P11 158 5-+5P11 180 600 P11 214 o o o o o o o o Right 48 84 Ul 17l 198 2:;5 262 ~OO :~: : : if:::: : : :r:::: 954 I 45 I 59 I ·G· 29 I EB DEL PASO t ARRIYAL 1 DEPARTllRE YOLllMES NORTH PHF= 0.94 1,047 1,221 .~.: :~: 75 :~:: 31 PHF= 0.55 EASTBOllND o o ....... '. ·1······ 'r'" "." ... "." .. " .. . . . . . . . . -:-:-:-:-:. -: . : : :-: : : : : :: ::: ........ 300 238 I PHF= 0.00 I PHF= I 0.95 . ~ 1,087 ~ 1,155 I PHF= I 0.68 WESTBOllND EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL Right {T-l'm'" Th.·u Right n~1 I'a,,, {T-l'm'" Left n~1 I'a,,, Thl"U SURVEY DATA 8 14 22 26 ~1 45 51 60 o o 2 4 6 6 7 8 229 454 719 962 U92 U29 L658 L880 46 88 142 190 241 298 :;56 :;92 o 10 20 32 35 ~7 55 9 15 2:; ~1 56 64 l7 50 62 77 95 IlO 124 10 l7 25 42 49 62 74 89 197 665 915 U47 U86 L6~4 L8~O TOTAL BY PERIOD -+00P11 -+ 15 P11 -+ 00P11 -+-+5 P11 500P11 515 P11 500P11 5 -+5 P11 -+00P11 -+ 15 P11 -+ 00P11 -+-+5 P11 500P11 -+ 15 P11 ~9 -+ 00 P11 ~2 -+-+5P11 16 500P11 19 5 15 P11 21 5 00P11 ~1 5-+5P11 22 600P11 ~4 o o o o o o o o 48 36 47 40 27 ~7 27 ~8 8 6 8 4 14 6 9 o o 2 2 2 o 229 225 265 24~ 230 237 229 222 46 42 54 48 51 57 58 36 HOURLY TOTALS 500 P11 106 5 15 P11 88 500P11 87 5 -+5 P11 9~ 600P11 108 o o o o o 17l ISO 151 Ul 129 Telephone: (510)232-1271 26 23 ~1 29 6 6 962 96~ 975 9~9 918 190 195 210 214 202 o 10 12 .' 2 18 20 ~2 ~o 27 35 9 6 8 8 8 12 8 ~1 27 29 Fax: (510)232-1272 l7 19 14 12 15 18 15 14 62 60 59 60 62 10 7 8 l7 7 12 15 42 39 45 49 47 197 235 233 250 232 239 248 196 915 950 954 969 915 TOTAL 603 1,216 1,876 2,529 3,136 3,793 ./,'/25 5,016 603 613 660 653 607 657 632 591 2,529 2,533 2,577 2,5./9 2,./87 PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEYDAU 111-112010 N-S APPROACH: ARROYO DRIVE DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH EL CAMINO REAL CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI 7:00AM TO 9:00AM FILE: 3011077-9AM(B) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0700 ~~I I TO I 0800 ~~I I TOTAL BICYCLE YOLUI\IES NORTH I -I I I 2 I 1 ! 1 ! I E&F 3 11 It F E 11111111111111111111111111111111111 A B EL CAMINO REAL I I 0 -L 0 0 0 A&B I 0 -D C&D 0 - DEL PASO DR ! t t] H G G&H 1 I 0 I 1 I J -0 I -0 I&J I -0 I ARROYO DRIYE TIME PERIOD EAST X-WALK SOllTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK LEFT X-WALK BOTTOM X-WALI~ From To A B C D E F C' -' H I J TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0700 AM ---0715 AM () () () () () 1 () () () () 1 0715 AM ---0730 AM () () () () () 2 () () () () 2 0730 AM ---0745 AM () () () () () 2 () () () () 2 0745 AM ---0800 AM () () () () 1 2 1 () () () -I 0800 AM ---0815 AM () () () () 1 2 1 () () () -I 0815 AM ---0830 AM () () () () 1 2 1 () () () -I 0830 AM ---0845 AM () () () 1 1 2 1 () () () 5 0845 AM ---09 00 AM () () () 1 1 2 1 () () () 5 TOTAL BY PERIOD 0700 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0715 AM ---0730 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0730 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745 AM ---0800 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0800 AM ---0815 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0815 AM ---0830 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0830 AM ---0845 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0845 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOURLY TOTALS 0700 AM ---0800 AM 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 -I 0715 AM ---0815 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 0730 AM ---0830 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0745 AM ---0845 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 0800 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Tel: (510) 232-1271 Fax: (510) 232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. BICYCLE MOVEMENT SlJMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEYDAU 111-112010 N-S APPROACH: ARROYO DRIVE DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH EL CAMINO REAL CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI -1:00 PM TO 6:00PM FILE: 3011077 -9PM(B) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR OH)OPJ\I I TO I 0500 PJ\I I TOTAL BICYCLE YOLUI\IES NORTH I 1 I I 0 I 0 ! 1 ! I E&F 0 11 It F E 11111111111111111111111111111111111 A B EL CAMINO REAL I I 0 -L 0 1 1 A&B I 0 -D C&D 0 - DEL PASO DR ! t t] H G G&H 0 I 0 I 0 I J -0 I -0 I&J I -0 I ARROYO DRIYE TIME PERIOD EAST X-WALK SOllTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK LEFT X-WALK BOTTOM X-WALI~ From To A B C D E F C' -' H I J TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0400 PM ---0415 PM () 1 () () () () () () () () 1 0415 PM ---0430 PM () 1 () () () () () () () () 1 0430 PM ---0445 PM () 1 () () () () () () () () 1 0445 PM ---0500 PM () 1 () () () () () () () () 1 0500 PM ---0515 PM () 1 () () () () () () () () 1 0515 PM ---0530 PM () 1 () () () () () () () () 1 0530 PM ---0545 PM () 1 () () () () () () () () 1 0545 PM ---0600 PM () 1 () () () () () () () () 1 TOTAL BY PERIOD 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOURLY TOTALS 0400 PM ---0500 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0415 PM ---0515 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tel: (510) 232-1271 Fax: (510) 232-1272 PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEYDAU 111-112010 N-S APPROACH: ARROYO DRIVE DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH EL CAMINO REAL CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI 7:00AM TO 9:00AM FILE: 3011077-9AM(PED) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0800 ~~I I TO I 0900 ~~I I TOTAL PEDESTRL\N YOLUI\IES NORTH I 53 I I 22 I 9 ! 1 ! I E&F 31 11 It F E 11111111111111111111111111111111111 A B EL CAMINO REAL I I 0 -L 1 0 1 A&B I 0 -D C&D 0 - DEL PASO DR ! t t] H G G&H 9 I -I I 5 I J -7 I -12 I&J I -5 I ARROYO DRIYE TIME PERIOD EAST X-WALK SOllTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK LEFT X-WALK BOTTOM X-WALI~ From To A B C D E F C' -' H I J TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0700 AM ---0715 AM () () () () 1 () 1 2 () () -I 0715 AM ---0730 AM () 1 () 1 3 7 1 4 () () 17 0730 AM ---0745 AM () 2 1 1 3 11 2 4 () () 2-1 0745 AM ---0800 AM () 4 1 1 5 13 3 4 2 1 3-1 0800 AM ---0815 AM 1 4 1 1 7 23 4 4 3 4 52 0815 AM ---0830 AM 1 4 1 1 8 24 4 4 3 5 55 0830 AM ---0845 AM 1 4 1 1 12 32 6 6 6 5 7-1 0845 AM ---09 00 AM 1 4 1 1 14 35 8 8 7 8 87 TOTAL BY PERIOD 0700 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 -I 0715 AM ---0730 AM 0 1 0 1 2 7 0 2 0 0 13 0730 AM ---0745 AM 0 1 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 7 0745 AM ---0800 AM 0 2 0 0 2 2 1 0 2 1 10 0800 AM ---0815 AM 1 0 0 0 2 10 1 0 1 3 18 0815 AM ---0830 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 0830 AM ---0845 AM 0 0 0 0 4 8 2 2 3 0 19 0845 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 2 1 3 13 HOURLY TOTALS 0700 AM ---0800 AM 0 4 1 1 5 13 3 4 2 1 3-1 0715 AM ---0815 AM 1 4 1 1 6 23 3 2 3 4 -18 0730 AM ---0830 AM 1 3 1 0 5 17 3 0 3 5 38 0745 AM ---0845 AM 1 2 0 0 9 21 4 2 6 5 50 0800 AM ---09 00 AM 1 0 0 0 9 22 5 4 5 7 53 Tel: (510) 232-1271 Fax: (510) 232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT SlJMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEYDAU 111-112010 N-S APPROACH: ARROYO DRIVE DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH EL CAMINO REAL CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI -1:00 PM TO 6:00PM FILE: 3011077-9PM(PED) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR OH)OPJ\I I TO I 0500 PJ\I I TOTAL PEDESTRL\N YOLUI\IES NORTH I 71 I I 15 I 8 ! 1 ! I E&F 23 11 It F E 11111111111111111111111111111111111 A B EL CAMINO REAL I I 1 -L 6 1 7 A&B I 3 -D C&D -I - I~] DEL PASO DR ! t H G G&H I 11 I 5 I J -17 I -21 I&J I --I I ARROYO DRIYE TIME PERIOD EAST X-WALK SOllTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK LEFT X-WALK BOTTOM X-WALI~ From To A B C D E F C' -' H I J TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0400 PM ---0415 PM 2 1 0 1 4 2 3 2 1 12 28 0415 PM ---0430 PM 3 1 0 3 4 4 3 2 2 12 3-1 0430 PM ---0445 PM 5 1 1 3 6 10 5 10 4 15 60 0445 PM ---0500 PM 6 1 1 3 8 15 5 11 4 17 71 0500 PM ---0515 PM 6 2 2 5 8 20 5 12 4 17 81 0515 PM ---0530 PM 6 4 2 5 9 24 6 16 4 18 9-1 0530 PM ---0545 PM 6 4 2 6 10 29 6 16 4 18 101 0545 PM ---0600 PM 7 4 2 6 10 32 6 17 4 19 107 TOTAL BY PERIOD 0400 PM ---0415 PM 2 1 0 1 4 2 3 2 1 12 28 0415 PM ---0430 PM 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 6 0430 PM ---0445 PM 2 0 1 0 2 6 2 8 2 3 26 0445 PM ---0500 PM 1 0 0 0 2 5 0 1 0 2 11 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 1 1 2 0 5 0 1 0 0 10 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 2 0 0 1 4 1 4 0 1 13 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 7 0545 PM ---0600 PM 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 6 HOURLY TOTALS 0400 PM ---0500 PM 6 1 1 3 8 15 5 11 4 17 71 0415 PM ---0515 PM 4 1 2 4 4 18 2 10 3 5 53 0430 PM ---0530 PM 3 3 2 2 5 20 3 14 2 6 60 0445 PM ---0545 PM 1 3 1 3 4 19 1 6 0 3 -11 0500 PM ---0600 PM 1 3 1 3 2 17 1 6 0 2 36 Tel: (510) 232-1271 Fax: (510) 232-1272 MMARY PROJECT: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO TR.\FFIC STllDY SllRYEY DATE: 11/4/2010 DAY: THllRSDAY N-S APPROACH: CHESTNllT A YENllE E-W APPROACH: EL CAMINO REAL I-__ -=P..,EAK HOlr-=TR=..:..-__ --, lI7 -+5 ~~ll TO I lI8 -+5 ~~ll I 182 I 713 ~::: I 52 EL CAl\IINO REAL 131 214 589 TOTAL I 4,584 I 664 CHESTNllT A YENllE 349 424 TIME PERIOD NORTHBOllND F.·om 7l1l1~~1 7 15~~1 7 :'O~~l 7 -+5~~1 8l1l1~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 :'O~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 7l1l1~~1 7 15~~1 7 :'O~~l 7 -+5~~1 8l1l1~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 :'O~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 7l1l1~~1 7 15~~1 7 :'O~~l 7 -+5~~1 8l1l1~~1 To Left 7 :'O~~l 74 7 -+5~~1 In 8 lIli ~~l 162 8 15 ~~l 226 8 :'0 ~~l 289 8-+5~~1 ~~7 9l1l1~~1 ~84 7 15 ~~l ~2 7 :'O~~l 42 7 -+5 ~~l 49 8l1l1~~1 ~9 8 15 ~~l 64 8 :'O~~l 6~ 8-+5~~1 48 9l1l1~~1 47 8 lIli ~~l 162 8 15 ~~l 194 8 :'O~~l 215 8 -+5 ~~l 214 9l1l1~~1 222 Thm Right 49 116 226 ~74 518 7~9 890 Lim 49 67 110 148 144 221 151 141 ~74 469 6n 664 657 5:; 108 l76 275 40~ 520 600 702 53 55 68 99 128 117 80 102 275 ~50 412 424 427 SllRYEY TIME: 7:00 AM TO 9:00AM CITY: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO FILE: 3011077-10AM t ARRIYAL 1 DEPARTllRE YOLllMES NORTH 293 I 550 I 423 I PHF= 1---'-'89....:5---l:~: : 947 PHF= 0.90 :~: 0.85 1,069 1,139 .' '1'" .. ·r···· . . . .. . :::::: ::::: . .. . .. -:."-: :--:. "."... . .. " .. I PHF= I 0.85 :~: 1,266 ~: 1,486 1,064 1,302 PHF= 0.81 SOllTHBOllND EASTBOllND WESTBOllND Left Thm SURVEY 24 64 127 219 425 476 542 81 159 299 60~ 760 888 998 Right Left DATA 9 24 54 84 112 15~ 185 201 61 115 151 209 24~ 285 TOTAL BY PERIOD 24 40 63 92 116 90 51 66 81 78 140 133 17l 157 128 110 9 15 ~O ~O 28 41 ~2 16 18 ~O 54 36 58 42 HOURLY TOTALS 219 ~11 ~61 ~49 323 4~2 522 601 589 566 84 10~ 129 131 117 115 138 l78 182 l70 Thm 69 17l 280 476 625 818 99:; U52 69 102 109 196 149 19~ l75 159 476 556 647 713 676 Right 10 21 :;2 40 52 7~ 79 11 11 8 12 21 6 ~2 35 42 52 47 Left 47 108 196 291 427 5:;5 619 681 47 61 88 95 136 108 84 62 291 ~80 427 4n ~90 Thm 58 157 247 :;62 50S 665 797 904 58 99 90 115 14~ 160 132 107 ~62 447 508 550 542 Right TOTAL :;5 72 In 190 285 ~47 416 469 35 ~7 51 67 95 62 69 53 190 250 275 29~ 279 -175 1,09-1 1,933 3,012 -1,230 5,512 6,517 7,-128 -175 619 839 1,079 1,218 1,282 1,005 911 3,012 3,755 -1,-118 -1,58-1 -1,-116 Telephone: (510)232-1271 Fax: (510)232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO TR.\FFIC STllDY SllRYEY DATE: 11/4/2010 DAY: THllRSDAY N-S APPROACH: CHESTNllT A YENllE E-W APPROACH: EL CAMINO REAL I--_----'P::..;;EAK HOlr-=TR"--_----, 1I-+ 311 P111 TO I 1I5 311 P111 I 211 I 777 I 179 EL CAl\IINO REAL TIME PERIOD F.·om -+1I11P11 -+ 15 P11 -+ 311P11 -+-+5 P11 51111P11 515 P11 5311P11 5 -+5 P11 I 124 I 599 I 327 I ~::: TOTAL I 5,096 I I 153 I 521 I 356 I CHESTNllT A YENllE NORTHBOllND To Left -+ 15 P11 ~8 -+ 311 P11 66 -+-+5P11 102 51111P11 D6 5 15 P11 l70 5 311 P11 219 5 -+5 P11 250 6 1I1i P11 288 Thm Right 98 194 :;25 586 715 821 95:; 85 184 27~ ~72 455 540 611 69:; 336 I 836 I 677 I SllRYEY TIME: 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM CITY: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO FILE: 3011077-10PM t ARRIYAL 1 DEPARTllRE YOLllMES NORTH 1,113 1,167 PHF= 0.91 I PHF= I 0.82 I I 1,050 I 1,068 I .' '1'" . ·r···· ... I PHF= I 0.94 :~:: :~: 1,849 :~: ~: 1,460 '. 'l' t * ... I 1,455 I 1,030 I I PHF= I 0.98 I SOllTHBOllND EASTBOllND WESTBOllND Left Thm SURVEY 65 D2 209 19~ ~76 459 5~O 606 120 2:;5 ~85 578 684 8~4 LOOO U57 Right Left DATA 56 86 114 144 180 220 247 101 157 204 242 ~12 :;52 410 Thm 198 ~7l 582 774 U48 LS14 Right 5:; 14~ 185 228 272 ~10 ~60 Left Thm 161 19~ 515 578 670 776 8~O 979 L007 L208 U85 U90 U~7 L606 Right TOTAL 86 152 404 488 57~ 65:; 1,190 2,286 3,598 -1,770 6,041 7,382 8,565 9,82-1 TOTAL BY PERIOD -+1I11P11 -+ 15 P11 -+ 311P11 -+-+5 P11 51111P11 515 P11 5311P11 5 -+5 P11 -+1I11P11 -+ 15 P11 -+ 311P11 -+-+5 P11 51111P11 -+ 15 P11 ~8 -+311P11 28 -+ -+5 P11 ~6 51111P11 ~4 5 15 P11 ~4 5311P11 49 5-+5P11 ~1 61111P11 ~8 51111P11 D6 515P11 D2 5 311P11 15~ 5 -+5 P11 148 61111P11 152 98 96 Dl 119 142 129 106 D2 444 488 521 496 509 85 99 89 99 8~ 85 7l 82 ~72 ~70 356 338 ~21 65 67 77 -16 18~ 8~ 7l 76 120 115 ISO 19~ 106 ISO 166 157 ~O 26 ~O 28 ~O 36 40 27 63 ~8 56 47 ~8 70 40 58 HOURLY TOTALS 19~ ~11 ~27 ~21 4D 578 564 599 615 579 114 114 124 133 204 l79 211 195 206 Telephone: (510)232-1271 198 l7~ 211 192 169 205 l75 191 774 745 777 741 53 40 50 42 ~8 50 185 l75 l79 167 161 169 185 155 160 177 l78 152 670 669 677 670 740 175 667 Fax: (510)232-1272 19~ l79 206 198 20~ 229 182 216 776 786 8~6 812 8~O 86 66 91 81 80 84 85 80 ~24 ~18 336 330 ~29 1,190 1,096 1,312 1,172 1,271 1,3-11 1,183 1,259 -1,770 -1,851 5,096 -1,967 5,05-1 PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1114/2010 N-S APPROACH: CHESTNUT A VENUE DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH EL CAMINO REAL CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 7:00AM TO 9:00AM FILE: 3011077-10AM(B) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 07 00 AM I TO I 0800AM I TOTAL BICYCLE VOLUMES NORTH I 2 I +---B 0 A&B -----+ A 0 +-+ 0 I 0 0 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 0 11111111111111111111 ! 1 ! 1 1 1 H G C D EL CAMINO REAL 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 0 0 11111111111111111111 0 C&D 1 +---E I 2 +--+ 1 -----+ F E&F CHESTNUT A VENUE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 TOTAL BY PERIOD 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 HOURLY TOTALS 07.00 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0715 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 07.30 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0745 AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 OS 00 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. BICYCLE MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1114/2010 N-S APPROACH: CHESTNUT A VENUE DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH EL CAMINO REAL CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3011077-10PM(B) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 04 00 PM I TO I 05 00 PM I TOTAL BICYCLE VOLUMES NORTH I 8 I +---B 1 A&B -----+ A 0 +-+ 1 I 1 0 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 1 11111111111111111111 ! 1 1 1 1 1 H G C D EL CAMINO REAL 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 0 4 11111111111111111111 4 C&D 0 +---E I 2 +--+ 2 -----+ F E&F CHESTNUT A VENUE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 1 0 " 0 1 0 0 5 ,) 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 1 0 " 0 2 0 0 6 ,) 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 1 0 4 0 2 0 0 7 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 1 0 4 0 2 0 1 8 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 2 0 4 0 2 0 2 10 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 2 0 4 0 2 0 " 11 ,) 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 2 0 4 0 " 0 " 12 ,) ,) 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 2 0 4 0 " 0 " 12 ,) ,) TOTAL BY PERIOD 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 5 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOURLY TOTALS 0400 PM ---0500 PM 0 1 0 4 0 2 0 1 8 0415 PM ---0515 PM 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 5 0430 PM ---0530 PM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 5 0445 PM ---0545 PM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 5 0500 PM ---0600 PM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 .j Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1114/2010 N-S APPROACH: CHESTNUT A VENUE DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH EL CAMINO REAL CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 7:00AM TO 9:00AM FILE: 3011077-10AM(PED) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0800AM I TO I 09 00 AM I TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES NORTH I 22 I +---B 0 A&B -----+ A 2 +-+ 2 I 7 0 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 7 11111111111111111111 ! 1 ! 1 1 1 H G C D EL CAMINO REAL 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 5 3 11111111111111111111 8 C&D 1 +---E I 5 +--+ 4 -----+ F E&F CHESTNUT A VENUE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 .j 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 1 7 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 1 2 4 4 1 1 13 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 1 0 2 2 4 6 1 1 17 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 1 0 2 " 4 6 1 1 18 ,) OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 1 0 4 " 4 7 1 2 22 ,) OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 2 0 6 5 5 S 1 S 35 TOTAL BY PERIOD 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 1 1 3 0 1 0 6 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 .j OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 .j OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 1 0 2 2 1 1 0 6 13 HOURLY TOTALS 07.00 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 1 2 4 4 1 1 13 0715 AM ---OS15 AM 1 0 2 2 4 5 1 1 16 07.30 AM ---OS.30AM 1 0 2 2 4 4 1 0 U 0745 AM ---OS45 AM 1 0 4 2 3 3 1 1 15 OS 00 AM ---09 00 AM 2 0 5 3 1 4 0 7 22 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1114/2010 N-S APPROACH: CHESTNUT A VENUE DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH EL CAMINO REAL CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3011077-10PM(PED) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0430PM I TO I 0530PM I TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES NORTH I 47 I +---B 2 A&B -----+ A 2 +-+ 4 I 6 5 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 11 11111111111111111111 ! 1 1 1 1 1 H G C D EL CAMINO REAL 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 7 6 11111111111111111111 13 C&D 10 +---E I 19 +--+ 9 -----+ F E&F CHESTNUT A VENUE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 0415 PM ---0430 PM 1 1 2 4 2 " 1 " 17 ,) ,) 0430 PM ---0445 PM 2 1 4 5 7 4 1 " 27 ,) 0445 PM ---0500 PM 2 1 6 7 7 7 2 4 36 0500 PM ---0515 PM 2 2 8 9 10 7 4 7 -19 0515 PM ---0530 PM " " 9 10 12 12 6 9 6.f ,) ,) 0530 PM ---0545 PM 4 " 9 10 12 12 8 10 68 ,) 0545 PM ---0600 PM 5 " 9 10 12 13 9 10 71 ,) TOTAL BY PERIOD 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 0415 PM ---0430 PM 1 0 0 2 2 3 1 3 12 0430 PM ---0445 PM 1 0 2 1 5 1 0 0 10 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 2 2 0 3 1 1 9 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 1 2 2 3 0 2 3 13 0515 PM ---0530 PM 1 1 1 1 2 5 2 2 15 0530 PM ---0545 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 -I 0545 PM ---0600 PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 HOURLY TOTALS 0400 PM ---0500 PM 2 1 6 7 7 7 2 4 36 0415 PM ---0515 PM 2 1 6 7 10 7 4 7 -1-1 0430 PM ---0530 PM 2 2 7 6 10 9 5 6 -17 0445 PM ---0545 PM 2 2 5 5 5 8 7 7 .jJ 0500 PM ---0600 PM 3 2 3 3 5 6 7 6 35 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 MMARY PROJECT: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO TR.\FFIC STllDY SllRYEY DATE: 11/4/2010 DAY: THllRSDAY N-S APPROACH: W. OR.\NGE A YENllE E-W APPROACH: EL CAMINO REAL I--_----'P::.;;EAK HOlr=TR"--_---, lI7 oll.~ll TO I lI8 oll.~ll I 235 I 1,160 ~::: I 57 EL CAl\IINO REAL 186 152 61 TOTAL I 3,127 I 111 W. ORANGE A YENllE 115 48 TIME PERIOD NORTHBOllND F.'om 7l1l1.~1 7 15.~1 7 oll.~l 7'+5.~1 8l1l1.~1 8 15.~1 8 oll.~l 8'+5.~1 7l1l1.~1 7 15.~1 7 oll.~l 7'+5.~1 8l1l1.~1 8 15.~1 8 oll.~l 8'+5.~1 7l1l1.~1 7 15.~1 7 oll.~l 7'+5.~1 8l1l1.~1 To Left 7 15.~1 11 7 oll.~l 24 7.+5 .~l 58 8l1l1.~1 9~ 8 15.~1 U8 8 oll.~l l76 8.+5 .~l 195 9l1l1.~1 217 7 15.~1 11 7oll.~1 U 7 '+5.~1 ~4 8l1l1.~1 ~5 8 15.~1 45 8 oll.~l ~8 8.+5 .~l 19 9l1l1.~1 22 8l1l1.~1 9~ 8 15 .~l 127 8 oll.~l 152 8'+5.~1 U7 9l1l1.~1 124 Thm Right 7 19 41 66 98 UO 146 168 7 12 22 25 ~2 ~2 16 22 66 91 111 lOS 102 6 20 ~7 48 61 64 74 6 7 7 l7 11 .' 10 ~7 42 48 44 ~7 SllRYEY TIME: 7:00 AM TO 9:00AM CITY: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO FILE: 3011077-11AM 109 I 864 I 29 I t NORTH 1,202 1,452 PHF= 0.93 ARRIYAL 1 DEPARTllRE YOLllMES PHF= 0.87 362 455 .' '1'" .. ·r···· . . . .. . :::::: ::::: . .. . .. -:."-: :--:. "."... . .. " .. I PHF= I 0.78 :~:: :~: 1,002 :~: ~: 1,323 147 311 PHF= 0.88 SOllTHBOllND EASTBOllND WESTBOllND Left Thm SURVEY 16 46 79 101 128 161 200 n7 4 7 25 ~7 5:; 68 97 Right Left DATA 72 119 151 212 258 298 20 102 ISO 224 278 ~09 TOTAL BY PERIOD 16 ~O 22 27 39 ~7 .' 18 12 16 15 15 14 ~4 ~8 47 ~2 61 46 40 ~2 20 59 48 74 54 ~1 HOURLY TOTALS 101 112 115 121 U6 ~7 49 61 58 60 151 l78 186 l79 l79 ISO 204 n5 207 20~ Thm 115 265 5~O 800 U02 U25 L652 L95~ 115 ISO 265 270 ~02 323 227 ~OI 800 987 U60 U22 U5~ Right 9 14 40 51 66 77 81 26 11 15 11 4 40 46 57 63 41 Left 2 4 7 10 27 2 2 .' .' l7 6 6 10 25 29 ~1 ~4 Thm 94 219 410 595 858 L08~ 1252 L445 94 125 191 185 26~ 225 169 19~ 595 764 864 842 850 Right TOTAL 2:; 67 109 U2 149 177 10 15 29 42 l7 28 67 96 109 111 110 327 7·1-1 1,·1-13 2,1-17 3,048 3,871 4,463 5,176 327 417 699 704 901 823 592 713 2,1-17 2,721 3,127 3,020 3,029 Telephone: (510)232-1271 Fax: (510)232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO TR.\FFIC STllDY SllRYEY DATE: 11/4/2010 DAY: THllRSDAY N-S APPROACH: W. OR.\NGE A YENllE E-W APPROACH: EL CAMINO REAL I--_---'P::..;;EAK HOlr=TR"--_---, 1I-+ 15 P111 TO I 1I5 15 P111 I 204 I 1,247 ~::: I 47 EL CAl\IINO REAL 221 111 TOTAL I 3,808 I 71 W. ORANGE A YENllE 145 48 TIME PERIOD NORTHBOllND F.·om -+1I11P11 -+ 15 P11 -+ 01lP11 -+-+5 P11 51111P11 515 P11 501lP11 5 -+5 P11 -+1I11P11 -+ 15 P11 -+ 01lP11 -+-+5 P11 51111P11 515 P11 501lP11 5 -+5 P11 -+1I11P11 -+ 15 P11 -+ 01lP11 -+-+5 P11 51111P11 To Left -+ 15 P11 ~O -+01lP11 57 -+-+5P11 77 5 1I1i P11 112 5 15 P11 141 501lP11 154 5 -+5 P11 l75 61111P11 200 -+ 15 P11 ~O -+01lP11 27 -+-+5 P11 20 51111P11 ~5 5 15 P11 29 501lP11 U 5 -+5 P11 21 61111P11 25 5 1I1i P11 112 515P11 111 5 oll P11 97 5-+5P11 98 61111P11 88 Thm Right 12 29 40 58 95 111 UO 12 l7 11 18 25 12 16 19 58 7l 66 7l 72 2:; 46 61 69 91 lOS 10 11 12 15 8 22 14 46 48 46 57 59 SllRYEY TIME: 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM CITY: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO FILE: 3011077-11PM .~ 131 I 1,500 I 39 I t NORTH 1,832 1,498 PHF= 0.89 ARRIYAL 1 DEPARTllRE YOLllMES PHF= 0.92 410 406 I PHF= I 0.89 .' '1'" .. ·r···· . . . .. . :::::: ::::: . .. . .. -:."-: :--:. "."... . .. " .. :~:: :~: 1,670 :~: ~: 1,440 130 230 PHF= 0.83 SOllTHBOllND EASTBOllND WESTBOllND Left Thm SURVEY 29 61 98 l74 2U 269 ~15 16 41 47 60 75 86 96 Right Left DATA :;5 91 Ul 199 256 ~OO ~76 45 87 142 206 249 291 415 TOTAL BY PERIOD 29 ~2 ~7 35 41 39 56 46 16 14 11 6 15 11 10 35 56 40 68 57 44 39 ~7 45 42 55 64 42 62 62 HOURLY TOTALS 133 145 152 17l 182 47 44 45 45 49 199 221 209 208 177 206 204 204 211 209 Thm 27~ 590 90~ 1252 U20 L770 2Jl40 V72 27~ ~l7 313 ~49 268 250 270 332 1252 1247 1.180 1.l~7 Right 11 20 48 58 76 90 lOS 11 9 18 10 10 18 14 15 48 47 56 52 1.120 57 Left 4 15 25 :;5 48 61 66 4 11 10 10 8 35 39 36 ~1 Thm ~19 668 L021 LS19 2.l78 2.590 ~.OI2 ~19 ~49 353 412 ~86 ~59 412 422 UOO UI0 U69 U79 Right TOTAL 24 52 80 110 155 196 2:;2 276 24 28 28 ~O 45 41 36 110 Ul 144 152 166 811 1,723 2,630 3,679 -1,619 5,-165 6,-137 7,-168 811 912 907 1,049 9-10 8-16 972 1,0.U 3,679 3,808 3,7-12 3,807 3,789 Telephone: (510)232-1271 Fax: (510)232-1272 PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1114/2010 N-S APPROACH: W. ORANGE AVENUE DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH EL CAMINO REAL CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 7:00AM TO 9:00AM FILE: 3011077-11AM(B) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0715 AM I TO I 0815 AM I TOTAL BICYCLE VOLUMES NORTH I 14 I +---B 2 A&B -----+ A 0 +-+ 2 I 4 1 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 5 11111111111111111111 ! 1 1 1 1 1 H G C D EL CAMINO REAL 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 6 1 I1111111111111111111 7 C&D 0 +---E I 0 +--+ 0 -----+ F E&F W. ORANGE A VENUE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 10 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 2 6 1 0 0 1 2 12 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 2 6 1 0 0 1 4 ].I OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 2 6 2 0 0 1 4 15 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 2 6 2 0 0 1 5 16 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 2 6 2 0 0 1 5 16 TOTAL BY PERIOD 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 8 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOURLY TOTALS 07.00 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 2 6 1 0 0 1 2 12 0715 AM ---OS15 AM 0 2 6 1 0 0 1 4 ].I 07.30 AM ---OS.30AM 0 1 6 2 0 0 1 3 13 0745 AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 6 OS 00 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 .j Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. BICYCLE MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1114/2010 N-S APPROACH: W. ORANGE AVENUE DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH EL CAMINO REAL CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3011077-11PM(B) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 05 00 PM I TO I 0600PM I TOTAL BICYCLE VOLUMES NORTH I 5 I +---B 1 A&B -----+ A 1 +-+ 2 I 1 0 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 1 11111111111111111111 ! 1 1 1 1 1 H G C D EL CAMINO REAL 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 0 1 11111111111111111111 1 C&D 0 +---E I 1 +--+ 1 -----+ F E&F W. ORANGE A VENUE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0415 PM ---0430 PM 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0430 PM ---0445 PM 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 .j 0445 PM ---0500 PM 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 .j 0500 PM ---0515 PM 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 5 0515 PM ---0530 PM 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 7 0530 PM ---0545 PM 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 8 0545 PM ---0600 PM 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 2 9 TOTAL BY PERIOD 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0415 PM ---0430 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0515 PM ---0530 PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 HOURLY TOTALS 0400 PM ---0500 PM 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 .j 0415 PM ---0515 PM 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0430 PM ---0530 PM 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 .j 0445 PM ---0545 PM 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 .j 0500 PM ---0600 PM 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 5 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1114/2010 N-S APPROACH: W. ORANGE AVENUE DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH EL CAMINO REAL CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 7:00AM TO 9:00AM FILE: 3011077-11AM(PED) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 07 00 AM I TO I 0800AM I TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES NORTH I 83 I +---B 3 A&B -----+ A 23 +-+ 26 I 3 14 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 17 11111111111111111111 ! 1 ! 1 1 1 H G C D EL CAMINO REAL 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 3 24 11111111111111111111 27 C&D 1 +---E I 13 +--+ 12 -----+ F E&F W. ORANGE A VENUE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 5 0 1 5 0 2 1 0 ].I 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 12 1 2 5 1 6 " 1 31 ,) 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 18 2 " 18 1 10 9 2 63 ,) 0745 AM ---08 00 AM 23 " " 24 1 12 14 " 83 ,) ,) ,) 08 00 AM ---0815 AM 23 5 4 24 1 14 17 6 9-1 0815 AM ---08.30 AM 25 7 5 25 2 15 18 7 10-1 08.30 AM ---0845 AM 25 8 6 25 2 17 19 7 109 0845 AM ---09 00 AM 26 9 6 25 2 18 21 8 115 TOTAL BY PERIOD 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 5 0 1 5 0 2 1 0 ].I 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 7 1 1 0 1 4 2 1 17 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 6 1 1 13 0 4 6 1 32 0745 AM ---08 00 AM 5 1 0 6 0 2 5 1 20 08 00 AM ---0815 AM 0 2 1 0 0 2 3 3 11 0815 AM ---08.30 AM 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 08.30 AM ---0845 AM 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 5 0845 AM ---09 00 AM 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 6 HOURLY TOTALS 07.00 AM ---08 00 AM 23 3 3 24 1 12 14 3 83 0715 AM ---0815 AM 18 5 3 19 1 12 16 6 80 07.30 AM ---08.30 AM 13 6 3 20 1 9 15 6 73 0745 AM ---0845 AM 7 6 3 7 1 7 10 5 -16 08 00 AM ---09 00 AM 3 6 3 1 1 6 7 5 32 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1114/2010 N-S APPROACH: W. ORANGE AVENUE DAY: THURSDAY E-W APPROACH EL CAMINO REAL CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3011077 -11PM(PED) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 04 00 PM I TO I 05 00 PM I TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES NORTH I 43 I +---B 7 A&B -----+ A 5 +-+ 12 I 4 4 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G&HI 8 11111111111111111111 ! 1 1 1 1 1 H G C D EL CAMINO REAL 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11 5 11111111111111111111 16 C&D 4 +---E I 7 +--+ 3 -----+ F E&F W. ORANGE A VENUE TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0400 PM ---0415 PM 2 4 5 1 1 0 1 " 17 ,) 0415 PM ---0430 PM " 5 7 2 2 1 2 4 26 ,) 0430 PM ---0445 PM 4 7 10 4 " 2 " 4 37 ,) ,) 0445 PM ---0500 PM 5 7 11 5 4 " 4 4 -13 ,) 0500 PM ---0515 PM 6 8 12 6 4 " 4 5 -18 ,) 0515 PM ---0530 PM 6 9 13 6 6 4 5 5 5-1 0530 PM ---0545 PM 8 9 14 7 6 5 5 5 59 0545 PM ---0600 PM 8 10 14 7 6 5 5 6 61 TOTAL BY PERIOD 0400 PM ---0415 PM 2 4 5 1 1 0 1 3 17 0415 PM ---0430 PM 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 9 0430 PM ---0445 PM 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 0 11 0445 PM ---0500 PM 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 6 0500 PM ---0515 PM 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 5 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 6 0530 PM ---0545 PM 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 5 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 HOURLY TOTALS 0400 PM ---0500 PM 5 7 11 5 4 3 4 4 -13 0415 PM ---0515 PM 4 4 7 5 3 3 3 2 31 0430 PM ---0530 PM 3 4 6 4 4 3 3 1 28 0445 PM ---0545 PM 4 2 4 3 3 3 2 1 22 0500 PM ---0600 PM 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 18 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 PROJECT: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO TR.\FFIC STllDY N-S APPROACH: JllNIPERO SERR\ BOllLEYARD E-W APPROACH: ARROYO DRIYE I-__ -=P..,EAK HOlr-=TR=..:..-__ --, lI7 -+5 ~~ll TO I lI8 -+5 ~~ll I o I o ~::: I 0 ARROYO DRIYE TOTAL I 1,234 I I 0 I 322 I 72 I :~ .fiTNIPERO SERR\ BOllLEYARD o I 158 I MMARY SllRYEY DATE: 11/3/2010 DAY: WEDNESDAY SllRYEY TIME: 7:00 AM TO 9:00AM CITY: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO FILE: 3011077-12AM t ARRIYAL 1 DEPARTllRE YOLllMES NORTH I PHF= I 0.84 I 1--_0'----1:~: : o PHF= #DIY/OI :~: I 637 I 367 I ... .' '1'" . ·r···· '. 'l' t * ... I 741 I 394 I I PHF= I 0.85 :~: 203 ~: 126 I PHF= I 0.83 I TIME PERIOD NORTHBOllND SOllTHBOllND EASTBOllND WESTBOllND F.·om 7l1l1~~1 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+5~~1 8l1l1~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 :W~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 7l1l1~~1 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+5~~1 8l1l1~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 :W~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 7l1l1~~1 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+5~~1 8l1l1~~1 To 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+5~~1 8l1l1~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 :W~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 9l1l1~~1 7 15~~1 7 :W~~l 7 -+5~~1 8l1l1~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 :W~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 9l1l1~~1 8l1l1~~1 8 15 ~~l 8 :W~~l 8 -+5 ~~l 9l1l1~~1 Left I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) o o o o o o o o o o o o o Thm Right :;5 76 121 198 293 523 35 41 45 77 95 87 63 80 198 258 ~04 ~22 ~25 6 2:; 56 81) 11)6 111 121 6 l7 16 l7 24 26 5 10 56 8~ 72 65 Left Thm SURVEY 9 16 48 64 71) 81) 71 166 28~ 451) 595 741) 866 959 Right Left DATA I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) TOTAL BY PERIOD 7 9 16 6 10 71 95 117 167 145 145 126 93 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o HOURLY TOTALS 39 55 54 41 450 524 574 58~ 509 o o o o o o o o o o Telephone: (510)232-1271 Thm I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) o o o o o o o o o o o o o Right I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) o o o o o o o o o o o o o Fax: (510)232-1272 Left 26 79 119 161 194 241) 277 26 53 40 42 46 ~7 36 161 168 161 158 152 Thm I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) o o o o o o o o o o o o o Right TOTAL 5 12 16 28 41 54 61 7 4 12 7 2 28 36 42 45 35 1-17 365 59-1 932 1,251 1,58-1 1,828 2,059 1-17 218 229 338 319 333 2-1-1 231 932 1,104 1,219 1,23-1 1,127 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO TR.\FFIC STllDY SllRYEY DATE: 11/3/2010 DAY: WEDNESDAY N-S APPROACH: JllNIPERO SERR.\ BOllLEYARD SllRYEY TIME: 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM E-W APPROACH: ARROYO DRIYE CITY: SOllTH SAN FR.\NCISCO FILE: 3011077-12PM I-__ -=P..,EAK HOlr:TR=..:....-__ ..., 1I5 1I1i P111 TO I 1I6 1I1i P111 I 0 I 349 I 53 I ::::i<:::l:::::<::: :-: . :-:-: :~: : : ::: ::::: :~: :. : . :-:- 1 o D.: : .. C r--7-1 -'1 I o ~::: 1 0 ARROYO DRIYE TOTAL I 1,490 I I 0 I 760 I 165 I :~ .fiTNIPERO SERR\ BOllLEYARD o I 92 1 t NORTH TIME PERIOD NORTHBOllND SOllTHBOllND ARRIYAL 1 DEPARTllRE YOLllMES I PHF= I 0.79 I I 402 I 831 I I PHF= I 0.91 .. ·1··· . ·r···· ... 1--_0'----1:~: : :~: 163 o PHF= #DIY/OI :~: ~: 218 .. ·l· t * ... I 441 I 925 I I PHF= I 0.96 I EASTBOllND WESTBOllND F.·om To Left Thl"U Right Left Thl"U Right Left Thl"U Right Left Thl"U Right TOTAL .+1I11P11 .+ 15 P11 .+:WP11 .+.+5 P11 51111P11 515 P11 5311P11 5.+5 P11 .+1I11P11 .+ 15 P11 .+ 311P11 .+.+5 P11 51111P11 515 P11 5311P11 5.+5 P11 .+1I11P11 .+ 15 P11 .+ 311P11 .+.+5 P11 51111P11 .+ 15 P11 .+:WP11 .+.+5 P11 51111P11 515 P11 5311P11 5.+5 P11 61111P11 .+ 15 P11 .+ 311P11 .+.+5 P11 51111P11 515 P11 5311P11 5.+5 P11 61111P11 51111P11 515 P11 5311P11 5.+5 P11 61111P11 I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) o o o o o o o o o o o o o 115 ~88 718 916 LI)99 L29~ 115 118 155 145 185 198 18~ 194 533 60~ 68~ 711 760 26 69 11)2 US 191 228 268 ~I)I) 26 56 ~7 40 ~2 US 165 159 166 165 SURVEY II) 16 26 46 52 65 89 91) 159 268 ~42 459 529 617 691 DATA I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) TOTAL BY PERIOD 10 6 10 10 10 6 24 90 69 109 74 117 70 88 74 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o HOURLY TOTALS 36 36 36 39 53 ~42 ~69 ~70 ~49 ~49 o o o o o o o o o o Telephone: (510)232-1271 I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) o o o o o o o o o o o o o I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) o o o o o o o o o o o o o Fax: (510)232-1272 16 ~I) 53 71) 89 111 U6 162 16 14 l7 19 22 25 26 70 81 8~ 92 I) I) I) I) I) I) I) I) o o o o o o o o o o o o o 15 2:; ~7 46 64 11)~ 117 15 8 14 9 18 19 20 14 46 49 60 66 7l 272 530 87-1 1,162 1,567 1,919 2,288 2,652 272 258 3·/.1 288 -105 352 369 36./ 1,162 1,295 1,389 1,-11./ 1,-190 PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1113/2010 N-S APPROACH: JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD DAY: WEDNESDAY E-W APPROACH ARROYO DRIVE CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 7:00AM TO 9:00AM FILE: 3011077-12AM(B) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0730AM I TO I 0830AM I TOTAL BICYCLE VOLUMES NORTH I 1 I +---B 1 G~-~ -----+ A 0 I 0 0 ! 1 1 1 1 1 H G C D ARROYO DRIVE 0 0 paD 0 +---E ~-0 -----+ F E&F JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TOTAL BY PERIOD 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOURLY TOTALS 07.00 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07.30 AM ---OS.30AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0745 AM ---OS45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 OS 00 AM ---09 00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. BICYCLE MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1113/2010 N-S APPROACH: JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD DAY: WEDNESDAY E-W APPROACH ARROYO DRIVE CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3011077-12PM(B) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 1030AM I TO I 0330PM I TOTAL BICYCLE VOLUMES NORTH I 0 I +---B 0 G~-~ -----+ A 0 I 0 0 ! 1 ! 1 1 1 H G C D ARROYO DRIVE 0 0 paD 0 +---E ~-0 -----+ F E&F JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL BY PERIOD 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOURLY TOTALS 0400 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415 PM ---0515 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1113/2010 N-S APPROACH: JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD DAY: WEDNESDAY E-W APPROACH ARROYO DRIVE CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 7:00AM TO 9:00AM FILE: 3011077 -12AM(PED) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 0130 PM I TO I 0630PM I TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES NORTH I 0 I +---B 0 G~-~ -----+ A 0 I 0 0 ! 1 1 1 1 1 H G C D ARROYO DRIVE 0 0 paD 0 +---E ~-0 -----+ F E&F JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL BY PERIOD 07.00 AM ---0715 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715 AM ---07.30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07.30 AM ---0745 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS 00 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS15 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS.30AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS45 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOURLY TOTALS 07.00 AM ---OS 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715 AM ---OS15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07.30 AM ---OS.30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745 AM ---OS45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OS 00 AM ---09 00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 B.A. Y.M.E. T.R.I. C.S. PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRAFFIC STUDY SURVEY DATE 1113/2010 N-S APPROACH: JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD DAY: WEDNESDAY E-W APPROACH ARROYO DRIVE CITY: SO. SAN FRANCISCO SURVEY PERIOI) 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM FILE: 3011077 -12PM(PED) PEAK HOUR t PEAK HOUR 1030AM I TO I 0330PM I TOTAL PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES NORTH I 0 I +---B 0 G~-~ -----+ A 0 I 0 0 ! 1 ! 1 1 1 H G C D ARROYO DRIVE 0 0 paD 0 +---E ~-0 -----+ F E&F JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD TIME PERIOD NORTH X-WALK EAST X-WALK SOUTH X-WALK WEST X-WALK From To A B C D E F G H TOTAL SURVEY DATA 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL BY PERIOD 0400 PM ---0415 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415 PM ---0430 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430 PM ---0445 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0515 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0515 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0530 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOURLY TOTALS 0400 PM ---0500 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415 PM ---0515 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430 PM ---0530 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445 PM ---0545 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500 PM ---0600 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tel: (51()) 232-1271 Fax: (51()) 232-1272 B. El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Land Use Projections City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan NET NEW DEVELOPMENT BY BLOCK Existing to be Project Redeveloped ----------------------~~----------------------------- Housing Center Alternative BLOCK A Residential Units Block B & C Residential Units Retail and Services (sf) BLOCK 0 & E Residential Units Retail and Services (sf) BLOCK F & G Retail and Services Office (sf) Civic (Library) (sf) BLOCK H, I, & J Residential Units (sf) Retail and Services (sf)* OUTSIDE FOCUS AREA Residential Units Retail and Services (sf) 419 137 11,600 224 76,100 34,SOO 73,000 SO,OOO 370 (8,SOO) 30S 61,700 * No new net Retail and Services; Assume 0 sf SUMMARY OF NET NEW DEVELOPMENT Residential Units Retail and Services (sf)* Office (sf) Civic (sf) Project l,4SS 17S,400 73,000 SO,OOO *No new net Retail and Servies; Assume 0 sf 419 210 341 34,SOO 73,000 SO,OOO 608 (73,100) 30S (120,900) Housing Center Alternative 1,883 (lS9,SOO) 73,000 SO,OOO 65 120,900 Table 2-2: Development Potential Summary for Area Plan Projected within Projected Outside Land Use Type Existing Existi ng Lost Focus Area of Focus Area Net Total Retail and Services (SF) 250,900 194,000 186,800 182,600 426,300 Office (SF) 304,800 0 73,000 0 377,800 Public/Institutional (SF) 60,500 0 50,000 0 110,500 Residential (Units) 132 65 1,215 305 1,587 Table 2-3: Focus Area Development Summary by Block Block Non-Residential (SF) Residential (units) Retail Office Publici Inst. Low-Rise Tower Town-houses Total A 0 0 0 136 244 39 419 B 0 0 0 43 0 0 43 C 11,600 0 0 24 51 19 94 D 13,400 0 0 23 101 15 139 E 62,700 0 0 68 73 9 150 F 9,200 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 G 25,300 73,000 0 0 0 0 0 H 26,200 0 0 127 67 29 223 38,400 0 0 25 77 0 102 0 0 0 36 0 9 45 Total 186,800 73,000 50,000 482 613 120 1,215 C. Project Trip Generation Calculations City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Location Block A Blocks B & C Blocks D & E Blocks F & G Blocks H & I & J Outside Focus Area Total Trips Location Block A Blocks B & C Blocks D & E Blocks F & G Blocks H & I & J Outside Focus Area Reduced Trips Percent Reduction Location Block A Blocks B & C Blocks D & E Blocks F & G Blocks H & I & J Outside Focus Area Total New Trips Total Trips Before Reductions Daily AM Trips PM Trips AM Trips Trips In 2756 211 256 42 1398 80 126 20 4758 190 423 69 5098 200 603 157 2062 177 194 32 4680 218 419 69 20752 1076 2021 389 Reduced Trips Daily AM Trips PM Trips AM Trips Trips In 413 31 38 6 320 16 42 5 974 33 171 12 1320 67 455 45 346 28 22 6 912 37 150 12 4285 212 878 86 20.65% 19.70% 43.44% 22.11% Total New Trips After Reductions Daily AM Peak Hour In Out Total 2,343 36 144 180 1,078 15 49 64 3,784 57 100 157 3,778 112 21 133 1,716 26 123 149 3,768 57 124 181 16,467 303 561 864 AM Trips PM Trips PM Trips Out In Out 169 166 90 60 75 51 121 229 194 43 257 346 145 131 63 149 236 183 687 1094 927 AM Trips PM Trips PM Trips Out In Out 25 25 13 11 23 19 21 88 83 22 220 235 22 16 6 25 79 71 126 451 427 18.34% 41.22% 46.06% PM Peak Hour In Out Total 141 77 218 52 32 84 141 111 252 37 111 148 115 57 172 157 112 269 643 500 1,143 Weekday Trip Generation Project Name Project Number ECR-Chestnut -Block A Trips Based on Average Rates/Equations Rates Internal Avg ITE Capture Independent No. of Rate Daily AM PM Code Land Use Land Use Description Variable Units or Eq Rate Rate Rate =;;;,~-,~ -.,.~~ =0" ~ ~ 220 Apartment OWellin Unit 5 380 Av 6.65 0.51 0.62 230 Residential CondominiumfTownhouse Dwelling Unit s 39 Avg 5.81 0.44 0.52 Totals Transit Reduction (Residential-15%l -15% Net Trips after Transit Reduction Notes: (1) A B C o E F G AM and/or PM rates correspond to peak hour of generator Trip Generation data from ITE Trip Generation, 8th Edition AM/PM rates correspond to peak of adjacent street traffic (If data available) Includes weekday rates only Total triPS Include pass-by tnps w/ no Internal capture Pass-by rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition Intemal capture rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition Worksheet is intended as a planning tool. Verify results w/ITE Trip Generation 8th Edition ECR-Chestnut_ TripGeneration _ A.xls Klmley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2009 CQI, Jim West, San Ramon, CA Total Trips AM AM PM PM Daily AM PM Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips In Out In Out 2528 194 236 39 155 153 83 228 17 20 3 14 13 7 2756 211 256 42 169 166 90 Net Trips after I nternal Capture AM AM PM Daily AM PM Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips In Out In 2528 194 236 39 155 153 228 17 20 3 14 13 2756 211 256 42 169 166 -413 -32 -38 -6 -25 -25 2343 179 218 36 144 141 ~=~ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Net Trips after Internal Capture & Pass-By PM Trips Daily AM PM Out Trips Trips Trips 83 2149 165 201 7 194 14 17 90 2343 179 218 -14 77 AM Trips In 33 3 36 AM PM PM Trips Trips Trips Out In Out 132 130 71 12 11 6 144 141 77 1/13/2011 3:39 PM Planner Sheet ITE MULTI-USE PROJECT INTERNAL CAPTURE WORKSHEET (Source: Chapter 7, ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004) Project Number: 000000000 Project Name: ECR-Chestnut -Block A Scenario: Analysis Period: Dally Land Use A: None (0) Analyst: Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc Enter from External:~ ------to- Exit to External: ~ +------ Demand~~~~ __ ~~ Balanced Demand I .:;O"'.O-'%'-'----" __ -;Y~. ITE Land Use Code 0 Size: 0 I Total I Intemal I Extemal Enter 0 0 I 0 Exit 0 0 I 0 Total 0 0 I 0 % Demand Demand I . ~~~~~~,--"Demand Demand Demand Land Use B: None (0) Land Use D: None (0) 'ITE Land Use Code 0 Size: 0 Total I Internal I Extemal Enter 0 0 EXit 0 0 Total 0 0 % ~ t Enter from Extemal: EE EXit to Extemal: 0 I I t:. Land Use Code 0 Size" 0 Demand I Total Demand~~~~ __ ~~ I Enter 0 I EXit 0 0.0% Demand Total 0 % ~ Demandl 0.0% I Balanced I Enter from Extemal ",,:-,-,-,-,-,~ __ ---,------,Demand Demandl 0.0% IDemand EXit to Extemal Internal 0 0 0 ~ t EE Demand I 0.0% Demand ECR-Chestnut_ TripGeneration _ A.xls Enter from Extemal:~ ------to- Exit to Extemal:~ - Enter EXit Total % nal I Extemal NET EXTERNAL TRIPS FOR MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT Land Use Cateaory A B C D Total Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 Single Use Trip Gen Estimate 0 0 0 0 0 Overall Internal Capture = IL-_____ ..J Extemal 0 0 0 1/13/2011 3:39 PM ITE MULTI-USE PROJECT INTERNAL CAPTURE WORKSHEET (Source: Chapter 7, ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004) Project Number: 000000000 Project Name: ECR-Chestnut -Block A Scenario: Analysis Period: AM Peak Land Use A: None (0) Analyst: Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc Enter from External:~ ------to- Exit to External: ~ +------ Demand~~~~ __ ~~ Balanced Demand I .:;O"'.O-'%'-'----" __ -;Y~. ITE Land Use Code 0 Size: 0 I Total I Intemal I Extemal Enter 0 0 I 0 Exit 0 0 I 0 Total 0 0 I 0 % Demand Demand I . ~~~~~~,--"Demand Demand Demand Land Use B: None (0) Land Use D: None (0) 'ITE Land Use Code 0 Size: 0 Total I Internal I Extemal Enter 0 0 EXit 0 0 Total 0 0 % ~ t Enter from Extemal: EE EXit to Extemal: 0 I I t:. Land Use Code 0 Size" 0 Demand I Total Demand~~~~ __ ~~ I Enter 0 I EXit 0 0.0% Demand Total 0 % ~ Demandl 0.0% I Balanced I Enter from Extemal ",,:-,-,-,-,-,~ __ ---,------,Demand Demandl 0.0% IDemand EXit to Extemal Internal 0 0 0 ~ t EE Demand I 0.0% Demand ECR-Chestnut_ TripGeneration _ A.xls Enter from Extemal:~ ------to- Exit to Extemal:~ - Enter EXit Total % nal I Extemal NET EXTERNAL TRIPS FOR MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT Land Use Cateaory A B C D Total Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 Single Use Trip Gen Estimate 0 0 0 0 0 Overall Internal Capture = IL-_____ ..J Extemal 0 0 0 1/13/2011 3:39 PM ITE MULTI-USE PROJECT INTERNAL CAPTURE WORKSHEET (Source: Chapter 7, ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004) Project Number: 000000000 Project Name: ECR-Chestnut -Block A Scenario: Analysis Period: PM Peak Land Use A: None (0) Analyst: Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc Enter from External:~ ------to- Exit to External: ~ +------ Demand~~~~ __ ~~ Balanced Demand I .:;O"'.O-'%'-'----" __ -;Y~. ITE Land Use Code 0 Size: 0 I Total I Intemal I Extemal Enter 0 0 I 0 Exit 0 0 I 0 Total 0 0 I 0 % Demand Demand I . ~~~~~~,--"Demand Demand Demand Land Use B: None (0) Land Use D: None (0) 'ITE Land Use Code 0 Size: 0 Total I Internal I Extemal Enter 0 0 EXit 0 0 Total 0 0 % ~ t Enter from Extemal: EE EXit to Extemal: 0 I I t:. Land Use Code 0 Size" 0 Demand I Total Demand~~~~ __ ~~ I Enter 0 I EXit 0 0.0% Demand Total 0 % ~ Demandl 0.0% I Balanced I Enter from Extemal ",,:-,-,-,-,-,~ __ ---,------,Demand Demandl 0.0% IDemand EXit to Extemal Internal 0 0 0 ~ t EE Demand I 0.0% Demand ECR-Chestnut_ TripGeneration _ A.xls Enter from Extemal:~ ------to- Exit to Extemal:~ - Enter EXit Total % nal I Extemal NET EXTERNAL TRIPS FOR MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT Land Use Cateaory A B C D Total Enter 0 0 0 0 0 Exit 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 Single Use Trip Gen Estimate 0 0 0 0 0 Overall Internal Capture = IL-_____ ..J Extemal 0 0 0 1/13/2011 3:39 PM Weekday Trip Generation Project Name ECR-Chestnut -Blocks B & C Trips Based on Average Rates/Equations Project Number Rates Internal Avg ITE Independent No. of Rate Daily AM PM Daily AM Variable Units or Eq Rate Rate Rate Trips Trips OWellin Unit 5 118 Av 6.65 0.51 "10"" -;(>10" 0" OWellin Unit 5 19 Av 5.81 0.44 )0 Sq Ft 11.6 Avq 42.94 1.00 Totals I 1398 80 Notes: (1) A B C o E F G Transit Reduction (Residential-1S%) Transit Reduction (Office -25%) Transit Reduction (Retail-5%) 15% Net Trips after Transit Reduction AM and/or PM rates correspond to peak hour of generator Trip Generation data from ITE Trip Generation, 8th Edition AM/PM rates correspond to peak of adjacent street traffic (If data available) Includes weekday rates only Total triPS Include pass-by tnps w/ no Internal capture Pass-by rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition Intemal capture rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition Worksheet is intended as a planning tool. Verify results w/ITE Trip Generation 8th Edition ECR-Chestnut_TripGeneration_B&C.xls Klmley-Horn and ASSOCiates, Inc. 2009 CQI, Jim West, San Ramon, CA ~=~ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Total Trips Net Trips after I nternal Capture Net Trips after Internal Capture & Pass-By AM AM PM PM AM AM PM PM AM AM PM PM PM Trips Trips Trips Trips Daily AM PM Trips Trips Trips Trips Daily AM PM Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips In Out In Out Trips Trips Trips In Out In Out Trips Trips Trips In Out In Out 00 .0 .0 r 736 58 68 11 47 44 24 74 6 1 6 5 1 22 410 34 5 4 17 17 390 21 126 20 60 75 51 I 1398 80 126 20 60 75 51 I 1078 64 64 15 49 52 32 -122 -10 -11 -2 -8 -7 -4 -21 0 1256 70 -2 113 o 18 o 52 -1 67 -1 46 1/13/2011 3:39 PM Planner Sheet ITE MULTI-USE PROJECT INTERNAL CAPTURE WORKSHEET (Source: Chapter 7, ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004) Enter from External:~ ------to- Exit to External:~ - Demand I .:;O"'.O-'%'-'----"_-;Y~. Land Use A: Residential (Apartment) ITE Land Use Code 220 Size: 118 I Total I Intemal I Extemal Enter 393 28 365 Exit 393 23 370 Total 786 51 735 % 100% ~ 93.5% Demand 149 I . Project Number: 000000000 Project Name: ECR-Chestnut -Blocks B & C Scenario: Analysis Period: Dally Analyst: Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc Land Use B: Demand Residential (Residential Co Demand 23 23 ~~~~~~,--"Demand Demand Land Use D: None (0) ITE Land Use Code 230 Size: 19 I Total I Internal Enter 56 18 EXit 56 21 Total 112 39 % 100% 34.8% IT Enter from Extemal: BB EXit to Extemal: 35 ECR-Chestnut_TripGeneration_B&C.xls ITE Land Use Code 0 EExt;;al 35 73 65.2% Demand Size" 0 I Total I Enter 0 I EXit 0 Total 0 % ~ Demandl 33.0% 130 I Balanced 28 I Enter from Extemal ""c-'-''-'-'-'---'--=-----' Demand Demandl 11.0% 28 IDemand EXit to Extemal Demandl 38.0% Demand Land Use C: Retail (Shopping Center) Enter from External:~ ------to- Exit to External:~ - Enter EXit Total % 250 44 206 250 46 204 500 90 410 100% 18.0% 82.0% NET EXTERNAL TRIPS FOR MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT Land Use Cateaory A B C D Total Enter 365 38 206 0 609 EXit 370 35 204 0 609 Total 735 73 410 0 1,218 Single Use Trip Gen Estimate 786 112 500 0 1,398 Overall Internal Capture = I 12.88% Internal 0 0 0 ~ t EE Extemal 0 0 0 1/13/2011 3:39 PM ITE MULTI-USE PROJECT INTERNAL CAPTURE WORKSHEET (Source: Chapter 7, ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004) Enter from External:~ ------to- Exit to External:QO - Demand I .:;O"'.O-'%'-'----"_-;Y~_ Land Use A: Residential (Apartment) ITE Land Use Code 220 Size: 118 I Total I Intemal I Extemal Enter 12 1 11 Exit 48 1 47 Total 60 2 58 % 100% ~ 96.7% Demand 18 I . Project Number: 000000000 Project Name: ECR-Chestnut -Blocks B & C Scenario: Analysis Period: AM Peak Analyst: Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc Land Use B: Demand Residential (Residential Co Demand 1 ~~~~~~,--"Demand Demand Land Use D: None (0) ITE Land Use Code 230 Size: 19 I Total I Internal Enter 1 0 EXit 7 1 Total 8 1 % 100% 12.5% IT Enter from Extemal: rn EXit to Extemal: 6 ECR-Chestnut_TripGeneration_B&C.xls ITE Land Use Code 0 Size" 0 Demand I Total I Enter 0 I EXit 0 Total 0 ~ 87.5% % ~ Demandl 33.0% I Balanced I Enter from Extemal ""c-'-''-'-'-'---'_---'------'oemand Demandl 11.0% IDemand EXit to Extemal Demandl 38.0% Demand Land Use C: Retail (Shopping Center) Enter 7 2 5 Enter from External:EB --I EXit 5 1 4 Exit to External: 4 +------I Total 12 3 9 % 100% 25.0% 75.0% NET EXTERNAL TRIPS FOR MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT Land Use Cateaory A B C D Total Enter 11 1 5 0 17 EXit 47 6 4 0 57 Total 58 7 9 0 74 Single Use Trip Gen Estimate 60 8 12 0 80 Overall Internal Capture = I 7.50% Internal 0 0 0 ~ t EE Extemal 0 0 0 1/13/2011 3:39 PM ITE MULTI-USE PROJECT INTERNAL CAPTURE WORKSHEET (Source: Chapter 7, ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004) Enter from External:~ ------to- Exit to External: D±.::J - Demand I .:;O"'.O-'%'-'----"_-;Y~_ Land Use A: Residential (Apartment) ITE Land Use Code 220 Size: 118 I Total I Intemal I Extemal Enter 47 3 44 Exit 26 2 24 Total 73 5 68 % 100% ~ 93.2% Demand 14 I . Project Number: 000000000 Project Name: ECR-Chestnut -Blocks B & C Scenario: Analysis Period: PM Peak Analyst: Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc Land Use B: Demand Residential (Residential Co Demand 2 ~~~~~~,--"Demand Demand Land Use D: None (0) ITE Land Use Code 230 Size: 19 I Total I Internal Enter 7 2 EXit 3 2 Total 10 4 % 100% 40.0% IT Enter from Extemal: E±j EXit to Extemal: 1 ECR-Chestnut_TripGeneration_B&C.xls ITE Land Use Code 0 Size" 0 Demand I Total I Enter 0 I EXit 0 Total 0 ~ 60.0% % ~ Demandl 31.0% 15 I Balanced 3 I Enter from Extemal ""c-"''-'-'-'---'_---'------'oemand Demandl 12.0% IDemand EXit to Extemal Demandl 53.0% Demand Land Use C: Retail (Shopping Center) Enter 21 4 17 Enter from External:BB --I EXit 22 5 17 Exit to External: 17 -I Total 43 9 34 % 100% 20.9% 79.1% NET EXTERNAL TRIPS FOR MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT Land Use Cateaory A B C D Total Enter 44 5 17 0 66 EXit 24 1 17 0 42 Total 68 6 34 0 108 Single Use Trip Gen Estimate 73 10 43 0 126 Overall Internal Capture = I 14.29% Internal 0 0 0 ~ t EE Extemal 0 0 0 1/13/2011 3:39 PM ~=~ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Weekday Trip Generation Project Name ECR-Chestnut -Blocks D & E Trips Based on Average Rates/Equations Project Number Rates Total Trips Net Trips after I nternal Capture Net Trips after Internal Capture & Pass-By Internal Avg AM AM PM PM AM AM PM PM AM AM PM PM ITE Capture Independent No. of Rate Daily AM PM Daily AM PM Trips Trips Trips Trips Daily AM PM Trips Trips Trips Trips Daily AM PM Trips Trips Trips Trips Code Land Use Land Use Description Variable Units or Eq Rate Rate Rate Trips Trips Trips In Out In Out Trips Trips Trips In Out In Out Trips Trips Trips In Out In Out 1""'\.,._11:_-I I_:~{_' .. _",,-I~ Apartment LJVVC:IIIII UllIl;:' 23 91 90 49 1164 107 109 20 87 73 36 Dwelling Unit(s) Avg I 5.81 0.44 0.52 _fl,q Residential CondominiumfTownhouse OWellin Unit 5 Av 5.81 0.44 0.52 ::2.~ '!l';i;U'5iiiishopping Center ~,888 C""l:-~ 7:::.~ A:v·g ~~.2~ ~.88 :::.7::: I :::~:::8 7::: ~8~ ~::: :::8 ~:::2 ~. 15 2942 69 254 42 27 126 128 2795 66 159 40 26 79 80 Totals I 4758 190 423 69 121 229 194 I 4758 190 423 69 121 229 ~ 194 I 3784 -5 157 252 57 100 141 111 Notes: (1) A B C o E F G Transit Reduction (Residential-1S%) Transit Reduction (Office -25%) Transit Reduction (Retail-5%) 15% Net Trips after Transit Reduction AM and/or PM rates correspond to peak hour of generator Trip Generation data from ITE Trip Generation, 8th Edition AM/PM rates correspond to peak of adjacent street traffic (If data available) Includes weekday rates only Total triPS Include pass-by tnps w/ no Internal capture Pass-by rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition Intemal capture rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition Worksheet is intended as a planning tool. Verify results w/ITE Trip Generation 8th Edition ECR-Chestnut_TripGeneration_D&E.xls Klmley-Horn and ASSOCiates, Inc. 2009 CQI, Jim West, San Ramon, CA -175 -16 -16 -3 -147 -3 -13 4436 171 394 -2 64 -1 -6 -6 107 212 182 1/13/2011 3:40 PM Planner Sheet ITE MULTI-USE PROJECT INTERNAL CAPTURE WORKSHEET (Source: Chapter 7, ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004) Enter from External:~ ------to- Exit to External:~ - Demand I .:;O"'.O-'%'-'----"_-;Y~. Land Use A: Residential (Apartment) ITE Land Use Code 220 Size: 224 I Total I Intemal I Extemal Enter 745 180 565 Exit 745 147 598 Total 1,490 327 1,163 % 100% ~ 78.1% Demand 283 I . Project Number: 000000000 Project Name: ECR-Chestnut -Blocks D & E Scenario: Analysis Period: Dally Analyst: Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc Land Use B: Demand Residential (Residential Co Demand 147 147 ~~~~~~,--"Demand Demand Land Use D: None (0) ITE Land Use Code 230 Size: 0 Total Internal Enter T 0 0 EXit I 0 0 Total I 0 0 % ~ t Enter from Extemal: ~ EXit to Extemal: ~ ECR-Chestnut_TripGeneration_D&E.xls ITE Land Use Code 0 Size" 0 Extemal Demand I Total 0 I I Enter 0 0 I I EXit 0 0 I Total 0 % ~ Demandl 33.0% 246 I Balanced 180 I Enter from Extemal ""c-'-''-'-'-'---'-c..:c'------' Demand Demandl 11.0% 180 IDemand EXit to Extemal Demandl 38.0% Demand Land Use C: Retail (Shopping Center) Enter from External:~ ------to- Exit to External:~ - Enter EXit Total % 1634 1634 3268 100% 147 1487 180 1454 327 2941 10.0% 90.0% NET EXTERNAL TRIPS FOR MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT Land Use Cateaory A B C D Total Enter 565 0 1,487 0 2,052 Exit 598 0 1,454 0 2,052 Total 1,163 0 2,941 0 4,104 Single Use Trip Gen Estimate 1,490 0 3,268 0 4,758 Overall Internal Capture = I 13.75% Internal 0 0 0 ~ t EE Extemal 0 0 0 1/13/2011 3:40 PM ITE MULTI-USE PROJECT INTERNAL CAPTURE WORKSHEET (Source: Chapter 7, ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004) Enter from External:~ ------to- Exit to External:QO - Demand I .:;O"'.O-'%'-'----"_-;Y~. Land Use A: Residential (Apartment) ITE Land Use Code 220 Size: 224 I Total I Intemal I Extemal Enter 23 3 20 Exit 91 4 87 Total 114 7 107 % 100% ~ 93.9% Demand 35 I . Project Number: 000000000 Project Name: ECR-Chestnut -Blocks 0 & E Scenario: Analysis Period: AM Peak Analyst: Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc Land Use B: Demand Residential (Residential Co Demand 4 ~~~~~~,--"Demand Demand Land Use D: None (0) ITE Land Use Code 230 Size: 0 Total Internal Enter T 0 0 EXit I 0 0 Total I 0 0 % ~ t Enter from Extemal: ~ EXit to Extemal: ~ ECR-Chestnut_TripGeneration_D&E.xls ITE Land Use Code 0 Size" 0 Extemal Demand I Total 0 I I Enter 0 0 I I EXit 0 0 I Total 0 % ~ Demandl 33.0% I Balanced I Enter from Extemal ""c-'-''-'-'-'---'_---'------'oemand Demandl 11.0% IDemand EXit to Extemal Demandl 38.0% Demand Land Use C: Retail (Shopping Center) Enter 46 4 42 Enter from External:BB --I EXit 30 3 27 Exit to External: 27 -I Total 76 7 69 % 100% 9.2% 90.8% NET EXTERNAL TRIPS FOR MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT Land Use Cateaory A B C D Total Enter 20 0 42 0 62 Exit 87 0 27 0 114 Total 107 0 69 0 176 Single Use Trip Gen Estimate 114 0 76 0 190 Overall Internal Capture = I 7.37% Internal 0 0 0 ~ t EE Extemal 0 0 0 1/13/2011 3:40 PM ITE MULTI-USE PROJECT INTERNAL CAPTURE WORKSHEET (Source: Chapter 7, ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004) Enter from External:~ ------to- Exit to External:QO - Demand I .:;O"'.O-'%'-'----"_-;Y~. Land Use A: Residential (Apartment) ITE Land Use Code 220 Size: 224 I Total I Intemal I Extemal Enter 90 17 73 Exit 49 13 36 Total 139 30 109 % 100% ~ 78.4% Demand 26 I . Project Number: 000000000 Project Name: ECR-Chestnut -Blocks 0 & E Scenario: Analysis Period: PM Peak Analyst: Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc Land Use B: Demand Residential (Residential Co Demand 13 13 ~~~~~~,--"Demand Demand Land Use D: None (0) ITE Land Use Code 230 Size: 0 Total Internal Enter T 0 0 EXit I 0 0 Total I 0 0 % ~ t Enter from Extemal: ~ EXit to Extemal: ~ ECR-Chestnut_TripGeneration_D&E.xls ITE Land Use Code 0 Size" 0 Extemal Demand I Total 0 I I Enter 0 0 I I EXit 0 0 I Total 0 % ~ Demandl 31.0% 28 I Balanced 17 I Enter from Extemal ""c-"''-'-'-'---'_--'-'------'oemand Demandl 12.0% 17 IDemand EXit to Extemal Demandl 53.0% Demand Land Use C: Retail (Shopping Center) Enter from External:~ ------to- Exit to External:~ - Enter EXit Total % 139 145 284 100% 13 126 17 128 30 254 10.6% 89.4% NET EXTERNAL TRIPS FOR MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT Land Use Cateaory A B C D Total Enter 73 0 126 0 199 Exit 36 0 128 0 164 Total 109 0 254 0 363 Single Use Trip Gen Estimate 139 0 284 0 423 Overall Internal Capture = I 14.18% Internal 0 0 0 ~ t EE Extemal 0 0 0 1/13/2011 3:40 PM Weekday Trip Generation Project Name ECR-Chestnut -Blocks F & G Trips Based on Average Rates/Equations Project Number Rates Total Trips ITE Code Internal Capture Land Use Land Use Description ·')rary Independent Variable ) Sq Ft Avg No. of Rate Units or Eq Avg Daily AM Rate Rate 56.24 1.04 PM Rate 7.30 Daily AM PM I Trips Trips Trips 2812 52 36 AM Trips In ----=~=-~-- '~·'~""",,~Sho in Center 1,000 Sq Ft 34.5 Av 42.94 1.00 3.73 1482 35 129 21 Notes: (1) A B C o E F G General Office Building (1) 1,000SqFt 73 Avg 11.01 1.55 1,49 804 113 109 99 Transit Reduction (Residential-1S%) Transit Reduction (Office -25%) Transit Reduction (Retail-5%) Totals I 5098 200 603 15% Net Trips after Transit Reduction AM and/or PM rates correspond to peak hour of generator Trip Generation data from ITE Trip Generation, 8th Edition AM/PM rates correspond to peak of adjacent street traffic (If data available) Includes weekday rates only Total triPS Include pass-by tnps w/ no Internal capture Pass-by rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition Intemal capture rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition Worksheet is intended as a planning tool. Verify results w/ITE Trip Generation 8th Edition ECR-Chestnut_TripGenerationJ&G.xls Klmley-Horn and ASSOCiates, Inc. 2009 CQI, Jim West, San Ramon, CA 157 AM Trips Out 15 14 43 ~=~ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Net Trips after I nternal Capture Net Trips after Internal Capture & Pass-By PM PM AM AM Trips Trips Daily AM PM Trips Trips In Out Trips Trips Trips In Out 175 190 2286 42 329 32 10 100 15 10 19 90 654 111 96 99 12 257 346 I 5098 200 603 157 43 -164 -28 -24 -25 -3 -164 -3 -21 -2 -1 4770 169 558 130 39 PM PM Trips Trips Daily In Out Trips 158 171 3124 49 51 11 85 654 25, 346 I 3778 -3 -21 -10 -11 244 314 AM AM PM PM AM PM Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips In Out In Out 22 52 13 26 26 111 96 99 12 11 85 133 148 112 21 37 111 1/13/2011 3:41PM Planner Sheet ITE MULTI-USE PROJECT INTERNAL CAPTURE WORKSHEET (Source: Chapter 7, ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004) Land Use A: Retail (Library) ITE Land Use Code 590 Size: 50 Total Intemal Extemal Enter 1,406 278 1,128 Exit 1,406 249 1,157 Total 2,812 527 2,285 % 100% 18.7% 81.3% Demand Demand Demand Demand Land Use B: None (0) ITE Land Use Code 0 Size: 0 Total Intemal Extemal Demand Enter EXit Total % ~ t Demandl 28.0% 394 I Enter from Extemal: EE Balanced 222 I EXit to Extemal: 0 Demand Demandl 30.0% 222 IDemand Demandl 0.0% Land Use C' Retail (Shopping Center) 0.0% ITE Land Use Code 820 Size: 34,5 Total Internal Extemal Enter 741 237 504 EXit 741 244 497 Total 1482 481 1001 % 100% 32.5% 67.5% NET EXTERNAL TRIPS FOR MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT Land Use Cateaory A B C D Total Enter 1,128 0 504 338 1,970 Exit 1,157 0 497 316 1,970 Total 2,285 0 1,001 654 3,940 Single Use Trip Gen Estimate 2,812 0 1,482 804 5,098 Overall Internal Capture = I 22.71% ECR-Chestnut_TripGenerationJ&G,xls Project Number: 000000000 Project Name: ECR-Chestnut -Blocks F & G Scenario: Analysis Period: Dally Analyst: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc Land Use 0: Office (General Office Buildir ITE Land Use Code 710 Size: 73 Total Internal Extemal Enter 402 64 338 EXit 402 86 316 Total 804 150 654 % 100% 18.7% 81.3% ~ t Enter from Extemal: BE EXit to Extemal: 316 Demand 1/13/2011 3:41 PM ITE MULTI-USE PROJECT INTERNAL CAPTURE WORKSHEET (Source: Chapter 7, ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004) Land Use A: Retail (Library) ITE Land Use Code 590 Size: 50 I Total I Intemal I Extemal Enter from External: UU ------to- Exit to External: 00 - Demand~~~~ __ ~~ Balanced Demand I .:;O"'.O-'%'-'----" __ -;Y~. Enter Exit Total % Demand Demand 37 5 32 15 5 10 52 10 42 100% ~ 80.8% I . Project Number: 000000000 Project Name: ECR-Chestnut -Blocks F & G Scenario: Analysis Period: AM Peak Analyst: Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc ~---,,=-,,~~~,--"Demand Demand Demand Land Use B: None (0) 'iTE Land Use Code 0 Size: 0 Land Use 0: Office (General Office Suildin 'ITE Land Use Code 710 i Size: 73 Total I Intemal I Extemal Demand I Total Internal Extemal Enter 0 0 EXit 0 0 Demand~~~~ __ ~~ I Enter 99 0 99 I EXit 14 2 12 Total 0 0 0.0% Demand Total 113 2 111 % % 100% 1.8% 98.2% ~ t Enter from Extemal: EE EXit to Extemal: 0 ~ Demandl 28.0% 10 I ~ t Balanced 4 I Enter from Extemal: c:::2U ",,:-,-,-,-,-,~ __ ---,------,Demand Demandl 30.0% IDemand EXit to Extemal: c=:2O Demand I 0.0% Demand Land Use C: Retail (Shopping Center) Enter 21 0 I 10 Enter from External:BB --I EXit 14 4 I 10 Exit to External: 10 -I Total 35 10 I 25 % 100% 28.6% I 71.4% NET EXTERNAL TRIPS FOR MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT Land Use Cateaory A B C D Total Enter 32 0 15 99 146 Exit 10 0 10 12 32 Total 42 0 25 111 178 Single Use Trip Gen Estimate 52 0 35 113 200 Overall Internal Capture = I 11.00% ECR-Chestnut_TripGenerationJ&G.xls 1/13/2011 3:41 PM ITE MULTI-USE PROJECT INTERNAL CAPTURE WORKSHEET (Source: Chapter 7, ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004) Land Use A: Retail (Library) ITE Land Use Code 590 Size: 50 I Total I Intemal I Extemal Enter from External:~ ------to- Exit to External:~ - Demand~~~~ __ ~~ Balanced Demand I .:;O"'.O-'%'-'----" __ -;Y~. Enter Exit Total % Demand Demand 175 17 158 190 19 171 365 36 329 100% ~ 90.1% 38 13 13 I . Project Number: 000000000 Project Name: ECR-Chestnut -Blocks F & G Scenario: Analysis Period: PM Peak Analyst: Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc ~---"-",,,~~---,,~-"Demand Demand Demand Land Use B: None (0) 'iTE Land Use Code 0 Size: 0 Land Use 0: Office (General Office Suildin 'ITE Land Use Code 710 i Size: 73 Total I Intemal I Extemal Demand I Total Internal Enter 0 0 EXit 0 0 Demand~~~~ __ ~~ I Enter 19 8 I EXit 90 5 Total 0 0 0.0% Demand Total 109 13 % % 100% 11.9% ~ t Enter from Extemal: EE EXit to Extemal: 0 ~ Demandl 20.0% 35 I ~ t Balanced 13 I Enter from Extemal: c:::J:L:J ",,:-,-,-,-,-,~ __ ---,------,Demand Demandl 20.0% 13 IDemand EXit to Extemal: DO Demand I 0.0% Demand ECR-Chestnut_TripGenerationJ&G.xls Enter from External:~ ------to- Exit to External:~ - Land Use C: Retail (Shopping Center) ITE Land Use Code 820 Size: Enter EXit I 66 15 51 Total I 129 29 100 % 100% I 22.5% I 77.5% NET EXTERNAL TRIPS FOR MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT Land Use Cateaory A B C D Total Enter 158 0 49 11 218 Exit 171 0 51 85 307 Total 329 0 100 96 525 Single Use Trip Gen Estimate 365 0 129 109 603 Overall Internal Capture = I 12.94% Extemal 11 85 96 88.1% 1/13/2011 3:41 PM Weekday Trip Generation Project Name ECR-Chestnut -Blocks H & I & J Trips Based on Average Rates/Equations Project Number Rates Internal Avg ITE Capture Independent No. of Rate Daily AM PM Code Land Use Land Use Description Variable Units or Eq Rate Rate Rate =;;;,~-,~ -.,.~~ =0" ~ ~ 220 Apartment OWellin Unit 5 332 Av 6.65 0.51 0.62 230 Residential CondominiumfTownhouse Dwelling Unit s 38 Avg 5.81 0.44 0.52 820 Shopping Center 1,000 Sq Ft -8.53 Avg 42.94 1.00 3.73 Totals Transit Reduction (Residential-15%l -15% Transit Reduction (Retail-5%) Net Trips after Transit Reduction Notes: (1) A B C o E F G AM and/or PM rates correspond to peak hour of generator Tnp Generation data from ITE Trip Generation, 8th Edition AMIPM rates cOlTespond to peak of adjacent street traffic (if data available) Includes weekday rates only Total trips include pass-by trips wI no internal capture Pass-by rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition Intemal capture rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition Worksheet is intended as a planning tool. Verify results w/lTE Trip Generation 8th Edition ECR-Chestnut_ TripGeneration _ H&I&J .xIs Klmley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2009 CQI, Jim West, San Ramon, CA Total Trips AM AM PM Daily AM PM Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips In Out In 2208 169 206 34 135 134 222 17 20 3 14 13 -368 -9 -32 -5 -4 -16 2062 177 194 32 145 131 PM Trips Out 72 7 -16 63 ~=~ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Net Trips after I nternal Capture AM AM PM PM Daily AM PM Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips In Out In Out 2208 169 206 34 135 134 72 222 17 20 3 14 13 7 -368 -9 -32 -5 -4 -16 -16 2062 177 194 32 145 131 63 -365 -28 -34 -6 -22 -22 -12 18 0 2 0 0 1 1 1716 150 162 27 123 110 52 Net Trips after Internal Capture & Pass-By AM Daily AM PM Trips Trips Trips Trips In 1877 144 175 29 189 14 17 3 -350 -9 -20 -5 1716 149 172 26 AM PM PM Trips Trips Trips Out In Out 115 114 61 12 11 6 -4 -10 -10 123 115 57 1/13/2011 3:42 PM Planner Sheet ITE MULTI-USE PROJECT INTERNAL CAPTURE WORKSHEET (Source: Chapter 7, ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004) Land Use A: None (0) ITE Land Use Code 0 Size: 0 I Total I Intemal I Extemal Enter from External:~ ------to- Exit to External: ~ +------ Demand~~~~ __ ~~ Balanced Enter Exit Total % 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 I . Project Number: 000000000 Project Name: ECR-Chestnut -Blocks H & I & J Scenario: Analysis Period: Dally Analyst: Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc Demand I .:;O"'.O-'%'-'----" __ -;Y~. Demand Land Use B: None (0) Demand ~~~~~~,--"Demand Demand 'ITE Land Use Code 0 Size: 0 Total I Internal I Extemal Enter 0 0 EXit 0 0 Total 0 0 % ~ t Enter from Extemal: EE EXit to Extemal: 0 Demand Land Use D: None (0) I I t:. Land Use Code 0 Size" 0 Demand I Total Internal Demand~~~~ __ ~~ I Enter 0 0 I EXit 0 0 0.0% Demand Total 0 0 % ~ Demandl 0.0% I Balanced I Enter from Extemal ~ t EE ",,:-,-,-,-,-,~ __ ---,------,Demand Demandl 0.0% IDemand EXit to Extemal Demand I 0.0% Demand ECR-Chestnut_ TripGeneration _ H&I&J .xIs Enter from Extemal:~ ------to- Exit to Extemal:~ - Enter EXit Total % nal I Extemal NET EXTERNAL TRIPS FOR MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT Land Use Cateaory A B C D Total Enter 0 0 0 0 0 EXit 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 Single Use Trip Gen Estimate 0 0 0 0 0 Overall Internal Capture = IL-_____ ..J Extemal 0 0 0 1/13/2011 3:42 PM ITE MULTI-USE PROJECT INTERNAL CAPTURE WORKSHEET (Source: Chapter 7, ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004) Land Use A: None (0) ITE Land Use Code 0 Size: 0 I Total I Intemal I Extemal Enter from External:~ ------to- Exit to External: ~ +------ Demand~~~~ __ ~~ Balanced Enter Exit Total % 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 I . Project Number: 000000000 Project Name: ECR-Chestnut -Blocks H & I & J Scenario: Analysis Period: AM Peak Analyst: Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc Demand I .:;O"'.O-'%'-'----" __ -;Y~. Demand Land Use B: None (0) Demand ~~~~~~,--"Demand Demand 'ITE Land Use Code 0 Size: 0 Total I Internal I Extemal Enter 0 0 EXit 0 0 Total 0 0 % ~ t Enter from Extemal: EE EXit to Extemal: 0 Demand Land Use D: None (0) I I t:. Land Use Code 0 Size" 0 Demand I Total Internal Demand~~~~ __ ~~ I Enter 0 0 I EXit 0 0 0.0% Demand Total 0 0 % ~ Demandl 0.0% I Balanced I Enter from Extemal ~ t EE ",,:-,-,-,-,-,~ __ ---,------,Demand Demandl 0.0% IDemand EXit to Extemal Demand I 0.0% Demand ECR-Chestnut_ TripGeneration _ H&I&J .xIs Enter from Extemal:~ ------to- Exit to Extemal:~ - Enter EXit Total % nal I Extemal NET EXTERNAL TRIPS FOR MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT Land Use Cateaory A B C D Total Enter 0 0 0 0 0 EXit 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 Single Use Trip Gen Estimate 0 0 0 0 0 Overall Internal Capture = IL-_____ ..J Extemal 0 0 0 1/13/2011 3:42 PM ITE MULTI-USE PROJECT INTERNAL CAPTURE WORKSHEET (Source: Chapter 7, ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004) Land Use A: None (0) ITE Land Use Code 0 Size: 0 I Total I Intemal I Extemal Enter from External:~ ------to- Exit to External: ~ +------ Demand~~~~ __ ~~ Balanced Enter Exit Total % 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 I . Project Number: 000000000 Project Name: ECR-Chestnut -Blocks H & I & J Scenario: Analysis Period: PM Peak Analyst: Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc Demand I .:;O"'.O-'%'-'----" __ -;Y~. Demand Land Use B: None (0) Demand ~~~~~~,--"Demand Demand 'ITE Land Use Code 0 Size: 0 Total I Internal I Extemal Enter 0 0 EXit 0 0 Total 0 0 % ~ t Enter from Extemal: EE EXit to Extemal: 0 Demand Land Use D: None (0) I I t:. Land Use Code 0 Size" 0 Demand I Total Internal Demand~~~~ __ ~~ I Enter 0 0 I EXit 0 0 0.0% Demand Total 0 0 % ~ Demandl 0.0% I Balanced I Enter from Extemal ~ t EE ",,:-,-,-,-,-,~ __ ---,------,Demand Demandl 0.0% IDemand EXit to Extemal Demand I 0.0% Demand ECR-Chestnut_ TripGeneration _ H&I&J .xIs Enter from Extemal:~ ------to- Exit to Extemal:~ - Enter EXit Total % nal I Extemal NET EXTERNAL TRIPS FOR MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT Land Use Cateaory A B C D Total Enter 0 0 0 0 0 EXit 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 Single Use Trip Gen Estimate 0 0 0 0 0 Overall Internal Capture = IL-_____ ..J Extemal 0 0 0 1/13/2011 3:42 PM ~=~ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Weekday Trip Generation Project Name oCR-Chestnut -Outside Focus Are Trips Based on Average Rates/Equations Project Number Rates Total Trips Net Trips after I nternal Capture Net Trips after Internal Capture & Pass-By Internal Avg AM AM PM PM AM AM PM PM AM AM PM PM ITE Capture Independent No. of Rate Daily AM PM Daily AM PM Trips Trips Trips Trips Daily AM PM Trips Trips Trips Trips Daily AM PM Trips Trips Trips Trips Code Land Use Land Use Description Variable Units or Eq Rate Rate Rate Trips Trips Trips In Out In Out Trips Trips Trips In Out In Out Trips Trips Trips In Out In Out 1""'\.,._11:_-I I_:~{_' .. _",,-I~ Apartment LJVVC:IIIII UllIl;:' 31 125 123 66 1766 150 165 28 122 109 56 Dwelling Unit(s) Avg I 5.81 0.44 0.52 _fl,q Residential CondominiumfTownhouse OWellin Unit 5 Av 5.81 0.44 0.52 .-I 2386 56 206 35 21 103 103 2267 53 129 33 20 65 65 ::2.~ '!l';i;U'5iiiishoppingcenter ~.CCCC"l:-~ C~.7 A:v'g ~~.2~ ~.CC :::.7::: I ~C~8 C~ ~:::C :::8 ~~ ~~::: ~' I Totals I 4680 218 419 69 149 236 183 I 4680 218 419 69 149 236 ~ 183 I 3768 -8 181 269 57 124 157 112 Notes: (1) A B C o E F G Transit Reduction (Residential-1S%) Transit Reduction (Office -25%) Transit Reduction (Retail-5%) 15% Net Trips after Transit Reduction AM and/or PM rates correspond to peak hour of generator Trip Generation data from ITE Trip Generation, 8th Edition AM/PM rates correspond to peak of adjacent street traffic (If data available) Includes weekday rates only Total triPS Include pass-by tnps w/ no Internal capture Pass-by rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition Intemal capture rates from ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition Worksheet is intended as a planning tool. Verify results w/ITE Trip Generation 8th Edition ECR-Chestnut_ TripGeneration _ OutsideFocusArea.xls Klmley-Horn and ASSOCiates, Inc. 2009 CQI, Jim West, San Ramon, CA -265 -23 -25 -4 -119 -3 -10 4296 193 384 -2 63 -1 -5 -5 130 215 169 1/13/2011 3:42 PM Planner Sheet ITE MULTI-USE PROJECT INTERNAL CAPTURE WORKSHEET (Source: Chapter 7, ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004) Enter from External:~ ------to- Exit to External:~ - Demandl .:;O""O,,:,%~,----,,_-;Y~_ Land Use A: Residential (Apartment) ITE Land Use Code 220 Size: 305 I Total I Intemal I Extemal Enter 1,015 146 869 Exit 1,015 119 896 Total 2,030 265 1,765 % 100% 13.1% 86.9% Demandl 38.0% I . Project Number: 000000000 Project Name: ECR-Chestnut -Outside Focus Area Scenario: Analysis Period: Dally Analyst: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc Land Use B: Demand Residential (Residential Co Balanced Demandl 9.0% 386 119 119 ~~~~~~~-"Demand Demand Land Use D: None (0) ITE Land Use Code 230 Size: 0 Total Internal Enter T 0 0 EXit I 0 0 Total I 0 0 % ~ t Enter from Extemal: ~ EXit to Extemal: ~ ECR-Chestnut_ TripGeneration _ OutsideFocusArea.xls ITE Land Use Code 0 Size" 0 Extemal Demand I Total 0 I I Enter 0 0 I I EXit 0 0 I Total 0 % ~ Demandl 33,0% 335 I Balanced 146 I Enter from Extemal ""c-'-''-'-'-'---'_-'-'-''------'oemand Demandl 11.0% 146 IDemand EXit to Extemal Demandl 38.0% Demand Land Use C: Retail (Shopping Center) Enter from External:~ ------to- Exit to External:~ - Enter EXit Total % 1325 1325 2650 100% 119 1206 146 1179 265 2385 10.0% 90.0% NET EXTERNAL TRIPS FOR MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT Land Use Cateaory A B C D Total Enter 869 0 1,206 0 2,075 Exit 896 0 1,179 0 2,075 Total 1,765 0 2,385 0 4,150 Single Use Trip Gen Estimate 2,030 0 2,650 0 4,680 Overall Internal Capture = I 11.32% Internal 0 0 0 ~ t EE Extemal 0 0 0 1/13/2011 3:42 PM ITE MULTI-USE PROJECT INTERNAL CAPTURE WORKSHEET (Source: Chapter 7, ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004) Enter from External: UU ------to- Exit to External:~ - Demand I .:;O"'.O-'%'-'----"_-;Y~_ Land Use A: Residential (Apartment) ITE Land Use Code 220 Size: 305 I Total I Intemal I Extemal Enter 31 3 28 Exit 125 3 122 Total 156 6 150 % 100% ~ 96.2% Demand 48 I . Project Number: 000000000 Project Name: ECR-Chestnut -Outside Focus Area Scenario: Analysis Period: AM Peak Analyst: Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc Land Use B: Demand Residential (Residential Co Demand 3 ~~~~~~,--"Demand Demand Land Use D: None (0) ITE Land Use Code 230 Size: 0 Total Internal Enter T 0 0 EXit I 0 0 Total I 0 0 % ~ t Enter from Extemal: ~ EXit to Extemal: ~ ECR-Chestnut_ TripGeneration _ OutsideFocusArea.xls ITE Land Use Code 0 Size" 0 Extemal Demand I Total 0 I I Enter 0 0 I I EXit 0 0 I Total 0 % ~ Demandl 33.0% 10 I Balanced 3 I Enter from Extemal ""c-'-''-'-'-'---'_---'------'oemand Demandl 11.0% IDemand EXit to Extemal Demandl 38.0% Demand Land Use C: Retail (Shopping Center) Enter 38 3 35 Enter from External:BB --I EXit 24 3 21 Exit to External: 21 -I Total 62 6 56 % 100% 9.7% 90.3% NET EXTERNAL TRIPS FOR MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT Land Use Cateaory A B C D Total Enter 28 0 35 0 63 Exit 122 0 21 0 143 Total 150 0 56 0 206 Single Use Trip Gen Estimate 156 0 62 0 218 Overall Internal Capture = I 5.50% Internal 0 0 0 ~ t EE Extemal 0 0 0 1/13/2011 3:42 PM ITE MULTI-USE PROJECT INTERNAL CAPTURE WORKSHEET (Source: Chapter 7, ITE Trip Generation Handbook, June 2004) Enter from External:~ ------to- Exit to External:QO - Demandl .:;0",.0,,:,%~,----,,_-;y~_ Land Use A: Residential (Apartment) ITE Land Use Code 220 Size: 305 I Total I Intemal I Extemal Enter 123 14 109 Exit 66 10 56 Total 189 24 165 % 100% ~ 87.3% Demand 35 I . Project Number: 000000000 Project Name: ECR-Chestnut -Outside Focus Area Scenario: Analysis Period: PM Peak Analyst: Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc Land Use B: Demand Residential (Residential Co Demand 10 10 ~~~~~~~-"Demand Demand Land Use D: None (0) ITE Land Use Code 230 Size: 0 Total Internal Enter T 0 0 EXit I 0 0 Total I 0 0 % ~ t Enter from Extemal: ~ EXit to Extemal: ~ ECR-Chestnut_ TripGeneration _ OutsideFocusArea.xls ITE Land Use Code 0 Size" 0 Extemal Demand I Total 0 I I Enter 0 0 I I EXit 0 0 I Total 0 % ~ Demandl 31.0% 38 I Balanced 14 I Enter from Extemal ""c-"''-'-'-'---'_--'--'-----'oemand Demandl 12.0% 14 IDemand EXit to Extemal Demandl 53.0% Demand Land Use C: Retail (Shopping Center) Enter from External:~ ------to- Exit to External:~ - Enter EXit Total % 113 117 230 100% 10 103 14 103 24 206 10.4% 89.6% NET EXTERNAL TRIPS FOR MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT Land Use Cateaory A B C D Total Enter 109 0 103 0 212 Exit 56 0 103 0 159 Total 165 0 206 0 371 Single Use Trip Gen Estimate 189 0 230 0 419 Overall Internal Capture = I 11.46% Internal 0 0 0 ~ t EE Extemal 0 0 0 1/13/2011 3:42 PM D. Project Volume Figure City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan ~ ~ lil N(o m a: O::!:. ~ "--47(2S) CiS' g !~~ ..... -1" ! '" u ,r-9(1S) w w Hickey Blvd McLellan Dr ,1 t r 4S(96)~ LOLO LOo) ..... N ..... ~ ~5 :::::..M' 00 ~ ;! ~ S 0 lil ~ ~ a: g ..... "C N a: ! -1" ! _l:i '" u .~ ,r-2(8) w ::;; Orange Ave Grand Ave 1 t r a;-~~ ~ ~OO '" Q; ..... • :!i: <0 <D ~ ~e§: ~ "--1(2) 8l Jr~~ -+-16(25) ! ::;; ,r-2(7) Chestnut Ave Arroyo Dr 4(16) --'" 1 r 17(16) ---+ ~§: 00 ..... 1IIII"'l-" Kimley-Horn IiIIII.....J _ U and Associates, Inc. ©2011 PR-097XXXXXX NOVEMBER 2010 ~~~£ ji~~ w '" I~j 20(18) ---+ 7(7)~ 8. ~ E e~ ~ <D ~~ 1S(32) ---+ "--70(63) ,r-69(39) ,1 r co ~ "" ~""N ~~~ 00) ~N "--2(8) -+-13(25) Grand Ave ,1 §:~ <0 ~ -+-28(25) Westborough Blvd "'~~ lil C"') """"' LO c: "--39(21) jr~~ -+-64(72) ,r-SO(S6) w Westborough Blvd Chestnut Ave EI 93(77) --'" 2S(80) ---+ 8(2S)~ c;)S ~~S~ CON N J ! ~~ 24(67) --'" 3(S) ---+ 9(48)~ :!i: <D ~ 8l e i 4S(96) ---+ LEGEND STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS , 1 r ~ ~ 00 NO"" ~=-co ""Cl;~ "--0(2) -+-1(2) Oak Ave 1 '" ~ ~ -+-84(75) ,r-56(50) Westborough Blvd r ~ "" EL CAMINO -CHESTNUT PlAN AREA AM/(PM) AM (PM) PEAK HOUR VOULMES NOT TO SCALE 1...-__________ ---1 FIGURE 11 PROJECT PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES EL CAMINO REAL CHESTNUT AREA PLAN EIR E. Intersection LOS Analysis Sheets - Existing AM City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Existing AM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:06:15 Page 2 1 Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Dell VI Dell VI in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C if 1 El Camino Real Hickey Blvd D 35.9 0.795 D 35.9 0.795 + 0.000 D/V if 2 El Camino Real McLellan Dr C 31.2 0.713 C 31.2 0.713 + 0.000 D/V if 3 El Camino Real Arroyo Dr B 19.8 0.505 B 19.8 0.505 + 0.000 D/V if 4 El Camino Real Chestnut Ave D 39.7 0.854 D 39.7 0.854 + 0.000 D/V if 5 El Camino Real W. Orange Ave C 33.1 0.787 C 33.1 0.787 + 0.000 D/V if 6 Mission Rd I Grand Ave B 13.2 0.448 B 13.2 0.448 + 0.000 VIC if 7 Grand Ave I Chestnut Ave C 29.0 0.576 C 29.0 0.576 + 0.000 D/V if 8 Mission Rd Oak Ave C 15.4 0.160 C 15.4 0.160 + 0.000 D/V if 9 Mission Rd Chestnut Ave C 24.4 0.718 C 24.4 0.718 + 0.000 D/V if 10 Juniperro Serra Blvd I Arroyo E 47.8 0.707 E 47.8 0.707 + 0.000 D/V if 11 1-280 SB Ramps Westborough B B 15.8 0.609 B 15.8 0.609 + 0.000 D/V if 12 1-280 NB Ramps Westborough B D 41.3 0.898 D 41.3 0.898 + 0.000 D/V Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Existing l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:06:15 Page 3 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tl El Camino Real/Hickey Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 76 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.795 35.9 D ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 201 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 540 276 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 540 276 o 0 o 0 540 276 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 628 321 o 0 628 321 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 628 321 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 11 1. 00 11 o o 11 1. 00 0.86 13 o 13 1. 00 1. 00 13 1900 0.93 0.08 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 6 468 1.00 1.00 6 468 o 0 o 0 6 468 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 8 585 o 0 8 585 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 585 4.0 1 0 48 1. 00 48 o o 48 1. 00 0.80 60 o 60 1. 00 1. 00 60 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 1 0 0 2 122 6 1.00 1.00 122 6 o 0 o 0 122 6 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.82 151 7 o 0 151 7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 151 7 654 1. 00 654 o o 654 1. 00 0.81 807 o 807 1. 00 1. 00 807 1900 1900 0.93 0.92 1.00 1.81 1900 1900 1900 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.19 1.91 0.09 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 1 I 0 0 23 24 1.00 1.00 23 24 o 0 o 0 23 24 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.70 33 34 o 0 33 34 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 33 34 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.43 0.46 6 1. 00 6 o o 6 1. 00 0.70 9 o 9 1. 00 1. 00 9 1900 0.95 0.11 Final Sat.: 0.90 0.93 2.00 1.92 3432 3382 135 1769 3164 324 3388 165 1900 0.73 2.00 2786 779 813 203 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.18 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.04 0.04 0.29 0.04 0.04 0.04 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.23 0.44 Volume/Cap: 0.80 0.21 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 36.3 17.2 5.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 41.9 17.2 1.00 1.00 41.9 17.2 D B 10 3 0.44 0.21 17.2 0.1 0.0 1. 00 17.2 1. 00 17.2 B 3 **** **** 0.02 0.23 0.23 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.05 0.05 0.21 0.80 0.80 0.12 0.12 0.80 0.80 0.80 48.2 36.1 3.1 5.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 51.3 41.6 1.00 1.00 51.3 41.6 D D o 12 36.1 5.5 0.0 1. 00 41.6 1. 00 41.6 D 12 21.1 21.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 21.2 21.2 1.00 1.00 21.2 21.2 C C 2 2 28.4 4.4 0.0 1. 00 32.9 1. 00 32.9 C 15 46.8 46.8 35.7 35.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 82.5 82.5 1.00 1.00 82.5 82.5 F F 4 4 **** 0.05 0.80 46.8 35.7 0.0 1. 00 82.5 1. 00 82.5 F 4 I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Existing l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:06:15 Page 4 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t2 El Camino Real/McLellan Dr ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 61 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.713 31.2 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 301 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 34 394 1.00 1.00 34 394 o 0 o 0 34 394 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 41 475 o 0 41 475 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 41 475 Saturation Flow Module: 120 1. 00 120 o o 120 1. 00 0.83 145 o 145 1. 00 1. 00 145 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 201 395 904 1.00 1.00 395 904 o 0 o 0 395 904 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 459 1051 o 0 459 1051 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 459 1051 4.0 1 0 26 1. 00 26 o o 26 1. 00 0.86 30 o 30 1. 00 1. 00 30 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: 0.93 0.89 1.00 3.00 1769 5083 1900 1900 1900 0.83 0.90 0.93 1.00 2.00 1.94 1583 3432 3425 1900 0.93 0.06 99 I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: I I I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 47 36 1.00 1.00 47 36 o 0 o 0 47 36 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.76 62 47 o 0 62 47 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 62 47 57 1. 00 57 o o 57 1. 00 0.76 75 o 75 1. 00 1. 00 75 1900 0.83 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 1 I 0 1 212 30 1.00 1.00 212 30 o 0 o 0 212 30 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 259 37 o 0 259 37 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 259 37 1900 1900 0.88 0.88 375 1. 00 375 o o 375 1. 00 0.82 457 o 457 1. 00 1. 00 457 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.57 0.43 1025 785 1.00 1.33 0.09 1583 2209 154 1900 0.88 1. 58 2628 I I Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.31 0.31 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.12 0.24 0.17 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.03 0.19 Volume/Cap: 0.71 0.49 Uniform Del: 47.9 36.2 IncremntDel: 34.3 0.4 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 82.3 36.6 User Dell\dj: 1.001.00 l\djDel/Veh: 82.3 36.6 LOS by Move: F D HCM2kl\vgQ: 1 5 0.19 0.48 36.1 1.2 0.0 1. 00 37.3 1. 00 37.3 D 4 **** 0.27 0.43 0.49 0.71 30.5 23.4 0.4 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 30.9 25.0 1.00 1.00 30.9 25.0 C C 6 14 0.43 0.71 23.4 1.6 0.0 1. 00 25.0 1. 00 25.0 C 14 **** 0.08 0.08 0.71 0.71 44.6 44.6 14.6 14.6 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 59.2 59.2 1.00 1.00 59.2 59.2 E E 5 5 0.08 0.56 44.0 5.3 0.0 1. 00 49.2 1. 00 49.2 D 3 **** 0.33 0.33 0.35 0.71 25.2 29.2 0.1 2.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 25.3 31.5 1.00 1.00 25.3 31.5 C C 5 12 0.33 0.52 27.0 0.4 0.0 1. 00 27.3 1. 00 27.3 C 8 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Existing l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:06:15 Page 5 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t3 El Camino Real / l\rroyo Dr ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 9 34 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.505 19.8 B ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 300 Volume Module: Base Vol: 157 777 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 157 777 o 0 o 0 157 777 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 185 914 o 0 185 914 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 185 914 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.85 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 4 730 1.00 1.00 4 730 o 0 o 0 4 730 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 5 880 o 0 5 880 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 880 1900 1900 0.93 0.86 1.00 2.38 4.0 1 0 190 1. 00 190 o o 190 1. 00 0.83 229 o 229 1. 00 1. 00 229 1900 0.86 0.62 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 1 I 0 1 298 0 1.00 1.00 298 0 o 0 o 0 298 0 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 335 0 o 0 335 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 335 0 1900 1900 0.89 1.00 1.53 0.00 263 1. 00 263 o o 263 1. 00 0.89 296 o 296 1. 00 1. 00 296 1900 0.89 1. 47 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Permitted Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0.93 0.89 1.00 3.00 1769 5083 o 1769 3908 1017 2583 0 2477 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.13 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.21 0.64 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.50 0.28 0.00 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 35.1 7.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 36.2 7.8 1.00 1.00 36.2 7.8 D l\ 6 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o **** **** 0.01 0.45 0.45 0.26 0.00 0.28 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 49.2 19.8 8.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 57.9 20.0 1.00 1.00 57.9 20.0 E B o 8 19.8 0.2 0.0 1. 00 20.0 1. 00 20.0 B 8 31.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 32.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 32.0 0.0 C l\ 9 0 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 31.3 0.3 0.0 1. 00 31. 6 1. 00 31. 6 C 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 l\ l\ o 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Existing l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:06:15 Page 6 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t4 El Camino Real/Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 92 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.854 39.7 D ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Volume Module: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 20201 I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 2 0 301 Base Vol: 423 550 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 293 182 713 52 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 423 550 o 0 o 0 423 550 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 498 647 o 0 498 647 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 498 647 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 293 o o 293 1. 00 0.85 345 o 345 1. 00 1. 00 345 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I 182 o 713 o o 0 182 713 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 202 792 o 0 202 792 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 202 792 1900 1900 0.90 0.89 2.00 3.00 52 o o 52 1. 00 0.90 58 o 58 1. 00 1. 00 58 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10201 214 664 1.00 1.00 214 o 664 o o 0 214 664 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.81 264 820 o 0 264 820 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 264 820 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 424 1. 00 424 o o 424 1. 00 0.81 523 o 523 1. 00 1. 00 523 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 20201 349 589 131 1.00 1.00 1.00 349 o 589 o o 0 349 589 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 411 693 o 0 411 693 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 411 693 1900 1900 0.90 0.93 2.00 2.00 131 o o 131 1. 00 0.85 154 o 154 1. 00 1. 00 154 Final Sat.: 0.90 0.93 2.00 2.00 3432 3538 1583 3432 5083 1583 1769 3538 1583 3432 3538 1900 0.83 1. 00 1583 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.18 0.22 0.06 0.16 0.04 0.15 0.23 0.33 0.12 0.20 0.10 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.28 Volume/Cap: 0.85 0.66 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 40.3 32.0 11.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 52.0 33.6 1.00 1.00 52.0 33.6 D C 10 10 0.28 0.79 33.4 9.0 0.0 1. 00 42.4 1. 00 42.4 D 12 **** 0.08 0.18 0.79 0.85 45.5 39.6 14.6 7.8 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 60.1 47.3 1.00 1.00 60.1 47.3 E D 5 11 0.18 0.20 34.7 0.3 0.0 1. 00 35.0 1. 00 35.0 D 2 0.23 0.39 0.65 0.60 35.0 24.4 3.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 38.9 25.2 1.00 1.00 38.9 25.2 D C 8 11 **** 0.39 0.85 28.0 11.2 0.0 1. 00 39.2 1. 00 39.2 D 18 **** 0.14 0.30 0.85 0.65 42.0 30.5 13.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 55.8 32.0 1.00 1.00 55.8 32.0 E C 9 11 0.30 0.33 27.2 0.4 0.0 1. 00 27.6 1. 00 27.6 C 4 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Existing l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:06:15 Page 7 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t5 El Camino Real / W. Orange l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 74 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.787 33.1 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 4.0 1 0 I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: 29 864 1.00 1.00 29 864 o 0 o 0 29 864 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.78 37 1108 o 0 109 235 1160 1.00 1.00 1.00 109 o o 109 1. 00 0.78 140 o 140 1. 00 1. 00 235 1160 o 0 o 0 235 1160 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 253 1247 o 0 253 1247 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 57 1. 00 57 o o 57 1. 00 0.93 61 o 61 1. 00 1. 00 I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 152 111 1.00 1.00 152 111 o 0 o 0 152 111 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 173 126 o 0 173 126 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 48 1. 00 48 o o 48 1. 00 0.88 55 o 55 1. 00 1. 00 I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 115 61 1.00 1.00 115 o 61 o o 0 115 61 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 132 70 o 0 132 70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 186 1. 00 186 o o 186 1. 00 0.87 214 FinalVolume: 37 1108 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 37 1108 140 253 1247 I I 61 173 126 I I 55 132 I I 70 o 214 1. 00 1. 00 214 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 0.93 0.88 Lanes: 1.00 2.66 Final Sat.: 1769 4437 I 1900 0.88 0.34 1900 1900 0.93 0.89 1.00 2.86 560 1769 4811 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: 1900 1900 1900 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.14 0.58 0.42 236 1046 764 I I 1900 0.83 1. 00 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.65 0.35 1583 1178 625 I I 1900 0.83 1. 00 1583 Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.17 0.03 0.11 0.11 0.14 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.04 0.32 Volume/Cap: 0.56 0.79 Uniform Del: 47.3 31.1 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 10.6 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 57.9 33.8 1.00 1.00 57.9 33.8 E C 2 15 0.32 0.79 31.1 2.7 0.0 1. 00 33.8 1. 00 33.8 C 15 **** 0.18 0.46 0.79 0.56 39.1 19.6 12.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 51.3 19.9 1.00 1.00 51.3 19.9 D B 9 11 0.46 0.56 19.6 0.3 0.0 1. 00 19.9 1. 00 19.9 B 11 **** 0.21 0.21 0.79 0.79 37.4 37.4 10.5 10.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 47.9 47.9 1.00 1.00 47.9 47.9 D D 11 11 0.21 0.16 32.3 0.2 0.0 1. 00 32.6 1. 00 32.6 C 1 0.17 0.17 0.65 0.65 38.6 38.6 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 43.6 43.6 1.00 1.00 43.6 43.6 D D 7 7 **** 0.17 0.79 39.7 14.1 0.0 1. 00 53.8 1. 00 53.8 D 8 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Existing l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:06:15 Page 8 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t6 Mission Rd / Grand l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 o o Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.448 13.2 B ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Lanes: North Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 348 1.00 1.00 o 348 o 0 o 0 o 348 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.74 o 470 o 0 o 470 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 470 29 1. 00 29 o o 29 1. 00 0.74 39 o 39 1. 00 1. 00 39 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 1 100 124 319 1.00 1.00 124 319 o 0 o 0 124 319 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 135 347 o 0 135 347 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 135 347 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.92 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o Saturation Flow Module: l\djustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 1.85 Final Sat.: 0 1070 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 0.56 1.44 90 307 814 1. 00 0.00 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: I I I I I I East Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.30 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 o 0 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.30 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 1 0 0 0 1 51 0 1.00 1.00 51 0 o 0 o 0 51 0 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 57 0 o 0 57 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 57 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 474 0 228 1. 00 228 o o 228 1. 00 0.90 253 o 253 1. 00 1. 00 253 1. 00 1. 00 565 Vol/Sat: xxxx 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.43 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.12 xxxx 0.45 Crit Moves: Delay/Veh: Delay l\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: l\pproachDel: Delay l\dj: l\pprl\djDel: LOS by l\ppr: l\llWayl\vgQ: **** 0.0 13.3 1.00 1.00 0.0 13.3 * B 13.2 1. 00 13.2 B 0.0 0.7 13.1 1. 00 13.1 B 0.7 **** 13.8 13.3 1.00 1.00 13.8 13.3 B B 13.4 1. 00 13.4 B 0.7 0.7 0.0 1. 00 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 * * xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx * 0.0 0.0 0.0 1. 00 0.0 * 0.0 10.9 0.0 1.00 1.00 10.9 0.0 B * 12.8 1. 00 12.8 B 0.1 0.0 **** 13.2 1. 00 13.2 B 0.7 I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Existing l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:06:15 Page 9 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t7 Grand l\ve / Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 46 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.576 29.0 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 101 Volume Module: Base Vol: 129 172 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 129 172 o 0 o 0 129 172 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 133 177 o 0 133 177 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 133 177 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 59 1. 00 59 o o 59 1. 00 0.97 61 o 61 1. 00 1. 00 61 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 101 57 190 1.00 1.00 57 190 o 0 o 0 57 190 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 63 209 o 0 63 209 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 63 209 1900 1900 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 73 1. 00 73 o o 73 1. 00 0.91 80 o 80 1. 00 1. 00 80 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 88 322 1.00 1.00 88 322 o 0 o 0 88 322 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 97 354 o 0 97 354 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 97 354 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 0.68 4.0 1 0 149 1. 00 149 o o 149 1. 00 0.91 164 o 164 1. 00 1. 00 164 1900 0.93 0.32 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 45 300 1.00 1.00 45 300 o 0 o 0 45 300 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 50 333 o 0 50 333 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 50 333 1900 1900 0.93 0.94 1.000.76 4.0 1 0 93 1. 00 93 o o 93 1. 00 0.90 103 o 103 1. 00 1. 00 103 1900 0.94 0.24 Final Sat.: 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 1769 1862 1583 1769 1862 1583 1769 1213 561 1769 1370 425 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.11 0.05 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.03 0.24 0.24 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.24 Volume/Cap: 0.58 0.40 Uniform Del: 40.9 32.2 IncremntDel: 3.6 0.6 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 44.4 32.8 User Dell\dj: 1.001.00 l\djDel/Veh: 44.4 32.8 LOS by Move: D C HCM2kl\vgQ: 5 5 0.24 0.16 30.3 0.2 0.0 1. 00 30.5 1. 00 30.5 C 2 **** 0.09 0.19 0.40 0.58 43.1 36.5 1.7 2.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 44.8 38.8 1.00 1.00 44.8 38.8 D D 2 7 0.19 0.26 34.2 0.5 0.0 1. 00 34.6 1. 00 34.6 C 2 **** 0.10 0.51 0.54 0.58 42.7 17.2 3.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 45.8 18.2 1.00 1.00 45.8 18.2 D B 3 11 0.51 0.58 17.2 0.9 0.0 1. 00 18.2 1. 00 18.2 B 11 **** 0.05 0.45 0.58 0.54 46.5 19.8 9.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 55.8 20.5 1.00 1.00 55.8 20.5 E C 2 10 0.45 0.54 19.8 0.7 0.0 1. 00 20.5 1. 00 20.5 C 10 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Existing l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:06:15 Page 10 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t8 Mission Rd / Oak l\ve ******************************************************************************** l\verage Delay (sec/veh): 1.4 Worst Case Level Of Service: Cr 15.41 ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Lanes: North Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include o 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: o 424 1.00 1.00 o 424 o 0 o 0 o 424 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 o 517 o 0 o 517 Critical Gap Module: 7 1. 00 7 o o 7 1. 00 0.82 9 o 9 Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUp'l'im:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I I I I I I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx South Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include o 1 100 10 363 1.00 1.00 10 363 o 0 o 0 10 363 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 12 422 o 0 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.86 o o I I I I East Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 0 0 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I I I I I 526 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1037 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx West Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 1 I 0 0 42 0 1.00 1.00 42 0 o 0 o 0 42 0 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 55 0 o 0 6.8 3.5 756 344 6.5 4.0 967 253 29 1. 00 29 o o 29 1. 00 0.77 38 o 6.9 3.3 Potent Cap. Move Cap.: Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1037 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 341 250 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.16 0.00 263 736 736 0.05 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * Movement: L'l' Shared Cap. xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx Shared LOS: * L'l'R R'l' xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * l\pproachDel: l\pproachLOS: xxxxxx * I I I I I I 0.0 8.5 l\ xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * * * * * L'l' L'l'R R'l' L'l' L'l'R R'l' L'l' xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 8.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx l\ * xxxxxx * * * * xxxxxx * * * * * L'l'R R'l' 437 xxxxx 0.8 xxxxx 15.4 xxxxx C * 15.4 C I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** 'l'raffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Existing l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:06:16 Page 11 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t9 Mission Rd / Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 9 54 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.718 24.4 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 0 0 2 57 0 1.00 1.00 57 0 o 0 o 0 57 0 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 68 0 o 0 68 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 68 0 1900 1900 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.00 357 1. 00 357 o o 357 1. 00 0.84 425 o 425 1. 00 1. 00 425 1900 0.73 2.00 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10200 347 731 1.00 1.00 347 731 o 0 o 0 347 731 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 381 803 o 0 381 803 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 381 803 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.91 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 o 1769 0 2786 1769 3538 o I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: I I I I I I I I West Bound L T R Permitted Include 000 4.0 4.0 001 o 693 1.00 1.00 o 693 o 0 o 0 o 693 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 o 866 o 0 o 866 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 866 1900 1900 1.00 0.91 0.001.75 o 3037 4.0 1 0 99 1. 00 99 o o 99 1. 00 0.80 124 o 124 1. 00 1. 00 124 1900 0.91 0.25 434 Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.15 0.22 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 l\ l\ o 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o 0.21 0.00 0.18 0.00 32.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 32.5 0.0 1.00 1.00 32.5 0.0 C l\ 2 0 **** 0.21 0.72 36.6 4.2 0.0 1. 00 40.8 1. 00 40.8 D 8 **** 0.30 0.70 0.72 0.33 31.2 5.9 4.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 35.9 6.0 1.00 1.00 35.9 6.0 D l\ 12 5 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o **** 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.72 0.0 25.4 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 27.3 1.00 1.00 0.0 27.3 l\ C o 13 0.40 0.72 25.4 1.9 0.0 1. 00 27.3 1. 00 27.3 C 13 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Existing l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:06:16 Page 12 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tlO Juniperro Serra Blvd / l\rroyo Dr ******************************************************************************** l\verage Delay (sec/veh): 8.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: E[ 47.81 ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Lanes: North Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include o 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: o 322 1.00 1.00 o 322 o 0 o 0 o 322 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 o 388 o 0 o 388 Critical Gap Module: 72 1. 00 72 o o 72 1. 00 0.83 87 o 87 Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUp'l'im:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I I I South Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 10200 54 583 1.00 1.00 54 583 o 0 o 0 54 583 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 64 694 o 0 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.84 o o I I I I East Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 0 0 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I West Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 1 I 0 0 158 0 1.00 1.00 158 0 o 0 o 0 158 0 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 186 0 o 0 6.8 3.5 6.5 4.0 45 1. 00 45 o o 45 1. 00 0.85 53 o 6.9 3.3 I I I I I I I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap. Move Cap.: Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * Movement: L'l' L'l'R R'l' 475 1084 1084 0.06 I I 0.2 8.5 l\ L'l' xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx I I xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx I I 907 1254 275 171 263 160 0.71 0.00 237 764 764 0.07 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * * * * * * * L'l'R R'l' L'l' L'l'R R'l' L'l' Shared Cap. xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx Shared LOS: * xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx L'l'R R'l' 308 xxxxx 6.1 xxxxx 47.8 xxxxx l\pproachDel: l\pproachLOS: * xxxxxx * * * * xxxxxx * * * * xxxxxx * * * E * 47.8 E I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** 'l'raffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Existing l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:06:16 Page 13 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tIl 1-280 SB Ramps / Westborough Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 6 34 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.609 15.8 B ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 2 0 0 0 1 405 0 1.00 1.00 405 0 o 0 o 0 405 0 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 488 0 o 0 488 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 488 0 1900 1900 0.90 1.00 2.00 0.00 257 1. 00 257 o o 257 1. 00 0.83 310 o 310 1. 00 1. 00 310 1900 0.83 1. 00 Final Sat.: 0 0 o 3432 0 1583 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: I I I I I I I I East Bound L T R Permitted Ignore 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 00201 o 1252 1.00 1.00 o 1252 o 0 o 0 o 1252 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 o 1332 o 0 o 1332 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 1332 1900 1900 1.00 0.93 0.00 2.00 o 3538 1160 1. 00 1160 o o 1160 0.00 0.00 o o o 0.00 0.00 1900 1. 00 1. 00 1900 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Permitted Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 00200 o 938 1.00 1.00 o 938 o 0 o 0 o 938 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.79 o 1187 o 0 o 1187 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 1187 1900 1900 1.00 0.93 0.00 2.00 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.79 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 l\ l\ o 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o 0.32 0.00 0.44 0.00 26.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 27.1 0.0 1.00 1.00 27.1 0.0 C l\ 6 0 **** 0.32 0.61 28.6 2.1 0.0 1. 00 30.8 1. 00 30.8 C 9 **** 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.61 0.011.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 12.2 1.00 1.00 0.0 12.2 l\ B o 13 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.54 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 11.2 1.00 1.00 0.0 11.2 l\ B o 11 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Existing l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:06:16 Page 14 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t12 1-280 NB Ramps / Westborough Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 109 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.898 41.3 D ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: North Bound Movement: L T R Control: Rights: Min. Green: Split Phase Include 000 Y+R: Lanes: 4.0 4.0 210 Volume Module: Base Vol: 521 211 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 521 211 o 0 o 0 521 211 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 599 243 o 0 599 243 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 599 243 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 0.84 0.87 Lanes: 4.0 1 0 284 1. 00 284 o o 284 1. 00 0.87 326 o 326 1. 00 1. 00 326 1900 0.87 1. 00 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10201 230 438 1.00 1.00 230 438 o 0 o 0 230 438 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 256 487 o 0 256 487 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 256 487 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 86 1. 00 86 o o 86 1. 00 0.90 96 o 96 1. 00 1. 00 96 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 71 923 1.00 1.00 71 923 o 0 o 0 71 923 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 76 992 o 0 76 992 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 76 992 1900 1900 0.93 0.91 1.001.70 4.0 1 0 165 1. 00 165 o o 165 1. 00 0.93 177 o 177 1. 00 1. 00 177 1900 0.91 0.30 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 171 843 1.00 1.00 171 843 o 0 o 0 171 843 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 194 958 o 0 194 958 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 194 958 1900 1900 0.93 0.92 1.00 1.85 4.0 1 0 70 1. 00 70 o o 70 1. 00 0.88 80 o 80 1. 00 1. 00 80 1900 0.92 0.15 Final Sat.: 2.15 0.85 3452 1398 1652 1769 3538 1583 1769 2932 524 1769 3227 268 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.17 0.20 0.14 0.14 0.06 0.04 0.34 0.34 0.11 0.30 0.30 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.22 0.22 Volume/Cap: 0.79 0.79 Uniform Del: 36.8 36.8 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 2.9 2.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 39.7 39.7 1.00 1.00 39.7 39.7 D D 11 11 **** 0.22 0.90 37.9 8.6 0.0 1. 00 46.5 1. 00 46.5 D 14 **** 0.16 0.16 0.90 0.86 41.2 40.8 28.7 12.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 69.9 52.9 1.00 1.00 69.9 52.9 E D 11 10 0.16 0.38 37.5 0.9 0.0 1. 00 38.4 1. 00 38.4 D 3 **** 0.06 0.38 0.68 0.90 45.8 29.3 15.8 8.6 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 61.6 37.9 1.00 1.00 61.6 37.9 E D 4 22 0.38 0.90 29.3 8.6 0.0 1. 00 37.9 1. 00 37.9 D 22 **** 0.12 0.44 0.90 0.68 43.3 22.6 34.9 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 78.1 23.9 1.00 1.00 78.1 23.9 E C 9 14 0.44 0.68 22.6 1.3 0.0 1. 00 23.9 1. 00 23.9 C 14 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON F.lntersection LOS Analysis Sheets - Existing PM City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Existing PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:07:22 Page 2 1 Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Dell VI Dell VI in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C if 1 El Camino Real Hickey Blvd D 38.5 0.898 D 38.5 0.898 + 0.000 D/V if 2 El Camino Real McLellan Dr C 30.5 0.733 C 30.5 0.733 + 0.000 D/V if 3 El Camino Real Arroyo Dr B 15.9 0.487 B 15.9 0.487 + 0.000 D/V if 4 El Camino Real Chestnut Ave D 38.1 0.822 D 38.1 0.822 + 0.000 D/V if 5 El Camino Real W. Orange Ave C 32.7 0.872 C 32.7 0.872 + 0.000 D/V if 6 Mission Rd I Grand Ave B 12.4 0.480 B 12.4 0.480 + 0.000 VIC if 7 Grand Ave I Chestnut Ave C 29.0 0.527 C 29.0 0.527 + 0.000 D/V if 8 Mission Rd Oak Ave B 12.2 0.059 B 12.2 0.059 + 0.000 D/V if 9 Mission Rd Chestnut Ave C 22.5 0.627 C 22.5 0.627 + 0.000 D/V if 10 Juniperro Serra Blvd I Arroyo F 62.6 0.644 F 62.6 0.644 + 0.000 D/V if 11 1-280 SB Ramps Westborough B D 41.9 1.025 D 41.9 1.025 + 0.000 D/V if 12 1-280 NB Ramps Westborough B E 78.0 1.088 E 78.0 1.088 + 0.000 D/V Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Existing PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:07:22 Page 3 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tl El Camino Real/Hickey Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 109 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.898 38.5 D ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 201 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 971 676 21 Growth l\dj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 971 676 o 0 o 0 971 676 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 1079 751 o 0 21 o o 21 1. 00 0.90 23 o I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 5 496 1.00 1.00 5 496 o 0 o 0 5 496 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 5 522 o 0 4.0 1 0 99 1. 00 99 o o 99 Reduced Vol: 1079 751 23 5 522 1. 00 0.95 104 o 104 1. 00 1. 00 104 PCE l\dj: 1.001.00 MLFl\dj: 1.001.00 FinalVolume: 1079 751 I Saturation Flow Module: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 23 5 522 I I I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 1 0 0 2 151 24 1.00 1.00 151 o 24 o o 0 151 24 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 196 31 o 0 196 31 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 196 31 563 1. 00 563 o o 563 1. 00 0.77 731 o 731 1. 00 1. 00 731 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 0.90 0.93 2.00 1.94 3432 3417 1900 0.93 0.06 1900 1900 0.93 0.91 1.00 1.67 1900 1900 1900 0.91 0.94 0.94 0.33 1.730.27 1900 0.73 2.00 2786 Final Sat.: 106 1769 2875 574 3082 490 I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: I I I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 1 I 0 0 12 15 1.00 1.00 12 o 15 o o 0 12 15 1.00 1.00 0.66 0.66 18 23 o 0 18 23 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 23 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 0.32 0.41 573 716 10 1. 00 10 o o 10 1. 00 0.66 15 o 15 1. 00 1. 00 1900 0.93 0.27 477 Vol/Sat: 0.31 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.06 0.06 0.26 0.03 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.35 0.54 Volume/Cap: 0.90 0.40 Uniform Del: 30.8 13.3 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 9.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 40.0 13.4 1.00 1.00 40.0 13.4 D B 17 7 0.54 0.40 13.3 0.1 0.0 1. 00 13.4 1. 00 13.4 B 7 **** 0.01 0.20 0.40 0.90 49.4 38.9 19.1 14.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 68.6 53.3 1.00 1.00 68.6 53.3 E D 1 13 0.20 0.90 38.9 14.5 0.0 1. 00 53.3 1. 00 53.3 D 13 0.29 0.29 0.22 0.22 26.7 26.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 26.8 26.8 1.00 1.00 26.8 26.8 C C 3 3 **** 0.29 0.90 34.0 12.7 0.0 1. 00 0.04 0.04 0.90 0.90 48.1 48.1 78.4 78.4 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 **** 0.04 0.90 48.1 78.4 0.0 1. 00 46.7 126.5 126 126.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 46.7 126.5 126 126.5 D 16 F 4 F 4 F 4 I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Existing PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:07:22 Page 4 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t2 El Camino Real/McLellan Dr ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 64 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.733 30.5 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 301 I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 201 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 46 1015 1.00 1.00 46 1015 o 0 o 0 46 1015 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 58 1269 o 0 58 1269 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 58 1269 Saturation Flow Module: 147 1. 00 147 o o 147 1. 00 0.80 184 o 252 704 1.00 1.00 252 704 o 0 o 0 252 704 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 376 1051 o 0 184 376 1051 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 184 376 1051 I I 34 1. 00 34 o o 34 1. 00 0.67 51 o 51 1. 00 1. 00 51 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 32 12 1.00 1.00 32 12 o 0 o 0 32 12 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 39 o 15 o 39 15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 39 15 25 1. 00 25 o o 25 1. 00 0.82 30 o 30 1. 00 1. 00 30 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 1900 1900 1900 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.09 0.73 0.27 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 1 I 0 1 191 18 1.00 1.00 191 18 o 0 o 0 191 18 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.74 258 o 24 o 258 24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 258 24 1900 1900 0.87 0.87 1.30 0.06 400 1. 00 400 o o 400 1. 00 0.74 541 o 541 1. 00 1. 00 541 Final Sat.: 0.93 0.89 1.00 3.00 1769 5083 1900 1900 1900 0.83 0.90 0.92 1.00 2.00 1.91 1583 3432 3351 162 1307 490 1583 2156 95 1900 0.87 1. 64 2707 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.25 0.12 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.12 0.26 0.20 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.05 0.34 0.34 0.15 0.44 0.44 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.35 0.35 0.35 Volume/Cap: 0.71 0.73 0.34 0.73 0.71 0.71 0.73 0.73 0.47 0.34 0.73 0.57 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 47.0 29.0 24.71.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 71.730.7 1.00 1.00 71.730.7 E C 2 13 24.6 0.4 0.0 1. 00 25.0 1. 00 25.0 C 4 40.6 22.5 5.4 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 46.0 24.0 1.00 1.00 46.0 24.0 D C 5 14 22.5 1.5 0.0 1. 00 24.0 1. 00 24.0 C 14 47.4 47.4 31.5 31.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 78.9 78.9 1.00 1.00 78.9 78.9 E E 3 3 46.9 5.4 0.0 1. 00 52.3 1. 00 52.3 D 2 24.0 28.4 0.1 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 24.1 31.0 1.00 1.00 24.1 31.0 C C 5 13 26.4 0.6 0.0 1. 00 27.0 1. 00 27.0 C 9 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Existing PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:07:22 Page 5 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t3 El Camino Real / l\rroyo Dr ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 9 33 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.487 15.9 B ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 300 Volume Module: Base Vol: 133 954 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 133 954 o 0 o 0 133 954 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 140 1004 o 0 140 1004 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 140 1004 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.95 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 6 975 1.00 1.00 6 975 o 0 o 0 6 975 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 6 1037 o 0 6 1037 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 1037 4.0 1 0 240 1. 00 240 o o 240 1. 00 0.94 255 o 255 1. 00 1. 00 255 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 1 I 0 1 87 0 1.00 1.00 87 0 o 0 o 0 87 0 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.55 158 0 o 0 158 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 158 0 151 1. 00 151 o o 151 1. 00 0.55 275 o 275 1. 00 1. 00 275 1900 1900 0.93 0.87 1.00 2.41 1900 1900 1900 0.87 0.87 1.00 0.59 1.37 0.00 1900 0.87 1. 63 Final Sat.: 0.93 0.89 1.00 3.00 1769 5083 o 1769 3957 974 2260 0 2705 I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: I I I I I I I I West Bound L T R Permitted Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.07 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.69 Volume/Cap: 0.49 0.29 Uniform Del: 38.1 6.0 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 39.4 6.1 1.00 1.00 39.4 6.1 D l\ 4 4 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o **** 0.01 0.54 0.29 0.49 48.9 14.4 7.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 55.9 14.6 1.00 1.00 55.9 14.6 E B o 9 0.54 0.49 14.4 0.1 0.0 1. 00 14.6 1. 00 14.6 B 9 0.21 0.00 0.34 0.00 33.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 33.8 0.0 1.00 1.00 33.8 0.0 C l\ 4 0 **** 0.21 0.49 34.9 0.4 0.0 1. 00 35.3 1. 00 35.3 D 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 l\ l\ o 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Existing PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:07:22 Page 6 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t4 El Camino Real/Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 82 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.822 38.1 D ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 20201 Volume Module: Base Vol: 677 836 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: 677 836 l\dded Vol: 0 0 PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 0 677 836 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 720 889 o 0 720 889 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 720 889 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 336 1. 00 336 o o 336 1. 00 0.94 357 o 357 1. 00 1. 00 357 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 2 0 301 211 777 1.00 1.00 211 777 o 0 o 0 211 777 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 232 854 o 0 232 854 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 232 854 1900 1900 0.90 0.89 2.00 3.00 179 1. 00 179 o o 179 1. 00 0.91 197 o 197 1. 00 1. 00 197 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10201 153 521 1.00 1.00 153 521 o 0 o 0 153 521 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 156 532 o 0 156 532 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 156 532 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 356 1. 00 356 o o 356 1. 00 0.98 363 o 363 1. 00 1. 00 363 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 20201 327 599 1.00 1.00 327 599 o 0 o 0 327 599 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 399 730 o 0 399 730 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 399 730 1900 1900 0.90 0.93 2.00 2.00 124 1. 00 124 o o 124 1. 00 0.82 151 o 151 1. 00 1. 00 151 Final Sat.: 0.90 0.93 2.00 2.00 3432 3538 1583 3432 5083 1583 1769 3538 1583 3432 3538 1900 0.83 1. 00 1583 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.21 0.25 0.23 0.07 0.17 0.12 0.09 0.15 0.23 0.12 0.21 0.10 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.26 0.36 Volume/Cap: 0.82 0.69 Uniform Del: 35.1 27.2 IncremntDel: 6.3 1.7 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 41.4 28.8 User Dell\dj: 1.001.00 l\djDel/Veh: 41.4 28.8 LOS by Move: D C HCM2kl\vgQ: 13 13 0.36 0.62 26.3 2.1 0.0 1. 00 28.4 1. 00 28.4 C 10 **** 0.10 0.20 0.69 0.82 43.7 38.0 6.2 5.4 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 49.9 43.4 1.00 1.00 49.9 43.4 D D 5 12 0.20 0.61 36.2 3.3 0.0 1. 00 39.5 1. 00 39.5 D 6 0.13 0.28 0.70 0.54 41.9 30.6 9.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 51.5 31.2 1.00 1.00 51.5 31.2 D C 6 8 **** 0.28 0.82 33.7 11. 8 0.0 1. 00 45.5 1. 00 45.5 D 13 **** 0.14 0.29 0.82 0.70 41.731.4 10.8 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 52.5 33.5 1.00 1.00 52.5 33.5 D C 9 12 0.29 0.32 27.5 0.4 0.0 1. 00 27.9 1. 00 27.9 C 4 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Existing PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:07:22 Page 7 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t5 El Camino Real / W. Orange l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 98 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.872 32.7 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 4.0 1 0 I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 4.0 1 0 I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 39 1500 131 204 1247 47 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 39 1500 o 0 o 0 39 1500 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 44 1685 o 0 44 1685 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 44 1685 131 o o 131 1. 00 0.89 147 o 147 1. 00 1. 00 147 I I 204 1247 o 0 o 0 204 1247 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 229 1401 o 0 229 1401 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 229 1401 47 o o 47 1. 00 0.89 53 o 53 1. 00 1. 00 53 I I 111 71 1.00 1.00 111 o 71 o o 0 111 71 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 134 86 o 0 134 86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 134 86 Saturation Flow Module: 1900 1900 1900 0.88 0.93 0.89 0.24 1.00 2.89 1900 1900 1900 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.11 0.61 0.39 48 1. 00 48 o o 48 1. 00 0.83 58 o 58 1. 00 1. 00 58 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 145 44 1.00 1.00 145 o 44 o o 0 145 44 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 158 48 o 0 158 48 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 158 48 1900 1900 0.94 0.94 0.77 0.23 221 1. 00 221 o o 221 1. 00 0.92 240 o 240 1. 00 1. 00 240 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 0.93 0.88 Lanes: 1.00 2.76 Final Sat.: 1769 4619 403 1769 4874 184 1102 705 1583 1376 417 1900 0.83 1. 00 1583 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.36 0.36 0.13 0.29 0.29 0.12 0.12 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.15 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.04 0.42 Volume/Cap: 0.55 0.87 Uniform Del: 46.8 26.6 IncremntDel: 8.0 4.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 54.8 31.0 User Dell\dj: 1.001.00 l\djDel/Veh: 54.8 31.0 LOS by Move: D C HCM2 kl\vgQ: 2 22 0.42 0.87 26.6 4.3 0.0 1. 00 31.0 1. 00 31.0 C 22 **** 0.15 0.52 0.87 0.55 41.6 16.0 25.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 67.4 16.3 1.00 1.00 67.4 16.3 E B 10 11 0.52 0.55 16.0 0.3 0.0 1. 00 16.3 1. 00 16.3 B 11 **** 0.14 0.14 0.87 0.87 42.2 42.2 26.6 26.6 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 68.8 68.8 1.00 1.00 68.8 68.8 E E 10 10 0.14 0.26 38.5 0.6 0.0 1. 00 39.1 1. 00 39.1 D 2 0.17 0.17 0.66 0.66 38.5 38.5 5.1 5.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 43.6 43.6 1.00 1.00 43.6 43.6 D D 7 7 **** 0.17 0.87 40.2 24.8 0.0 1. 00 65.0 1. 00 65.0 E 10 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Existing PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:07:22 Page 8 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t6 Mission Rd / Grand l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 o o Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.480 12.4 B ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Lanes: North Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 287 1.00 1.00 o 287 o 0 o 0 o 287 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 o 322 o 0 o 322 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 322 50 1. 00 50 o o 50 1. 00 0.89 56 o 56 1. 00 1. 00 56 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 1 100 185 321 1.00 1.00 185 321 o 0 o 0 185 321 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 201 349 o 0 201 349 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 201 349 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.92 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o Saturation Flow Module: l\djustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 1.70 Final Sat.: 0 1004 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.731.27 178 419 762 1. 00 0.00 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: I I I I I I East Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.10 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 o 0 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.10 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 1 0 0 0 1 48 0 1.00 1.00 48 0 o 0 o 0 48 0 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 55 0 o 0 55 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 55 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 482 0 188 1. 00 188 o o 188 1. 00 0.88 214 o 214 1. 00 1. 00 214 1. 00 1. 00 576 Vol/Sat: xxxx 0.32 0.32 0.48 0.46 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.11 xxxx 0.37 Crit Moves: Delay/Veh: Delay l\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: l\pproachDel: Delay l\dj: l\pprl\djDel: LOS by l\ppr: l\llWayl\vgQ: **** 0.0 11.3 1.00 1.00 0.0 11.3 * B 11.3 1. 00 11.3 B 0.0 0.4 11. 0 1. 00 11. 0 B 0.4 **** 14.2 13.3 1.00 1.00 14.2 13.3 B B 13.6 1. 00 13.6 B 0.9 0.8 0.0 1. 00 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 * * xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx * 0.0 0.0 0.0 1. 00 0.0 * 0.0 10.7 0.0 1.00 1.00 10.7 0.0 B * 11. 6 1. 00 11. 6 B 0.1 0.0 **** 11. 8 1. 00 11. 8 B 0.5 I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Existing PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:07:22 Page 9 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t7 Grand l\ve / Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 43 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.527 29.0 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 101 Volume Module: Base Vol: 134 212 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 134 212 o 0 o 0 134 212 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 134 212 o 0 134 212 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 134 212 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 60 1. 00 60 o o 60 1. 00 1. 00 60 o 60 1. 00 1. 00 60 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 101 57 189 61 1.00 1.00 1.00 57 189 61 000 o 0 57 189 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 57 189 o 0 57 189 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 57 189 1900 1900 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 o 61 1. 00 1. 00 61 o 61 1. 00 1. 00 61 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 4.0 1 0 I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 4.0 1 0 107 314 1.00 1.00 107 314 116 51 359 54 o 0 o 0 107 314 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 107 314 o 0 107 314 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 107 314 1900 1900 0.93 0.94 1.000.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 116 51 359 54 000 0 o 116 1. 00 1. 00 116 o 116 1. 00 1. 00 116 1900 0.94 0.27 I I o 0 51 359 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 51 359 o 0 51 359 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 51 359 1900 1900 0.93 0.96 1.00 0.87 o 54 1. 00 1. 00 54 o 54 1. 00 1. 00 1900 0.96 0.13 Final Sat.: 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 1769 1862 1583 1769 1862 1583 1769 1305 482 1769 1586 239 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.11 0.04 0.03 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.03 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.26 Volume/Cap: 0.53 0.43 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 39.7 30.7 2.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 41.731.4 1.00 1.00 41.731.4 D C 4 6 0.26 0.14 28.3 0.2 0.0 1. 00 28.5 1. 00 28.5 C 1 **** 0.07 0.19 0.43 0.53 44.3 36.3 2.3 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 46.6 37.8 1.00 1.00 46.6 37.8 D D 2 6 0.19 0.20 33.9 0.3 0.0 1. 00 34.2 1. 00 34.2 C 2 **** 0.11 0.49 0.53 0.50 41.717.4 2.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 44.3 17.9 1.00 1.00 44.3 17.9 D B 3 9 0.49 0.50 17.4 0.4 0.0 1. 00 17.9 1. 00 17.9 B 9 **** 0.06 0.43 0.50 0.53 45.721.1 3.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 49.421.7 1.00 1.00 49.421.7 D C 2 10 0.43 0.53 21.1 0.7 0.0 1. 00 21.7 1. 00 21.7 C 10 I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Existing PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:07:22 Page 10 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t8 Mission Rd / Oak l\ve ******************************************************************************** l\verage Delay (sec/veh): 0.8 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 12.21 ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Lanes: North Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include o 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: o 300 1.00 1.00 o 300 o 0 o 0 o 300 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 o 333 o 0 o 333 Critical Gap Module: 17 1. 00 17 o o 17 1. 00 0.90 19 o 19 Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUp'l'im:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I I I I I I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx South Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include o 1 100 16 389 1.00 1.00 16 389 o 0 o 0 16 389 1.00 1.00 0.95 17 o 17 0.95 409 o 409 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.95 o o I I I I East Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 0 0 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o o o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I I I I I 352 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1203 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx West Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 1 I 0 0 20 0 1.00 1.00 20 0 o 0 o 0 20 0 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 26 0 o 0 26 6.8 3.5 581 444 o 6.5 4.0 14 1. 00 14 o o 14 1. 00 0.77 18 o 6.9 3.3 Potent Cap. Move Cap.: Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1203 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 440 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.06 786 323 318 0.00 176 837 837 0.02 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * Movement: L'l' Shared Cap. xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx Shared LOS: * L'l'R R'l' xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * l\pproachDel: l\pproachLOS: xxxxxx * I I I I I I 0.0 8.0 l\ xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * * * * * L'l' L'l'R R'l' L'l' L'l'R R'l' L'l' xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 8.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx * xxxxxx * * * * xxxxxx * * * * * L'l'R R'l' 546 xxxxx 0.3 xxxxx 12.2 xxxxx B * 12.2 B I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** 'l'raffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Existing PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:07:22 Page 11 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t9 Mission Rd / Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 9 43 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.627 22.5 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 0 0 2 67 0 1.00 1.00 67 0 o 0 o 0 67 0 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 78 0 o 0 78 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 78 0 1900 1900 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.00 362 1. 00 362 o o 362 1. 00 0.86 421 o 421 1. 00 1. 00 421 1900 0.73 2.00 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10200 279 735 1.00 1.00 279 735 o 0 o 0 279 735 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 317 835 o 0 317 835 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 317 835 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.88 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 o 1769 0 2786 1769 3538 o I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: I I I I I I I I West Bound L T R Permitted Include 000 4.0 4.0 001 o 688 1.00 1.00 o 688 o 0 o 0 o 688 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 o 773 o 0 o 773 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 773 1900 1900 1.00 0.92 0.00 1.84 o 3215 4.0 1 0 60 1. 00 60 o o 60 1. 00 0.89 67 o 67 1. 00 1. 00 1900 0.92 0.16 280 Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.15 0.18 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 l\ l\ o 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o 0.24 0.00 0.18 0.00 30.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 30.3 0.0 1.00 1.00 30.3 0.0 C l\ 2 0 **** 0.24 0.63 33.9 1.9 0.0 1. 00 35.8 1. 00 35.8 D 7 **** 0.29 0.67 0.63 0.35 31.1 7.2 2.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 33.6 7.3 1.00 1.00 33.6 7.3 C l\ 9 6 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o **** 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.63 0.0 25.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 26.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 26.0 l\ C o 11 0.38 0.63 25.0 1.0 0.0 1. 00 26.0 1. 00 26.0 C 11 I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Existing PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:07:22 Page 12 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tlO Juniperro Serra Blvd / l\rroyo Dr ******************************************************************************** l\verage Delay (sec/veh): 7.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: Fr 62.61 ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Lanes: North Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include o 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: o 760 1.00 1.00 o 760 o 0 o 0 o 760 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 o 792 o 0 o 792 Critical Gap Module: 165 1. 00 165 o o 165 1. 00 0.96 172 o 172 Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUp'l'im:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I I I South Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 10200 53 349 1.00 1.00 53 349 o 0 o 0 53 349 1.00 1.00 0.79 67 o 67 0.79 442 o 442 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.79 o o I I I I East Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 0 0 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o o o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I West Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 1 I 0 0 92 0 1.00 1.00 92 0 o 0 o 0 92 0 1.00 1.00 0.91 101 o 101 6.8 3.5 0.91 o o o 6.5 4.0 71 1. 00 71 o o 71 1. 00 0.91 78 o 6.9 3.3 I I I I I I I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap. Move Cap.: Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * Movement: L'l' L'l'R R'l' 964 710 710 0.09 I I 0.3 10.6 B L'l' xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx I I xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 1233 1454 169 157 0.64 I I 129 117 0.00 482 531 531 0.15 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * * * * * * * L'l'R R'l' L'l' L'l'R R'l' L'l' Shared Cap. xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx Shared LOS: * xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx L'l'R R'l' 226 xxxxx 5.8 xxxxx 62.6 xxxxx l\pproachDel: l\pproachLOS: * xxxxxx * * * * xxxxxx * * * * xxxxxx * * * F * 62.6 F I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** 'l'raffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Existing PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:07:22 Page 13 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tIl 1-280 SB Ramps / Westborough Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 6 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.025 41.9 D ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 2 0 0 0 1 635 0 1.00 1.00 635 0 o 0 o 0 635 0 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 738 0 o 0 738 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 738 0 1900 1900 0.90 1.00 2.00 0.00 597 1. 00 597 o o 597 1. 00 0.86 694 o 694 1. 00 1. 00 694 1900 0.83 1. 00 Final Sat.: 0 0 o 3432 0 1583 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: I I I I I I I I East Bound L T R Permitted Ignore 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 00201 o 772 1.00 1.00 o 772 o 0 o 0 o 772 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 o 887 o 0 o 887 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 887 1900 1900 1.00 0.93 0.00 2.00 o 3538 517 1. 00 517 o o 517 0.00 0.00 o o o 0.00 0.00 1900 1. 00 1. 00 1900 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Permitted Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 00200 o 1671 1.00 1.00 o 1671 o 0 o 0 o 1671 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 o 1857 o 0 o 1857 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 1857 1900 1900 1.00 0.93 0.00 2.00 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.90 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 l\ l\ o 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o 0.43 0.00 0.50 0.00 20.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 21.1 0.0 1.00 1.00 21.1 0.0 C l\ 9 0 **** 0.43 1. 02 28.6 41. 1 0.0 1. 00 69.7 1. 00 69.7 E 30 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.49 0.0 15.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 16.1 1.00 1.00 0.0 16.1 l\ B o 9 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o **** 0.00 0.51 0.00 1.02 0.0 24.4 0.027.7 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 52.1 1.00 1.00 0.0 52.1 l\ D o 40 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Existing PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:07:22 Page 14 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t12 1-280 NB Ramps / Westborough Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.088 78.0 E ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R I I I I I I Control: Rights: Min. Green: Split Phase Include 000 Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10201 Protected Include 000 Protected Include 000 Y+R: Lanes: 4.0 4.0 210 Volume Module: Base Vol: 918 533 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 918 533 o 0 o 0 918 533 1.00 1.00 0.72 0.72 1275 740 o 0 Reduced Vol: 1275 740 PCE l\dj: 1.001.00 MLFl\dj: 1.001.00 FinalVolume: 1275 740 I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 0.86 0.89 Lanes: 2.22 1.25 Final Sat.: 3634 2110 I 4.0 1 0 225 1. 00 225 o o 225 1. 00 0.72 313 o I I 154 245 1.00 1.00 154 245 o 0 o 0 154 245 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 183 292 o 0 313 183 292 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 313 183 292 1900 0.89 0.53 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 891 1769 3538 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: 22 1. 00 22 o o 22 1. 00 0.84 26 o I I 4.0 4.0 101 146 901 1.00 1.00 146 901 o 0 o 0 146 901 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 154 948 o 0 26 154 948 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 26 154 948 I I 1900 1900 1900 0.83 0.93 0.92 1.00 1.001.79 1583 1769 3118 I I 4.0 1 0 105 1. 00 105 o o 105 1. 00 0.95 111 o I I 4.0 4.0 101 188 1077 1.00 1.00 188 1077 o 0 o 0 188 1077 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 216 1238 o 0 111 216 1238 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 111 216 1238 I I 1900 1900 1900 0.92 0.93 0.91 0.21 1.001.72 363 1769 2972 I I 4.0 1 0 178 1. 00 178 o o 178 1. 00 0.87 205 o 205 1. 00 1. 00 205 1900 0.91 0.28 491 Vol/Sat: 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.08 0.02 0.09 0.30 0.30 0.12 0.42 0.42 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.32 0.32 Volume/Cap: 1.09 1.09 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 33.9 33.9 48.4 48.4 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 82.2 82.2 1.00 1.00 82.2 82.2 F F 30 30 0.32 1. 09 33.9 48.4 0.0 **** 0.10 0.10 1.09 0.87 45.2 44.6 95.0 20.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 82.2 140.2 64.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 82.2 140.2 64.9 F F E 30 11 7 **** 0.10 0.08 0.33 0.17 1.09 0.92 41.6 46.0 32.3 0.6 101.4 12.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 42.2 147.4 44.3 1.00 1.00 1.00 42.2 147.4 44.3 D 1 F 10 D 21 0.33 0.92 32.3 12.1 0.0 1. 00 44.3 1. 00 44.3 D 21 **** 0.13 0.38 0.92 1.09 42.9 30.9 38.1 52.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 80.9 83.4 1.00 1.00 80.9 83.4 F F 10 35 0.38 1. 09 30.9 52.5 0.0 1. 00 83.4 1. 00 83.4 F 35 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON G. Intersection LOS Analysis Sheets- Existing + Project AM City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Ex + Project AM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:08:22 Page 2 1 Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Dell VI Dell VI in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C if 1 El Camino Real Hickey Blvd D 35.9 0.795 D 40.5 0.881 + 4.523 D/V if 2 El Camino Real McLellan Dr C 31.2 0.713 C 32.4 0.778 + 1. 260 D/V if 3 El Camino Real Arroyo Dr C 26.3 0.627 C 29.7 0.697 + 3.421 D/V if 4 El Camino Real Chestnut Ave D 39.3 0.849 D 44.7 0.904 + 5.456 D/V if 5 El Camino Real W. Orange Ave C 33.1 0.787 C 33.2 0.805 + 0.066 D/V if 6 Mission Rd I Grand Ave B 13.2 0.448 B 14.9 0.548 + 0.099 VIC if 7 Grand Ave I Chestnut Ave C 29.0 0.576 C 29.3 0.601 + 0.328 D/V if 8 Mission Rd Oak Ave C 16.5 0.169 C 18.4 0.216 + 1.834 D/V if 9 Mission Rd Chestnut Ave C 22.5 0.664 C 24.5 0.698 + 2.014 D/V if 10 Juniperro Serra Blvd I Arroyo E 47.8 0.707 E 47.8 0.707 + 0.000 D/V if 11 1-280 SB Ramps Westborough B B 15.8 0.609 B 15.9 0.613 + 0.176 D/V if 12 1-280 NB Ramps Westborough B D 41.3 0.898 D 49.4 0.979 + 8.098 D/V Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Ex + Project l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:08:22 Page 3 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tl El Camino Real/Hickey Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 101 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.881 40.5 D ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 201 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 540 276 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 540 276 84 140 o 0 624 416 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 726 484 o 0 726 484 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 726 484 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 11 1. 00 11 o o 11 1. 00 0.86 13 o 13 1. 00 1. 00 13 1900 0.93 0.05 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 6 468 1.00 1.00 6 468 o 76 o 0 6 544 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 8 680 o 0 8 680 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 680 4.0 1 0 48 1. 00 48 o o 48 1. 00 0.80 60 o 60 1. 00 1. 00 60 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 1 0 0 2 122 6 1.00 1.00 122 6 o 0 o 0 122 6 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.82 151 7 o 0 151 7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 151 7 654 1. 00 654 45 o 699 1. 00 0.81 863 o 863 1. 00 1. 00 863 1900 1900 0.93 0.92 1.00 1.84 1900 1900 1900 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.16 1.91 0.09 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 1 I 0 0 23 24 1.00 1.00 23 24 o 0 o 0 23 24 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.70 33 34 o 0 33 34 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 33 34 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.43 0.46 6 1. 00 6 o o 6 1. 00 0.70 9 o 9 1. 00 1. 00 9 1900 0.95 0.11 Final Sat.: 0.90 0.93 2.00 1.95 3432 3433 91 1769 3212 283 3388 165 1900 0.73 2.00 2786 779 813 203 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.21 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.04 0.04 0.31 0.04 0.04 0.04 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.24 0.47 Volume/Cap: 0.88 0.30 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 36.6 16.6 10.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 47.5 16.7 1.00 1.00 47.5 16.7 D B 12 5 0.47 0.30 16.6 0.1 0.0 1. 00 16.7 1. 00 16.7 B 5 **** 0.01 0.24 0.30 0.88 48.8 36.6 6.8 10.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 55.6 47.3 1.00 1.00 55.6 47.3 E D 1 15 0.24 0.88 36.6 10.7 0.0 1. 00 47.3 1. 00 47.3 D 15 0.35 0.35 0.13 0.13 22.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 22.0 22.0 1.00 1.00 22.0 22.0 C C 2 2 **** 0.35 0.88 30.4 9.4 0.0 1. 00 0.05 0.05 0.88 0.88 47.3 47.3 59.4 59.4 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 **** 0.05 0.88 47.3 59.4 0.0 1. 00 39.8 106.7 107 106.7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 39.8 106.7 107 106.7 D 18 F 5 F 5 F 5 I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:08:22 Page 4 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t2 El Camino Real/McLellan Dr ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 72 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.778 32.4 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 301 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 34 394 1.00 1.00 34 394 o 178 o 0 34 572 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 41 689 o 0 41 689 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 41 689 Saturation Flow Module: 120 1. 00 120 13 o 133 1. 00 0.83 160 o 160 1. 00 1. 00 160 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 201 395 904 1.00 1.00 395 904 12 110 o 0 407 1014 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 473 1179 o 0 473 1179 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 473 1179 4.0 1 0 26 1. 00 26 o o 26 1. 00 0.86 30 o 30 1. 00 1. 00 30 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 47 36 1.00 1.00 47 36 o 0 o 0 47 36 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.76 62 47 o 0 62 47 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 62 47 57 1. 00 57 o o 57 1. 00 0.76 75 o 75 1. 00 1. 00 75 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 1 I 0 1 212 30 1.00 1.00 212 30 9 0 o 0 221 30 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 270 37 o 0 270 37 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 270 37 375 1. 00 375 47 o 422 1. 00 0.82 515 o 515 1. 00 1. 00 515 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 0.93 0.89 1.00 3.00 1769 5083 1900 1900 1900 0.83 0.90 0.93 1.00 2.00 1.95 1583 3432 3436 1900 1900 1900 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.05 0.57 0.43 1900 0.83 1900 1900 0.87 0.87 1.00 1.31 0.09 1583 2182 142 1900 0.87 1. 60 2656 Final Sat.: 88 1025 785 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.14 0.10 0.14 0.34 0.34 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.12 0.26 0.19 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.03 0.23 Volume/Cap: 0.78 0.58 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 48.2 34.0 51.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 99.6 34.7 1.00 1.00 99.6 34.7 F C 1 7 0.23 0.43 32.7 0.8 0.0 1. 00 33.5 1. 00 33.5 C 4 **** 0.24 0.44 0.58 0.78 33.7 23.8 1.1 2.6 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 34.8 26.4 1.00 1.00 34.8 26.4 C C 6 16 0.44 0.78 23.8 2.6 0.0 1. 00 26.4 1. 00 26.4 C 16 **** 0.08 0.08 0.78 0.78 45.3 45.3 23.7 23.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 68.9 68.9 1.00 1.00 68.9 68.9 E E 5 5 **** 0.08 0.33 0.33 0.61 0.37 0.78 44.7 25.5 30.1 8.7 0.1 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 53.4 25.6 33.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 53.4 25.6 33.9 D C C 3 5 14 0.33 0.58 27.7 0.6 0.0 1. 00 28.3 1. 00 28.3 C 9 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:08:22 Page 5 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t3 El Camino Real / l\rroyo Dr ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 59 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.697 29.7 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 155 764 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 155 764 1 120 o 0 156 884 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 184 1040 o 0 35 1. 00 35 29 o 64 1. 00 0.85 75 o I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 22 712 1.00 1.00 22 712 32 38 o 0 54 750 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 65 904 o 0 4.0 1 0 Reduced Vol: 184 1040 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 184 1040 75 65 904 190 1. 00 190 49 o 239 1. 00 0.83 288 o 288 1. 00 1. 00 288 PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 75 65 904 1900 0.88 0.20 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.86 1.00 2.28 1900 0.86 0.72 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 1 I 0 1 298 3 1.00 1.00 298 3 o 0 o 0 298 3 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 335 3 o 0 335 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 335 3 1900 1900 0.89 0.89 1.53 0.01 260 1. 00 260 o o 260 1. 00 0.89 292 o 292 1. 00 1. 00 292 1900 0.89 1. 46 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 71 2 1.00 1.00 71 2 69 0 o 0 140 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 140 2 o 0 140 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 140 2 1900 1900 0.93 0.84 1.00 0.02 4.0 1 0 13 1. 00 13 70 o 83 1. 00 1. 00 83 o 83 1. 00 1. 00 83 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 0.93 0.88 Lanes: 1.00 2.80 Final Sat.: 1769 4693 340 1769 3716 1184 2581 18 2467 1769 37 1900 0.84 0.98 1553 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.04 0.24 0.24 0.13 0.19 0.12 0.08 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.15 0.43 Volume/Cap: 0.70 0.52 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 40.4 21.1 8.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 48.4 21.3 1.00 1.00 48.4 21.3 D C 7 9 0.43 0.52 21.1 0.2 0.0 1. 00 21.3 1. 00 21.3 C 9 **** 0.07 0.35 0.52 0.70 44.8 28.0 3.8 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 48.7 29.3 1.00 1.00 48.7 29.3 D C 2 11 0.35 0.70 28.0 1.3 0.0 1. 00 29.3 1. 00 29.3 C 11 **** 0.27 0.27 0.48 0.70 30.7 32.9 0.3 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 31.0 35.3 1.00 1.00 31.0 35.3 C D 6 10 0.27 0.44 30.3 0.2 0.0 1. 00 30.5 1. 00 30.5 C 5 **** 0.11 0.11 0.70 0.47 42.741.5 10.3 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 53.0 43.5 1.00 1.00 53.0 43.5 D D 6 3 0.11 0.47 41.5 1.9 0.0 1. 00 43.5 1. 00 43.5 D 3 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:08:22 Page 6 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t4 El Camino Real/Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 111 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.904 44.7 D ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 20201 Volume Module: Base Vol: 423 550 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 423 550 31 94 o 0 454 644 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 534 758 o 0 293 1. 00 293 18 o 311 1. 00 0.85 366 o I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 2 0 301 161 748 1.00 1.00 161 748 15 65 o 0 176 813 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 196 903 o 0 88 1. 00 88 46 o 134 1. 00 0.90 149 o I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10201 249 629 1.00 1.00 249 629 93 25 o 0 342 654 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.81 422 807 o 0 424 1. 00 424 8 o 432 1. 00 0.81 533 o I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 20201 314 553 1.00 1.00 314 553 50 64 o 0 364 617 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 428 726 o 0 Reduced Vol: 534 758 PCE l\dj: 1.001.00 MLFl\dj: 1.001.00 FinalVolume: 534 758 366 196 903 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 366 196 903 149 422 807 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 149 422 807 533 428 726 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 533 428 726 116 1. 00 116 39 o 155 1. 00 0.85 182 o 182 1. 00 1. 00 182 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: I 0.90 0.93 2.00 2.00 3432 3538 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I 1900 1900 0.90 0.89 2.00 3.00 1583 3432 5083 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 1583 1769 3538 I I 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I 1900 1900 0.90 0.93 2.00 2.00 1583 3432 3538 I I 1900 0.83 1. 00 1583 Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.21 0.23 0.06 0.18 0.09 0.24 0.23 0.34 0.12 0.21 0.12 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.30 Volume/Cap: 0.90 0.72 Uniform Del: 40.6 31.5 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 17.3 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 57.8 34.1 1.00 1.00 57.8 34.1 E C 12 12 0.30 0.78 32.2 8.3 0.0 1. 00 40.5 1. 00 40.5 D 12 **** 0.07 0.20 0.78 0.90 45.6 39.2 14.6 11.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 60.2 50.6 1.00 1.00 60.2 50.6 E D 5 14 0.20 0.48 35.6 1.2 0.0 1. 00 36.8 1. 00 36.8 D 5 0.27 0.37 0.87 0.61 34.5 25.5 15.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 49.9 26.3 1.00 1.00 49.9 26.3 D C 15 11 **** 0.37 0.90 29.7 17.3 0.0 1. 00 46.9 1. 00 46.9 D 19 **** 0.14 0.24 0.90 0.87 42.4 36.7 20.5 9.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 62.9 46.4 1.00 1.00 62.9 46.4 E D 10 14 0.24 0.49 33.0 1.0 0.0 1. 00 34.0 1. 00 34.0 C 5 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:08:22 Page 7 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t5 El Camino Real / W. Orange l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 78 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.805 33.2 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: 29 864 1.00 1.00 29 864 o 61 o 0 29 925 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.78 37 1186 o 0 109 1. 00 109 o o 109 1. 00 0.78 140 o 140 1. 00 1. 00 I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 235 1160 1.00 1.00 235 1160 o 112 o 0 235 1272 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 253 1368 o 0 253 1368 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.0 1 0 57 1. 00 57 o o 57 1. 00 0.93 61 o 61 1. 00 1. 00 I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 152 111 1.00 1.00 152 111 o 0 o 0 152 111 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 173 126 o 0 173 126 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 48 1. 00 48 o o 48 1. 00 0.88 55 o 55 1. 00 1. 00 I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 115 61 1.00 1.00 115 61 o 0 o 0 115 61 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 132 70 o 0 132 70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 186 1. 00 186 o o 186 1. 00 0.87 214 FinalVolume: 37 1186 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 37 1186 140 253 1368 61 173 126 55 132 I I 70 o 214 1. 00 1. 00 214 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 0.93 0.88 Lanes: 1.00 2.68 Final Sat.: 1769 4475 I 1900 0.88 0.32 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.89 1.00 2.87 527 1769 4836 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: 1900 0.89 0.13 I I 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.58 0.42 217 1046 764 I I 1900 0.83 1. 00 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.65 0.35 1583 1178 625 I I 1900 0.83 1. 00 1583 Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.27 0.27 0.14 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.17 0.03 0.11 0.11 0.14 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.04 0.33 0.33 Volume/Cap: 0.60 0.80 0.80 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 47.6 30.6 15.2 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 62.7 33.6 1.00 1.00 62.7 33.6 E C 2 16 30.6 3.0 0.0 1. 00 33.6 1. 00 33.6 C 16 **** 0.18 0.47 0.80 0.60 39.5 19.4 14.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 53.5 19.9 1.00 1.00 53.5 19.9 D B 10 12 0.47 0.60 19.4 0.4 0.0 1. 00 19.9 1. 00 19.9 B 12 **** 0.21 0.21 0.80 0.80 37.8 37.8 12.1 12.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 49.9 49.9 1.00 1.00 49.9 49.9 D D 11 11 0.21 0.17 32.7 0.2 0.0 1. 00 33.0 1. 00 33.0 C 1 0.17 0.17 0.67 0.67 39.0 39.0 5.7 5.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 44.7 44.7 1.00 1.00 44.7 44.7 D D 7 7 **** 0.17 0.80 40.0 16.2 0.0 1. 00 56.2 1. 00 56.2 E 9 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:08:22 Page 8 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t6 Mission Rd / Grand l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 o o Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.548 14.9 B ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Lanes: North Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 348 1.00 1.00 o 348 o 79 o 0 o 427 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.74 o 577 o 0 o 577 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 577 Saturation Flow Module: l\djustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 1.84 Final Sat.: 0 1054 29 1. 00 29 8 o 37 1. 00 0.74 50 o 50 1. 00 1. 00 50 1. 00 0.16 92 Capacity l\nalysis Module: I I I I I I I I South Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 1 100 124 319 1.00 1.00 124 319 o 27 o 0 124 346 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 135 376 o 0 135 376 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 135 376 1.00 1.00 0.53 1.47 282 807 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.92 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.30 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 o 0 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.30 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 1 0 0 0 1 51 0 1.00 1.00 51 0 2 0 o 0 53 0 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 59 0 o 0 59 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 59 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 457 0 228 1. 00 228 o o 228 1. 00 0.90 253 o 253 1. 00 1. 00 253 1. 00 1. 00 543 Vol/Sat: xxxx 0.55 0.54 0.48 0.47 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.13 xxxx 0.47 Crit Moves: Delay/Veh: Delay l\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: l\pproachDel: Delay l\dj: l\pprl\djDel: LOS by l\ppr: l\IIWayl\vgQ: **** 0.0 15.8 1.00 1.00 0.0 15.8 * C 15.8 1. 00 15.8 C 0.0 1.1 15.6 1. 00 15.6 C 1.1 **** 15.0 14.4 1.00 1.00 15.0 14.4 C B 14.6 1. 00 14.6 B 0.8 0.8 0.0 1. 00 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 * * xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx * 0.0 0.0 0.0 1. 00 0.0 * 0.0 11.3 0.0 1.00 1.00 11.3 0.0 B * 13.5 1. 00 13.5 B 0.1 0.0 **** 14.0 1. 00 14.0 B 0.8 I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:08:22 Page 9 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t7 Grand l\ve / Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 48 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.601 29.3 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 101 Volume Module: Base Vol: 129 172 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 129 172 5 1 o 0 134 173 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 138 178 o 0 59 1. 00 59 o o 59 1. 00 0.97 61 o I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 101 57 190 1.00 1.00 57 190 8 4 o 0 65 194 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 71 213 o 0 73 1. 00 73 o o 73 1. 00 0.91 80 o I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 88 322 1.00 1.00 88 322 o 20 o 0 88 342 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 97 376 o 0 4.0 1 0 149 1. 00 149 7 o 156 1. 00 0.91 171 o I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 45 300 1.00 1.00 45 300 o 13 o 0 45 313 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 50 348 o 0 4.0 1 0 93 1. 00 93 2 o 95 Reduced Vol: 138 178 61 71 213 80 97 376 171 50 348 1. 00 0.90 106 o 106 1. 00 1. 00 106 PCE l\dj: 1.001.00 MLFl\dj: 1.001.00 FinalVolume: 138 178 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: I 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 1769 1862 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 61 71 213 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 1583 1769 1862 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 80 97 376 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 0.69 1583 1769 1219 I I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 171 50 348 1900 0.93 0.31 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.95 1.000.77 556 1769 1378 I I 1900 0.95 0.23 418 Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.11 0.05 0.05 0.31 0.31 0.03 0.25 0.25 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.23 Volume/Cap: 0.60 0.43 Uniform Del: 41.1 33.2 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 4.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 45.5 33.9 1.00 1.00 45.5 33.9 D C 5 5 0.23 0.17 31.2 0.2 0.0 1. 00 31.4 1. 00 31.4 C 2 **** 0.09 0.19 0.43 0.60 42.7 37.0 1.7 2.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 44.4 39.9 1.00 1.00 44.4 39.9 D D 3 7 0.19 0.27 34.5 0.5 0.0 1. 00 35.0 1. 00 35.0 D 2 **** 0.10 0.51 0.55 0.60 42.9 17.2 3.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 46.5 18.3 1.00 1.00 46.5 18.3 D B 3 12 0.51 0.60 17.2 1.1 0.0 1. 00 18.3 1. 00 18.3 B 12 **** 0.05 0.46 0.60 0.55 46.7 19.5 11.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 58.5 20.3 1.00 1.00 58.5 20.3 E C 3 10 0.46 0.55 19.5 0.8 0.0 1. 00 20.3 1. 00 20.3 C 10 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:08:23 Page 10 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t8 Mission Rd / Oak l\ve ******************************************************************************** l\verage Delay (sec/veh): 2.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: Cr 18.41 ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Lanes: North Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Critical Gp: FollowUp'l'im: 13 389 1.00 1.00 13 389 o 13 o 0 13 402 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 16 490 o 0 16 490 Module: 4 1. 00 4 o o 4 1. 00 0.82 5 o 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: I I I I I I South Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 01010 10 292 1.00 1.00 10 292 2 26 o 0 12 318 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 14 370 o 0 14 370 71 1. 00 71 62 o 133 1. 00 0.86 155 o 155 4.1 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Cnflict Vol: 524 Potent Cap. Move Cap.: Volume/Cap: 1038 1038 0.02 xxxx xxxxx 495 xxxx xxxxx 1065 xxxx xxxxx 1065 xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx I Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Control Del: LOS by Move: 8.5 l\ Movement: L'l' xxxx xxxxx * * L'l'R R'l' I I 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 8.4 l\ L'l' xxxx xxxxx * * L'l'R R'l' I I I I I I I I East Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include 10010 35 3 1.00 1.00 35 3 24 3 o 0 59 6 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 59 6 o 0 59 7.5 3.5 6 6.5 4.0 754 1002 18 1. 00 18 9 o 27 1. 00 1. 00 27 o 27 6.9 3.3 I I I I I I I I West Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 1 I 0 0 40 2 1.00 1.00 40 2 o 1 o 0 40 3 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 52 4 o 0 7.5 3.5 6.5 4.0 29 1. 00 29 o o 29 1. 00 0.77 38 o 6.9 3.3 298 273 0.22 I I 241 234 0.03 262 740 1077 736 305 218 736 282 211 0.04 0.18 0.02 I I 248 753 753 0.05 0.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 21.8 C L'l' xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * * * * L'l'R R'l' L'l' Shared Cap. xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx Shared LOS: * xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 8.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 530 xxxx 0.2 xxxxx 12.2 xxxxx L'l'R R'l' 370 xxxxx 1.0 xxxxx 18.0 xxxxx l\pproachDel: l\pproachLOS: * * xxxxxx * l\ * xxxxxx * * * * 18.4 C B * C * 18.0 C I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** 'l'raffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:08:23 Page 11 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t9 Mission Rd / Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 59 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.698 24.5 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 000 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 8 o 0 o 8 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 8 o 0 o 8 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 8 Saturation Flow Module: o 1. 00 o 7 o 7 1. 00 1. 00 7 o 7 1. 00 1. 00 I I I I South Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 75 0 1.00 1.00 75 0 3 2 o 0 78 2 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 93 2 o 0 93 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 93 2 4.0 1 1 284 1. 00 284 31 o 315 1. 00 0.84 375 o 375 1. 00 1. 00 375 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 0.53 1900 1900 1900 0.92 0.93 0.83 0.47 1.00 0.01 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 309 713 1.00 1.00 309 713 4 17 o 0 313 730 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 344 802 o 0 344 802 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 344 802 4.0 1 0 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.91 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 0.95 0.00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 o 680 1.00 1.00 o 680 2 16 o 0 2 696 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 3 870 o 0 3 870 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3 870 1900 1900 0.93 0.91 1.00 1. 72 4.0 1 0 112 1. 00 112 1 o 113 1. 00 0.80 141 o 141 1. 00 1. 00 141 1900 0.91 0.28 Final Sat.: 0 931 814 1769 20 1900 1900 1900 0.83 0.93 0.93 1.99 1.00 2.00 3149 1769 3538 o 1769 2980 484 Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.01 0.01 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.01 0.01 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.70 0.70 Uniform Del: 0.0 49.2 49.2 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 0.0 68.9 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 68.9 0.0 1. 00 0.0 118 118.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 118 118.1 l\ o F 1 F 1 I I 0.05 0.12 **** 0.17 0.17 0.31 0.70 36.3 39.0 0.6 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 36.9 43.0 1.00 1.00 36.9 43.0 D D 3 7 0.12 0.17 0.70 39.0 4.0 0.0 1. 00 43.0 1. 00 43.0 D 7 I I 0.19 0.23 **** 0.28 0.69 0.70 0.33 32.3 6.1 4.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 36.7 6.2 1.00 1.00 36.7 6.2 D l\ 11 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o I I 0.00 0.29 **** 0.00 0.42 0.33 0.70 49.6 23.9 23.4 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 73.1 25.4 1.00 1.00 73.1 25.4 E C o 13 0.29 0.42 0.70 23.9 1.5 0.0 1. 00 25.4 1. 00 25.4 C 13 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:08:23 Page 12 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tl0 Juniperro Serra Blvd / l\rroyo Dr ******************************************************************************** l\verage Delay (sec/veh): 8.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: E[ 47.81 ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Lanes: North Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include o 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: o 322 1.00 1.00 o 322 o 0 o 0 o 322 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 o 388 o 0 o 388 Critical Gap Module: 72 1. 00 72 o o 72 1. 00 0.83 87 o 87 Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUp'l'im:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I I I South Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 10200 54 583 1.00 1.00 54 583 o 0 o 0 54 583 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 64 694 o 0 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.84 o o I I I I East Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 0 0 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I West Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 1 I 0 0 158 0 1.00 1.00 158 0 o 0 o 0 158 0 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 186 0 o 0 6.8 3.5 6.5 4.0 45 1. 00 45 o o 45 1. 00 0.85 53 o 6.9 3.3 I I I I I I I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap. Move Cap.: Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * Movement: L'l' L'l'R R'l' 475 1084 1084 0.06 I I 0.2 8.5 l\ L'l' xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx I I xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx I I 907 1254 275 171 263 160 0.71 0.00 237 764 764 0.07 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * * * * * * * L'l'R R'l' L'l' L'l'R R'l' L'l' Shared Cap. xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx Shared LOS: * xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx L'l'R R'l' 308 xxxxx 6.1 xxxxx 47.8 xxxxx l\pproachDel: l\pproachLOS: * xxxxxx * * * * xxxxxx * * * * xxxxxx * * * E * 47.8 E I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** 'l'raffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:08:23 Page 13 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tIl 1-280 SB Ramps / Westborough Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 6 34 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.613 15.9 B ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 2 0 0 0 1 405 0 1.00 1.00 405 0 30 0 o 0 435 0 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 524 0 o 0 524 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 524 0 1900 1900 0.90 1.00 2.00 0.00 257 1. 00 257 o o 257 1. 00 0.83 310 o 310 1. 00 1. 00 310 1900 0.83 1. 00 Final Sat.: 0 0 o 3432 0 1583 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: I I I I I I I I East Bound L T R Permitted Ignore 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 00201 o 1252 1.00 1.00 o 1252 o 15 o 0 o 1267 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 o 1348 o 0 o 1348 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 1348 1900 1900 1.00 0.93 0.00 2.00 o 3538 1160 1. 00 1160 o o 1160 0.00 0.00 o o o 0.00 0.00 1900 1. 00 1. 00 1900 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Permitted Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 00200 o 938 1.00 1.00 o 938 o 28 o 0 o 966 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.79 o 1223 o 0 o 1223 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 1223 1900 1900 1.00 0.93 0.00 2.00 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.79 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 l\ l\ o 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o 0.32 0.00 0.48 0.00 27.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 27.7 0.0 1.00 1.00 27.7 0.0 C l\ 7 0 **** 0.32 0.61 28.8 2.2 0.0 1. 00 31.1 1. 00 31.1 C 9 **** 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.61 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 12.1 1.00 1.00 0.0 12.1 l\ B o 14 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.56 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 11.3 1.00 1.00 0.0 11.3 l\ B o 12 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:08:23 Page 14 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t12 1-280 NB Ramps / Westborough Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 164 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.979 49.4 D ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: North Bound Movement: L T R Control: Rights: Min. Green: Split Phase Include 000 Y+R: Lanes: Volume Module: 4.0 4.0 210 Base Vol: 521 211 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: 521 211 o 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 Initial Fut: 521 211 User l\dj: 1.00 1.00 PHF l\dj: 0.870.87 PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 599 o 243 o 4.0 1 0 284 1. 00 284 30 o 314 1. 00 0.87 361 o I I I I South Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10201 230 438 1.00 1.00 230 438 o 0 o 0 230 438 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 256 487 o 0 86 1. 00 86 o o 86 1. 00 0.90 96 o I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 71 923 1.00 1.00 71 923 o 45 o 0 71 968 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 76 1041 o 0 4.0 1 0 165 1. 00 165 o o 165 1. 00 0.93 177 o I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 171 843 1.00 1.00 171 843 56 84 o 0 227 927 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 258 1053 o 0 4.0 1 0 70 1. 00 70 o o 70 Reduced Vol: 599 243 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 599 243 361 256 487 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 361 256 487 96 76 1041 177 258 1053 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 177 258 1053 1. 00 0.88 80 o 80 PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 0.84 0.87 Lanes: Final Sat.: I 2.15 0.85 3445 1395 1900 0.87 1. 00 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 1649 1769 3538 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 96 76 1041 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.91 1.001.71 1583 1769 2956 I I I I 1900 1900 1900 0.91 0.93 0.92 0.29 1.00 1.86 504 1769 3257 I I 1. 00 1. 00 80 1900 0.92 0.14 246 Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.17 0.22 0.14 0.14 0.06 0.04 0.35 0.35 0.15 0.32 0.32 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.22 0.22 Volume/Cap: 0.78 0.78 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 36.5 36.5 2.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 39.0 39.0 1.00 1.00 39.0 39.0 D D 11 11 **** 0.22 0.98 38.6 20.6 0.0 1. 00 59.2 1. 00 59.2 E 17 **** 0.15 0.15 0.98 0.93 42.5 42.1 49.6 23.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 92.1 65.8 1.00 1.00 92.1 65.8 F E 12 12 0.15 0.41 38.7 1.2 0.0 1. 00 39.8 1. 00 39.8 D 3 **** 0.06 0.36 0.72 0.98 46.2 31.6 21.3 20.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 67.5 52.1 1.00 1.00 67.5 52.1 E D 4 26 0.36 0.98 31. 6 20.5 0.0 1. 00 52.1 1. 00 52.1 D 26 **** 0.15 0.45 0.98 0.72 42.4 22.5 49.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 91.724.1 1.00 1.00 91.724.1 F C 12 16 0.45 0.72 22.5 1.7 0.0 1. 00 24.1 1. 00 24.1 C 16 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON H. Intersection LOS Analysis Sheets - Existing + Project PM City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Ex + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:09:16 Page 2 1 Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Dell VI Dell VI in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C if 1 El Camino Real Hickey Blvd D 38.5 0.898 E 58.8 1.031 +20.335 D/V if 2 El Camino Real McLellan Dr C 30.5 0.733 C 33.0 0.838 + 2.506 D/V if 3 El Camino Real Arroyo Dr C 22.2 0.575 C 26.1 0.637 + 3.845 D/V if 4 El Camino Real Chestnut Ave D 38.0 0.817 D 43.9 0.880 + 5.931 D/V if 5 El Camino Real W. Orange Ave C 32.7 0.872 C 33.9 0.905 + 1.165 D/V if 6 Mission Rd I Grand Ave B 12.4 0.480 B 14.0 0.565 + 0.086 VIC if 7 Grand Ave I Chestnut Ave C 29.0 0.527 C 29.3 0.556 + 0.274 D/V if 8 Mission Rd Oak Ave B 13.1 0.075 C 16.0 0.284 + 2.963 D/V if 9 Mission Rd Chestnut Ave C 21.3 0.581 C 23.7 0.633 + 2.382 D/V if 10 Juniperro Serra Blvd I Arroyo F 62.6 0.644 F 62.6 0.644 + 0.000 D/V if 11 1-280 SB Ramps Westborough B D 41.9 1.025 D 43.0 1.033 + 1.113 D/V if 12 1-280 NB Ramps Westborough B E 78.0 1.088 F 97.3 1.133 +19.305 D/V Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Ex + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:09:16 Page 3 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tl El Camino Real/Hickey Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.031 58.8 E ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 201 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 971 676 21 Growth l\dj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 971 676 75 125 o 0 1046 801 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 1162 890 o 0 21 o o 21 1. 00 0.90 23 o I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 5 496 1.00 1.00 5 496 o 161 o 0 5 657 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 5 692 o 0 4.0 1 0 99 1. 00 99 o o 99 Reduced Vol: 1162 890 23 5 692 1. 00 0.95 104 o 104 1. 00 1. 00 104 PCE l\dj: 1.001.00 MLFl\dj: 1.001.00 FinalVolume: 1162 890 I Saturation Flow Module: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 23 5 692 I I I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 1 0 0 2 151 24 1.00 1.00 151 24 o 0 o 0 151 24 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 196 31 o 0 196 31 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 196 31 563 1. 00 563 96 o 659 1. 00 0.77 856 o 856 1. 00 1. 00 856 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 1 I 0 0 12 15 1.00 1.00 12 15 o 0 o 0 12 15 1.00 1.00 0.66 0.66 18 23 o 0 18 23 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 23 10 1. 00 10 o o 10 1. 00 0.66 15 o 15 1. 00 1. 00 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 0.90 0.93 2.00 1.95 3432 3434 1900 0.93 0.05 1900 1900 0.93 0.91 1.001.74 1900 1900 1900 0.91 0.94 0.94 0.26 1.730.27 1900 0.73 2.00 2786 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 0.32 0.41 1900 0.93 0.27 Final Sat.: 90 1769 3013 454 3082 490 573 716 477 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.34 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.06 0.06 0.31 0.03 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.33 0.54 Volume/Cap: 1. 03 0.48 Uniform Del: 33.6 14.0 IncremntDel: 35.0 0.2 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 68.6 14.2 User Dell\dj: 1.001.00 l\djDel/Veh: 68.6 14.2 LOS by Move: E B HCM2 kl\vgQ: 22 9 0.54 0.48 14.0 0.2 0.0 1. 00 14.2 1. 00 14.2 B 9 **** 0.01 0.22 0.48 1.03 49.5 38.9 28.9 40.6 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 78.4 79.4 1.00 1.00 78.4 79.4 E E 1 20 0.22 1. 03 38.9 40.6 0.0 1. 00 79.4 1. 00 79.4 E 20 0.30 0.30 0.21 0.21 26.3 26.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 26.4 26.4 1.00 1.00 26.4 26.4 C C 3 3 **** **** 0.30 0.03 0.03 0.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 35.1 48.5 48.5 48.5 39.4 131.1 0.0 0.0 131 131.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 74.5 179.5 180 179.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 74.5 179.5 180 179.5 E F F F 22 4 4 4 I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:09:16 Page 4 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t2 El Camino Real/McLellan Dr ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 87 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.838 33.0 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 301 I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 201 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 46 1015 1.00 1.00 46 1015 o 175 o 0 46 1190 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 58 1488 o 0 58 1488 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 58 1488 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 147 1. 00 147 19 o 166 1. 00 0.80 208 o 252 704 1.00 1.00 252 704 46 211 o 0 298 915 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 445 1366 o 0 208 445 1366 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 208 445 1366 I I 34 1. 00 34 o o 34 1. 00 0.67 51 o 51 1. 00 1. 00 51 1900 0.93 0.07 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 32 12 1.00 1.00 32 12 o 0 o 0 32 12 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 39 o 15 o 39 15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 39 15 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.730.27 25 1. 00 25 o o 25 1. 00 0.82 30 o 30 1. 00 1. 00 30 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 1 I 0 1 191 18 1.00 1.00 191 18 15 0 o 0 206 18 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.74 278 o 24 o 278 24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 278 24 1900 1900 0.87 0.87 1.31 0.05 400 1. 00 400 25 o 425 1. 00 0.74 574 o 574 1. 00 1. 00 574 Final Sat.: 0.93 0.89 1.00 3.00 1769 5083 1900 1900 1900 0.83 0.90 0.93 1.00 2.00 1.93 1583 3432 3394 126 1307 490 1583 2163 89 1900 0.87 1. 64 2706 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.29 0.13 0.13 0.40 0.40 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.13 0.27 0.21 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.04 0.36 Volume/Cap: 0.84 0.81 Uniform Del: 47.7 29.0 IncremntDel: 56.6 2.9 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 104.3 31.9 User Dell\dj: 1.001.00 l\dj Del/Veh: 104.3 31. 9 LOS by Move: F C HCM2kl\vgQ: 2 16 0.36 0.36 23.6 0.4 0.0 1. 00 24.0 1. 00 24.0 C 4 **** 0.16 0.48 0.81 0.84 40.6 22.6 9.1 3.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 49.7 26.5 1.00 1.00 49.7 26.5 D C 6 18 0.48 0.84 22.6 3.9 0.0 1. 00 **** 0.04 0.04 0.84 0.84 47.9 47.9 59.4 59.4 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 26.5 107.3 107 1.00 1.00 1.00 26.5 107.3 107 C 18 F 4 F 4 0.04 0.54 47.4 10.2 0.0 1. 00 57.6 1. 00 57.6 E 2 **** 0.33 0.33 0.40 0.84 26.1 31.3 0.1 6.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 26.2 37.4 1.00 1.00 26.2 37.4 C D 5 15 0.33 0.65 28.9 1.2 0.0 1. 00 30.0 1. 00 30.0 C 10 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:09:16 Page 5 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t3 El Camino Real / l\rroyo Dr ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 52 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.637 26.1 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 130 942 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 130 942 6 131 o 0 136 1073 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 143 1129 o 0 28 1. 00 28 123 o 151 1. 00 0.95 159 o I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 27 954 1.00 1.00 27 954 88 123 o 0 115 1077 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 122 1146 o 0 4.0 1 0 Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 143 1129 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 143 1129 159 122 1146 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 159 122 1146 240 1. 00 240 16 o 256 1. 00 0.94 272 o 272 1. 00 1. 00 272 Saturation Flow Module: 1900 0.88 0.37 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.87 1.00 2.42 1900 0.87 0.58 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 1 I 0 1 87 2 1.00 1.00 87 2 o 0 o 0 87 2 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.55 158 4 o 0 158 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 158 4 1900 1900 0.87 0.87 1.36 0.02 149 1. 00 149 o o 149 1. 00 0.55 271 o 271 1. 00 1. 00 271 1900 0.87 1. 62 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 69 3 1.00 1.00 69 3 39 0 o 0 108 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 108 3 o 0 108 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 108 3 1900 1900 0.93 0.84 1.00 0.04 4.0 1 0 12 1. 00 12 63 o 75 1. 00 1. 00 75 o 75 1. 00 1. 00 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 0.93 0.88 Lanes: 1.00 2.63 Final Sat.: 1769 4376 616 1769 3988 948 2257 28 2685 1769 61 1900 0.84 0.96 1533 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.26 0.26 0.07 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.13 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.46 Volume/Cap: 0.64 0.57 Uniform Del: 41.5 20.0 IncremntDel: 6.0 0.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 47.4 20.3 User Dell\dj: 1.001.00 l\djDel/Veh: 47.4 20.3 LOS by Move: D C HCM2kl\vgQ: 5 11 0.46 0.57 20.0 0.3 0.0 1. 00 20.3 1. 00 20.3 C 11 **** 0.12 0.45 0.57 0.64 41.4 21.2 3.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 44.9 21.8 1.00 1.00 44.9 21.8 D C 3 12 0.45 0.64 21.2 0.6 0.0 1. 00 21.8 1. 00 21.8 C 12 **** 0.21 0.21 0.34 0.64 33.8 36.2 0.2 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 34.0 38.3 1.00 1.00 34.0 38.3 C D 3 7 0.21 0.49 35.0 0.4 0.0 1. 00 35.4 1. 00 35.4 D 5 **** 0.10 0.10 0.64 0.51 43.5 43.0 7.8 2.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 51.4 45.9 1.00 1.00 51.4 45.9 D D 4 3 0.10 0.51 43.0 2.9 0.0 1. 00 45.9 1. 00 45.9 D 3 I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:09:16 Page 6 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t4 El Camino Real/Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 101 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.880 43.9 D ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: North Bound Movement: L T R Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 20201 Volume Module: Base Vol: 677 836 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: 677 836 l\dded Vol: 21 101 PasserByVol: 0 0 Ini tial Fut: 698 937 User l\dj: 1.00 1.00 PHF l\dj: 0.940.94 PHF Volume: 743 997 Reduct Vol: 0 0 Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 743 997 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 743 997 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 336 1. 00 336 38 o 374 1. 00 0.94 398 o 398 1. 00 1. 00 398 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 2 0 301 188 810 1.00 1.00 188 810 51 71 o 0 239 881 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 263 968 o 0 263 968 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 263 968 1900 1900 0.90 0.89 2.00 3.00 215 1. 00 215 32 o 247 1. 00 0.91 271 o 271 1. 00 1. 00 271 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10201 181 493 1.00 1.00 181 493 77 80 o 0 258 573 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 263 585 o 0 263 585 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 263 585 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 356 1. 00 356 25 o 381 1. 00 0.98 389 o 389 1. 00 1. 00 389 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 20201 294 563 1.00 1.00 294 563 56 72 o 0 350 635 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 427 774 o 0 427 774 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 427 774 1900 1900 0.90 0.93 2.00 2.00 109 1. 00 109 21 o 130 1. 00 0.82 159 o 159 1. 00 1. 00 159 Final Sat.: 0.90 0.93 2.00 2.00 3432 3538 1583 3432 5083 1583 1769 3538 1583 3432 3538 1900 0.83 1. 00 1583 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.22 0.28 0.25 0.08 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.17 0.25 0.12 0.22 0.10 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.25 0.36 Volume/Cap: 0.88 0.78 Uniform Del: 36.3 28.2 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 10.6 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 46.9 31.2 1.00 1.00 46.9 31.2 D C 15 16 0.36 0.69 27 .1 3.6 0.0 1. 00 30.7 1. 00 30.7 C 11 **** 0.10 0.22 0.78 0.88 44.0 37.9 10.7 8.4 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 54.7 46.3 1.00 1.00 54.7 46.3 D D 6 14 0.22 0.79 37.1 11. 9 0.0 1. 00 49.0 1. 00 49.0 D 10 **** 0.17 0.28 0.88 0.60 40.6 31.3 24.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 65.1 32.3 1.00 1.00 65.1 32.3 E C 11 9 0.28 0.89 34.6 19.0 0.0 1. 00 53.6 1. 00 53.6 D 15 **** 0.14 0.25 0.89 0.88 42.2 36.1 17.6 10.2 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 59.8 46.3 1.00 1.00 59.8 46.3 E D 10 15 0.25 0.40 31.4 0.7 0.0 1. 00 32.0 1. 00 32.0 C 4 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:09:16 Page 7 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t5 El Camino Real / W. Orange l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 112 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.905 33.9 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 4.0 1 0 I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 4.0 1 0 I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 39 1500 1.00 1.00 39 1500 o 129 o 0 39 1629 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 44 1830 o 0 44 1830 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 44 1830 Saturation Flow Module: 131 1. 00 131 o o 131 1. 00 0.89 147 o 147 1. 00 1. 00 147 I I 204 1247 1.00 1.00 204 1247 o 100 o 0 204 1347 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 229 1513 o 0 229 1513 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 229 1513 1900 1900 1900 0.88 0.93 0.89 0.22 1.00 2.90 47 1. 00 47 o o 47 1. 00 0.89 53 o 53 1. 00 1. 00 53 I I 111 71 1.00 1.00 111 71 o 0 o 0 111 71 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 134 86 o 0 134 86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 134 86 1900 1900 1900 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.10 0.61 0.39 48 1. 00 48 o o 48 1. 00 0.83 58 o 58 1. 00 1. 00 58 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 145 44 1.00 1.00 145 44 o 0 o 0 145 44 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 158 48 o 0 158 48 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 158 48 1900 1900 0.94 0.94 0.77 0.23 221 1. 00 221 o o 221 1. 00 0.92 240 o 240 1. 00 1. 00 240 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 0.93 0.88 Lanes: 1.00 2.78 Final Sat.: 1769 4653 374 1769 4887 171 1102 705 1583 1376 417 1900 0.83 1. 00 1583 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.39 0.39 0.13 0.31 0.31 0.12 0.12 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.15 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.04 0.43 Volume/Cap: 0.58 0.90 Uniform Del: 47.0 26.3 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 10.7 5.8 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 57.7 32.2 1.00 1.00 57.7 32.2 E C 2 25 0.43 0.90 26.3 5.8 0.0 1. 00 32.2 1. 00 32.2 C 25 **** 0.14 0.54 0.90 0.58 42.2 15.6 32.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 74.7 16.0 1.00 1.00 74.7 16.0 E B 10 12 0.54 0.58 15.6 0.3 0.0 1. 00 16.0 1. 00 16.0 B 12 **** 0.13 0.13 0.90 0.90 42.7 42.7 33.5 33.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 76.2 76.2 1.00 1.00 76.2 76.2 E E 10 10 0.13 0.27 38.9 0.7 0.0 1. 00 39.6 1. 00 39.6 D 2 0.17 0.17 0.68 0.68 39.1 39.1 6.3 6.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 45.4 45.4 1.00 1.00 45.4 45.4 D D 7 7 **** 0.17 0.90 40.8 31.5 0.0 1. 00 72.3 1. 00 72.3 E 11 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:09:16 Page 8 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t6 Mission Rd / Grand l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 o o Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.565 14.0 B ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Lanes: North Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 287 1.00 1.00 o 287 o 47 o 0 o 334 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 o 375 o 0 o 375 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 375 Saturation Flow Module: l\djustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 1.72 Final Sat.: 0 985 50 1. 00 50 4 o 54 1. 00 0.89 61 o 61 1. 00 1. 00 61 1. 00 0.28 162 Capacity l\nalysis Module: I I I I I I I I South Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 1 100 185 321 1.00 1.00 185 321 o 82 o 0 185 403 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 201 438 o 0 201 438 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 201 438 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.37 356 804 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.92 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.10 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 o 0 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.10 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 1 0 0 0 1 48 0 1.00 1.00 48 0 8 0 o 0 56 0 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 64 0 o 0 64 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 64 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 465 0 188 1. 00 188 o o 188 1. 00 0.88 214 o 214 1. 00 1. 00 214 1. 00 1. 00 552 Vol/Sat: xxxx 0.38 0.37 0.57 0.54 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.14 xxxx 0.39 Crit Moves: Delay/Veh: Delay l\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: l\pproachDel: Delay l\dj: l\pprl\djDel: LOS by l\ppr: l\IIWayl\vgQ: **** 0.0 12.4 1.00 1.00 0.0 12.4 * B 12.4 1. 00 12.4 B 0.0 0.6 12.1 1. 00 12.1 B 0.6 **** 16.5 15.5 1.00 1.00 16.5 15.5 C C 15.8 1. 00 15.8 C 1.2 1.1 0.0 1. 00 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 * * xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx * 0.0 0.0 0.0 1. 00 0.0 * 0.0 11.2 0.0 1.00 1.00 11.2 0.0 B * 12.2 1. 00 12.2 B 0.1 0.0 **** 12.5 1. 00 12.5 B 0.5 I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:09:16 Page 9 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t7 Grand l\ve / Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 45 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.556 29.3 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 101 Volume Module: Base Vol: 134 212 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 134 212 9 4 o 0 143 216 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 143 216 o 0 60 1. 00 60 o o 60 1. 00 1. 00 60 o I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 101 57 189 1.00 1.00 57 189 7 3 o 0 64 192 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 64 192 o 0 61 1. 00 61 o o 61 1. 00 Reduced Vol: 143 216 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 143 216 60 64 192 1. 00 61 o 61 PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 60 64 192 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 61 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 107 314 1.00 1.00 107 314 o 18 o 0 107 332 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 107 332 o 0 107 332 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 107 332 1900 1900 0.93 0.94 1.000.73 4.0 1 0 116 1. 00 116 7 o 123 1. 00 1. 00 123 o 123 1. 00 1. 00 123 1900 0.94 0.27 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 51 359 1.00 1.00 51 359 o 25 o 0 51 384 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 51 384 o 0 51 384 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 51 384 1900 1900 0.93 0.96 1.00 0.86 4.0 1 0 54 1. 00 54 8 o 62 1. 00 1. 00 62 o 62 1. 00 1. 00 62 1900 0.96 0.14 Final Sat.: 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 1769 1862 1583 1769 1862 1583 1769 1304 483 1769 1569 253 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.25 0.25 0.03 0.24 0.24 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.15 0.25 0.25 Volume/Cap: 0.56 0.46 0.15 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 39.731.6 2.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 42.4 32.3 1.00 1.00 42.4 32.3 D C 5 6 29.1 0.2 0.0 1. 00 29.2 1. 00 29.2 C 1 **** 0.08 0.19 0.46 0.56 44.0 37.0 2.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 46.4 39.0 1.00 1.00 46.4 39.0 D D 2 6 0.19 0.21 34.5 0.4 0.0 1. 00 34.9 1. 00 34.9 C 2 **** 0.11 0.49 0.56 0.52 42.3 17.2 3.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 45.8 17.8 1.00 1.00 45.8 17.8 D B 3 9 0.49 0.52 17.2 0.5 0.0 1. 00 17.8 1. 00 17.8 B 9 **** 0.06 0.44 0.52 0.56 45.9 20.7 4.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 50.6 21.6 1.00 1.00 50.6 21.6 D C 2 10 0.44 0.56 20.7 0.9 0.0 1. 00 21.6 1. 00 21.6 C 10 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:09:16 Page 10 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t8 Mission Rd / Oak l\ve ******************************************************************************** l\verage Delay (sec/veh): 3.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: Cr 16.01 ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Lanes: North Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Critical Gp: FollowUp'l'im: 12 272 1.00 1.00 12 272 o 22 o 0 12 294 1.00 1.00 0.90 13 o 13 0.90 327 o 327 Module: 15 1. 00 15 o o 15 1. 00 0.90 17 o 17 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 476 xxxx xxxxx I I I I I I I I South Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 01010 16 320 1.00 1.00 16 320 1 20 o 0 17 340 1.00 1.00 0.95 18 o 18 0.95 358 o 358 69 1. 00 69 43 o 112 1. 00 0.95 118 o 118 4.1 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 343 xxxx xxxxx I I I I I I I I East Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include 10010 28 2 1.00 1.00 28 2 67 5 o 0 95 7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 95 7 o 0 95 7.5 3.5 646 7 6.5 4.0 21 1. 00 21 48 o 69 1. 00 1. 00 69 o 69 6.9 3.3 238 I I I I I I I I West Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 1 I 0 0 17 3 1.00 1.00 17 3 o 2 o 0 17 5 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 22 6 o 0 7.5 3.5 580 6.5 4.0 14 1. 00 14 2 o 16 1. 00 0.77 21 o 6.9 3.3 Potent Cap. Move Cap.: Volume/Cap: 1083 1083 0.01 xxxx xxxxx 1212 xxxx xxxxx 1212 xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxxx 357 xxxx xxxxx 334 xxxx xxxx 0.28 823 307 299 0.02 763 398 763 348 0.09 0.06 I I 873 287 279 0.02 172 842 842 0.02 I Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Control Del: LOS by Move: 8.4 l\ Movement: L'l' Shared Cap. xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx Shared LOS: * xxxx xxxxx * * L'l'R R'l' xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * l\pproachDel: l\pproachLOS: xxxxxx * I I I I 0.0 8.0 l\ xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 1.1 20.0 C xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * * L'l' L'l'R R'l' L'l' L'l'R xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 8.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx * xxxxxx * * * * 16.0 C * * R'l' L'l' 668 xxxx 0.4 xxxxx 11.1 xxxxx B * * * L'l'R R'l' 443 xxxxx 0.4 xxxxx 14.1 xxxxx B * 14.1 B I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** 'l'raffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:09:16 Page 11 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t9 Mission Rd / Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 51 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.633 23.7 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 000 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 4 o 0 o 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 4 o 0 o 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 4 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 0.57 o 1. 00 o 3 o 3 1. 00 1. 00 3 o 3 1. 00 1. 00 3 1900 0.92 0.43 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 88 0 1.00 1.00 88 0 5 8 o 0 93 8 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 108 9 o 0 108 9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 108 9 1900 1900 0.93 0.84 1.00 0.04 4.0 1 1 300 1. 00 300 56 o 356 1. 00 0.86 414 o 414 1. 00 1. 00 414 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 249 714 1.00 1.00 249 714 16 16 o 0 265 730 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 301 830 o 0 301 830 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 301 830 4.0 1 0 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.88 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 0.95 0.00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 o 676 1.00 1.00 o 676 7 25 o 0 7 701 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 8 788 o 0 8 788 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 788 1900 1900 0.93 0.92 1.00 1.81 4.0 1 0 72 1. 00 72 2 o 74 1. 00 0.89 83 o 83 1. 00 1. 00 83 1900 0.92 0.19 Final Sat.: 0 1002 752 1769 70 1900 1900 1900 0.84 0.93 0.93 1.96 1.00 2.00 3107 1769 3538 o 1769 3155 333 Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.01 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.63 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: 0.0 49.6 0.0 81.4 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.63 49.6 81.4 0.0 1. 00 Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: 0.0 131131.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 131131.0 LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: l\ o F 1 F 1 I I 0.06 0.13 **** 0.21 0.21 0.29 0.63 33.2 36.0 0.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 33.6 37.9 1.00 1.00 33.6 37.9 C D 3 7 0.13 0.21 0.63 36.0 2.0 0.0 1. 00 37.9 1. 00 37.9 D 7 I I 0.17 0.23 0.00 **** 0.27 0.65 0.00 0.63 0.36 0.00 32.2 8.0 0.0 2.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.00 35.0 8.1 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 35.0 8.1 0.0 C l\ l\ 960 I I 0.00 0.25 **** 0.01 0.39 0.36 0.63 49.0 24.4 9.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 58.9 25.4 1.00 1.00 58.9 25.4 E C o 11 0.25 0.39 0.63 24.4 1.0 0.0 1. 00 25.4 1. 00 25.4 C 11 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:09:16 Page 12 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tl0 Juniperro Serra Blvd / l\rroyo Dr ******************************************************************************** l\verage Delay (sec/veh): 7.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: Fr 62.61 ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Lanes: North Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include o 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: o 760 1.00 1.00 o 760 o 0 o 0 o 760 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 o 792 o 0 o 792 Critical Gap Module: 165 1. 00 165 o o 165 1. 00 0.96 172 o 172 Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUp'l'im:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I I I South Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 10200 53 349 1.00 1.00 53 349 o 0 o 0 53 349 1.00 1.00 0.79 67 o 67 0.79 442 o 442 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.79 o o I I I I East Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 0 0 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o o o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I West Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 1 I 0 0 92 0 1.00 1.00 92 0 o 0 o 0 92 0 1.00 1.00 0.91 101 o 101 6.8 3.5 0.91 o o o 6.5 4.0 71 1. 00 71 o o 71 1. 00 0.91 78 o 6.9 3.3 I I I I I I I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap. Move Cap.: Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * Movement: L'l' L'l'R R'l' 964 710 710 0.09 I I 0.3 10.6 B L'l' xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx I I xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 1233 1454 169 157 0.64 I I 129 117 0.00 482 531 531 0.15 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * * * * * * * L'l'R R'l' L'l' L'l'R R'l' L'l' Shared Cap. xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx Shared LOS: * xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx L'l'R R'l' 226 xxxxx 5.8 xxxxx 62.6 xxxxx l\pproachDel: l\pproachLOS: * xxxxxx * * * * xxxxxx * * * * xxxxxx * * * F * 62.6 F I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** 'l'raffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:09:16 Page 13 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tIl 1-280 SB Ramps / Westborough Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 6 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.033 43.0 D ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 2 0 0 0 1 635 0 1.00 1.00 635 0 64 0 o 0 699 0 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 813 0 o 0 813 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 813 0 1900 1900 0.90 1.00 2.00 0.00 597 1. 00 597 o o 597 1. 00 0.86 694 o 694 1. 00 1. 00 694 1900 0.83 1. 00 Final Sat.: 0 0 o 3432 0 1583 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: I I I I I I I I East Bound L T R Permitted Ignore 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 00201 o 772 1.00 1.00 o 772 o 32 o 0 o 804 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 o 924 o 0 o 924 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 924 1900 1900 1.00 0.93 0.00 2.00 o 3538 517 1. 00 517 o o 517 0.00 0.00 o o o 0.00 0.00 1900 1. 00 1. 00 1900 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Permitted Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 00200 o 1671 1.00 1.00 o 1671 o 25 o 0 o 1696 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 o 1884 o 0 o 1884 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 1884 1900 1900 1.00 0.93 0.00 2.00 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.90 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 l\ l\ o 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o 0.42 0.00 0.56 0.00 21.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 22.2 0.0 1.00 1.00 22.2 0.0 C l\ 10 0 **** 0.42 1. 03 28.8 43.6 0.0 1. 00 72.3 1. 00 72.3 E 30 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.51 0.0 15.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 16.1 1.00 1.00 0.0 16.1 l\ B o 10 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o **** 0.00 0.52 0.00 1.03 0.0 24.2 0.0 30.2 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 54.4 1.00 1.00 0.0 54.4 l\ D o 41 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:09:16 Page 14 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t12 1-280 NB Ramps / Westborough Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.133 97.3 F ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R I I I I I I Control: Rights: Min. Green: Split Phase Include 000 Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10201 Protected Include 000 Protected Include 000 Y+R: Lanes: 4.0 4.0 210 Volume Module: Base Vol: 918 533 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 918 533 o 0 o 0 918 533 1.00 1.00 0.72 0.72 1275 740 o 0 Reduced Vol: 1275 740 PCE l\dj: 1.001.00 MLFl\dj: 1.001.00 FinalVolume: 1275 740 I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 0.86 0.88 Lanes: Final Sat.: I 2.14 1.21 3488 2025 4.0 1 0 I I 225 154 245 1.00 1.00 1.00 225 154 245 64 0 0 000 289 154 245 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.72 0.84 0.84 401 183 292 000 401 183 292 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 401 183 292 1900 0.88 0.65 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 1098 1769 3538 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: 22 1. 00 22 o o 22 1. 00 0.84 26 o 26 1. 00 1. 00 26 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I 4.0 4.0 101 146 901 1.00 1.00 146 901 o 96 o 0 146 997 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 154 1049 o 0 154 1049 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 154 1049 1900 1900 0.93 0.92 1.00 1.81 1583 1769 3156 I I 4.0 1 0 105 1. 00 105 o o 105 1. 00 0.95 111 o 111 1. 00 1. 00 111 I I I I 4.0 4.0 101 188 1077 1.00 1.00 188 1077 50 75 o 0 238 1152 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 274 1324 o 0 274 1324 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 274 1324 1900 1900 1900 0.92 0.93 0.91 0.19 1.001.73 332 1769 3003 I I 4.0 1 0 178 1. 00 178 o o 178 1. 00 0.87 205 o 205 1. 00 1. 00 205 1900 0.91 0.27 464 Vol/Sat: 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.10 0.08 0.02 0.09 0.33 0.33 0.15 0.44 0.44 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.09 0.09 Volume/Cap: 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 0.90 Uniform Del: 33.9 33.9 33.9 45.4 45.0 IncremntDel: 66.3 66.3 66.3 110.9 26.7 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Delay/Veh: 100.2 100 100.2 156.4 71.7 User Dell\dj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l\djDel/Veh: 100.2 100 100.2 156.4 71.7 LOS by Move: F F F F E HCM2kl\vgQ: 33 33 33 11 8 **** 0.09 0.08 0.32 0.18 1.13 1.05 42.0 46.2 34.1 0.6 117.4 39.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 42.6 163.6 73.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 42.6 163.6 73.9 D F E 1 10 28 0.32 1. 05 34.1 39.8 0.0 1. 00 **** 0.15 0.39 1.05 1.13 42.6 30.5 68.1 69.6 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.39 1.13 30.5 69.6 0.0 1. 00 73.9 110.7 100 100.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 73.9110.7 100 100.1 E F F F 28 14 40 40 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON I. Intersection LOS Analysis Sheets - Existing + Project + Mitigation AM City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Ex + Project AM mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:13:52 Page 2 1 Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Dell VI Dell VI in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C if 1 El Camino Real Hickey Blvd C 24.8 0.587 C 24.6 0.641 0.177 D/V if 2 El Camino Real McLellan Dr C 31.2 0.713 C 32.4 0.778 + 1. 260 D/V if 3 El Camino Real Arroyo Dr C 26.3 0.627 C 29.7 0.697 + 3.421 D/V if 4 El Camino Real Chestnut Ave D 39.3 0.849 D 44.7 0.904 + 5.456 D/V if 5 El Camino Real W. Orange Ave C 33.1 0.787 C 33.2 0.805 + 0.066 D/V if 6 Mission Rd I Grand Ave B 13.2 0.448 B 14.9 0.548 + 0.099 VIC if 7 Grand Ave I Chestnut Ave C 29.0 0.576 C 29.3 0.601 + 0.328 D/V if 8 Mission Rd Oak Ave C 16.5 0.169 C 18.4 0.216 + 1.834 D/V if 9 Mission Rd Chestnut Ave C 22.5 0.664 C 24.5 0.698 + 2.014 D/V if 10 Juniperro Serra Blvd I Arroyo E 47.8 0.707 E 47.8 0.707 + 0.000 D/V if 11 1-280 SB Ramps Westborough B B 15.8 0.609 B 15.9 0.613 + 0.176 D/V if 12 1-280 NB Ramps Westborough B D 37.5 0.832 D 42.1 0.913 + 4.630 D/V Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Ex + Project l\M mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:13:52 Page 3 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tl El Camino Real/Hickey Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 52 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.641 24.6 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 201 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 540 276 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 540 276 84 140 o 0 624 416 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 726 484 o 0 726 484 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 726 484 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 11 1. 00 11 o o 11 1. 00 0.86 13 o 13 1. 00 1. 00 13 1900 0.93 0.05 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 6 468 1.00 1.00 6 468 o 76 o 0 6 544 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 8 680 o 0 8 680 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 680 4.0 1 0 48 1. 00 48 o o 48 1. 00 0.80 60 o 60 1. 00 1. 00 60 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Ovl 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 1 0 0 2 122 6 1.00 1.00 122 6 o 0 o 0 122 6 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.82 151 7 o 0 151 7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 151 7 654 1. 00 654 45 o 699 1. 00 0.81 863 o 863 1. 00 1. 00 863 1900 1900 0.93 0.92 1.00 1.84 1900 1900 1900 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.16 1.91 0.09 Final Sat.: 0.90 0.93 2.00 1.95 3432 3433 91 1769 3212 283 3388 165 1900 0.73 2.00 2786 I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: I I I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 1 I 0 0 23 24 1.00 1.00 23 24 o 0 o 0 23 24 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.70 33 34 o 0 33 34 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 33 34 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.43 0.46 779 813 6 1. 00 6 o o 6 1. 00 0.70 9 o 9 1. 00 1. 00 9 1900 0.95 0.11 203 Vol/Sat: 0.21 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.04 0.04 0.31 0.04 0.04 0.04 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.33 0.64 Volume/Cap: 0.64 0.22 Uniform Del: 28.5 7.5 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 1.3 0.0 1.00 1.00 29.7 7.5 1.00 1.00 29.7 C 10 7.5 l\ 3 0.64 0.22 7.5 0.0 0.0 1. 00 7.5 1. 00 7.5 l\ 3 **** 0.02 0.33 0.22 0.64 48.3 28.4 3.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 51.529.7 1.00 1.00 51.529.7 D C o 11 0.33 0.64 28.4 1.2 0.0 1. 00 29.7 1. 00 29.7 C 11 0.15 0.15 0.29 0.29 37.5 37.5 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 37.8 37.8 1.00 1.00 37.8 37.8 D D 2 2 **** 0.48 0.64 19.3 1.1 0.0 1. 00 20.4 1. 00 20.4 C 12 0.07 0.07 0.64 0.64 45.6 45.6 11.3 11.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 56.8 56.8 1.00 1.00 56.8 56.8 E E 3 3 **** 0.07 0.64 45.6 11.3 0.0 1. 00 56.8 1. 00 56.8 E 3 I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project l\M mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:13:52 Page 4 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t2 El Camino Real/McLellan Dr ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 72 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.778 32.4 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 301 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 34 394 1.00 1.00 34 394 o 178 o 0 34 572 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 41 689 o 0 41 689 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 41 689 Saturation Flow Module: 120 1. 00 120 13 o 133 1. 00 0.83 160 o 160 1. 00 1. 00 160 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 201 395 904 1.00 1.00 395 904 12 110 o 0 407 1014 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 473 1179 o 0 473 1179 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 473 1179 4.0 1 0 26 1. 00 26 o o 26 1. 00 0.86 30 o 30 1. 00 1. 00 30 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 47 36 1.00 1.00 47 36 o 0 o 0 47 36 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.76 62 47 o 0 62 47 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 62 47 57 1. 00 57 o o 57 1. 00 0.76 75 o 75 1. 00 1. 00 75 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 1 I 0 1 212 30 1.00 1.00 212 30 9 0 o 0 221 30 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 270 37 o 0 270 37 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 270 37 375 1. 00 375 47 o 422 1. 00 0.82 515 o 515 1. 00 1. 00 515 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 0.93 0.89 1.00 3.00 1769 5083 1900 1900 1900 0.83 0.90 0.93 1.00 2.00 1.95 1583 3432 3436 1900 1900 1900 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.05 0.57 0.43 1900 0.83 1900 1900 0.87 0.87 1.00 1.31 0.09 1583 2182 142 1900 0.87 1. 60 2656 Final Sat.: 88 1025 785 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.14 0.10 0.14 0.34 0.34 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.12 0.26 0.19 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.03 0.23 Volume/Cap: 0.78 0.58 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 48.2 34.0 51.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 99.6 34.7 1.00 1.00 99.6 34.7 F C 1 7 0.23 0.43 32.7 0.8 0.0 1. 00 33.5 1. 00 33.5 C 4 **** 0.24 0.44 0.58 0.78 33.7 23.8 1.1 2.6 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 34.8 26.4 1.00 1.00 34.8 26.4 C C 6 17 0.44 0.78 23.8 2.6 0.0 1. 00 26.4 1. 00 26.4 C 17 **** 0.08 0.08 0.78 0.78 45.3 45.3 23.7 23.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 68.9 68.9 1.00 1.00 68.9 68.9 E E 5 5 **** 0.08 0.33 0.33 0.61 0.37 0.78 44.7 25.5 30.1 8.7 0.1 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 53.4 25.6 33.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 53.4 25.6 33.9 D C C 3 5 14 0.33 0.58 27.7 0.6 0.0 1. 00 28.3 1. 00 28.3 C 9 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project l\M mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:13:52 Page 5 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t3 El Camino Real / l\rroyo Dr ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 59 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.697 29.7 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 155 764 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 155 764 1 120 o 0 156 884 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 184 1040 o 0 35 1. 00 35 29 o 64 1. 00 0.85 75 o I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 22 712 1.00 1.00 22 712 32 38 o 0 54 750 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 65 904 o 0 4.0 1 0 Reduced Vol: 184 1040 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 184 1040 75 65 904 190 1. 00 190 49 o 239 1. 00 0.83 288 o 288 1. 00 1. 00 288 PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 75 65 904 1900 0.88 0.20 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.86 1.00 2.28 1900 0.86 0.72 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 1 I 0 1 298 3 1.00 1.00 298 3 o 0 o 0 298 3 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 335 3 o 0 335 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 335 3 1900 1900 0.89 0.89 1.53 0.01 260 1. 00 260 o o 260 1. 00 0.89 292 o 292 1. 00 1. 00 292 1900 0.89 1. 46 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 71 2 1.00 1.00 71 2 69 0 o 0 140 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 140 2 o 0 140 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 140 2 1900 1900 0.93 0.84 1.00 0.02 4.0 1 0 13 1. 00 13 70 o 83 1. 00 1. 00 83 o 83 1. 00 1. 00 83 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 0.93 0.88 Lanes: 1.00 2.80 Final Sat.: 1769 4693 340 1769 3716 1184 2581 18 2467 1769 37 1900 0.84 0.98 1553 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.04 0.24 0.24 0.13 0.19 0.12 0.08 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.15 0.43 Volume/Cap: 0.70 0.52 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 40.4 21.1 8.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 48.4 21.3 1.00 1.00 48.4 21.3 D C 7 9 0.43 0.52 21.1 0.2 0.0 1. 00 21.3 1. 00 21.3 C 9 **** 0.07 0.35 0.52 0.70 44.8 28.0 3.8 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 48.7 29.3 1.00 1.00 48.7 29.3 D C 2 11 0.35 0.70 28.0 1.3 0.0 1. 00 29.3 1. 00 29.3 C 11 **** 0.27 0.27 0.48 0.70 30.7 32.9 0.3 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 31.0 35.3 1.00 1.00 31.0 35.3 C D 6 10 0.27 0.44 30.3 0.2 0.0 1. 00 30.5 1. 00 30.5 C 5 **** 0.11 0.11 0.70 0.47 42.741.5 10.3 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 53.0 43.5 1.00 1.00 53.0 43.5 D D 6 3 0.11 0.47 41.5 1.9 0.0 1. 00 43.5 1. 00 43.5 D 3 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project l\M mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:13:52 Page 6 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t4 El Camino Real/Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 111 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.904 44.7 D ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 20201 Volume Module: Base Vol: 423 550 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 423 550 31 94 o 0 454 644 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 534 758 o 0 293 1. 00 293 18 o 311 1. 00 0.85 366 o I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 2 0 301 161 748 1.00 1.00 161 748 15 65 o 0 176 813 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 196 903 o 0 88 1. 00 88 46 o 134 1. 00 0.90 149 o I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10201 249 629 1.00 1.00 249 629 93 25 o 0 342 654 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.81 422 807 o 0 424 1. 00 424 8 o 432 1. 00 0.81 533 o I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 20201 314 553 1.00 1.00 314 553 50 64 o 0 364 617 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 428 726 o 0 Reduced Vol: 534 758 PCE l\dj: 1.001.00 MLFl\dj: 1.001.00 FinalVolume: 534 758 366 196 903 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 366 196 903 149 422 807 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 149 422 807 533 428 726 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 533 428 726 116 1. 00 116 39 o 155 1. 00 0.85 182 o 182 1. 00 1. 00 182 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: I 0.90 0.93 2.00 2.00 3432 3538 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I 1900 1900 0.90 0.89 2.00 3.00 1583 3432 5083 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 1583 1769 3538 I I 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I 1900 1900 0.90 0.93 2.00 2.00 1583 3432 3538 I I 1900 0.83 1. 00 1583 Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.21 0.23 0.06 0.18 0.09 0.24 0.23 0.34 0.12 0.21 0.12 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.30 Volume/Cap: 0.90 0.72 Uniform Del: 40.6 31.5 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 17.3 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 57.8 34.1 1.00 1.00 57.8 34.1 E C 12 12 0.30 0.78 32.2 8.3 0.0 1. 00 40.5 1. 00 40.5 D 12 **** 0.07 0.20 0.78 0.90 45.6 39.2 14.6 11.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 60.2 50.6 1.00 1.00 60.2 50.6 E D 5 14 0.20 0.48 35.6 1.2 0.0 1. 00 36.8 1. 00 36.8 D 5 0.27 0.37 0.87 0.61 34.5 25.5 15.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 49.9 26.3 1.00 1.00 49.9 26.3 D C 15 11 **** 0.37 0.90 29.7 17.3 0.0 1. 00 46.9 1. 00 46.9 D 19 **** 0.14 0.24 0.90 0.87 42.4 36.7 20.5 9.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 62.9 46.4 1.00 1.00 62.9 46.4 E D 10 14 0.24 0.49 33.0 1.0 0.0 1. 00 34.0 1. 00 34.0 C 5 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project l\M mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:13:52 Page 7 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t5 El Camino Real / W. Orange l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 78 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.805 33.2 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: 29 864 1.00 1.00 29 864 o 61 o 0 29 925 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.78 37 1186 o 0 109 1. 00 109 o o 109 1. 00 0.78 140 o 140 1. 00 1. 00 I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 235 1160 1.00 1.00 235 1160 o 112 o 0 235 1272 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 253 1368 o 0 253 1368 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.0 1 0 57 1. 00 57 o o 57 1. 00 0.93 61 o 61 1. 00 1. 00 I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 152 111 1.00 1.00 152 111 o 0 o 0 152 111 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 173 126 o 0 173 126 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 48 1. 00 48 o o 48 1. 00 0.88 55 o 55 1. 00 1. 00 I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 115 61 1.00 1.00 115 61 o 0 o 0 115 61 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 132 70 o 0 132 70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 186 1. 00 186 o o 186 1. 00 0.87 214 FinalVolume: 37 1186 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 37 1186 140 253 1368 61 173 126 55 132 I I 70 o 214 1. 00 1. 00 214 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 0.93 0.88 Lanes: 1.00 2.68 Final Sat.: 1769 4475 I 1900 0.88 0.32 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.89 1.00 2.87 527 1769 4836 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: 1900 0.89 0.13 I I 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.58 0.42 217 1046 764 I I 1900 0.83 1. 00 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.65 0.35 1583 1178 625 I I 1900 0.83 1. 00 1583 Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.27 0.27 0.14 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.17 0.03 0.11 0.11 0.14 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.04 0.33 0.33 Volume/Cap: 0.60 0.80 0.80 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 47.6 30.6 15.2 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 62.7 33.6 1.00 1.00 62.7 33.6 E C 2 16 30.6 3.0 0.0 1. 00 33.6 1. 00 33.6 C 16 **** 0.18 0.47 0.80 0.60 39.5 19.4 14.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 53.5 19.9 1.00 1.00 53.5 19.9 D B 10 12 0.47 0.60 19.4 0.4 0.0 1. 00 19.9 1. 00 19.9 B 12 **** 0.21 0.21 0.80 0.80 37.8 37.8 12.1 12.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 49.9 49.9 1.00 1.00 49.9 49.9 D D 11 11 0.21 0.17 32.7 0.2 0.0 1. 00 33.0 1. 00 33.0 C 1 0.17 0.17 0.67 0.67 39.0 39.0 5.7 5.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 44.7 44.7 1.00 1.00 44.7 44.7 D D 7 7 **** 0.17 0.80 40.0 16.2 0.0 1. 00 56.2 1. 00 56.2 E 9 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project l\M mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:13:52 Page 8 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t6 Mission Rd / Grand l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 o o Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.548 14.9 B ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Lanes: North Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 348 1.00 1.00 o 348 o 79 o 0 o 427 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.74 o 577 o 0 o 577 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 577 Saturation Flow Module: l\djustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 1.84 Final Sat.: 0 1054 29 1. 00 29 8 o 37 1. 00 0.74 50 o 50 1. 00 1. 00 50 1. 00 0.16 92 Capacity l\nalysis Module: I I I I I I I I South Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 1 100 124 319 1.00 1.00 124 319 o 27 o 0 124 346 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 135 376 o 0 135 376 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 135 376 1.00 1.00 0.53 1.47 282 807 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.92 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.30 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 o 0 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.30 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 1 0 0 0 1 51 0 1.00 1.00 51 0 2 0 o 0 53 0 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 59 0 o 0 59 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 59 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 457 0 228 1. 00 228 o o 228 1. 00 0.90 253 o 253 1. 00 1. 00 253 1. 00 1. 00 543 Vol/Sat: xxxx 0.55 0.54 0.48 0.47 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.13 xxxx 0.47 Crit Moves: Delay/Veh: Delay l\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: l\pproachDel: Delay l\dj: l\pprl\djDel: LOS by l\ppr: l\IIWayl\vgQ: **** 0.0 15.8 1.00 1.00 0.0 15.8 * C 15.8 1. 00 15.8 C 0.0 1.1 15.6 1. 00 15.6 C 1.1 **** 15.0 14.4 1.00 1.00 15.0 14.4 C B 14.6 1. 00 14.6 B 0.8 0.8 0.0 1. 00 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 * * xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx * 0.0 0.0 0.0 1. 00 0.0 * 0.0 11.3 0.0 1.00 1.00 11.3 0.0 B * 13.5 1. 00 13.5 B 0.1 0.0 **** 14.0 1. 00 14.0 B 0.8 I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project l\M mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:13:52 Page 9 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t7 Grand l\ve / Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 48 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.601 29.3 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 101 Volume Module: Base Vol: 129 172 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 129 172 5 1 o 0 134 173 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 138 178 o 0 59 1. 00 59 o o 59 1. 00 0.97 61 o I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 101 57 190 1.00 1.00 57 190 8 4 o 0 65 194 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 71 213 o 0 73 1. 00 73 o o 73 1. 00 0.91 80 o I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 88 322 1.00 1.00 88 322 o 20 o 0 88 342 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 97 376 o 0 4.0 1 0 149 1. 00 149 7 o 156 1. 00 0.91 171 o I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 45 300 1.00 1.00 45 300 o 13 o 0 45 313 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 50 348 o 0 4.0 1 0 93 1. 00 93 2 o 95 Reduced Vol: 138 178 61 71 213 80 97 376 171 50 348 1. 00 0.90 106 o 106 1. 00 1. 00 106 PCE l\dj: 1.001.00 MLFl\dj: 1.001.00 FinalVolume: 138 178 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: I 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 1769 1862 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 61 71 213 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 1583 1769 1862 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 80 97 376 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 0.69 1583 1769 1219 I I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 171 50 348 1900 0.93 0.31 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.95 1.000.77 556 1769 1378 I I 1900 0.95 0.23 418 Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.11 0.05 0.05 0.31 0.31 0.03 0.25 0.25 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.23 Volume/Cap: 0.60 0.43 Uniform Del: 41.1 33.2 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 4.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 45.5 33.9 1.00 1.00 45.5 33.9 D C 5 5 0.23 0.17 31.2 0.2 0.0 1. 00 31.4 1. 00 31.4 C 2 **** 0.09 0.19 0.43 0.60 42.7 37.0 1.7 2.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 44.4 39.9 1.00 1.00 44.4 39.9 D D 3 7 0.19 0.27 34.5 0.5 0.0 1. 00 35.0 1. 00 35.0 D 2 **** 0.10 0.51 0.55 0.60 42.9 17.2 3.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 46.5 18.3 1.00 1.00 46.5 18.3 D B 3 12 0.51 0.60 17.2 1.1 0.0 1. 00 18.3 1. 00 18.3 B 12 **** 0.05 0.46 0.60 0.55 46.7 19.5 11.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 58.5 20.3 1.00 1.00 58.5 20.3 E C 3 10 0.46 0.55 19.5 0.8 0.0 1. 00 20.3 1. 00 20.3 C 10 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project l\M mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:13:52 Page 10 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t8 Mission Rd / Oak l\ve ******************************************************************************** l\verage Delay (sec/veh): 2.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: Cr 18.41 ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Lanes: North Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Critical Gp: FollowUp'l'im: 13 389 1.00 1.00 13 389 o 13 o 0 13 402 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 16 490 o 0 16 490 Module: 4 1. 00 4 o o 4 1. 00 0.82 5 o 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: I I I I I I South Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 01010 10 292 1.00 1.00 10 292 2 26 o 0 12 318 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 14 370 o 0 14 370 71 1. 00 71 62 o 133 1. 00 0.86 155 o 155 4.1 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Cnflict Vol: 524 Potent Cap. Move Cap.: Volume/Cap: 1038 1038 0.02 xxxx xxxxx 495 xxxx xxxxx 1065 xxxx xxxxx 1065 xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx I Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Control Del: LOS by Move: 8.5 l\ Movement: L'l' xxxx xxxxx * * L'l'R R'l' I I 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 8.4 l\ L'l' xxxx xxxxx * * L'l'R R'l' I I I I I I I I East Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include 10010 35 3 1.00 1.00 35 3 24 3 o 0 59 6 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 59 6 o 0 59 7.5 3.5 6 6.5 4.0 754 1002 18 1. 00 18 9 o 27 1. 00 1. 00 27 o 27 6.9 3.3 I I I I I I I I West Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 1 I 0 0 40 2 1.00 1.00 40 2 o 1 o 0 40 3 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 52 4 o 0 7.5 3.5 6.5 4.0 29 1. 00 29 o o 29 1. 00 0.77 38 o 6.9 3.3 298 273 0.22 I I 241 234 0.03 262 740 1077 736 305 218 736 282 211 0.04 0.18 0.02 I I 248 753 753 0.05 0.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 21.8 C L'l' xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * * * * L'l'R R'l' L'l' Shared Cap. xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx Shared LOS: * xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 8.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 530 xxxx 0.2 xxxxx 12.2 xxxxx L'l'R R'l' 370 xxxxx 1.0 xxxxx 18.0 xxxxx l\pproachDel: l\pproachLOS: * * xxxxxx * l\ * xxxxxx * * * * 18.4 C B * C * 18.0 C I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** 'l'raffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project l\M mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:13:52 Page 11 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t9 Mission Rd / Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 59 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.698 24.5 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 000 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 8 o 0 o 8 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 8 o 0 o 8 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 8 Saturation Flow Module: o 1. 00 o 7 o 7 1. 00 1. 00 7 o 7 1. 00 1. 00 I I I I South Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 75 0 1.00 1.00 75 0 3 2 o 0 78 2 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 93 2 o 0 93 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 93 2 4.0 1 1 284 1. 00 284 31 o 315 1. 00 0.84 375 o 375 1. 00 1. 00 375 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 0.53 1900 1900 1900 0.92 0.93 0.83 0.47 1.00 0.01 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 309 713 1.00 1.00 309 713 4 17 o 0 313 730 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 344 802 o 0 344 802 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 344 802 4.0 1 0 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.91 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 0.95 0.00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 o 680 1.00 1.00 o 680 2 16 o 0 2 696 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 3 870 o 0 3 870 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3 870 1900 1900 0.93 0.91 1.00 1. 72 4.0 1 0 112 1. 00 112 1 o 113 1. 00 0.80 141 o 141 1. 00 1. 00 141 1900 0.91 0.28 Final Sat.: 0 931 814 1769 20 1900 1900 1900 0.83 0.93 0.93 1.99 1.00 2.00 3149 1769 3538 o 1769 2980 484 Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.01 0.01 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.01 0.01 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.70 0.70 Uniform Del: 0.0 49.2 49.2 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 0.0 68.9 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 68.9 0.0 1. 00 0.0 118 118.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 118 118.1 l\ o F 1 F 1 I I 0.05 0.12 **** 0.17 0.17 0.31 0.70 36.3 39.0 0.6 4.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 36.9 43.0 1.00 1.00 36.9 43.0 D D 3 7 0.12 0.17 0.70 39.0 4.0 0.0 1. 00 43.0 1. 00 43.0 D 7 I I 0.19 0.23 **** 0.28 0.69 0.70 0.33 32.3 6.1 4.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 36.7 6.2 1.00 1.00 36.7 6.2 D l\ 11 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o I I 0.00 0.29 **** 0.00 0.42 0.33 0.70 49.6 23.9 23.4 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 73.1 25.4 1.00 1.00 73.1 25.4 E C o 13 0.29 0.42 0.70 23.9 1.5 0.0 1. 00 25.4 1. 00 25.4 C 13 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project l\M mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:13:52 Page 12 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tl0 Juniperro Serra Blvd / l\rroyo Dr ******************************************************************************** l\verage Delay (sec/veh): 8.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: E[ 47.81 ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Lanes: North Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include o 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: o 322 1.00 1.00 o 322 o 0 o 0 o 322 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 o 388 o 0 o 388 Critical Gap Module: 72 1. 00 72 o o 72 1. 00 0.83 87 o 87 Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUp'l'im:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I I I South Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 10200 54 583 1.00 1.00 54 583 o 0 o 0 54 583 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 64 694 o 0 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.84 o o I I I I East Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 0 0 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I West Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 1 I 0 0 158 0 1.00 1.00 158 0 o 0 o 0 158 0 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 186 0 o 0 6.8 3.5 6.5 4.0 45 1. 00 45 o o 45 1. 00 0.85 53 o 6.9 3.3 I I I I I I I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap. Move Cap.: Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * Movement: L'l' L'l'R R'l' 475 1084 1084 0.06 I I 0.2 8.5 l\ L'l' xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx I I xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx I I 907 1254 275 171 263 160 0.71 0.00 237 764 764 0.07 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * * * * * * * L'l'R R'l' L'l' L'l'R R'l' L'l' Shared Cap. xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx Shared LOS: * xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx L'l'R R'l' 308 xxxxx 6.1 xxxxx 47.8 xxxxx l\pproachDel: l\pproachLOS: * xxxxxx * * * * xxxxxx * * * * xxxxxx * * * E * 47.8 E I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** 'l'raffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project l\M mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:13:52 Page 13 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tIl 1-280 SB Ramps / Westborough Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 6 34 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.613 15.9 B ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 2 0 0 0 1 405 0 1.00 1.00 405 0 30 0 o 0 435 0 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 524 0 o 0 524 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 524 0 1900 1900 0.90 1.00 2.00 0.00 257 1. 00 257 o o 257 1. 00 0.83 310 o 310 1. 00 1. 00 310 1900 0.83 1. 00 Final Sat.: 0 0 o 3432 0 1583 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: I I I I I I I I East Bound L T R Permitted Ignore 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 00201 o 1252 1.00 1.00 o 1252 o 15 o 0 o 1267 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 o 1348 o 0 o 1348 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 1348 1900 1900 1.00 0.93 0.00 2.00 o 3538 1160 1. 00 1160 o o 1160 0.00 0.00 o o o 0.00 0.00 1900 1. 00 1. 00 1900 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Permitted Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 00200 o 938 1.00 1.00 o 938 o 28 o 0 o 966 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.79 o 1223 o 0 o 1223 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 1223 1900 1900 1.00 0.93 0.00 2.00 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.79 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 l\ l\ o 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o 0.32 0.00 0.48 0.00 27.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 27.7 0.0 1.00 1.00 27.7 0.0 C l\ 7 0 **** 0.32 0.61 28.8 2.2 0.0 1. 00 31.1 1. 00 31.1 C 9 **** 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.61 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 12.1 1.00 1.00 0.0 12.1 l\ B o 14 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.56 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 11.3 1.00 1.00 0.0 11.3 l\ B o 12 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project l\M mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:13:52 Page 14 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t12 1-280 NB Ramps / Westborough Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 116 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.913 42.1 D ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: North Bound Movement: L T R Control: Rights: Min. Green: Split Phase Include 000 Y+R: Lanes: Volume Module: 4.0 4.0 210 Base Vol: 521 211 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: 521 211 o 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 Initial Fut: 521 211 User l\dj: 1.00 1.00 PHF l\dj: 0.870.87 PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 599 o 243 o 4.0 1 0 284 1. 00 284 30 o 314 1. 00 0.87 361 o I I I I South Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10201 230 438 1.00 1.00 230 438 o 0 o 0 230 438 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 256 487 o 0 86 1. 00 86 o o 86 1. 00 0.90 96 o I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10201 71 923 1.00 1.00 71 923 o 45 o 0 71 968 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 76 1041 o 0 165 1. 00 165 o o 165 1. 00 0.93 177 o I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10201 171 843 1.00 1.00 171 843 56 84 o 0 227 927 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 258 1053 o 0 70 1. 00 70 o o 70 Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 599 243 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 599 243 361 256 487 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 361 256 487 96 76 1041 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 96 76 1041 177 258 1053 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 177 258 1053 1. 00 0.88 80 o 80 1. 00 1. 00 80 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 0.84 0.87 Lanes: Final Sat.: I 2.15 0.85 3445 1395 1900 0.87 1. 00 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 1649 1769 3538 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 1583 1769 3538 I I 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 1583 1769 3538 I I 1900 0.83 1. 00 1583 Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.17 0.22 0.14 0.14 0.06 0.04 0.29 0.11 0.15 0.30 0.05 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.24 0.24 Volume/Cap: 0.73 0.73 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 35.0 35.0 1.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 36.6 36.6 1.00 1.00 36.6 36.6 D D 10 10 **** 0.24 0.91 37.0 9.9 0.0 1. 00 46.9 1. 00 46.9 D 15 **** 0.16 0.16 0.91 0.87 41.4 41.1 32.0 13.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 73.4 54.8 1.00 1.00 73.4 54.8 E D 11 11 0.16 0.38 37.7 1.0 0.0 1. 00 38.7 1. 00 38.7 D 3 **** 0.06 0.32 0.71 0.91 46.1 32.5 19.3 11.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 65.4 43.6 1.00 1.00 65.4 43.6 E D 4 20 0.32 0.35 25.9 0.4 0.0 1. 00 26.3 1. 00 26.3 C 4 **** 0.16 0.42 0.91 0.71 41.3 23.9 31.8 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 73.1 25.5 1.00 1.00 73.1 25.5 E C 11 15 0.42 0.12 17.7 0.1 0.0 1. 00 17.7 1. 00 17.7 B 1 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON J. Intersection LOS Analysis Sheets - Existing + Project + Mitigation PM City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Ex + Project PM mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:14:48 Page 2 1 Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Dell VI Dell VI in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C if 1 El Camino Real Hickey Blvd C 21.0 0.672 C 22.9 0.754 + 1.905 D/V if 2 El Camino Real McLellan Dr C 30.5 0.733 C 33.0 0.838 + 2.506 D/V if 3 El Camino Real Arroyo Dr C 22.2 0.575 C 26.1 0.637 + 3.845 D/V if 4 El Camino Real Chestnut Ave D 38.0 0.817 D 43.9 0.880 + 5.931 D/V if 5 El Camino Real W. Orange Ave C 32.7 0.872 C 33.9 0.905 + 1.165 D/V if 6 Mission Rd I Grand Ave B 12.4 0.480 B 14.0 0.565 + 0.086 VIC if 7 Grand Ave I Chestnut Ave C 29.0 0.527 C 29.3 0.556 + 0.274 D/V if 8 Mission Rd Oak Ave B 13.1 0.075 C 16.0 0.284 + 2.963 D/V if 9 Mission Rd Chestnut Ave C 21.3 0.581 C 23.7 0.633 + 2.382 D/V if 10 Juniperro Serra Blvd I Arroyo F 62.6 0.644 F 62.6 0.644 + 0.000 D/V if 11 1-280 SB Ramps Westborough B D 41.9 1.025 D 43.0 1.033 + 1.113 D/V if 12 1-280 NB Ramps Westborough B E 57.6 1.013 E 73.3 1.057 +15.755 D/V Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Ex + Project PM mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:14:48 Page 3 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tl El Camino Real/Hickey Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 68 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.754 22.9 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 201 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 971 676 21 Growth l\dj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 971 676 75 125 o 0 1046 801 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 1162 890 o 0 21 o o 21 1. 00 0.90 23 o I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 5 496 1.00 1.00 5 496 o 161 o 0 5 657 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 5 692 o 0 4.0 1 0 99 1. 00 99 o o 99 Reduced Vol: 1162 890 23 5 692 1. 00 0.95 104 o 104 1. 00 1. 00 104 PCE l\dj: 1.001.00 MLFl\dj: 1.001.00 FinalVolume: 1162 890 I Saturation Flow Module: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 23 5 692 I I I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Ovl 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 1 0 0 2 151 24 1.00 1.00 151 24 o 0 o 0 151 24 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 196 31 o 0 196 31 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 196 31 563 1. 00 563 96 o 659 1. 00 0.77 856 o 856 1. 00 1. 00 856 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 0.90 0.93 2.00 1.95 3432 3434 1900 0.93 0.05 1900 1900 0.93 0.91 1.001.74 1900 1900 1900 0.91 0.94 0.94 0.26 1.730.27 1900 0.73 2.00 2786 Final Sat.: 90 1769 3013 454 3082 490 I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: I I I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 1 I 0 0 12 15 1.00 1.00 12 15 o 0 o 0 12 15 1.00 1.00 0.66 0.66 18 23 o 0 18 23 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 23 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 0.32 0.41 573 716 10 1. 00 10 o o 10 1. 00 0.66 15 o 15 1. 00 1. 00 1900 0.93 0.27 477 Vol/Sat: 0.34 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.06 0.06 0.31 0.03 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.45 0.74 0.74 Volume/Cap: 0.75 0.35 0.35 Uniform Del: 22.9 4.4 4.4 IncremntDel: 2.2 0.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 25.1 4.5 4.5 User Dell\dj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 l\djDel/Veh: 25.1 4.5 4.5 LOS by Move: C l\ l\ HCM2kl\vgQ: 15 5 5 **** 0.01 0.30 0.35 0.75 49.3 31.4 13.4 3.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 62.7 34.5 1.00 1.00 62.7 34.5 E C 1 13 0.30 0.75 31.4 3.1 0.0 1. 00 34.5 1. 00 34.5 C 13 **** 0.08 0.08 0.75 0.75 44.8 44.8 10.3 10.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 55.1 55.1 1.00 1.00 55.1 55.1 E E 5 5 0.53 0.58 15.7 0.6 0.0 1. 00 16.3 1. 00 16.3 B 10 0.04 0.04 0.75 0.75 47.4 47.4 34.8 34.8 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 82.2 82.2 1.00 1.00 82.2 82.2 F F 3 3 **** 0.04 0.75 47.4 34.8 0.0 1. 00 82.2 1. 00 82.2 F 3 I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project PM mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:14:48 Page 4 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t2 El Camino Real/McLellan Dr ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 87 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.838 33.0 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 301 I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 201 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 46 1015 1.00 1.00 46 1015 o 175 o 0 46 1190 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 58 1488 o 0 58 1488 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 58 1488 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 147 1. 00 147 19 o 166 1. 00 0.80 208 o 252 704 1.00 1.00 252 704 46 211 o 0 298 915 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 445 1366 o 0 208 445 1366 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 208 445 1366 I I 34 1. 00 34 o o 34 1. 00 0.67 51 o 51 1. 00 1. 00 51 1900 0.93 0.07 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 32 12 1.00 1.00 32 12 o 0 o 0 32 12 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 39 o 15 o 39 15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 39 15 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.730.27 25 1. 00 25 o o 25 1. 00 0.82 30 o 30 1. 00 1. 00 30 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 1 I 0 1 191 18 1.00 1.00 191 18 15 0 o 0 206 18 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.74 278 o 24 o 278 24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 278 24 1900 1900 0.87 0.87 1.31 0.05 400 1. 00 400 25 o 425 1. 00 0.74 574 o 574 1. 00 1. 00 574 Final Sat.: 0.93 0.89 1.00 3.00 1769 5083 1900 1900 1900 0.83 0.90 0.93 1.00 2.00 1.93 1583 3432 3394 126 1307 490 1583 2163 89 1900 0.87 1. 64 2706 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.29 0.13 0.13 0.40 0.40 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.13 0.27 0.21 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.04 0.36 Volume/Cap: 0.84 0.81 Uniform Del: 47.7 29.0 IncremntDel: 56.6 2.9 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 104.3 31.9 User Dell\dj: 1.001.00 l\dj Del/Veh: 104.3 31. 9 LOS by Move: F C HCM2kl\vgQ: 2 16 0.36 0.36 23.6 0.4 0.0 1. 00 24.0 1. 00 24.0 C 4 **** 0.16 0.48 0.81 0.84 40.6 22.6 9.1 3.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 49.7 26.5 1.00 1.00 49.7 26.5 D C 7 20 0.48 0.84 22.6 3.9 0.0 1. 00 **** 0.04 0.04 0.84 0.84 47.9 47.9 59.4 59.4 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 26.5 107.3 107 1.00 1.00 1.00 26.5 107.3 107 C 20 F 4 F 4 0.04 0.54 47.4 10.2 0.0 1. 00 57.6 1. 00 57.6 E 2 **** 0.33 0.33 0.40 0.84 26.1 31.3 0.1 6.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 26.2 37.4 1.00 1.00 26.2 37.4 C D 5 15 0.33 0.65 28.9 1.2 0.0 1. 00 30.0 1. 00 30.0 C 10 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project PM mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:14:48 Page 5 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t3 El Camino Real / l\rroyo Dr ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 52 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.637 26.1 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 130 942 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 130 942 6 131 o 0 136 1073 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 143 1129 o 0 28 1. 00 28 123 o 151 1. 00 0.95 159 o I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 27 954 1.00 1.00 27 954 88 123 o 0 115 1077 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 122 1146 o 0 4.0 1 0 Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 143 1129 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 143 1129 159 122 1146 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 159 122 1146 240 1. 00 240 16 o 256 1. 00 0.94 272 o 272 1. 00 1. 00 272 Saturation Flow Module: 1900 0.88 0.37 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.87 1.00 2.42 1900 0.87 0.58 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 1 I 0 1 87 2 1.00 1.00 87 2 o 0 o 0 87 2 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.55 158 4 o 0 158 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 158 4 1900 1900 0.87 0.87 1.36 0.02 149 1. 00 149 o o 149 1. 00 0.55 271 o 271 1. 00 1. 00 271 1900 0.87 1. 62 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 69 3 1.00 1.00 69 3 39 0 o 0 108 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 108 3 o 0 108 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 108 3 1900 1900 0.93 0.84 1.00 0.04 4.0 1 0 12 1. 00 12 63 o 75 1. 00 1. 00 75 o 75 1. 00 1. 00 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 0.93 0.88 Lanes: 1.00 2.63 Final Sat.: 1769 4376 616 1769 3988 948 2257 28 2685 1769 61 1900 0.84 0.96 1533 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.26 0.26 0.07 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.13 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.46 Volume/Cap: 0.64 0.57 Uniform Del: 41.5 20.0 IncremntDel: 6.0 0.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 47.4 20.3 User Dell\dj: 1.001.00 l\djDel/Veh: 47.4 20.3 LOS by Move: D C HCM2kl\vgQ: 5 11 0.46 0.57 20.0 0.3 0.0 1. 00 20.3 1. 00 20.3 C 11 **** 0.12 0.45 0.57 0.64 41.4 21.2 3.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 44.9 21.8 1.00 1.00 44.9 21.8 D C 3 12 0.45 0.64 21.2 0.6 0.0 1. 00 21.8 1. 00 21.8 C 12 **** 0.21 0.21 0.34 0.64 33.8 36.2 0.2 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 34.0 38.3 1.00 1.00 34.0 38.3 C D 3 7 0.21 0.49 35.0 0.4 0.0 1. 00 35.4 1. 00 35.4 D 5 **** 0.10 0.10 0.64 0.51 43.5 43.0 7.8 2.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 51.4 45.9 1.00 1.00 51.4 45.9 D D 4 3 0.10 0.51 43.0 2.9 0.0 1. 00 45.9 1. 00 45.9 D 3 I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project PM mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:14:48 Page 6 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t4 El Camino Real/Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 101 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.880 43.9 D ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: North Bound Movement: L T R Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 20201 Volume Module: Base Vol: 677 836 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: 677 836 l\dded Vol: 21 101 PasserByVol: 0 0 Ini tial Fut: 698 937 User l\dj: 1.00 1.00 PHF l\dj: 0.940.94 PHF Volume: 743 997 Reduct Vol: 0 0 Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 743 997 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 743 997 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 336 1. 00 336 38 o 374 1. 00 0.94 398 o 398 1. 00 1. 00 398 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 2 0 301 188 810 1.00 1.00 188 810 51 71 o 0 239 881 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 263 968 o 0 263 968 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 263 968 1900 1900 0.90 0.89 2.00 3.00 215 1. 00 215 32 o 247 1. 00 0.91 271 o 271 1. 00 1. 00 271 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10201 181 493 1.00 1.00 181 493 77 80 o 0 258 573 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 263 585 o 0 263 585 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 263 585 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 356 1. 00 356 25 o 381 1. 00 0.98 389 o 389 1. 00 1. 00 389 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 20201 294 563 1.00 1.00 294 563 56 72 o 0 350 635 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 427 774 o 0 427 774 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 427 774 1900 1900 0.90 0.93 2.00 2.00 109 1. 00 109 21 o 130 1. 00 0.82 159 o 159 1. 00 1. 00 159 Final Sat.: 0.90 0.93 2.00 2.00 3432 3538 1583 3432 5083 1583 1769 3538 1583 3432 3538 1900 0.83 1. 00 1583 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.22 0.28 0.25 0.08 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.17 0.25 0.12 0.22 0.10 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.25 0.36 Volume/Cap: 0.88 0.78 Uniform Del: 36.3 28.2 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 10.6 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 46.9 31.2 1.00 1.00 46.9 31.2 D C 15 16 0.36 0.69 27 .1 3.6 0.0 1. 00 30.7 1. 00 30.7 C 11 **** 0.10 0.22 0.78 0.88 44.0 37.9 10.7 8.4 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 54.7 46.3 1.00 1.00 54.7 46.3 D D 6 14 0.22 0.79 37.1 11. 9 0.0 1. 00 49.0 1. 00 49.0 D 10 **** 0.17 0.28 0.88 0.60 40.6 31.3 24.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 65.1 32.3 1.00 1.00 65.1 32.3 E C 11 9 0.28 0.89 34.6 19.0 0.0 1. 00 53.6 1. 00 53.6 D 15 **** 0.14 0.25 0.89 0.88 42.2 36.1 17.6 10.2 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 59.8 46.3 1.00 1.00 59.8 46.3 E D 10 15 0.25 0.40 31.4 0.7 0.0 1. 00 32.0 1. 00 32.0 C 4 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project PM mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:14:48 Page 7 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t5 El Camino Real / W. Orange l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 112 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.905 33.9 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 4.0 1 0 I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 4.0 1 0 I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 39 1500 1.00 1.00 39 1500 o 129 o 0 39 1629 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 44 1830 o 0 44 1830 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 44 1830 Saturation Flow Module: 131 1. 00 131 o o 131 1. 00 0.89 147 o 147 1. 00 1. 00 147 I I 204 1247 1.00 1.00 204 1247 o 100 o 0 204 1347 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 229 1513 o 0 229 1513 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 229 1513 1900 1900 1900 0.88 0.93 0.89 0.22 1.00 2.90 47 1. 00 47 o o 47 1. 00 0.89 53 o 53 1. 00 1. 00 53 I I 111 71 1.00 1.00 111 71 o 0 o 0 111 71 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 134 86 o 0 134 86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 134 86 1900 1900 1900 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.10 0.61 0.39 48 1. 00 48 o o 48 1. 00 0.83 58 o 58 1. 00 1. 00 58 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 145 44 1.00 1.00 145 44 o 0 o 0 145 44 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 158 48 o 0 158 48 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 158 48 1900 1900 0.94 0.94 0.77 0.23 221 1. 00 221 o o 221 1. 00 0.92 240 o 240 1. 00 1. 00 240 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 0.93 0.88 Lanes: 1.00 2.78 Final Sat.: 1769 4653 374 1769 4887 171 1102 705 1583 1376 417 1900 0.83 1. 00 1583 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.39 0.39 0.13 0.31 0.31 0.12 0.12 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.15 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.04 0.43 Volume/Cap: 0.58 0.90 Uniform Del: 47.0 26.3 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 10.7 5.8 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 57.7 32.2 1.00 1.00 57.7 32.2 E C 2 25 0.43 0.90 26.3 5.8 0.0 1. 00 32.2 1. 00 32.2 C 25 **** 0.14 0.54 0.90 0.58 42.2 15.6 32.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 74.7 16.0 1.00 1.00 74.7 16.0 E B 10 12 0.54 0.58 15.6 0.3 0.0 1. 00 16.0 1. 00 16.0 B 12 **** 0.13 0.13 0.90 0.90 42.7 42.7 33.5 33.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 76.2 76.2 1.00 1.00 76.2 76.2 E E 10 10 0.13 0.27 38.9 0.7 0.0 1. 00 39.6 1. 00 39.6 D 2 0.17 0.17 0.68 0.68 39.1 39.1 6.3 6.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 45.4 45.4 1.00 1.00 45.4 45.4 D D 7 7 **** 0.17 0.90 40.8 31.5 0.0 1. 00 72.3 1. 00 72.3 E 11 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project PM mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:14:48 Page 8 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t6 Mission Rd / Grand l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 o o Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.565 14.0 B ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Lanes: North Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 287 1.00 1.00 o 287 o 47 o 0 o 334 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 o 375 o 0 o 375 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 375 Saturation Flow Module: l\djustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 1.72 Final Sat.: 0 985 50 1. 00 50 4 o 54 1. 00 0.89 61 o 61 1. 00 1. 00 61 1. 00 0.28 162 Capacity l\nalysis Module: I I I I I I I I South Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 1 100 185 321 1.00 1.00 185 321 o 82 o 0 185 403 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 201 438 o 0 201 438 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 201 438 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.37 356 804 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.92 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.10 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 o 0 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.10 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 1 0 0 0 1 48 0 1.00 1.00 48 0 8 0 o 0 56 0 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 64 0 o 0 64 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 64 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 465 0 188 1. 00 188 o o 188 1. 00 0.88 214 o 214 1. 00 1. 00 214 1. 00 1. 00 552 Vol/Sat: xxxx 0.38 0.37 0.57 0.54 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.14 xxxx 0.39 Crit Moves: Delay/Veh: Delay l\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: l\pproachDel: Delay l\dj: l\pprl\djDel: LOS by l\ppr: l\IIWayl\vgQ: **** 0.0 12.4 1.00 1.00 0.0 12.4 * B 12.4 1. 00 12.4 B 0.0 0.6 12.1 1. 00 12.1 B 0.6 **** 16.5 15.5 1.00 1.00 16.5 15.5 C C 15.8 1. 00 15.8 C 1.2 1.1 0.0 1. 00 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 * * xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx * 0.0 0.0 0.0 1. 00 0.0 * 0.0 11.2 0.0 1.00 1.00 11.2 0.0 B * 12.2 1. 00 12.2 B 0.1 0.0 **** 12.5 1. 00 12.5 B 0.5 I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project PM mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:14:48 Page 9 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t7 Grand l\ve / Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 45 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.556 29.3 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 101 Volume Module: Base Vol: 134 212 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 134 212 9 4 o 0 143 216 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 143 216 o 0 60 1. 00 60 o o 60 1. 00 1. 00 60 o I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 101 57 189 1.00 1.00 57 189 7 3 o 0 64 192 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 64 192 o 0 61 1. 00 61 o o 61 1. 00 Reduced Vol: 143 216 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 143 216 60 64 192 1. 00 61 o 61 PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 60 64 192 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 61 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 107 314 1.00 1.00 107 314 o 18 o 0 107 332 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 107 332 o 0 107 332 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 107 332 1900 1900 0.93 0.94 1.000.73 4.0 1 0 116 1. 00 116 7 o 123 1. 00 1. 00 123 o 123 1. 00 1. 00 123 1900 0.94 0.27 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 51 359 1.00 1.00 51 359 o 25 o 0 51 384 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 51 384 o 0 51 384 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 51 384 1900 1900 0.93 0.96 1.00 0.86 4.0 1 0 54 1. 00 54 8 o 62 1. 00 1. 00 62 o 62 1. 00 1. 00 62 1900 0.96 0.14 Final Sat.: 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 1769 1862 1583 1769 1862 1583 1769 1304 483 1769 1569 253 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.25 0.25 0.03 0.24 0.24 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.15 0.25 0.25 Volume/Cap: 0.56 0.46 0.15 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 39.731.6 2.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 42.4 32.3 1.00 1.00 42.4 32.3 D C 5 6 29.1 0.2 0.0 1. 00 29.2 1. 00 29.2 C 1 **** 0.08 0.19 0.46 0.56 44.0 37.0 2.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 46.4 39.0 1.00 1.00 46.4 39.0 D D 2 6 0.19 0.21 34.5 0.4 0.0 1. 00 34.9 1. 00 34.9 C 2 **** 0.11 0.49 0.56 0.52 42.3 17.2 3.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 45.8 17.8 1.00 1.00 45.8 17.8 D B 3 9 0.49 0.52 17.2 0.5 0.0 1. 00 17.8 1. 00 17.8 B 9 **** 0.06 0.44 0.52 0.56 45.9 20.7 4.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 50.6 21.6 1.00 1.00 50.6 21.6 D C 2 10 0.44 0.56 20.7 0.9 0.0 1. 00 21.6 1. 00 21.6 C 10 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project PM mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:14:48 Page 10 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t8 Mission Rd / Oak l\ve ******************************************************************************** l\verage Delay (sec/veh): 3.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: Cr 16.01 ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Lanes: North Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Critical Gp: FollowUp'l'im: 12 272 1.00 1.00 12 272 o 22 o 0 12 294 1.00 1.00 0.90 13 o 13 0.90 327 o 327 Module: 15 1. 00 15 o o 15 1. 00 0.90 17 o 17 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 476 xxxx xxxxx I I I I I I I I South Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 01010 16 320 1.00 1.00 16 320 1 20 o 0 17 340 1.00 1.00 0.95 18 o 18 0.95 358 o 358 69 1. 00 69 43 o 112 1. 00 0.95 118 o 118 4.1 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 343 xxxx xxxxx I I I I I I I I East Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include 10010 28 2 1.00 1.00 28 2 67 5 o 0 95 7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 95 7 o 0 95 7.5 3.5 646 7 6.5 4.0 21 1. 00 21 48 o 69 1. 00 1. 00 69 o 69 6.9 3.3 238 I I I I I I I I West Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 1 I 0 0 17 3 1.00 1.00 17 3 o 2 o 0 17 5 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 22 6 o 0 7.5 3.5 580 6.5 4.0 14 1. 00 14 2 o 16 1. 00 0.77 21 o 6.9 3.3 Potent Cap. Move Cap.: Volume/Cap: 1083 1083 0.01 xxxx xxxxx 1212 xxxx xxxxx 1212 xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxxx 357 xxxx xxxxx 334 xxxx xxxx 0.28 823 307 299 0.02 763 398 763 348 0.09 0.06 I I 873 287 279 0.02 172 842 842 0.02 I Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx Control Del: LOS by Move: 8.4 l\ Movement: L'l' Shared Cap. xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx Shared LOS: * xxxx xxxxx * * L'l'R R'l' xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * l\pproachDel: l\pproachLOS: xxxxxx * I I I I 0.0 8.0 l\ xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 1.1 20.0 C xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * * L'l' L'l'R R'l' L'l' L'l'R xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 8.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx * xxxxxx * * * * 16.0 C * * R'l' L'l' 668 xxxx 0.4 xxxxx 11.1 xxxxx B * * * L'l'R R'l' 443 xxxxx 0.4 xxxxx 14.1 xxxxx B * 14.1 B I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** 'l'raffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project PM mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:14:48 Page 11 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t9 Mission Rd / Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 51 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.633 23.7 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 000 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 4 o 0 o 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 4 o 0 o 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 4 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 0.57 o 1. 00 o 3 o 3 1. 00 1. 00 3 o 3 1. 00 1. 00 3 1900 0.92 0.43 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 88 0 1.00 1.00 88 0 5 8 o 0 93 8 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 108 9 o 0 108 9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 108 9 1900 1900 0.93 0.84 1.00 0.04 4.0 1 1 300 1. 00 300 56 o 356 1. 00 0.86 414 o 414 1. 00 1. 00 414 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 249 714 1.00 1.00 249 714 16 16 o 0 265 730 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 301 830 o 0 301 830 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 301 830 4.0 1 0 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.88 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 0.95 0.00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 o 676 1.00 1.00 o 676 7 25 o 0 7 701 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 8 788 o 0 8 788 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 788 1900 1900 0.93 0.92 1.00 1.81 4.0 1 0 72 1. 00 72 2 o 74 1. 00 0.89 83 o 83 1. 00 1. 00 83 1900 0.92 0.19 Final Sat.: 0 1002 752 1769 70 1900 1900 1900 0.84 0.93 0.93 1.96 1.00 2.00 3107 1769 3538 o 1769 3155 333 Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.01 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.63 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: 0.0 49.6 0.0 81.4 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.63 49.6 81.4 0.0 1. 00 Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: 0.0 131131.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 131131.0 LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: l\ o F 1 F 1 I I 0.06 0.13 **** 0.21 0.21 0.29 0.63 33.2 36.0 0.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 33.6 37.9 1.00 1.00 33.6 37.9 C D 3 7 0.13 0.21 0.63 36.0 2.0 0.0 1. 00 37.9 1. 00 37.9 D 7 I I 0.17 0.23 0.00 **** 0.27 0.65 0.00 0.63 0.36 0.00 32.2 8.0 0.0 2.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.00 35.0 8.1 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 35.0 8.1 0.0 C l\ l\ 960 I I 0.00 0.25 **** 0.01 0.39 0.36 0.63 49.0 24.4 9.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 58.9 25.4 1.00 1.00 58.9 25.4 E C o 11 0.25 0.39 0.63 24.4 1.0 0.0 1. 00 25.4 1. 00 25.4 C 11 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project PM mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:14:49 Page 12 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tl0 Juniperro Serra Blvd / l\rroyo Dr ******************************************************************************** l\verage Delay (sec/veh): 7.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: Fr 62.61 ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Lanes: North Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include o 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: o 760 1.00 1.00 o 760 o 0 o 0 o 760 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 o 792 o 0 o 792 Critical Gap Module: 165 1. 00 165 o o 165 1. 00 0.96 172 o 172 Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUp'l'im:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I I I South Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 10200 53 349 1.00 1.00 53 349 o 0 o 0 53 349 1.00 1.00 0.79 67 o 67 0.79 442 o 442 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.79 o o I I I I East Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 0 0 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o o o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I West Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 1 I 0 0 92 0 1.00 1.00 92 0 o 0 o 0 92 0 1.00 1.00 0.91 101 o 101 6.8 3.5 0.91 o o o 6.5 4.0 71 1. 00 71 o o 71 1. 00 0.91 78 o 6.9 3.3 I I I I I I I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap. Move Cap.: Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * Movement: L'l' L'l'R R'l' 964 710 710 0.09 I I 0.3 10.6 B L'l' xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx I I xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 1233 1454 169 157 0.64 I I 129 117 0.00 482 531 531 0.15 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * * * * * * * L'l'R R'l' L'l' L'l'R R'l' L'l' Shared Cap. xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx Shared LOS: * xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx L'l'R R'l' 226 xxxxx 5.8 xxxxx 62.6 xxxxx l\pproachDel: l\pproachLOS: * xxxxxx * * * * xxxxxx * * * * xxxxxx * * * F * 62.6 F I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** 'l'raffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project PM mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:14:49 Page 13 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tIl 1-280 SB Ramps / Westborough Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 6 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.033 43.0 D ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 2 0 0 0 1 635 0 1.00 1.00 635 0 64 0 o 0 699 0 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 813 0 o 0 813 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 813 0 1900 1900 0.90 1.00 2.00 0.00 597 1. 00 597 o o 597 1. 00 0.86 694 o 694 1. 00 1. 00 694 1900 0.83 1. 00 Final Sat.: 0 0 o 3432 0 1583 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: I I I I I I I I East Bound L T R Permitted Ignore 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 00201 o 772 1.00 1.00 o 772 o 32 o 0 o 804 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 o 924 o 0 o 924 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 924 1900 1900 1.00 0.93 0.00 2.00 o 3538 517 1. 00 517 o o 517 0.00 0.00 o o o 0.00 0.00 1900 1. 00 1. 00 1900 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Permitted Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 00200 o 1671 1.00 1.00 o 1671 o 25 o 0 o 1696 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 o 1884 o 0 o 1884 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 1884 1900 1900 1.00 0.93 0.00 2.00 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.90 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 l\ l\ o 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o 0.42 0.00 0.56 0.00 21.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 22.2 0.0 1.00 1.00 22.2 0.0 C l\ 10 0 **** 0.42 1. 03 28.8 43.6 0.0 1. 00 72.3 1. 00 72.3 E 30 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.51 0.0 15.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 16.1 1.00 1.00 0.0 16.1 l\ B o 10 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o **** 0.00 0.52 0.00 1.03 0.0 24.2 0.0 30.2 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 54.4 1.00 1.00 0.0 54.4 l\ D o 41 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Ex + Project PM mit Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:14:49 Page 14 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t12 1-280 NB Ramps / Westborough Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.057 73.3 E ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: North Bound South Bound Movement: L T R L T R I I Control: Rights: Min. Green: Split Phase Include 000 Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10201 Y+R: Lanes: 4.0 4.0 210 Volume Module: Base Vol: 918 533 Growth l\dj: 1.001.00 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 918 533 o 0 o 0 918 533 1.00 1.00 0.72 0.72 1275 740 o 0 Reduced Vol: 1275 740 PCE l\dj: 1.001.00 MLFl\dj: 1.001.00 FinalVolume: 1275 740 I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 0.86 0.88 Lanes: 4.0 1 0 I I 225 154 245 1.00 1.00 1.00 225 154 245 64 0 0 000 289 154 245 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.72 0.84 0.84 401 183 292 000 401 183 292 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 401 183 292 1900 0.88 0.65 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 22 1. 00 22 o o 22 1. 00 0.84 26 o 26 1. 00 1. 00 26 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10201 146 901 1.00 1.00 146 901 o 96 o 0 146 997 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 154 1049 o 0 154 1049 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 154 1049 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 105 1. 00 105 o o 105 1. 00 0.95 111 o 111 1. 00 1. 00 111 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10201 188 1077 1.00 1.00 188 1077 50 75 o 0 238 1152 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 274 1324 o 0 274 1324 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 274 1324 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 178 1. 00 178 o o 178 1. 00 0.87 205 o 205 1. 00 1. 00 205 Final Sat.: 2.14 1.21 3488 2025 1098 1769 3538 1583 1769 3538 1583 1769 3538 1900 0.83 1. 00 1583 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.10 0.08 0.02 0.09 0.30 0.07 0.15 0.37 0.13 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.35 0.35 Volume/Cap: 1.06 1.06 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 32.7 32.7 36.1 36.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 68.8 68.8 1.00 1.00 68.8 68.8 E E 29 29 0.35 1. 06 32.7 36.1 0.0 **** 0.10 0.10 1.06 0.84 45.1 44.3 84.3 16.6 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 68.8 129.4 60.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 68.8 129.4 60.9 E F E 29 11 7 0.10 0.17 41.4 0.5 0.0 1. 00 **** 0.08 0.29 1.06 1.03 45.9 35.7 90.7 37.6 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 41.9 136.6 73.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 41.9 136.6 73.2 D 1 F 9 E 25 0.29 0.24 27.3 0.3 0.0 1. 00 **** 0.15 0.35 1.03 1.06 42.5 32.3 64.6 42.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 27.6 107.1 74.3 1.00 1.00 1.00 27.6 107.1 74.3 C 3 F 14 E 31 0.35 0.37 24.0 0.4 0.0 1. 00 24.4 1. 00 24.4 C 5 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON K. Intersection LOS Analysis Sheets - Cumulative (2030) AM City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Cumulative AM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:10:12 Page 2 1 Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Dell VI Dell VI in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C if 1 81 Camino Real Hickey Blvd F 152.3 1.304 F 152.3 1.304 + 0.000 D/V if 2 81 Camino Real McLellan Dr 8 73.5 1.169 8 73.5 1.169 + 0.000 D/V if 3 81 Camino Real Arroyo Dr D 46.4 1.028 D 46.4 1.028 + 0.000 D/V if 4 81 Camino Real Chestnut Ave F 144.5 1.391 F 144.5 1.391 + 0.000 D/V if 5 81 Camino Real W. Orange Ave F 118.9 1. 290 F 118.9 1. 290 + 0.000 D/V if 6 Mission Rd I Grand Ave 8 40.9 0.880 8 40.9 0.880 + 0.000 VIC if 7 Grand Ave I Chestnut Ave D 50.9 0.945 D 50.9 0.945 + 0.000 D/V if 8 Mission Rd Oak Ave F 67.1 0.630 F 67.1 0.630 + 0.000 D/V if 9 Mission Rd Chestnut Ave 8 62.5 1.089 8 62.5 1.089 + 0.000 D/V if 10 Juniperro Serra Blvd I Arroyo F OVRFL 2.929 F OVRFL 2.929 + 0.000 D/V if 11 1-280 SB Ramps Westborough B C 34.3 0.998 C 34.3 0.998 + 0.000 D/V if 12 1-280 NB Ramps Westborough B F 193.8 1. 472 F 193.8 1. 472 + 0.000 D/V Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIML8Y-HORN, SAN RAMON Cumulative l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:10:12 Page 3 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tl El Camino Real/Hickey Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.304 152.3 F ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: North Bound Movement: L T R Control: Rights: Min. Green: Protected Include 000 Y+R: Lanes: 4.0 4.0 201 Volume Module: Base Vol: 540 276 Growth l\dj: 1.641.64 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 885 452 o 0 o 0 885 452 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 1029 o 526 o 4.0 1 0 11 1. 64 18 o o 18 1. 00 0.86 21 o Reduced Vol: 1029 526 21 PCE l\dj: 1.001.00 1.00 MLF l\dj: 1.001.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 1029 526 I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 21 1900 0.93 0.08 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 6 468 1.64 1.64 10 767 o 0 o 0 10 767 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 12 o 959 o 4.0 1 0 48 1. 64 79 o o 79 1. 00 0.80 98 o 98 1. 00 1. 00 I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 1 0 0 2 122 6 1.64 1.64 200 10 o 0 o 0 200 10 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.82 247 o 12 o 247 12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 654 1. 64 1072 o o 1072 1. 00 0.81 1323 o 1323 1. 00 1. 00 12 959 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 959 98 247 I I 12 1323 1900 1900 0.93 0.92 1.00 1.81 1900 1900 1900 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.19 1.91 0.09 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 1 I 0 0 23 24 1.64 1.64 38 39 o 0 o 0 38 39 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.70 54 o 56 o 54 56 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.43 0.46 6 1. 64 10 o o 10 1. 00 0.70 14 o 14 1. 00 1. 00 1900 0.95 0.11 Final Sat.: 0.90 0.93 2.00 1.92 3432 3382 135 1769 3164 324 3388 165 1900 0.73 2.00 2786 779 813 203 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.30 0.16 0.16 0.01 0.30 0.30 0.07 0.07 0.48 0.07 0.07 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.23 0.44 0.44 0.02 0.23 0.23 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.05 0.05 0.05 Volume/Cap: 1.30 0.35 0.35 0.35 1.30 1.30 0.20 0.20 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 Uniform Del: 38.5 18.4 IncremntDel:145.8 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 184.3 18.5 User Dell\dj: 1.001.00 l\djDel/Veh: 184.3 18.5 LOS by Move: F B HCM2kl\vgQ: 31 5 18.4 0.1 0.0 1. 00 18.5 1. 00 18.5 B 5 48.4 38.4 38.4 6.0 146 145.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 54.4 184 183.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 54.4 184 183.9 D 1 F 35 F 35 21.8 21.8 31.8 47.3 47.3 47.3 0.1 0.1 143.8 193.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 194 193.8 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 21.9 21.9 175.6 241.2 241 241.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 21.9 21.9 175.6 241.2 241 241.2 C C F F F F 3 3 46 10 10 10 I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cumulative l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:10:12 Page 4 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t2 El Camino Real/McLellan Dr ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.169 73.5 E ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 301 I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 201 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 34 394 1.64 1.64 56 646 o 0 o 0 56 646 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 67 778 o 0 67 778 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 67 778 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 120 1. 64 197 o o 197 1. 00 0.83 237 o 395 904 1.64 1.64 647 1482 o 0 o 0 647 1482 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 753 1723 o 0 237 753 1723 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 237 753 1723 I I 26 1. 64 43 o o 43 1. 00 0.86 50 o 50 1. 00 1. 00 50 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 47 36 1.64 1.64 77 o 59 o o 0 77 59 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.76 101 o 78 o 101 78 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 101 78 57 1. 64 93 o o 93 1. 00 0.76 123 o 123 1. 00 1. 00 123 1900 0.83 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 1 I 0 1 212 30 1.64 1.64 347 o 49 o o 0 347 49 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 424 o 60 o 424 60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 424 60 1900 1900 0.88 0.88 375 1. 64 615 o o 615 1. 00 0.82 750 o 750 1. 00 1. 00 750 Lanes: Final Sat.: 0.93 0.89 1.00 3.00 1769 5083 1900 1900 1900 0.83 0.90 0.93 1.00 2.00 1.94 1583 3432 3425 1900 0.93 0.06 99 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.57 0.43 1025 785 1.00 1.33 0.09 1583 2209 154 1900 0.88 1. 58 2628 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.15 0.15 0.22 0.50 0.50 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.19 0.39 0.29 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.03 0.19 Volume/Cap: 1.17 0.80 Uniform Del: 48.4 38.7 IncremntDel:171.8 5.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 220.2 43.7 User Dell\dj: 1.001.00 l\djDel/Veh: 220.2 43.7 LOS by Move: F D HCM2kl\vgQ: 4 9 0.19 0.79 38.6 12.9 0.0 1. 00 51.5 1. 00 51.5 D 7 **** **** 0.27 0.43 0.43 0.08 0.08 0.80 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 33.9 28.5 5.1 83.4 0.0 0.0 28.5 45.8 45.8 83.4 125.3 125 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 39.0 112 111.9 171.0 171 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 39.0 112 111.9 171.0 171 D F F F F 10 43 43 12 12 0.08 0.92 45.4 53.4 0.0 1. 00 98.8 1. 00 98.8 F 7 **** 0.33 0.33 0.58 1.17 27.6 33.4 0.4 86.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 28.0 120 1.00 1.00 28.0 120 C F 9 35 0.33 0.86 31.2 5.4 0.0 1. 00 36.5 1. 00 36.5 D 17 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cumulative l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:10:13 Page 5 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t3 El Camino Real / l\rroyo Dr ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.028 46.4 D ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Volume Module: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 4.0 1 0 I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 4.0 1 0 Base Vol: 155 764 Growth l\dj: 1.641.64 35 22 712 190 1. 64 311 o o 311 1. 00 0.83 375 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 254 1252 o 0 o 0 254 1252 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 299 1473 o 0 299 1473 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 299 1473 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 1.64 1.64 1.64 57 36 1167 000 o 57 1. 00 0.85 67 o 67 1. 00 1. 00 67 1900 0.89 0.13 I I o 0 36 1167 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 43 1406 o 0 43 1406 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 43 1406 1900 1900 0.93 0.86 1.00 2.37 o 375 1. 00 1. 00 375 1900 0.86 0.63 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 1 I 0 1 298 3 1.64 1.64 488 5 o 0 o 0 488 5 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 549 6 o 0 549 6 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 549 6 1900 1900 0.89 0.89 1.53 0.01 260 1. 64 426 o o 426 1. 00 0.89 479 o 479 1. 00 1. 00 479 1900 0.89 1. 46 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 71 2 1.64 1.64 116 3 o 0 o 0 116 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 116 3 o 0 116 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 116 3 1900 1900 0.93 0.85 1.00 0.13 4.0 1 0 13 1. 64 21 o o 21 1. 00 1. 00 21 o 21 1. 00 1. 00 Final Sat.: 0.93 0.89 1.00 2.87 1769 4827 221 1769 3884 1036 2581 18 2467 1769 216 1900 0.85 0.87 1404 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.31 0.31 0.02 0.36 0.36 0.21 0.31 0.19 0.07 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.48 0.48 0.04 0.35 0.35 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.06 0.06 0.06 Volume/Cap: 1.03 0.64 0.64 0.64 1.03 1.03 0.71 1.03 0.65 1.03 0.24 0.24 Uniform Del: 41.8 19.6 IncremntDel: 60.1 0.6 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 101.9 20.2 User Dell\dj: 1.001.00 l\djDel/Veh: 101.9 20.2 LOS by Move: F C HCM2kl\vgQ: 15 13 19.6 0.6 0.0 1. 00 20.2 1. 00 20.2 C 13 47.4 32.4 18.5 29.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 65.9 61.4 1.00 1.00 65.9 61.4 E E 1 22 32.4 29.0 0.0 1. 00 61.4 1. 00 61.4 E 22 31.2 35.0 1.735.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 32.8 70.7 1.00 1.00 32.8 70.7 C E 11 23 30.5 46.8 44.5 0.9 0.0 92.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 31.4139.045.7 1.00 1.00 1.00 31.4139.045.7 C 10 F 7 D 1 44.5 1.2 0.0 1. 00 45.7 1. 00 45.7 D 1 I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cumulative l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:10:13 Page 6 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t4 El Camino Real/Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.391 144.5 F ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Volume Module: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 20201 I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 2 0 301 Base Vol: 423 550 Growth l\dj: 1.641.64 293 161 748 1.64 1.64 1.64 88 1. 64 144 o o 144 1. 00 0.90 160 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 693 901 o 0 o 0 693 901 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 816 1061 o 0 816 1061 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 816 1061 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 480 o o 480 1. 00 0.85 565 o 565 1. 00 1. 00 565 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I 264 1226 o 0 o 0 264 1226 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 293 1362 o 0 293 1362 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 293 1362 1900 1900 0.90 0.89 2.00 3.00 o 160 1. 00 1. 00 160 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10201 249 629 424 1.64 1.64 1.64 408 1031 o 0 o 0 408 1031 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.81 504 1273 o 0 504 1273 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 504 1273 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 695 o o 695 1. 00 0.81 858 o 858 1. 00 1. 00 858 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 20201 314 553 116 1.64 1.64 1.64 515 906 o 0 o 0 515 906 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 605 1066 o 0 605 1066 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 605 1066 1900 1900 0.90 0.93 2.00 2.00 190 o o 190 1. 00 0.85 224 o 224 1. 00 1. 00 224 Final Sat.: 0.90 0.93 2.00 2.00 3432 3538 1583 3432 5083 1583 1769 3538 1583 3432 3538 1900 0.83 1. 00 1583 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.24 0.30 0.36 0.09 0.27 0.10 0.28 0.36 0.54 0.18 0.30 0.14 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.19 Volume/Cap: 1.39 1.02 1.22 1.22 1.39 Uniform Del: 41.5 35.3 35.3 46.5 40.4 IncremntDel:186.3 33.6 116.0 129.3 182 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Delay/Veh: 227.8 69.0 151.3 175.8 223 User Dell\dj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l\djDel/Veh: 227.8 69.0 151.3 175.8 223 LOS by Move: F E F F F HCM2kl\vgQ: 29 25 32 11 34 0.19 0.53 36.3 1.7 0.0 **** **** 0.25 0.39 0.39 0.13 0.27 1.14 0.92 1.39 1.39 1.14 37.5 29.1 30.5 43.7 36.7 85.1 10.6 185.8 189.6 74.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 38.0 122.5 39.6 216.3 233.3 III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 38.0 122.5 39.6 216.3 233.3 III D 5 F 27 D 24 F 57 F 22 F 29 0.27 0.53 31.4 1.3 0.0 1. 00 32.7 1. 00 32.7 C 6 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cumulative l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:10:13 Page 7 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t5 El Camino Real / W. Orange l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1. 290 118.9 F ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R I I I I I I Control: Rights: Min. Green: Protected Include 000 Protected Include 000 Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 Y+R: Lanes: 4.0 4.0 102 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 29 864 1.64 1.64 48 1416 o 0 o 0 48 1416 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.78 61 1816 o 0 61 1816 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 61 1816 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 0.93 0.88 Lanes: 1.00 2.66 Final Sat.: 1769 4437 I 4.0 1 0 I I 4.0 4.0 102 109 235 1160 1.64 1.64 1.64 179 o o 179 1. 00 0.78 229 o 229 1. 00 1. 00 229 1900 0.88 0.34 I I 385 1901 o 0 o 0 385 1901 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 414 2044 o 0 414 2044 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 414 2044 1900 1900 0.93 0.89 1.00 2.86 560 1769 4811 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: 4.0 1 0 57 1. 64 93 o o 93 1. 00 0.93 100 o 100 1. 00 1. 00 100 I I I I 152 111 1.64 1.64 249 182 o 0 o 0 249 182 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 283 207 o 0 283 207 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 283 207 1900 1900 1900 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.14 0.58 0.42 236 1046 764 I I 48 1. 64 79 o o 79 1. 00 0.88 89 o 89 1. 00 1. 00 89 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I 115 61 1.64 1.64 188 100 o 0 o 0 188 100 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 21 7 115 o 0 21 7 115 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 21 7 115 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.65 0.35 1583 1178 625 I I 186 1. 64 305 o o 305 1. 00 0.87 350 o 350 1. 00 1. 00 350 1900 0.83 1. 00 1583 Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.41 0.41 0.23 0.42 0.42 0.27 0.27 0.06 0.18 0.18 0.22 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.18 0.46 Volume/Cap: 0.92 1.29 1.29 1.29 0.92 Uniform Del: 48.0 34.1 34.1 40.9 25.2 IncremntDel: 83.2 135 135.4 152.0 6.7 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Delay/Veh: 131.1 170 169.6 192.9 31.9 User Dell\dj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l\djDel/Veh: 131.1 170 169.6 192.9 31.9 LOS by Move: F F F F C HCM2kl\vgQ: 4 46 46 27 27 **** 0.46 0.21 0.21 0.92 1.29 1.29 25.2 39.5 39.5 6.7 149.0 149 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 31.9 188.6 189 1.00 1.00 1.00 31.9 188.6 189 C F F 27 31 31 **** 0.21 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.27 1.07 1.07 1.29 33.1 41.4 41.4 41.4 0.4 71.6 71.6 155.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 33.5 113.0 113 196.8 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 33.5 113.0 113 196.8 C 2 F 17 F 17 F 23 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cumulative l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:10:13 Page 8 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t6 Mission Rd / Grand l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 o o Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.880 40.9 E ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Lanes: North Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 348 1.64 1.64 o 570 o 0 o 0 o 570 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.74 o 771 o 0 o 771 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 771 Saturation Flow Module: l\djustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 1.85 Final Sat.: 0 876 29 1. 64 48 o o 48 1. 00 0.74 64 o 64 1. 00 1. 00 64 1. 00 0.15 74 Capacity l\nalysis Module: I I I I I I I I South Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 1 100 124 319 1.64 1.64 203 523 o 0 o 0 203 523 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 221 568 o 0 221 568 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 221 568 1.00 1.00 0.56 1.44 253 668 o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 0.92 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 1.64 1.64 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.30 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 o 0 o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 0.30 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 1 0 0 0 1 51 0 1.64 1.64 84 0 o 0 o 0 84 0 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 93 0 o 0 93 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 93 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 391 0 228 1. 64 374 o o 374 1. 00 0.90 415 o 415 1. 00 1. 00 415 1. 00 1. 00 474 Vol/Sat: xxxx 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.85 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.24 xxxx 0.88 Crit Moves: Delay/Veh: Delay l\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: l\pproachDel: Delay l\dj: l\pprl\djDel: LOS by l\ppr: l\IIWayl\vgQ: **** 0.0 43.5 1.00 1.00 0.0 43.5 * E 43.4 1. 00 43.4 E 0.0 4.5 42.2 1. 00 42.2 E 4.3 **** 43.6 40.0 1.00 1.00 43.6 40.0 E E 41.0 1. 00 41.0 E 4.2 3.7 0.0 1. 00 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 * * xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx * 0.0 0.0 0.0 1. 00 0.0 * 0.0 13.9 0.0 1.00 1.00 13.9 0.0 B * 36.8 1. 00 36.8 E 0.3 0.0 **** 41.9 1. 00 41.9 E 4.2 I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cumulative l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:10:13 Page 9 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t7 Grand l\ve / Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 135 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.945 50.9 D ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 101 Volume Module: Base Vol: 129 172 Growth l\dj: 1.641.64 Initial Bse: 211 282 l\dded Vol: 0 0 PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 0 211 282 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 218 291 o 0 218 291 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 218 291 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 59 1. 64 97 o o 97 1. 00 0.97 100 o 100 1. 00 1. 00 100 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 101 57 190 1.64 1.64 93 311 o 0 o 0 93 311 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 103 342 o 0 103 342 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 103 342 1900 1900 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 73 1. 64 120 o o 120 1. 00 0.91 131 o 131 1. 00 1. 00 131 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 88 322 1.64 1.64 144 528 o 0 o 0 144 528 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 158 580 o 0 158 580 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 158 580 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 0.68 4.0 1 0 149 1. 64 244 o o 244 1. 00 0.91 268 o 268 1. 00 1. 00 268 1900 0.93 0.32 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 45 300 1.64 1.64 74 492 o 0 o 0 74 492 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 82 546 o 0 82 546 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 82 546 1900 1900 0.93 0.94 1.000.76 4.0 1 0 93 1. 64 152 o o 152 1. 00 0.90 169 o 169 1. 00 1. 00 169 1900 0.94 0.24 Final Sat.: 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 1769 1862 1583 1769 1862 1583 1769 1213 561 1769 1370 425 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.16 0.06 0.06 0.18 0.08 0.09 0.48 0.48 0.05 0.40 0.40 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.24 Volume/Cap: 0.94 0.66 Uniform Del: 43.1 34.5 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 44.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 87.1 38.2 1.00 1.00 87.1 38.2 F D 10 9 0.24 0.27 31.1 0.4 0.0 1. 00 31.5 1. 00 31.5 C 3 **** 0.09 0.19 0.66 0.94 44.1 39.7 9.9 33.2 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 54.1 72.9 1.00 1.00 54.1 72.9 D E 4 15 0.19 0.43 35.4 1.0 0.0 1. 00 36.3 1. 00 36.3 D 4 **** 0.10 0.51 0.88 0.94 44.3 23.4 35.6 18.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 79.9 41.5 1.00 1.00 79.9 41.5 E D 5 28 0.51 0.94 23.4 18.1 0.0 1. 00 **** 0.05 0.45 0.94 0.88 47.4 24.9 78.1 10.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 41.5 125.5 35.8 1.00 1.00 1.00 41.5 125.5 35.8 D 28 F 5 D 23 0.45 0.88 24.9 10.9 0.0 1. 00 35.8 1. 00 35.8 D 23 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cumulative l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:10:13 Page 10 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t8 Mission Rd / Oak l\ve ******************************************************************************** l\verage Delay (sec/veh): 7.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: Fr 67.11 ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Lanes: North Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Critical Gp: FollowUp'l'im: 13 389 1.64 1.64 21 638 o 0 o 0 21 638 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 26 778 o 0 26 778 Module: 4 1. 64 7 o o 7 1. 00 0.82 8 o 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 692 Potent Cap. 899 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I I I South Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 01010 10 292 1.64 1.64 16 479 o 0 o 0 16 479 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 19 556 o 0 19 556 71 1. 64 116 o o 116 1. 00 0.86 135 o 135 4.1 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 786 829 I I I I I I I I East Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include 10010 35 3 1.64 1.64 57 5 o 0 o 0 57 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 57 5 o 0 57 7.5 3.5 5 6.5 4.0 18 1. 64 30 o o 30 1. 00 1. 00 30 o 30 6.9 3.3 346 650 I I I I I I I I West Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 1 I 0 0 40 2 1.64 1.64 66 3 o 0 o 0 66 3 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 85 4 o 0 7.5 3.5 6.5 4.0 1152 1563 153 111 29 1. 64 48 o o 48 1. 00 0.77 62 o 6.9 3.3 Move Cap.: Volume/Cap: 899 0.03 I xxxx xxxxx 829 xxxx xxxx 0.02 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1105 1500 165 121 138 115 0.42 0.04 650 135 0.05 0.63 I I 105 0.04 393 606 606 0.10 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx Control Del: LOS by Move: 9.1 l\ Movement: L'l' Shared Cap. xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx Shared LOS: * xxxx xxxxx * * L'l'R R'l' xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * l\pproachDel: l\pproachLOS: xxxxxx * I I I I 0.1 xxxx xxxxx 1.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.4 l\ xxxx xxxxx 48.5 E xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * * L'l' L'l'R R'l' L'l' L'l'R xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.1 9.4 l\ xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx * xxxxxx * * * * 36.0 E * * R'l' L'l' 390 xxxx 0.3 xxxxx 15.1 xxxxx C * * * L'l'R R'l' 196 xxxxx 5.2 xxxxx 67.1 xxxxx F * 67.1 F I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** 'l'raffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cumulative l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:10:13 Page 11 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t9 Mission Rd / Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.089 62.5 E ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 1 I 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 0 1.64 1.64 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 1.00 o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10011 75 0 1.64 1.64 123 0 o 0 o 0 123 0 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 146 0 o 0 146 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 146 0 1900 1900 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.00 284 1. 64 465 o o 465 1. 00 0.84 554 o 554 1. 00 1. 00 554 1900 0.83 2.00 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 309 713 1.64 1.64 506 1169 o 0 o 0 506 1169 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 557 1284 o 0 557 1284 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 557 1284 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 4.0 1 0 o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 0.91 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 0.95 0.00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 o 680 1.64 1.64 o 1115 o 0 o 0 o 1115 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 o 1393 o 0 o 1393 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 1393 1900 1900 1.00 0.91 1.00 1. 72 4.0 1 0 112 1. 64 184 o o 184 1. 00 0.80 229 o 229 1. 00 1. 00 229 1900 0.91 0.28 Final Sat.: 0 1900 o 1769 0 3165 1769 3538 o 1900 2974 490 I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.18 0.31 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 l\ l\ o 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o 0.16 0.00 0.51 0.00 38.4 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 **** **** 0.16 1. 09 42.0 66.2 0.0 1. 00 0.29 0.72 1.09 0.50 35.6 6.2 66.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 40.0 0.0 108.1 101.6 6.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 40.0 0.0 108.1 101.6 6.4 D 5 l\ o F 15 F 27 l\ 9 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o **** 0.00 0.43 0.00 1.09 0.0 28.5 0.0 51.5 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 80.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 80.0 l\ E o 35 0.43 1. 09 28.5 51.5 0.0 1. 00 80.0 1. 00 80.0 E 35 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cumulative l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:10:13 Page 12 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tl0 Juniperro Serra Blvd / l\rroyo Dr ******************************************************************************** l\verage Delay (sec/veh): 163.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[1005.71 ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Lanes: North Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include o 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: o 322 1.64 1.64 o 528 o 0 o 0 o 528 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 o 636 o 0 72 1. 64 118 o o 118 1. 00 0.83 142 o I I I I South Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 10200 54 583 1.64 1.64 89 956 o 0 o 0 89 956 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 105 1138 o 0 o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 0.84 o o I I I I East Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 0 0 0 o 0 1.64 1.64 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o I I I I West Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 1 I 0 0 158 0 1.64 1.64 259 0 o 0 o 0 259 0 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 305 0 o 0 45 1. 64 74 o o 74 1. 00 0.85 87 o FinalVolume: o 636 142 105 1138 o o 305 o Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUp'l'im:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I 778 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 834 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 3.5 6.5 4.0 1486 2055 115 55 Potent Cap. Move Cap.: Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 834 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.13 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 104 48 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 2.93 0.00 I I I I I I 6.9 3.3 389 610 610 0.14 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * 0.4 9.9 l\ xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * * * * * * Movement: L'l' L'l'R R'l' L'l' L'l'R R'l' L'l' L'l'R R'l' L'l' xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx Shared Cap. xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx Shared LOS: * xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx L'l'R 127 37.0 1006 l\pproachDel: l\pproachLOS: * xxxxxx * * * * xxxxxx * * * * xxxxxx * * * F 1005.7 F * R'l' xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx * I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** 'l'raffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cumulative l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:10:13 Page 13 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tIl 1-280 SB Ramps / Westborough Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 6 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.998 34.3 C ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 0 1.64 1.64 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 2 0 0 0 1 405 0 1.64 1.64 664 0 o 0 o 0 664 0 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 800 0 o 0 800 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 800 0 1900 1900 0.90 1.00 2.00 0.00 257 1. 64 421 o o 421 1. 00 0.83 507 o 507 1. 00 1. 00 507 1900 0.83 1. 00 Final Sat.: 0 0 o 3432 0 1583 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: I I I I I I I I East Bound L T R Permitted Ignore 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 00201 o 1252 1.64 1.64 o 2052 o 0 o 0 o 2052 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 o 2183 o 0 o 2183 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 2183 1900 1900 1.00 0.93 0.00 2.00 o 3538 1160 1. 64 1901 o o 1901 0.00 0.00 o o o 0.00 0.00 1900 1. 00 1. 00 1900 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Permitted Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 00200 o 938 1.64 1.64 o 1537 o 0 o 0 o 1537 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.79 o 1946 o 0 o 1946 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 1946 1900 1900 1.00 0.93 0.00 2.00 o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 0.79 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 l\ l\ o 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o 0.32 0.00 0.73 0.00 30.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 32.4 0.0 1.00 1.00 32.4 0.0 C l\ 12 0 **** 0.32 1. 00 33.9 39.2 0.0 1. 00 73.1 1. 00 73.1 E 22 **** 0.00 0.62 0.00 1.00 0.0 19.0 0.0 18.6 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 37.6 1.00 1.00 0.0 37.6 l\ D o 44 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.89 0.0 16.2 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 21.1 1.00 1.00 0.0 21.1 l\ C o 30 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cumulative l\M Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:10:13 Page 14 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t12 1-280 NB Ramps / Westborough Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1. 472 193.8 F ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R I I I I I I Control: Rights: Min. Green: Split Phase Include 000 Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10201 Protected Include 000 Protected Include 000 Y+R: Lanes: 4.0 4.0 210 Volume Module: Base Vol: 521 211 Growth l\dj: 1.641.64 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 854 346 o 0 o 0 854 346 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 982 398 o 0 982 398 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 982 398 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 0.84 0.87 Lanes: Final Sat.: I 2.15 0.85 3452 1398 4.0 1 0 284 1. 64 465 o o 465 1. 00 0.87 535 o 535 1. 00 1. 00 I I 230 438 1.64 1.64 377 718 o 0 o 0 377 718 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 419 798 o 0 419 798 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 535 419 798 1900 0.87 1. 00 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 1652 1769 3538 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: 86 1. 64 141 o o 141 1. 00 0.90 157 o 157 1. 00 1. 00 I I 4.0 4.0 101 71 923 1.64 1.64 116 1513 o 0 o 0 116 1513 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 125 1627 o 0 125 1627 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 157 125 1627 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.91 1.001.70 1583 1769 2932 I I 4.0 1 0 165 1. 64 270 o o 270 1. 00 0.93 291 o 291 1. 00 1. 00 I I 4.0 4.0 101 171 843 1.64 1.64 280 1382 o 0 o 0 280 1382 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 318 1570 o 0 318 1570 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 291 318 1570 1900 0.91 0.30 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.92 1.00 1.85 524 1769 3227 I I 4.0 1 0 70 1. 64 115 o o 115 1. 00 0.88 130 o 130 1. 00 1. 00 130 1900 0.92 0.15 268 Vol/Sat: 0.28 0.28 0.32 0.24 0.23 0.10 0.07 0.55 0.55 0.18 0.49 0.49 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.16 0.16 Volume/Cap: 1.29 1.29 1.47 1.47 1.40 Uniform Del: 39.0 39.0 39.0 42.0 42.0 IncremntDel:136.8 137 216.7 230.6 191 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Delay/Veh: 175.8 176 255.7 272.6 233 User Dell\dj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l\djDel/Veh: 175.8 176 255.7 272.6 233 LOS by Move: F F F F F HCM2kl\vgQ: 31 31 41 31 30 **** 0.16 0.06 0.38 0.38 0.62 1.12 1.47 1.47 39.1 46.8 31.2 31.2 4.5 119.7 217 216.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 **** 0.12 0.44 1.47 1.12 43.9 28.2 235.8 61.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 43.5 166.6 248 247.8 279.7 90.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 43.5 166.6 248 247.8 279.7 90.1 D F F F F F 5 8 71 71 24 43 0.44 1.12 28.2 61. 9 0.0 1. 00 90.1 1. 00 90.1 F 43 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON L. Intersection LOS Analysis Sheets - Cumulative (2030) PM City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Cumulative PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:03 Page 2 1 Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Dell VI Dell VI in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C if 1 81 Camino Real Hickey Blvd F 187.6 1. 472 F 187.6 1. 472 + 0.000 D/V if 2 81 Camino Real McLellan Dr F 103.5 1.202 F 103.5 1.202 + 0.000 D/V if 3 81 Camino Real Arroyo Dr D 36.3 0.970 D 36.3 0.970 + 0.000 D/V if 4 81 Camino Real Chestnut Ave F 138.5 1.339 F 138.5 1.339 + 0.000 D/V if 5 81 Camino Real W. Orange Ave F 153.9 1.430 F 153.9 1.430 + 0.000 D/V if 6 Mission Rd I Grand Ave B 12.4 0.480 B 12.4 0.480 + 0.000 VIC if 7 Grand Ave I Chestnut Ave D 43.4 0.864 D 43.4 0.864 + 0.000 D/V if 8 Mission Rd Oak Ave C 22.2 0.244 C 22.2 0.244 + 0.000 D/V if 9 Mission Rd Chestnut Ave D 36.4 0.952 D 36.4 0.952 + 0.000 D/V if 10 Juniperro Serra Blvd I Arroyo F OVRFL 4.132 F OVRFL 4.132 + 0.000 D/V if 11 1-280 SB Ramps Westborough B F 214.6 1.680 F 214.6 1.680 + 0.000 D/V if 12 1-280 NB Ramps Westborough B F 355.5 1.784 F 355.5 1.784 + 0.000 D/V Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIML8Y-HORN, SAN RAMON Cumulative PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:03 Page 3 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tl El Camino Real/Hickey Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1. 472 187.6 F ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 201 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 971 676 Growth l\dj: 1.641.64 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 1591 1108 o 0 o 0 1591 1108 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 1768 1231 o 0 21 1. 64 34 o o 34 1. 00 0.90 38 o I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 5 496 1.64 1.64 8 813 o 0 o 0 8 813 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 9 856 o 0 4.0 1 0 99 1. 64 162 o o 162 1. 00 0.95 171 Reduced Vol: 1768 1231 38 9 856 o 171 1. 00 1. 00 171 PCE l\dj: 1.001.00 MLFl\dj: 1.001.00 FinalVolume: 1768 1231 I Saturation Flow Module: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 38 9 856 I I I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 1 0 0 2 151 24 1.64 1.64 247 39 o 0 o 0 247 39 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 321 51 o 0 321 51 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 321 51 563 1. 64 923 o o 923 1. 00 0.77 1198 o 1198 1. 00 1. 00 1198 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 1 I 0 0 12 15 1.64 1.64 20 25 o 0 o 0 20 25 1.00 1.00 0.66 0.66 30 37 o 0 30 37 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 30 37 10 1. 64 16 o o 16 1. 00 0.66 25 o 25 1. 00 1. 00 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 0.90 0.93 2.00 1.94 3432 3417 1900 0.93 0.06 1900 1900 0.93 0.91 1.00 1.67 1900 1900 1900 0.91 0.94 0.94 0.33 1.730.27 1900 0.73 2.00 2786 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 0.32 0.41 1900 0.93 0.27 Final Sat.: 106 1769 2875 574 3082 490 573 716 477 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.52 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.10 0.43 0.05 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.35 0.54 Volume/Cap: 1.47 0.66 Uniform Del: 32.5 16.2 IncremntDel:216.9 0.9 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 249.3 17.1 User Dell\dj: 1.001.00 l\djDel/Veh: 249.3 17.1 LOS by Move: F B HCM2kl\vgQ: 62 13 0.54 0.66 16.2 0.9 0.0 **** 0.01 0.20 0.66 1.47 0.20 1. 47 49.5 39.9 39.9 83.1 220 220.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 17.1 132.7 260 259.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 17.1 132.7 260 259.9 B F F F 13 1 39 39 0.29 0.29 0.36 0.36 **** 0.29 1. 47 **** 0.04 0.04 1.47 1.47 0.04 1. 47 28.0 28.0 35.4 48.2 48.2 48.2 0.2 0.2 219.0 280.4 280 280.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 28.2 28.2 254.4 328.6 329 328.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 28.2 28.2 254.4 328.6 329 328.6 C C F F F F 5 5 49 8 8 8 I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cumulative PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:03 Page 4 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t2 El Camino Real/McLellan Dr ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.202 103.5 F ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 301 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 46 1015 1.64 1.64 75 1664 o 0 o 0 75 1664 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 94 2079 o 0 94 2079 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 94 2079 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 147 1. 64 241 o o 241 1. 00 0.80 301 o 301 1. 00 1. 00 301 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 201 252 704 1.64 1.64 413 1154 o 0 o 0 413 1154 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 616 1722 o 0 616 1722 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 616 1722 4.0 1 0 34 1. 64 56 o o 56 1. 00 0.67 83 o 83 1. 00 1. 00 83 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 32 12 1.64 1.64 52 20 o 0 o 0 52 20 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 64 24 o 0 64 24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 64 24 25 1. 64 41 o o 41 1. 00 0.82 50 o 50 1. 00 1. 00 50 1900 1900 1900 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.09 0.73 0.27 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 1 I 0 1 191 18 1.64 1.64 313 30 o 0 o 0 313 30 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.74 423 40 o 0 423 40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 423 40 1900 1900 0.87 0.87 1.30 0.06 400 1. 64 656 o o 656 1. 00 0.74 886 o 886 1. 00 1. 00 886 Final Sat.: 0.93 0.89 1.00 3.00 1769 5083 1900 1900 1900 0.83 0.90 0.92 1.00 2.00 1.91 1583 3432 3351 162 1307 490 1583 2156 95 1900 0.87 1. 64 2707 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.41 0.19 0.18 0.51 0.51 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.20 0.42 0.33 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.05 0.34 Volume/Cap: 1.16 1.20 Uniform Del: 47.7 33.0 IncremntDel:148.7 96.8 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 196.4 130 User Dell\dj: 1.001.00 l\djDel/Veh: 196.4 130 LOS by Move: F F HCM2 kl\vgQ: 5 39 **** **** 0.34 0.15 0.44 0.44 0.04 0.04 0.56 1.20 1.16 1.16 1.20 1.20 26.9 42.5 27.8 1.3 108.5 78.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.8 48.0 48.0 78.8 169.5 169 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 28.2 151.0 107 106.6 217.4 217 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 28.2 151.0 107 106.6 217.4 217 C 7 F 16 F 43 F 43 F 7 F 7 0.04 0.78 47.5 43.5 0.0 1. 00 91.0 1. 00 91.0 F 3 **** 0.35 0.35 0.56 1.20 26.3 32.5 0.3 99.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 26.6 132 1.00 1.00 26.6 132 C F 9 38 0.35 0.94 31.4 11. 7 0.0 1. 00 43.2 1. 00 43.2 D 21 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cumulative PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:03 Page 5 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t3 El Camino Real / l\rroyo Dr ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 155 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.970 36.3 D ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: North Bound South Bound Movement: L T R L T R I I Control: Rights: Min. Green: Protected Include 000 Protected Include 000 Y+R: Lanes: 4.0 4.0 102 Volume Module: Base Vol: 155 942 Growth l\dj: 1.641.64 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 254 1544 o 0 o 0 254 1544 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 267 1625 o 0 267 1625 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 267 1625 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 4.0 1 0 I I 4.0 4.0 102 28 27 954 1.64 1.64 1.64 46 44 1564 000 o 46 1. 00 0.95 48 o 48 1. 00 1. 00 48 I I o 0 44 1564 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 47 1663 o 0 47 1663 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 47 1663 1900 1900 1900 0.89 0.93 0.87 0.09 1.00 2.40 4.0 1 0 240 1. 64 393 o o 393 1. 00 0.94 418 o 418 1. 00 1. 00 418 1900 0.87 0.60 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 1 I 0 1 87 2 1.64 1.64 143 3 o 0 o 0 143 3 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.55 259 6 o 0 259 6 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 259 6 1900 1900 0.87 0.87 1.36 0.02 149 1. 64 244 o o 244 1. 00 0.55 444 o 444 1. 00 1. 00 444 1900 0.87 1. 62 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 69 3 1.64 1.64 113 5 o 0 o 0 113 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 113 5 o 0 113 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 113 5 1900 1900 0.93 0.86 1.00 0.20 4.0 1 0 12 1. 64 20 o o 20 1. 00 1. 00 20 o 20 1. 00 1. 00 20 Final Sat.: 0.93 0.89 1.00 2.91 1769 4917 146 1769 3940 991 2257 28 2685 1769 328 1900 0.86 0.80 1311 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.33 0.33 0.03 0.42 0.42 0.11 0.22 0.17 0.06 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.55 Volume/Cap: 0.97 0.60 Uniform Del: 42.0 15.3 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 45.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 87.6 15.7 1.00 1.00 87.6 15.7 F B 13 13 0.55 0.60 15.3 0.4 0.0 1. 00 15.7 1. 00 15.7 B 13 **** 0.04 0.44 0.60 0.97 46.9 27.6 12.7 13.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 59.6 40.6 1.00 1.00 59.6 40.6 E D 1 22 0.44 0.97 27.6 13.0 0.0 1. 00 40.6 1. 00 40.6 D 22 **** 0.22 0.22 0.52 0.97 34.1 38.5 0.3 25.8 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 34.5 64.4 1.00 1.00 34.5 64.4 C E 6 16 0.22 0.74 36.2 **** 0.07 0.07 0.97 0.23 46.6 44.3 3.2 73.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 39.4 120.1 45.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 39.4 120.1 45.4 D 9 F 7 D 1 0.07 0.23 44.3 1.1 0.0 1. 00 45.4 1. 00 45.4 D 1 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cumulative PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:03 Page 6 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t4 El Camino Real/Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.339 138.5 F ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R I I I I I I Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 20201 Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 2 0 301 Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10201 Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 20201 Volume Module: Base Vol: 677 836 Growth l\dj: 1.641.64 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 1110 1370 o 0 o 0 1110 1370 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 1180 1458 o 0 Reduced Vol: 1180 1458 PCE l\dj: 1.001.00 MLFl\dj: 1.001.00 FinalVolume: 11801458 I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: I 0.90 0.93 2.00 2.00 3432 3538 336 1. 64 551 o o 551 1. 00 0.94 586 o I I 188 810 1.64 1.64 308 1328 o 0 o 0 308 1328 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 339 1459 o 0 586 339 1459 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 586 339 1459 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I 1900 1900 0.90 0.89 2.00 3.00 1583 3432 5083 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: 215 1. 64 352 o o 352 1. 00 0.91 387 o 387 1. 00 1. 00 387 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I 181 493 1.64 1.64 297 808 o 0 o 0 297 808 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 303 825 o 0 303 825 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 303 825 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 1583 1769 3538 I I 356 1. 64 583 o o 583 1. 00 0.98 595 o 595 1. 00 1. 00 595 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I 294 563 1.64 1.64 482 923 o 0 o 0 482 923 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 588 1125 o 0 588 1125 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 588 1125 1900 1900 0.90 0.93 2.00 2.00 1583 3432 3538 I I 109 1. 64 179 o o 179 1. 00 0.82 218 o 218 1. 00 1. 00 218 1900 0.83 1. 00 1583 Vol/Sat: 0.34 0.41 0.37 0.10 0.29 0.24 0.17 0.23 0.38 0.17 0.32 0.14 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.26 0.38 Volume/Cap: 1. 34 1. 08 Uniform Del: 37.2 31.0 IncremntDel:160.3 50.6 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 197.4 81.6 User Dell\dj: 1.001.00 l\djDel/Veh: 197.4 81.6 LOS by Move: F F HCM2kl\vgQ: 40 35 0.38 0.97 30.5 30.0 0.0 **** 0.09 0.21 1.08 1.34 45.4 39.3 75.1 159 0.0 0.0 **** **** 0.21 0.14 0.28 0.28 0.13 0.27 1.14 1.20 0.83 1.34 1.34 1.20 39.3 42.8 33.7 36.0 43.6 36.7 93.0 120.4 6.0 167.2 167.4 98.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 60.5 120.6 198 132.3 163.2 39.7 203.1 211.0 136 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 60.5 120.6 E F 24 10 198 132.3 163.2 39.7 203.1 211.0 F F F D F F 35 21 18 15 39 21 136 F 33 0.27 0.52 31.3 1.1 0.0 1. 00 32.4 1. 00 32.4 C 6 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cumulative PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:03 Page 7 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t5 El Camino Real / W. Orange l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.430 153.9 F ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R I I I I I I Control: Rights: Min. Green: Protected Include 000 Protected Include 000 Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 Y+R: Lanes: 4.0 4.0 102 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 39 1500 1.64 1.64 64 2459 o 0 o 0 64 2459 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 72 2762 o 0 72 2762 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 72 2762 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 0.93 0.88 Lanes: 1.00 2.76 Final Sat.: 1769 4619 I 4.0 1 0 131 1. 64 215 o o 215 1. 00 0.89 241 o 241 1. 00 1. 00 I I 4.0 4.0 102 204 1247 1.64 1.64 334 2044 o 0 o 0 334 2044 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 376 2296 o 0 376 2296 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 241 376 2296 I I 1900 1900 1900 0.88 0.93 0.89 0.24 1.00 2.89 403 1769 4874 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: 4.0 1 0 47 1. 64 77 o o 77 1. 00 0.89 87 o 87 1. 00 1. 00 I I 111 71 1.64 1.64 182 116 o 0 o 0 182 116 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 219 140 o 0 219 140 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 87 219 140 I I 1900 1900 1900 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.11 0.61 0.39 184 1102 705 I I 48 1. 64 79 o o 79 1. 00 0.83 95 o 95 1. 00 1. 00 I I 145 44 1.64 1.64 238 72 o 0 o 0 238 72 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 258 78 o 0 258 78 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 95 258 I I 78 1900 0.83 1. 00 1900 1900 0.94 0.94 0.77 0.23 1583 1376 417 I I 221 1. 64 362 o o 362 1. 00 0.92 394 o 394 1. 00 1. 00 394 1900 0.83 1. 00 1583 Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.60 0.60 0.21 0.47 0.47 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.19 0.19 0.25 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.04 0.42 0.42 0.15 0.52 Volume/Cap: 0.90 1.43 1.43 1.43 0.90 Uniform Del: 47.5 29.1 29.1 42.6 21.6 IncremntDel: 68.9 196 196.2 214.0 4.8 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Delay/Veh: 116.4 225 225.3 256.6 26.4 User Dell\dj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l\djDel/Veh: 116.4 225 225.3 256.6 26.4 LOS by Move: F F F F C HCM2kl\vgQ: 5 75 75 27 28 **** 0.52 0.14 0.14 0.90 1.43 1.43 21.6 43.0 43.0 4.8 214.8 215 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 26.4 257.9 258 1.00 1.00 1.00 26.4 257.9 258 C F F 28 26 26 **** 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.43 1.08 1.08 1.43 39.4 1.4 0.0 41.3 41.3 41.3 73.773.7213.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 40.8 115.0 115 254.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 40.8 115.0 115 254.4 D 3 F 18 F 18 F 29 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cumulative PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:03 Page 8 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t6 Mission Rd / Grand l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 o o Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.480 12.4 B ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Lanes: North Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 287 1.00 1.00 o 287 o 0 o 0 o 287 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 o 322 o 0 o 322 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 322 50 1. 00 50 o o 50 1. 00 0.89 56 o 56 1. 00 1. 00 56 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 1 100 185 321 1.00 1.00 185 321 o 0 o 0 185 321 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 201 349 o 0 201 349 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 201 349 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.92 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o Saturation Flow Module: l\djustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 1.70 Final Sat.: 0 1004 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.731.27 178 419 762 1. 00 0.00 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: I I I I I I East Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.10 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 o 0 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.10 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 1 0 0 0 1 48 0 1.00 1.00 48 0 o 0 o 0 48 0 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 55 0 o 0 55 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 55 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 482 0 188 1. 00 188 o o 188 1. 00 0.88 214 o 214 1. 00 1. 00 214 1. 00 1. 00 576 Vol/Sat: xxxx 0.32 0.32 0.48 0.46 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.11 xxxx 0.37 Crit Moves: Delay/Veh: Delay l\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: l\pproachDel: Delay l\dj: l\pprl\djDel: LOS by l\ppr: l\IIWayl\vgQ: **** 0.0 11.3 1.00 1.00 0.0 11.3 * B 11.3 1. 00 11.3 B 0.0 0.4 11. 0 1. 00 11. 0 B 0.4 **** 14.2 13.3 1.00 1.00 14.2 13.3 B B 13.6 1. 00 13.6 B 0.9 0.8 0.0 1. 00 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 * * xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx * 0.0 0.0 0.0 1. 00 0.0 * 0.0 10.7 0.0 1.00 1.00 10.7 0.0 B * 11. 6 1. 00 11. 6 B 0.1 0.0 **** 11. 8 1. 00 11. 8 B 0.5 I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cumulative PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:03 Page 9 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t7 Grand l\ve / Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 95 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.864 43.4 D ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 101 Volume Module: Base Vol: 134 212 Growth l\dj: 1.641.64 Initial Bse: 220 347 l\dded Vol: 0 0 PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 0 220 347 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 220 347 o 0 220 347 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 220 347 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 60 1. 64 98 o o 98 1. 00 1. 00 98 o 98 1. 00 1. 00 98 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 101 57 189 61 1.64 1.64 1.64 93 310 100 000 o 0 93 310 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 93 310 o 0 93 310 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 93 310 1900 1900 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 o 100 1. 00 1. 00 100 o 100 1. 00 1. 00 100 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 4.0 1 0 107 314 116 1.64 1.64 1.64 175 515 190 000 o 0 175 515 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 175 515 o 0 175 515 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 175 515 1900 1900 0.93 0.94 1.000.73 o 190 1. 00 1. 00 190 o 190 1. 00 1. 00 190 1900 0.94 0.27 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 51 359 1.64 1.64 84 588 o 0 o 0 84 588 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 84 588 o 0 84 588 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 84 588 1900 1900 0.93 0.96 1.00 0.87 4.0 1 0 54 1. 64 89 o o 89 1. 00 1. 00 89 o 89 1. 00 1. 00 1900 0.96 0.13 Final Sat.: 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 1769 1862 1583 1769 1862 1583 1769 1305 482 1769 1586 239 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.19 0.06 0.05 0.17 0.06 0.10 0.39 0.39 0.05 0.37 0.37 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.26 0.26 Volume/Cap: 0.86 0.71 0.24 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 41.9 33.5 25.1 4.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 66.9 38.4 1.00 1.00 66.9 38.4 E D 9 11 29.0 0.3 0.0 1. 00 29.3 1. 00 29.3 C 2 **** 0.07 0.19 0.71 0.86 45.3 39.1 16.8 19.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 62.0 58.2 1.00 1.00 62.0 58.2 E E 4 12 0.19 0.33 34.8 0.6 0.0 1. 00 35.4 1. 00 35.4 D 3 **** 0.11 0.49 0.86 0.81 43.5 21.8 29.8 5.8 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 73.327.7 1.00 1.00 73.327.7 E C 6 19 0.49 0.81 21.8 5.8 0.0 1. 00 27.7 1. 00 27.7 C 19 **** 0.06 0.43 0.81 0.86 46.5 25.9 36.8 9.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 83.3 35.8 1.00 1.00 83.3 35.8 F D 5 22 0.43 0.86 25.9 9.9 0.0 1. 00 35.8 1. 00 35.8 D 22 I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cumulative PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:03 Page 10 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t8 Mission Rd / Oak l\ve ******************************************************************************** l\verage Delay (sec/veh): 2.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: Cr 22.21 ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Lanes: North Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Critical Gp: FollowUp'l'im: 12 272 1.64 1.64 20 446 o 0 o 0 20 446 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 22 495 o 0 22 495 Module: 15 1. 64 25 o o 25 1. 00 0.90 27 o 27 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: I I I I I I I I South Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 01010 16 320 1.64 1.64 26 524 o 0 o 0 26 524 1.00 1.00 0.95 28 o 28 0.95 552 o 552 69 1. 64 113 o o 113 1. 00 0.95 119 o 119 4.1 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I I I I I East Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include 10010 28 2 1.64 1.64 46 3 o 0 o 0 46 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 46 3 o 0 46 7.5 3.5 3 6.5 4.0 21 1. 64 34 o o 34 1. 00 1. 00 34 o 34 6.9 3.3 I I I I I I I I West Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 1 I 0 0 17 3 1.64 1.64 28 5 o 0 o 0 28 5 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 36 6 o 0 7.5 3.5 6.5 4.0 14 1. 64 23 o o 23 1. 00 0.77 30 o 6.9 3.3 Cnflict Vol: 671 Potent Cap. Move Cap.: Volume/Cap: 915 915 0.02 I xxxx xxxxx 523 xxxx xxxxx 1040 xxxx xxxxx 1040 xxxx xxxx 0.03 xxxx xxxxx 961 1233 xxxx xxxxx 211 176 xxxx xxxxx 188 166 xxxx xxxx 0.24 0.02 336 886 1279 660 239 165 660 214 156 0.05 0.17 0.04 261 737 737 0.04 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx Control Del: LOS by Move: 9.0 l\ Movement: L'l' Shared Cap. xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx Shared LOS: * xxxx xxxxx * * L'l'R R'l' xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * l\pproachDel: l\pproachLOS: xxxxxx * I I I I I I 0.1 xxxx xxxxx 8.6 xxxx xxxxx 0.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 30.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx l\ * * D * L'l' L'l'R R'l' L'l' L'l'R xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 8.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx l\ * xxxxxx * * * * 22.2 C * R'l' 525 0.2 12.4 B * * * L'l' L'l'R R'l' xxxx 289 xxxxx xxxxx 1 . 0 xxxxx xxxxx 21.5 xxxxx * C 21.5 C * I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** 'l'raffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cumulative PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:03 Page 11 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t9 Mission Rd / Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 140 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.952 36.4 D ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 1 I 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 0 1.64 1.64 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 1.00 o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10011 88 0 1.64 1.64 144 0 o 0 o 0 144 0 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 168 0 o 0 168 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 168 0 1900 1900 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.00 300 1. 64 492 o o 492 1. 00 0.86 572 o 572 1. 00 1. 00 572 1900 0.83 2.00 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 249 714 1.64 1.64 408 1170 o 0 o 0 408 1170 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 464 1330 o 0 464 1330 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 464 1330 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 4.0 1 0 o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 0.88 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 0.95 0.00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 o 676 1.64 1.64 o 1108 o 0 o 0 o 1108 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 o 1245 o 0 o 1245 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 1245 1900 1900 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.81 4.0 1 0 72 1. 64 118 o o 118 1. 00 0.89 133 o 133 1. 00 1. 00 133 1900 0.92 0.19 Final Sat.: 0 1900 o 1769 0 3165 1769 3538 o 1900 3153 336 I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.18 0.26 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 l\ l\ o 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o 0.19 0.00 0.50 0.00 36.3 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 37.4 0.0 1.00 1.00 37.4 0.0 D l\ 5 0 **** 0.19 0.95 40.1 25.3 0.0 1. 00 65.3 1. 00 65.3 E 13 **** 0.28 0.69 0.95 0.54 35.6 7.7 28.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 64.5 7.9 1.00 1.00 64.5 7.9 E l\ 19 11 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o **** 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.95 0.0 28.3 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 42.2 1.00 1.00 0.0 42.2 l\ D o 22 0.41 0.95 28.3 13.9 0.0 1. 00 42.2 1. 00 42.2 D 22 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cumulative PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:03 Page 12 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tl0 Juniperro Serra Blvd / l\rroyo Dr ******************************************************************************** l\verage Delay (sec/veh): 186.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[1710.91 ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Lanes: North Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include o 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: o 760 1.64 1.64 o 1246 o 0 o 0 o 1246 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 o 1298 165 1. 64 270 o o 270 1. 00 0.96 282 o I I I I South Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 10200 53 349 1.64 1.64 87 572 o 0 o 0 87 572 1.00 1.00 0.79 110 o o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 0.79 o o I I I I East Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 0 0 0 o 0 1.64 1.64 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o I I I I West Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 1 I 0 0 92 0 1.64 1.64 151 0 o 0 o 0 151 0 1.00 1.00 71 1. 64 116 o o 116 1. 00 0.91 128 FinalVolume: o 0 o 1298 282 110 I I 0.79 724 o 724 o o 0.91 166 o 166 0.91 o o o o 128 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUp'l'im:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I 1579 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 413 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 3.5 6.5 4.0 2020 2382 50 34 6.9 3.3 Potent Cap. Move Cap.: Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 413 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.27 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 40 25 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 4.13 0.00 790 333 333 0.38 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * Movement: L'l' L'l'R R'l' I I 1.1 16.9 C L'l' I I I I xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * * * * * * * L'l'R R'l' L'l' L'l'R R'l' L'l' Shared Cap. xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx Shared LOS: * xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx L'l'R R'l' 65 xxxxx 32.0 xxxxx 1711 xxxxx l\pproachDel: l\pproachLOS: * xxxxxx * * * * xxxxxx * * * * xxxxxx * * * F * 1710.9 F I I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** 'l'raffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cumulative PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:03 Page 13 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tIl 1-280 SB Ramps / Westborough Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 6 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.680 214.6 F ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: o 0 1.64 1.64 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 2 0 0 0 1 635 0 1.64 1.64 1041 0 o 0 o 0 1041 0 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 1210 0 o 0 597 1. 64 978 o o 978 1. 00 0.86 1138 Reduced Vol: o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 1210 0 o 1138 1. 00 1. 00 1138 PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 1210 0 1900 1. 00 0.00 I I 1900 1900 0.90 1.00 2.00 0.00 o 3432 0 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: 1900 0.83 1. 00 1583 I I I I I I I I East Bound L T R Permitted Ignore 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 00201 o 772 1.64 1.64 o 1265 o 0 o 0 o 1265 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 o 1454 o 0 o 1454 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 1454 1900 1900 1.00 0.93 0.00 2.00 o 3538 517 1. 64 847 o o 847 0.00 0.00 o o o 0.00 0.00 1900 1. 00 1. 00 1900 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Permitted Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 00200 o 1671 1.64 1.64 o 2739 o 0 o 0 o 2739 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 o 3043 o 0 o 3043 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 3043 1900 1900 1.00 0.93 0.00 2.00 o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 0.90 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 l\ l\ o 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o 0.43 0.00 0.82 0.00 25.3 0.0 **** 0.43 1. 68 28.6 3.9 0.0 312.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 1.00 29.2 0.0 341.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 29.2 0.0 341.0 C l\ F 19 0 92 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.80 0.0 20.2 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 22.9 1.00 1.00 0.0 22.9 l\ C o 21 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o **** 0.00 0.51 0.00 1.68 0.0 24.4 0.0 308 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 333 1.00 1.00 0.0 333 l\ F o 128 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cumulative PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:03 Page 14 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t12 1-280 NB Ramps / Westborough Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.784 355.5 F ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R I I I I I I Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 210 4.0 1 0 Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10201 Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 4.0 1 0 Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 918 533 Growth l\dj: 1.641.64 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: 1505 o 874 o PasserByVol: 0 0 Ini tial Fut: 1505 874 User l\dj: 1.00 1.00 PHF l\dj: 0.720.72 PHF Volume: 2090 1213 Reduct Vol: 0 0 Reduced Vol: 2090 1213 PCE l\dj: 1.001.00 MLFl\dj: 1.001.00 FinalVolume: 2090 1213 I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 0.86 0.89 Lanes: 2.22 1.25 Final Sat.: 3634 2110 I 225 1. 64 369 o o 369 1. 00 0.72 512 o 512 1. 00 1. 00 512 1900 0.89 0.53 I I I I 154 245 1.64 1.64 252 402 o 0 o 0 252 402 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 300 478 o 0 300 478 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 300 478 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 891 1769 3538 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: 22 1. 64 36 o o 36 1. 00 0.84 43 o 43 1. 00 1. 00 43 I I I I 146 901 1.64 1.64 239 1477 o 0 o 0 239 1477 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 252 1554 o 0 252 1554 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 252 1554 1900 1900 1900 0.83 0.93 0.92 1.00 1.001.79 1583 1769 3118 I I 105 1. 64 172 o o 172 1. 00 0.95 181 o 181 1. 00 1. 00 181 I I I I 188 1077 1.64 1.64 308 1765 o 0 o 0 308 1765 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 354 2029 o 0 354 2029 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 354 2029 1900 1900 1900 0.92 0.93 0.91 0.21 1.001.72 363 1769 2972 I I 178 1. 64 292 o o 292 1. 00 0.87 335 o 335 1. 00 1. 00 335 1900 0.91 0.28 491 Vol/Sat: 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.17 0.14 0.03 0.14 0.50 0.50 0.20 0.68 0.68 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.10 Volume/Cap: 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.42 Uniform Del: 33.9 33.9 33.9 45.2 45.2 IncremntDel:354.7 355 354.7 375.7 205 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Delay/Veh: 388.6 389 388.6 420.9 250 User Dell\dj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l\djDel/Veh: 388.6 389 388.6 420.9 250 LOS by Move: F F F F F HCM2kl\vgQ: 87 87 87 27 19 0.10 0.28 **** **** 0.08 0.33 0.33 0.13 0.38 1.78 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.78 0.38 1. 78 42.1 46.0 33.5 33.5 43.4 30.9 30.9 1.0 379.8 235 234.5 250.8 356 355.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 43.1 425.8 268 268.0 294.2 387 386.8 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 43.1 425.8 268 268.0 294.2 387 386.8 D 1 F 23 F 67 F 67 F F 27 105 F 105 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON M. Intersection LOS Analysis Sheets - Cumulative + Project AM City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Cum + Project AM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:54 Page 2 1 Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Dell VI Dell VI in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C if 1 81 Camino Real Hickey Blvd F 152.3 1.304 F 178.8 1.389 +26.512 D/V if 2 81 Camino Real McLellan Dr 8 73.5 1.169 F 86.1 1.234 +12.639 D/V if 3 81 Camino Real Arroyo Dr D 46.4 1.028 8 59.8 1.098 +13.398 D/V if 4 81 Camino Real Chestnut Ave F 144.5 1.391 F 173.7 1.446 +29.173 D/V if 5 81 Camino Real W. Orange Ave F 118.9 1. 290 F 123.9 1.307 + 5.002 D/V if 6 Mission Rd I Grand Ave 8 40.9 0.880 F 58.3 1.016 + 0.136 VIC if 7 Grand Ave I Chestnut Ave D 50.9 0.945 D 54.4 0.970 + 3.466 D/V if 8 Mission Rd Oak Ave F 67.1 0.630 F 91. 9 0.708 +24.777 D/V if 9 Mission Rd Chestnut Ave 8 62.5 1.089 8 72.4 1.122 + 9.875 D/V if 10 Juniperro Serra Blvd I Arroyo F OVRFL 2.929 F OVRFL 2.929 + 0.000 D/V if 11 1-280 SB Ramps Westborough B C 34.3 0.998 D 35.3 1.002 + 1.062 D/V if 12 1-280 NB Ramps Westborough B F 193.8 1. 472 F 216.3 1.553 +22.422 D/V Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIML8Y-HORN, SAN RAMON Cum + Project AM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:54 Page 3 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tl El Camino Real/Hickey Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.389 178.8 F ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound Movement: L T R Control: Rights: Min. Green: Protected Include 000 Y+R: Lanes: 4.0 4.0 201 Volume Module: Base Vol: 540 276 Growth Adj: 1.641.64 Initial Bse: Added Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 885 452 84 140 o 0 969 592 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 1127 689 o 0 4.0 1 0 11 1. 64 18 o o 18 1. 00 0.86 21 o Reduced Vol: 1127 689 21 PCE Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 1127 689 I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 Adjustment: Lanes: 21 1900 0.93 0.06 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 6 468 1.64 1.64 10 767 o 76 o 0 10 843 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 12 1054 o 0 4.0 1 0 48 1. 64 79 o o 79 1. 00 0.80 98 o 98 1. 00 1. 00 I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 1 0 0 2 122 6 1.64 1.64 200 10 o 0 o 0 200 10 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.82 654 1. 64 1072 45 o 1117 1. 00 0.81 247 o 12 1379 o 0 247 12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1379 1. 00 1. 00 12 1054 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 1054 98 247 I I 12 1379 1900 1900 0.93 0.92 1.00 1.83 1900 1900 1900 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.17 1.91 0.09 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 1 I 0 0 23 24 1.64 1.64 38 39 o 0 o 0 38 39 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.70 54 o 56 o 54 56 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.43 0.46 6 1. 64 10 o o 10 1. 00 0.70 14 o 14 1. 00 1. 00 1900 0.95 0.11 Final Sat.: 0.90 0.93 2.00 1.94 3432 3420 104 1769 3194 298 3388 165 1900 0.73 2.00 2786 779 813 203 I I I I I I I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.33 0.20 0.20 0.01 0.33 0.33 0.07 0.07 0.50 0.07 0.07 0.07 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.24 0.46 Volume/Cap: 1. 39 0.44 Uniform Del: 38.2 18.4 IncremntDel:182.7 0.2 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 220.9 18.6 User DelAdj: 1.001.00 AdjDel/Veh: 220.9 18.6 LOS by Move: F B HCM2kAvgQ: 37 7 0.46 0.44 18.4 0.2 0.0 1. 00 18.6 1. 00 18.6 B 7 **** 0.02 0.24 0.44 1.39 48.8 38.1 0.24 1. 39 38.1 10.7 0.0 183 182.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 59.4 221 220.7 1.00 1.00 1.00 59.4 E 1 221 220.7 F F 41 41 **** **** 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.20 0.20 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39 22.3 22.3 32.2 47.5 47.5 47.5 0.1 0.1 181.4 229.9 230 229.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 22.4 22.4 213.5 277.4 277 277.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 22.4 22.4 213.5 277.4 277 277.4 C 3 C 3 F 52 F 10 F 10 F 10 I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Cum + Project AM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:54 Page 4 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t2 El Camino Real/McLellan Dr ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.234 86.1 F ******************************************************************************** Approach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 301 I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 201 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: Added Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: 34 394 1.64 1.64 56 646 o 178 o 0 56 824 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 67 992 o 0 67 992 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 67 992 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 Adjustment: 120 1. 64 197 13 o 210 1. 00 0.83 253 o 395 904 1.64 1.64 647 1482 12 110 o 0 659 1592 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 767 1851 o 0 253 767 1851 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 253 767 1851 I I 26 1. 64 43 o o 43 1. 00 0.86 50 o 50 1. 00 1. 00 50 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 47 36 1.64 1.64 77 59 o 0 o 0 77 59 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.76 101 o 78 o 101 78 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 101 78 57 1. 64 93 o o 93 1. 00 0.76 123 o 123 1. 00 1. 00 123 1900 0.83 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 1 I 0 1 212 30 1.64 1.64 347 49 9 0 o 0 356 49 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 435 o 60 o 435 60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 435 60 1900 1900 0.87 0.87 375 1. 64 615 47 o 662 1. 00 0.82 807 o 807 1. 00 1. 00 807 Lanes: Final Sat.: 0.93 0.89 1.00 3.00 1769 5083 1900 1900 1900 0.83 0.90 0.93 1.00 2.00 1.95 1583 3432 3432 1900 0.93 0.05 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.57 0.43 92 1025 785 1.00 1.32 0.09 1583 2192 146 1900 0.87 1. 59 2647 I I I I I I I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.20 0.16 0.22 0.54 0.54 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.20 0.41 0.30 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.03 0.22 Volume/Cap: 1.23 0.89 Uniform Del: 48.5 38.0 IncremntDel:198.0 9.6 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 246.5 47.5 User DelAdj: 1.001.00 AdjDel/Veh: 246.5 47.5 LOS by Move: F D HCM2kAvgQ: 4 11 0.22 0.73 36.4 7.8 0.0 1. 00 44.2 1. 00 44.2 D 7 **** **** 0.25 0.44 0.44 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.89 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 36.2 28.1 28.1 46.0 46.0 0.97 45.9 70.0 11. 9 0.0 111 111.1 150.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 151 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 48.1 139 139.2 196.9 197 115.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 48.1 139 139.2 196.9 197 115.9 D F F F F F 11 52 52 12 12 7 **** 0.33 0.33 0.60 1.23 27.8 33.4 0.5 114 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 28.3 147 1.00 1.00 28.3 147 C F 9 39 0.33 0.92 32.1 9.8 0.0 1. 00 41.9 1. 00 41.9 D 19 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Cum + Project AM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:54 Page 5 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t3 El Camino Real/Arroyo Dr ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.098 59.8 E ******************************************************************************** Approach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 155 764 Growth Adj: 1.641.64 Initial Bse: Added Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: 254 1252 1 120 o 0 255 1372 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 300 1614 o 0 300 1614 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 300 1614 Saturation Flow Module: 35 1. 64 57 29 o 86 1. 00 0.85 102 o 102 1. 00 1. 00 102 1900 0.88 0.18 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 22 712 1.64 1.64 36 1167 32 38 o 0 68 1205 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 82 1452 o 0 82 1452 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 82 1452 1900 1900 0.93 0.86 1.00 2.31 4.0 1 0 190 1. 64 311 49 o 360 1. 00 0.83 434 o 434 1. 00 1. 00 434 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 1 I 0 1 298 3 1.64 1.64 488 5 o 0 o 0 488 5 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 549 6 o 0 549 6 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 549 6 260 1. 64 426 o o 426 1. 00 0.89 479 o 479 1. 00 1. 00 479 1900 0.89 1. 46 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 71 2 1.64 1.64 116 3 69 0 o 0 185 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 185 3 o 0 185 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 185 3 1900 1900 0.93 0.84 1.00 0.03 4.0 1 0 13 1. 64 21 70 o 91 1. 00 1. 00 91 o 91 1. 00 1. 00 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.88 Lanes: 1.00 2.82 Final Sat.: 1769 4739 298 1769 3780 1900 1900 1900 0.86 0.89 0.89 0.69 1.53 0.01 1131 2581 18 2467 1769 55 1900 0.84 0.97 1537 I I I I I I I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.34 0.34 0.05 0.38 0.38 0.21 0.31 0.19 0.10 0.06 0.06 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.15 0.44 0.44 Volume/Cap: 1.10 0.77 0.77 Uniform Del: 42.3 23.4 23.4 IncremntDel: 83.1 1.7 1.7 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 125.4 25.1 25.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 125.4 25.1 25.1 LOS by Move: FCC HCM2kAvgQ: 16 18 18 **** 0.06 0.35 0.77 1.10 46.3 32.5 27.853.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 74.1 86.2 1.00 1.00 74.1 86.2 E F 2 27 0.35 1. 10 32.5 53.7 0.0 1. 00 86.2 1. 00 86.2 F 27 **** 0.28 0.28 0.761.10 32.9 36.0 2.5 59.8 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 35.4 95.8 1.00 1.00 35.4 95.8 D F 12 26 0.28 0.69 32.1 **** 0.10 0.10 1.10 0.62 45.2 43.5 1.4 97.8 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 33.6 143.1 51.3 1.00 1.00 1.00 33.6 143.1 51.3 C 10 F 11 D 4 0.10 0.62 43.5 7.8 0.0 1. 00 51.3 1. 00 51.3 D 4 I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Cum + Project AM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:54 Page 6 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t4 El Camino Real/Chestnut Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.446 173.7 F ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R I I I I I I Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 20201 Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 2 0 301 Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10201 Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 20201 Volume Module: Base Vol: 423 550 Growth Adj: 1.641.64 Initial Bse: Added Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: 693 901 31 94 o 0 724 995 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 852 1171 o 0 852 1171 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 852 1171 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: I 0.90 0.93 2.00 2.00 3432 3538 I I 293 161 748 1.64 1.64 1.64 480 18 o 498 1. 00 0.85 586 o 586 1. 00 1. 00 586 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I 264 1226 15 65 o 0 279 1291 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 310 1434 o 0 310 1434 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 310 1434 1900 1900 0.90 0.89 2.00 3.00 1583 3432 5083 I I Capacity Analysis Module: 88 1. 64 144 46 o 190 1. 00 0.90 211 o 211 1. 00 1. 00 211 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I 249 629 424 1.64 1.64 1.64 408 1031 93 25 o 0 501 1056 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.81 619 1304 o 0 619 1304 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 619 1304 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 695 8 o 703 1. 00 0.81 868 o 868 1. 00 1. 00 868 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I 314 553 116 1.64 1.64 1.64 515 906 50 64 o 0 565 970 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 664 1142 o 0 664 1142 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 664 1142 1900 1900 0.90 0.93 2.00 2.00 190 39 o 229 1. 00 0.85 270 o 270 1. 00 1. 00 270 1583 1769 3538 1583 3432 3538 1900 0.83 1. 00 1583 I I I I Vol/Sat: 0.25 0.33 0.37 0.09 0.28 0.13 0.35 0.37 0.55 0.19 0.32 0.17 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.29 Volume/Cap: 1. 45 1.12 0.29 1. 26 **** 0.07 0.20 1.26 1.45 Uniform Del: 41.4 35.3 35.3 46.4 40.2 IncremntDel:210.1 67.8 131.5 143.7 206 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Delay/Veh: 251.5 103 166.8 190.1 247 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 251.5 103 166.8 190.1 247 LOS by Move: F F F F F HCM2kAvgQ: 32 31 35 11 38 **** **** 0.20 0.27 0.38 0.38 0.13 0.25 0.68 1.31 0.97 1.45 1.45 1.31 37.4 36.7 30.5 31.0 43.3 37.7 6.2 154.3 18.1 209.9 212.6 148 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 43.6 191.0 48.6 241.0 255.9 186 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 43.6 191.0 48.6 241.0 255.9 186 D F D F F F 7 39 27 61 25 38 0.25 0.69 34.2 5.3 0.0 1. 00 39.5 1. 00 39.5 D 9 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Cum + Project AM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:54 Page 7 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t5 El Camino Real / W. Orange Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.307 123.9 F ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R I I I I I I Control: Rights: Min. Green: Protected Include 000 Protected Include 000 Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 Y+R: Lanes: 4.0 4.0 102 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: Added Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: 29 864 1.64 1.64 48 1416 o 61 o 0 48 1477 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.78 61 1894 o 0 61 1894 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 61 1894 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.88 Lanes: 1.00 2.68 Final Sat.: 1769 4462 I 4.0 1 0 109 1. 64 179 o o 179 1. 00 0.78 229 o 229 1. 00 1. 00 229 1900 0.88 0.32 I I I I 4.0 4.0 102 235 1160 1.64 1.64 385 1901 o 112 o 0 385 2013 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 414 2165 o 0 414 2165 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 414 2165 1900 1900 0.93 0.89 1.00 2.87 540 1769 4824 I I Capacity Analysis Module: 4.0 1 0 57 1. 64 93 o o 93 1. 00 0.93 100 o 100 1. 00 1. 00 100 1900 0.89 0.13 I I I I 152 111 1.64 1.64 249 182 o 0 o 0 249 182 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 283 207 o 0 283 207 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 283 207 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.58 0.42 224 1046 764 I I 48 1. 64 79 o o 79 1. 00 0.88 89 o 89 1. 00 1. 00 89 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I 115 61 1.64 1.64 188 100 o 0 o 0 188 100 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 21 7 115 o 0 21 7 115 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 21 7 115 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.65 0.35 1583 1178 625 I I 186 1. 64 305 o o 305 1. 00 0.87 350 o 350 1. 00 1. 00 350 1900 0.83 1. 00 1583 Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.42 0.42 0.23 0.45 0.45 0.27 0.27 0.06 0.18 0.18 0.22 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.04 0.32 Volume/Cap: 0.96 1.31 Uniform Del: 48.1 33.8 0.32 1. 31 33.8 **** 0.18 0.47 1.31 0.96 41.025.7 IncremntDel: 98.2 143 142.9 159.3 10.6 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Delay/Veh: 146.3 177 176.7 200.4 36.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 146.3 177 176.7 200.4 36.3 LOS by Move: F F F F D HCM2kAvgQ: 4 48 48 27 30 **** 0.47 0.21 0.21 0.96 1.31 1.31 25.7 39.6 39.6 10.6 156.4 156 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 36.3 196.1 196 1.00 1.00 1.00 36.3 196.1 196 D F F 30 31 31 0.21 0.27 33.3 0.17 0.17 1.09 1.09 41.5 41.5 **** 0.17 1. 31 41.5 0.5 76.5 76.5 162.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 33.8 118.1 118 204.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 33.8 118.1 118 204.2 C 2 F 18 F 18 F 23 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Cum + Project AM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:54 Page 8 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t6 Mission Rd / Grand Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 o o Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.016 58.3 F ******************************************************************************** Approach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Lanes: North Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: Added Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: o 348 1.64 1.64 o 570 o 79 o 0 o 649 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.74 o 878 o 0 o 878 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 878 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 1.84 Final Sat.: 0 864 29 1. 64 48 8 o 56 1. 00 0.74 75 o 75 1. 00 1. 00 75 1. 00 0.16 74 Capacity Analysis Module: I I I I I I I I South Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 1 100 124 319 1.64 1.64 203 523 o 27 o 0 203 550 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 221 598 o 0 221 598 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 221 598 1.00 1.00 0.54 1.46 239 662 o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 0.92 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 1.64 1.64 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.30 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 o 0 o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 0.30 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 1 0 0 0 1 51 0 1.64 1.64 84 0 2 0 o 0 86 0 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 95 0 o 0 95 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 95 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 389 0 228 1. 64 374 o o 374 1. 00 0.90 415 o 415 1. 00 1. 00 415 1. 00 1. 00 456 Vol/Sat: xxxx 1.02 1.01 0.92 0.90 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.24 xxxx 0.91 Crit Moves: Delay/Veh: Delay Adj: AdjDel/Veh: LOS by Move: ApproachDel: Delay Adj: ApprAdjDel: LOS by Appr: AIIWayAvgQ: **** 0.0 73.4 1.00 1.00 0.0 73.4 * F 73.3 1. 00 73.3 F 0.0 8.4 71.0 1. 00 71.0 F 8.0 **** 53.6 49.1 1.00 1.00 53.6 49.1 F E 50.3 1. 00 50.3 F 5.3 4.6 0.0 1. 00 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 * * xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx * 0.0 0.0 0.0 1. 00 0.0 * 0.0 14.5 0.0 1.00 1.00 14.5 0.0 B * 43.3 1. 00 43.3 E 0.3 0.0 **** 49.9 1. 00 49.9 E 5.0 I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Cum + Project AM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:55 Page 9 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t7 Grand Ave / Chestnut Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 156 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.970 54.4 D ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound Movement: L T R Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 101 Volume Module: Base Vol: 129 172 Growth Adj: 1.641.64 Initial Bse: 211 282 Added Vol: 5 1 PasserByVol: 0 0 Initial Fut: 216 283 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.970.97 PHF Volume: 223 292 Reduct Vol: 0 0 59 1. 64 97 o o 97 1. 00 0.97 100 o I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 101 57 190 1.64 1.64 93 311 8 4 o 0 101 315 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 111 347 o 0 73 1. 64 120 o o 120 1. 00 0.91 131 Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: 223 292 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 223 292 100 111 347 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 111 347 o 131 1. 00 1. 00 131 I I Saturation Flow Module: I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 88 322 1.64 1.64 144 528 o 20 o 0 144 548 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 158 602 o 0 158 602 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 158 602 4.0 1 0 149 1. 64 244 7 o 251 1. 00 0.91 276 o 276 1. 00 1. 00 276 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 45 300 1.64 1.64 74 492 o 13 o 0 74 505 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 82 561 o 0 82 561 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 82 561 4.0 1 0 93 1. 64 152 2 o 154 1. 00 0.90 172 o 172 1. 00 1. 00 172 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 1769 1862 1900 0.83 1. 00 1900 1900 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 1583 1769 1862 1900 1900 1900 0.83 0.93 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.69 1583 1769 1217 1900 0.93 0.31 1900 1900 0.93 0.95 1.000.77 558 1769 1376 1900 0.95 0.23 421 I I I I I I I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.16 0.06 0.06 0.19 0.08 0.09 0.49 0.49 0.05 0.41 0.41 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.23 Volume/Cap: 0.97 0.68 Uniform Del: 43.3 35.2 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay Adj: Delay/Veh: User DelAdj: AdjDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kAvgQ: 50.6 4.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 93.9 39.7 1.00 1.00 93.9 39.7 F D 11 9 0.23 0.27 31.7 0.4 0.0 1. 00 32.1 1. 00 32.1 C 3 **** 0.09 0.19 0.68 0.97 44.0 40.1 11.2 39.4 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 55.2 79.5 1.00 1.00 55.2 79.5 E E 5 16 0.19 0.43 35.6 1.0 0.0 1. 00 36.6 1. 00 36.6 D 4 **** 0.10 0.51 0.89 0.97 44.4 23.7 38.322.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 82.8 46.5 1.00 1.00 82.8 46.5 F D 6 30 0.51 0.97 23.7 22.7 0.0 1. 00 **** 0.05 0.46 0.97 0.89 47.5 24.8 87.5 11.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 46.5 135.0 36.7 1.00 1.00 1.00 46.5 135.0 36.7 D 30 F 5 D 24 0.46 0.89 24.8 11. 9 0.0 1. 00 36.7 1. 00 36.7 D 24 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Cum + Project AM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:55 Page 10 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t8 Mission Rd / Oak Ave ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 11. 6 Worst Case Level Of Service: Fr 91.91 ******************************************************************************** Approach: Movement: Control: Rights: Lanes: North Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: Added Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Critical Gp: FollowUp'l'im: 13 389 1.64 1.64 21 638 o 13 o 0 21 651 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 26 793 o 0 26 793 Module: 4 1. 64 7 o o 7 1. 00 0.82 8 o 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: I I I I I I South Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 01010 10 292 1.64 1.64 16 479 2 26 o 0 18 505 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 21 587 o 0 21 587 71 1. 64 116 62 o 178 1. 00 0.86 207 o 207 4.1 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Cnflict Vol: 794 Potent Cap. 823 Move Cap.: Volume/Cap: 823 0.03 I xxxx xxxxx 801 xxxx xxxxx 818 xxxx xxxxx 818 xxxx xxxx 0.03 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx Control Del: LOS by Move: 9.5 A Movement: L'l' xxxx xxxxx * * L'l'R R'l' I I 0.1 9.5 A L'l' xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * L'l'R R'l' I I I I I I I I I I East Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include 10010 35 3 1.64 1.64 57 5 24 3 o 0 81 8 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 81 8 o 0 81 7.5 3.5 8 6.5 4.0 18 1. 64 30 9 o 39 1. 00 1. 00 39 o 39 6.9 3.3 I I I I I I I I West Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 1 I 0 0 40 2 1.64 1.64 66 3 o 1 o 0 66 4 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 85 6 o 0 7.5 3.5 6.5 4.0 29 1. 64 48 o o 48 1. 00 0.77 62 o 6.9 3.3 1185 1587 144 107 118 101 0.69 0.08 397 1189 1686 602 143 93 602 120 87 401 599 599 3.7 86.0 F L'l' 0.06 0.71 0.06 0.10 I I xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * * * * L'l'R L'l' Shared Cap. xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx Shared LOS: * xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx R'l' 325 0.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx * L'l'R R'l' 174 xxxxx 6.3 xxxxx ApproachDel: ApproachLOS: * * xxxxxx * 0.1 9.5 A xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx * xxxxxx * * * * 61.3 F 17.9 C 91.9 xxxxx F * 91. 9 F I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** 'l'raffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Cum + Project AM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:55 Page 11 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t9 Mission Rd / Chestnut Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.122 72.4 E ******************************************************************************** Approach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 000 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: Added Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: o 0 1.64 1.64 o 0 o 8 o 0 o 8 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 8 o 0 o 8 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 8 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 0.53 o 1. 64 o 7 o 7 1. 00 1. 00 7 o 7 1. 00 1. 00 1900 0.92 0.47 I I I I South Bound East Bound L T R L T R I I Split Phase Include 000 Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 75 0 1.64 1.64 123 0 3 2 o 0 126 2 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 150 2 o 0 150 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 150 2 1900 1900 0.93 0.83 1.00 0.01 4.0 1 1 I I 4.0 4.0 101 284 309 713 1.64 1.64 1.64 465 506 1169 31 4 17 000 496 510 1186 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.91 0.91 591 561 1303 000 591 561 1303 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 591 561 1303 I I 4.0 1 0 o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 0.91 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 0.95 0.00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 o 680 1.64 1.64 o 1115 2 16 o 0 2 1131 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 3 1413 o 0 3 1413 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3 1413 1900 1900 0.93 0.91 1.00 1. 72 4.0 1 0 112 1. 64 184 1 o 185 1. 00 0.80 231 o 231 1. 00 1. 00 231 1900 0.91 0.28 Final Sat.: 0 931 814 1769 13 1900 1900 1900 0.83 0.93 0.93 1.99 1.00 2.00 3156 1769 3538 o 1769 2977 486 I I I I I I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.19 0.19 0.32 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.28 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 Volume/Cap: 0.00 1.12 1.12 0.51 1.12 1.12 1.12 0.52 0.00 0.52 1.12 1.12 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay Adj: Delay/Veh: User DelAdj: AdjDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kAvgQ: 0.0 49.6 49.6 0.0 290 289.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 339 339.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 339 339.4 A F F 022 37.941.7 1.5 77.3 0.0 0.0 41.7 77.3 0.0 35.9 78.3 0.0 7.0 0.2 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 39.4 119 118.9 114.1 7.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 39.4 119 118.9 114.1 7.2 D F F F A 5 17 17 29 10 0.0 49.8 28.9 0.0 78.5 64.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 128.3 93.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 128.3 93.5 A F F o 0 37 28.9 64.6 0.0 1. 00 93.5 1. 00 93.5 F 37 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Cum + Project AM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:55 Page 12 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tl0 Juniperro Serra Blvd / Arroyo Dr ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 163.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[1005.71 ******************************************************************************** Approach: Movement: Control: Rights: Lanes: North Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include o 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: Added Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: o 322 1.64 1.64 o 528 o 0 o 0 o 528 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 o 636 o 0 72 1. 64 118 o o 118 1. 00 0.83 142 o I I I I South Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 10200 54 583 1.64 1.64 89 956 o 0 o 0 89 956 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 105 1138 o 0 o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 0.84 o o I I I I East Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 0 0 0 o 0 1.64 1.64 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o I I I I West Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 1 I 0 0 158 0 1.64 1.64 259 0 o 0 o 0 259 0 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 305 0 o 0 45 1. 64 74 o o 74 1. 00 0.85 87 o FinalVolume: o 636 142 105 1138 o o 305 o Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUp'l'im:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I 778 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 834 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 3.5 6.5 4.0 1486 2055 115 55 Potent Cap. Move Cap.: Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 834 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.13 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 104 48 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 2.93 0.00 I I I I I I 6.9 3.3 389 610 610 0.14 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * 0.4 9.9 A xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * * * * * * Movement: L'l' L'l'R R'l' L'l' L'l'R R'l' L'l' L'l'R R'l' L'l' xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx Shared Cap. xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx Shared LOS: * xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx L'l'R 127 37.0 1006 ApproachDel: ApproachLOS: * xxxxxx * * * * xxxxxx * * * * xxxxxx * * * F 1005.7 F * R'l' xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx * I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** 'l'raffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Cum + Project AM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:55 Page 13 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tIl 1-280 SB Ramps / Westborough Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 6 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.002 35.3 D ******************************************************************************** Approach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: Added Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: o 0 1.64 1.64 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 2 0 0 0 1 405 0 1.64 1.64 664 0 30 0 o 0 694 0 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 836 0 o 0 836 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 836 0 1900 1900 0.90 1.00 2.00 0.00 257 1. 64 421 o o 421 1. 00 0.83 507 o 507 1. 00 1. 00 507 1900 0.83 1. 00 Final Sat.: 0 0 o 3432 0 1583 I I Capacity Analysis Module: I I I I I I I I East Bound L T R Permitted Ignore 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 00201 o 1252 1.64 1.64 o 2052 o 15 o 0 o 2067 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 o 2199 o 0 o 2199 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 2199 1900 1900 1.00 0.93 0.00 2.00 o 3538 1160 1. 64 1901 o o 1901 0.00 0.00 o o o 0.00 0.00 1900 1. 00 1. 00 1900 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Permitted Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 00200 o 938 1.64 1.64 o 1537 o 28 o 0 o 1565 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.79 o 1981 o 0 o 1981 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 1981 1900 1900 1.00 0.93 0.00 2.00 o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 0.79 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay Adj: Delay/Veh: User DelAdj: AdjDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 A A o 0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 A o 0.32 0.00 0.76 0.00 30.6 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 33.8 0.0 1.00 1.00 33.8 0.0 C A 14 0 **** 0.32 1. 00 34.0 40.6 0.0 1. 00 74.6 1. 00 74.6 E 22 **** 0.00 0.62 0.00 1.00 0.0 19.0 0.0 19.8 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 38.8 1.00 1.00 0.0 38.8 A D o 44 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 A o 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.90 0.0 16.4 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 22.1 1.00 1.00 0.0 22.1 A C o 31 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 A o I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Cum + Project AM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:11:55 Page 14 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t12 1-280 NB Ramps / Westborough Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.553 216.3 F ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R I I I I I I Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 210 4.0 1 0 Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10201 Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 4.0 1 0 Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 521 211 Growth Adj: 1.641.64 Initial Bse: 854 346 Added Vol: o 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 Ini tial Fut: 854 346 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.870.87 PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: 982 398 o 0 982 398 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 982 398 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.84 0.87 Lanes: Final Sat.: I 2.15 0.85 3445 1395 284 1. 64 465 30 o 495 1. 00 0.87 570 o I I 230 438 1.64 1.64 377 718 o 0 o 0 377 718 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 419 798 o 0 570 419 798 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 570 419 798 1900 0.87 1. 00 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 1649 1769 3538 I I Capacity Analysis Module: 86 1. 64 141 o o 141 1. 00 0.90 157 o I I 71 923 1.64 1.64 116 1513 o 45 o 0 116 1558 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 125 1675 o 0 157 125 1675 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 157 125 1675 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.91 1.001.70 1583 1769 2948 I I 165 1. 64 270 o o 270 1. 00 0.93 291 o 291 1. 00 1. 00 291 1900 0.91 0.30 I I I I 171 843 1.64 1.64 280 1382 56 84 o 0 336 1466 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 382 1666 o 0 382 1666 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 382 1666 1900 1900 0.93 0.92 1.00 1.85 512 1769 3245 I I 70 1. 64 115 o o 115 1. 00 0.88 130 o 130 1. 00 1. 00 130 1900 0.92 0.15 254 Vol/Sat: 0.28 0.28 0.35 0.24 0.23 0.10 0.07 0.57 0.57 0.22 0.51 0.51 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.06 0.37 0.37 0.14 0.44 0.44 Volume/Cap: 1.28 1.28 1.55 1.55 1.48 0.65 1.16 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.16 1.16 Uniform Del: 38.9 38.9 38.9 42.4 42.4 IncremntDel:131.6 132 252.7 266.2 225 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Delay/Veh: 170.4 170 291.6 308.6 268 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 170.4 170 291.6 308.6 268 LOS by Move: F F F F F HCM2kAvgQ: 31 31 46 33 31 39.9 46.9 31.7 31.7 43.0 27.8 6.1 134.7 253 252.7 267.8 78.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.8 78.1 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 45.9 181.6 284 284.4 310.8 106 105.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 45.9 181.6 D F 6 9 284 284.4 310.8 F 77 F 77 F 30 106 105.9 F F 48 48 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON N. Intersection LOS Analysis Sheets - Cumulative + Project PM City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Cum + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:12:53 Page 2 1 Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Dell VI Dell VI in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C if 1 81 Camino Real Hickey Blvd F 187.6 1. 472 F 230.3 1.604 +42.739 D/V if 2 81 Camino Real McLellan Dr F 103.5 1.202 F 142.1 1. 292 8.550 D/V if 3 81 Camino Real Arroyo Dr D 36.3 0.970 D 47.4 1.032 +11.076 D/V if 4 81 Camino Real Chestnut Ave F 138.5 1.339 F 173.2 1.405 4.715 D/V if 5 81 Camino Real W. Orange Ave F 153.9 1.430 F 162.8 1.463 + 8.968 D/V if 6 Mission Rd I Grand Ave B 12.4 0.480 B 14.0 0.565 + 0.086 VIC if 7 Grand Ave I Chestnut Ave D 43.4 0.864 D 46.0 0.893 + 2.659 D/V if 8 Mission Rd Oak Ave C 22.2 0.244 8 41.6 0.682 +19.432 D/V if 9 Mission Rd Chestnut Ave D 36.4 0.952 D 45.9 1.004 + 9.572 D/V if 10 Juniperro Serra Blvd I Arroyo F OVRFL 4.132 F OVRFL 4.132 + 0.000 D/V if 11 1-280 SB Ramps Westborough B F 214.6 1.680 F 215.1 1.688 + 0.492 D/V if 12 1-280 NB Ramps Westborough B F 355.5 1.784 F 382.6 1.829 +27.049 D/V Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIML8Y-HORN, SAN RAMON Cum + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:12:53 Page 3 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tl El Camino Real/Hickey Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.604 230.3 F ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: North Bound Movement: L T R Control: Rights: Min. Green: Protected Include 000 Y+R: Lanes: 4.0 4.0 201 Volume Module: Base Vol: 971 676 Growth l\dj: 1.641.64 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 1591 1108 75 125 o 0 1666 1233 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 1852 1370 o 0 Reduced Vol: 1852 1370 PCE l\dj: 1.001.00 MLFl\dj: 1.001.00 FinalVolume: 18521370 I Saturation Flow Module: 4.0 1 0 21 1. 64 34 o o 34 1. 00 0.90 38 o 38 1. 00 1. 00 38 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 5 496 1.64 1.64 8 813 o 161 o 0 8 974 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 9 1025 o 0 9 1025 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 1025 4.0 1 0 99 1. 64 162 o o 162 1. 00 0.95 171 o 171 1. 00 1. 00 171 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 1 0 0 2 151 24 1.64 1.64 247 39 o 0 o 0 247 39 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 321 51 o 0 321 51 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 321 51 563 1. 64 923 96 o 1019 1. 00 0.77 1323 o 1323 1. 00 1. 00 1323 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 1 I 0 0 12 15 1.64 1.64 20 25 o 0 o 0 20 25 1.00 1.00 0.66 0.66 30 37 o 0 30 37 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 30 37 10 1. 64 16 o o 16 1. 00 0.66 25 o 25 1. 00 1. 00 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 0.90 0.93 2.00 1.95 3432 3428 1900 0.93 0.05 1900 1900 0.93 0.91 1.001.71 1900 1900 1900 0.91 0.94 0.94 0.29 1.730.27 1900 0.73 2.00 2786 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 0.32 0.41 1900 0.93 0.27 Final Sat.: 96 1769 2969 495 3082 490 573 716 477 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.54 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.10 0.47 0.05 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.34 0.54 Volume/Cap: 1.600.73 Uniform Del: 33.2 17.3 IncremntDel:276.1 1.5 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 309.2 18.7 User Dell\dj: 1.001.00 l\djDel/Veh: 309.218.7 LOS by Move: F B HCM2kl\vgQ: 72 16 **** 0.54 0.01 0.22 0.22 0.73 0.73 1.60 1.60 17.3 49.6 39.2 39.2 1.5 122.3 278 278.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 18.7 171.9 317 317.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 18.7171.9 317 317.5 B F F F 16 1 50 50 **** **** 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.35 0.35 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 27.7 27.7 35.2 48.4 48.4 48.4 0.2 0.2 277.7 338.9 339 338.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 27.9 27.9 312.9 387.3 387 387.3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 27.9 27.9 312.9 387.3 387 387.3 C C F F F F 5 5 59 9 9 9 I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cum + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:12:53 Page 4 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t2 El Camino Real/McLellan Dr ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1. 292 142.1 F ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 301 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 46 1015 1.64 1.64 75 1664 o 175 o 0 75 1839 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 94 2298 o 0 94 2298 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 94 2298 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 147 1. 64 241 19 o 260 1. 00 0.80 325 o 325 1. 00 1. 00 325 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 201 252 704 1.64 1.64 413 1154 46 211 o 0 459 1365 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 685 2037 o 0 685 2037 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 685 2037 4.0 1 0 34 1. 64 56 o o 56 1. 00 0.67 83 o 83 1. 00 1. 00 83 1900 0.93 0.08 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 32 12 1.64 1.64 52 20 o 0 o 0 52 20 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 64 24 o 0 64 24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 64 24 1900 1900 0.95 0.95 0.730.27 25 1. 64 41 o o 41 1. 00 0.82 50 o 50 1. 00 1. 00 50 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 1 I 0 1 191 18 1.64 1.64 313 30 15 0 o 0 328 30 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.74 443 40 o 0 443 40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 443 40 1900 1900 0.87 0.87 1.31 0.05 400 1. 64 656 25 o 681 1. 00 0.74 920 o 920 1. 00 1. 00 920 Final Sat.: 0.93 0.89 1.00 3.00 1769 5083 1900 1900 1900 0.83 0.90 0.93 1.00 2.00 1.92 1583 3432 3379 138 1307 490 1583 2160 91 1900 0.87 1. 64 2706 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.45 0.21 0.20 0.60 0.60 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.21 0.44 0.34 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.04 0.35 Volume/Cap: 1.30 1.29 Uniform Del: 48.0 32.5 IncremntDel:206.1 136 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 254.1 168 User Dell\dj: 1.001.00 l\djDel/Veh: 254.1 168 LOS by Move: F F HCM2kl\vgQ: 6 48 **** **** 0.35 0.15 0.46 0.46 0.04 0.04 0.59 1.29 1.30 1.30 1.29 1.29 26.6 42.3 26.8 26.8 48.1 48.1 1.6 145.1 140 140.1 206.1 206 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04 0.83 47.8 60.9 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 28.2 187.4 167 166.9 254.2 254 108.7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 28.2 187.4 167 166.9 254.2 254 108.7 C 8 F 20 F 64 F 64 F 7 F 7 F 3 **** 0.34 0.34 0.61 1.29 27.6 33.1 0.5 138 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 28.1 172 1.00 1.00 28.1 172 C F 9 44 0.34 1. 01 33.1 25.6 0.0 1. 00 58.7 1. 00 58.7 E 24 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cum + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:12:53 Page 5 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t3 El Camino Real / l\rroyo Dr ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.032 47.4 D ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 155 942 Growth l\dj: 1.641.64 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 254 1544 6 131 o 0 260 1675 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 274 1763 o 0 28 1. 64 46 123 o 169 1. 00 0.95 178 o I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 102 27 954 1.64 1.64 44 1564 88 123 o 0 132 1687 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 141 1794 o 0 4.0 1 0 Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 274 1763 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 274 1763 178 141 1794 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 178 141 1794 240 1. 64 393 16 o 409 1. 00 0.94 435 o 435 1. 00 1. 00 435 Saturation Flow Module: 1900 0.88 0.27 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.87 1.00 2.41 1900 0.87 0.59 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 1 I 0 1 87 2 1.64 1.64 143 3 o 0 o 0 143 3 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.55 259 6 o 0 259 6 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 259 6 1900 1900 0.87 0.87 1.36 0.02 149 1. 64 244 o o 244 1. 00 0.55 444 o 444 1. 00 1. 00 444 1900 0.87 1. 62 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 69 3 1.64 1.64 113 5 39 0 o 0 152 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 152 5 o 0 152 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 152 5 1900 1900 0.93 0.84 1.00 0.06 4.0 1 0 12 1. 64 20 63 o 83 1. 00 1. 00 83 o 83 1. 00 1. 00 83 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 0.93 0.88 Lanes: 1.00 2.73 Final Sat.: 1769 4553 459 1769 3972 964 2257 28 2685 1769 90 1900 0.84 0.94 1508 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.39 0.39 0.08 0.45 0.45 0.11 0.22 0.17 0.09 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.15 0.49 Volume/Cap: 1.030.79 Uniform Del: 42.5 21.4 IncremntDel: 63.9 1.9 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 106.4 23.3 User Dell\dj: 1.001.00 l\djDel/Veh: 106.4 23.3 LOS by Move: F C HCM2kl\vgQ: 14 20 0.49 0.79 21.4 1.9 0.0 1. 00 23.3 1. 00 23.3 C 20 **** 0.10 0.44 0.791.03 44.0 28.1 21.4 28.2 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 65.4 56.3 1.00 1.00 65.4 56.3 E E 4 27 0.44 1. 03 28.1 28.2 0.0 1. 00 56.3 1. 00 56.3 E 27 **** 0.21 0.21 0.55 1.03 35.3 39.5 0.5 42.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 35.8 82.4 1.00 1.00 35.8 82.4 D F 6 17 **** 0.21 0.08 0.08 0.79 1.030.66 37.5 45.8 44.5 4.8 82.9 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 42.3 128.8 55.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 42.3 128.8 55.9 D F E 10 9 4 0.08 0.66 44.5 11.5 0.0 1. 00 55.9 1. 00 55.9 E 4 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cum + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:12:53 Page 6 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t4 El Camino Real/Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.405 173.2 F ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R I I I I I I Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 20201 Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 2 0 301 Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10201 Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 20201 Volume Module: Base Vol: 677 836 Growth l\dj: 1.641.64 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 1110 1370 21 101 o 0 1131 1471 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 1203 1565 o 0 Reduced Vol: 1203 1565 PCE l\dj: 1.001.00 MLFl\dj: 1.001.00 FinalVolume: 1203 1565 I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: I 0.90 0.93 2.00 2.00 3432 3538 336 1. 64 551 38 o 589 1. 00 0.94 626 o 626 1. 00 1. 00 626 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I 188 810 1.64 1.64 308 1328 51 71 o 0 359 1399 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 395 1537 o 0 395 1537 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 395 1537 1900 1900 0.90 0.89 2.00 3.00 1583 3432 5083 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: 215 1. 64 352 32 o 384 1. 00 0.91 422 o 422 1. 00 1. 00 422 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I 181 493 1.64 1.64 297 808 77 80 o 0 374 888 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 381 906 o 0 381 906 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 381 906 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 1583 1769 3538 I I 356 1. 64 583 25 o 608 1. 00 0.98 621 o 621 1. 00 1. 00 621 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I 294 563 1.64 1.64 482 923 56 72 o 0 538 995 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 656 1213 o 0 656 1213 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 656 1213 1900 1900 0.90 0.93 2.00 2.00 1583 3432 3538 I I 109 1. 64 179 21 o 200 1. 00 0.82 243 o 243 1. 00 1. 00 243 1900 0.83 1. 00 1583 Vol/Sat: 0.35 0.44 0.40 0.12 0.30 0.27 0.22 0.26 0.39 0.19 0.34 0.15 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.25 0.37 Volume/Cap: 1. 40 1. 20 Uniform Del: 37.5 31.6 IncremntDel:189.2 97.4 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 226.7 129 User Dell\dj: 1.001.00 l\djDel/Veh: 226.7 129 LOS by Move: F F HCM2kl\vgQ: 43 45 **** **** **** 0.37 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.16 0.28 0.28 0.14 0.26 1.07 1.20 1.40 1.24 1.34 0.92 1.40 1.40 1.34 31.6 45.2 39.2 39.2 42.0 34.9 36.0 43.2 37.2 58.3 115.4 188 130.6 176.8 13.0 195.4 194.7 163 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 89.9 160.6 227 169.9 218.8 47.9 231.4 237.9 200 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 89.9 160.6 227 169.9 218.8 47.9 231.4 237.9 200 F F F F F D F F F 29 13 39 26 26 18 43 24 42 0.26 0.60 32.8 2.6 0.0 1. 00 35.4 1. 00 35.4 D 7 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cum + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:12:53 Page 7 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t5 El Camino Real / W. Orange l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.463 162.8 F ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R I I I I I I Control: Rights: Min. Green: Protected Include 000 Protected Include 000 Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 100 1 Y+R: Lanes: 4.0 4.0 102 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: 39 1500 1.64 1.64 64 2459 o 129 o 0 64 2588 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 72 2907 o 0 72 2907 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 72 2907 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 0.93 0.88 Lanes: 1.00 2.77 Final Sat.: 1769 4637 I 4.0 1 0 131 1. 64 215 o o 215 1. 00 0.89 241 o 241 1. 00 1. 00 I I 4.0 4.0 102 204 1247 1.64 1.64 334 2044 o 100 o 0 334 2144 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 376 2409 o 0 376 2409 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 241 376 2409 I I 1900 1900 1900 0.88 0.93 0.89 0.23 1.00 2.90 385 1769 4882 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: 4.0 1 0 47 1. 64 77 o o 77 1. 00 0.89 87 o 87 1. 00 1. 00 I I 111 71 1.64 1.64 182 116 o 0 o 0 182 116 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 219 140 o 0 219 140 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 87 219 140 I I 1900 1900 1900 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.10 0.61 0.39 175 1102 705 I I 48 1. 64 79 o o 79 1. 00 0.83 95 o 95 1. 00 1. 00 I I 145 44 1.64 1.64 238 72 o 0 o 0 238 72 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 258 78 o 0 258 78 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 95 258 I I 78 1900 0.83 1. 00 1900 1900 0.94 0.94 0.77 0.23 1583 1376 417 I I 221 1. 64 362 o o 362 1. 00 0.92 394 o 394 1. 00 1. 00 394 1900 0.83 1. 00 1583 Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.63 0.63 0.21 0.49 0.49 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.19 0.19 0.25 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.04 0.43 0.43 0.15 0.53 Volume/Cap: 0.93 1.46 1.46 1.46 0.93 Uniform Del: 47.7 28.6 28.6 42.7 21.8 IncremntDel: 78.8 211 210.8 228.3 6.6 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Delay/Veh: 126.5 239 239.3 271.1 28.4 User Dell\dj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l\djDel/Veh: 126.5 239 239.3 271.1 28.4 LOS by Move: F F F F C HCM2kl\vgQ: 5 81 81 28 31 **** 0.53 0.14 0.14 0.93 1.46 1.46 21.8 43.2 43.2 6.6 229.2 229 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 28.4 272.4 272 1.00 1.00 1.00 28.4 272.4 272 C 31 F 27 F 27 **** 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.44 1.10 1.10 1.46 39.7 1.4 0.0 41.5 41.5 41.5 82.4 82.4 227.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 41.1 123.9 124 269.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 41.1 123.9 124 269.0 D 3 F 18 F 18 F 29 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cum + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:12:53 Page 8 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t6 Mission Rd / Grand l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 o o Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.565 14.0 B ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Lanes: North Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 287 1.00 1.00 o 287 o 47 o 0 o 334 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 o 375 o 0 o 375 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 375 Saturation Flow Module: l\djustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 1.72 Final Sat.: 0 985 50 1. 00 50 4 o 54 1. 00 0.89 61 o 61 1. 00 1. 00 61 1. 00 0.28 162 Capacity l\nalysis Module: I I I I I I I I South Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 1 100 185 321 1.00 1.00 185 321 o 82 o 0 185 403 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 201 438 o 0 201 438 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 201 438 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.37 356 804 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.92 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.10 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 o 0 o 1. 00 o o o o 1. 00 0.10 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1. 00 0.00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Stop Sign Include 000 1 0 0 0 1 48 0 1.00 1.00 48 0 8 0 o 0 56 0 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 64 0 o 0 64 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 64 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 465 0 188 1. 00 188 o o 188 1. 00 0.88 214 o 214 1. 00 1. 00 214 1. 00 1. 00 552 Vol/Sat: xxxx 0.38 0.37 0.57 0.54 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.14 xxxx 0.39 Crit Moves: Delay/Veh: Delay l\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: l\pproachDel: Delay l\dj: l\pprl\djDel: LOS by l\ppr: l\IIWayl\vgQ: **** 0.0 12.4 1.00 1.00 0.0 12.4 * B 12.4 1. 00 12.4 B 0.0 0.6 12.1 1. 00 12.1 B 0.6 **** 16.5 15.5 1.00 1.00 16.5 15.5 C C 15.8 1. 00 15.8 C 1.2 1.1 0.0 1. 00 0.0 * 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 * * xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx * 0.0 0.0 0.0 1. 00 0.0 * 0.0 11.2 0.0 1.00 1.00 11.2 0.0 B * 12.2 1. 00 12.2 B 0.1 0.0 **** 12.5 1. 00 12.5 B 0.5 I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cum + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:12:53 Page 9 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t7 Grand l\ve / Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 106 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.893 46.0 D ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: North Bound Movement: L T R Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 101 Volume Module: Base Vol: 134 212 Growth l\dj: 1.641.64 Initial Bse: 220 347 l\dded Vol: 9 4 PasserByVol: 0 0 Ini tial Fut: 229 351 User l\dj: 1.00 1.00 PHFl\dj: 1.001.00 PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: 229 351 o 0 229 351 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 60 1. 64 98 o o 98 1. 00 1. 00 98 o 98 1. 00 1. 00 I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 0 101 57 189 61 1.64 1.64 1.64 93 310 100 730 000 100 313 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 313 o 0 100 313 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 o 100 1. 00 1. 00 I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 4.0 1 0 107 314 116 1.64 1.64 1.64 175 515 190 o 18 7 000 175 533 197 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 175 533 o 0 175 533 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 229 351 98 100 313 100 175 533 197 o 197 1. 00 1. 00 197 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: Lanes: 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I 1900 1900 0.93 0.94 1.000.73 1900 0.94 0.27 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 51 359 1.64 1.64 84 588 o 25 o 0 84 613 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 84 613 o 0 84 613 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 84 613 1900 1900 0.93 0.96 1.00 0.86 4.0 1 0 54 1. 64 89 8 o 97 1. 00 1. 00 97 o 97 1. 00 1. 00 1900 0.96 0.14 Final Sat.: 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 1769 1862 1583 1769 1862 1583 1769 1305 483 1769 1577 248 I I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.19 0.06 0.06 0.17 0.06 0.10 0.41 0.41 0.05 0.39 0.39 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.26 Volume/Cap: 0.89 0.74 Uniform Del: 42.0 34.1 IncremntDel: 29.9 6.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 71.9 40.1 User Dell\dj: 1.001.00 l\djDel/Veh: 71.9 40.1 LOS by Move: E D HCM2kl\vgQ: 10 11 0.26 0.24 29.5 0.3 0.0 1. 00 29.8 1. 00 29.8 C 2 **** 0.08 0.19 0.74 0.89 45.2 39.6 18.9 23.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 64.1 63.3 1.00 1.00 64.1 63.3 E E 5 13 0.19 0.34 35.2 0.7 0.0 1. 00 35.8 1. 00 35.8 D 3 **** 0.11 0.49 0.89 0.83 43.9 22.0 36.1 6.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 79.9 28.8 1.00 1.00 79.9 28.8 E C 6 20 0.49 0.83 22.0 6.9 0.0 1. 00 28.8 1. 00 28.8 C 20 **** 0.06 0.44 0.83 0.89 46.7 26.0 42.0 12.4 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 88.7 38.4 1.00 1.00 88.7 38.4 F D 5 24 0.44 0.89 26.0 12.4 0.0 1. 00 38.4 1. 00 38.4 D 24 I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cum + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:12:54 Page 10 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t8 Mission Rd / Oak l\ve ******************************************************************************** l\verage Delay (sec/veh): 6.8 Worst Case Level Of Service: E[ 41.61 ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Lanes: North Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: Critical Gap Critical Gp: FollowUp'l'im: 12 272 1.64 1.64 20 446 o 22 o 0 20 468 1.00 1.00 0.90 22 o 22 0.90 520 o 520 Module: 15 1. 64 25 o o 25 1. 00 0.90 27 o 27 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: I I I I I I I I South Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 01010 16 320 1.64 1.64 26 524 1 20 o 0 27 544 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 29 573 o 0 69 1. 64 113 43 o 156 1. 00 0.95 164 o I I I I East Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include 10010 28 2 1.64 1.64 46 3 67 5 o 0 113 8 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 113 8 o 0 21 1. 64 34 48 o 82 1. 00 1. 00 82 o 29 573 164 113 I I 8 82 4.1 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I 7.5 3.5 6.5 4.0 6.9 3.3 I I I I I I I I West Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 1 I 0 0 17 3 1.64 1.64 28 5 o 2 o 0 28 7 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 36 9 o 0 7.5 3.5 6.5 4.0 14 1. 64 23 2 o 25 1. 00 0.77 32 o 6.9 3.3 Cnflict Vol: 737 Potent Cap. Move Cap.: Volume/Cap: 864 864 0.03 I xxxx xxxxx 547 xxxx xxxxx 1018 xxxx xxxxx 1018 xxxx xxxx 0.03 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1021 1303 191 166 0.68 I I 159 150 0.06 369 925 1372 628 224 145 628 178 137 0.13 0.20 0.07 274 724 724 0.04 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx Control Del: LOS by Move: 9.3 l\ Movement: L'l' Shared Cap. xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx Shared LOS: * xxxx xxxxx * * L'l'R R'l' xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * l\pproachDel: l\pproachLOS: xxxxxx * I I I I 0.1 8.6 l\ xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.0 63.7 F xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * * L'l' L'l'R R'l' L'l' L'l'R xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 8.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx * xxxxxx * * * * 41.6 E * * R'l' L'l' 487 xxxx 0.7 xxxxx 14.1 xxxxx B * * * L'l'R R'l' 248 xxxxx 1.3 xxxxx 26.0 xxxxx D * 26.0 D I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** 'l'raffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cum + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:12:54 Page 11 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t9 Mission Rd / Chestnut l\ve ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.004 45.9 D ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 000 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 0 1.64 1.64 o 0 o 4 o 0 o 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 4 o 0 o 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 4 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 0.00 0.57 o 1. 64 o 3 o 3 1. 00 1. 00 3 o 3 1. 00 1. 00 3 1900 0.92 0.43 I I I I I I South Bound L T R Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 100 88 0 1.64 1.64 144 0 5 8 o 0 149 8 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 174 9 o 0 174 9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 174 9 1900 1900 0.93 0.83 1.00 0.03 4.0 1 1 300 1. 64 492 56 o 548 1. 00 0.86 637 o 637 1. 00 1. 00 637 I I I I I I East Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 249 714 1.64 1.64 408 1170 16 16 o 0 424 1186 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 482 1348 o 0 482 1348 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 482 1348 4.0 1 0 o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 0.88 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 0.95 0.00 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 o 676 1.64 1.64 o 1108 7 25 o 0 7 1133 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 8 1273 o 0 8 1273 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 1273 1900 1900 0.93 0.92 1.00 1.81 4.0 1 0 72 1. 64 118 2 o 120 1. 00 0.89 135 o 135 1. 00 1. 00 135 1900 0.92 0.19 Final Sat.: 0 1002 752 1769 46 1900 1900 1900 0.83 0.93 0.93 1.97 1.00 2.00 3127 1769 3538 o 1769 3154 334 I I I I I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.27 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.27 0.67 0.00 0.01 0.40 0.40 Volume/Cap: 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.48 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.57 0.00 0.57 1.00 1.00 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 0.0 49.8 49.8 0.0 343 342.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 392 392.3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 392 392.3 l\ F F o 1 1 35.2 39.9 1.0 36.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 36.3 76.4 1.00 1.00 36.3 76.4 D E 5 15 39.9 36.5 0.0 1. 00 76.4 1. 00 76.4 E 15 36.4 9.0 42.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 78.6 9.4 1.00 1.00 78.6 9.4 E l\ 21 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o 49.4 29.9 47.4 25.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 96.8 55.0 1.00 1.00 96.8 55.0 F D o 25 29.9 25.0 0.0 1. 00 55.0 1. 00 55.0 D 25 I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cum + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:12:54 Page 12 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tl0 Juniperro Serra Blvd / l\rroyo Dr ******************************************************************************** l\verage Delay (sec/veh): 186.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[1710.91 ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Lanes: North Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include o 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: o 760 1.64 1.64 o 1246 o 0 o 0 o 1246 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 o 1298 165 1. 64 270 o o 270 1. 00 0.96 282 o I I I I South Bound L '1' R Uncontrolled Include 10200 53 349 1.64 1.64 87 572 o 0 o 0 87 572 1.00 1.00 0.79 110 o o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 0.79 o o I I I I East Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 0 0 0 o 0 1.64 1.64 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o I I I I West Bound L '1' R Stop Sign Include o 0 1 I 0 0 92 0 1.64 1.64 151 0 o 0 o 0 151 0 1.00 1.00 71 1. 64 116 o o 116 1. 00 0.91 128 FinalVolume: o 0 o 1298 282 110 I I 0.79 724 o 724 o o 0.91 166 o 166 0.91 o o o o 128 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUp'l'im:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I 1579 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 413 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 3.5 6.5 4.0 2020 2382 50 34 6.9 3.3 Potent Cap. Move Cap.: Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 413 xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.27 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 40 25 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 4.13 0.00 790 333 333 0.38 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * Movement: L'l' L'l'R R'l' I I 1.1 16.9 C L'l' I I I I xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * * * * * * * L'l'R R'l' L'l' L'l'R R'l' L'l' Shared Cap. xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx Shared LOS: * xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx L'l'R R'l' 65 xxxxx 32.0 xxxxx 1711 xxxxx l\pproachDel: l\pproachLOS: * xxxxxx * * * * xxxxxx * * * * xxxxxx * * * F * 1710.9 F I I I ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** 'l'raffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cum + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:12:54 Page 13 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection tIl 1-280 SB Ramps / Westborough Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 6 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.688 215.1 F ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: North Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 o 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth l\dj: Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User l\dj: PHF l\dj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: o 0 1.64 1.64 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 0 o 0 o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o o I I I I South Bound L T R Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 2 0 0 0 1 635 0 1.64 1.64 1041 0 64 0 o 0 1105 0 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 1285 0 o 0 597 1. 64 978 o o 978 1. 00 0.86 1138 Reduced Vol: o 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 1285 0 o 1138 1. 00 1. 00 1138 PCE l\dj: MLF l\dj: FinalVolume: o 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 1285 0 1900 1. 00 0.00 I I 1900 1900 0.90 1.00 2.00 0.00 o 3432 0 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: 1900 0.83 1. 00 1583 I I I I I I I I East Bound L T R Permitted Ignore 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 00201 o 772 1.64 1.64 o 1265 o 32 o 0 o 1297 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 o 1491 o 0 o 1491 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 1491 1900 1900 1.00 0.93 0.00 2.00 o 3538 517 1. 64 847 o o 847 0.00 0.00 o o o 0.00 0.00 1900 1. 00 1. 00 1900 I I I I I I West Bound L T R Permitted Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 00200 o 1671 1.64 1.64 o 2739 o 25 o 0 o 2764 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 o 3071 o 0 o 3071 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 3071 1900 1900 1.00 0.93 0.00 2.00 o 1. 64 o o o o 1. 00 0.90 o o o 1. 00 1. 00 o 1900 1. 00 0.00 Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay l\dj: Delay/Veh: User Dell\dj: l\djDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kl\vgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 l\ l\ o 0 **** 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.0 26.3 0.0 0.43 1. 69 28.7 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o 6.5 0.0 316.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 1.00 32.8 0.0 344.8 1.00 1.00 1.00 32.8 0.0 344.8 C 22 l\ o F 92 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.82 0.0 20.4 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 23.5 1.00 1.00 0.0 23.5 l\ C o 22 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o **** 0.00 0.51 0.00 1.69 0.0 24.3 0.0 312 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.0 336 1.00 1.00 0.0 336 l\ F o 130 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 l\ o I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON Cum + Project PM Fri Jan 21, 2011 13:12:54 Page 14 1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume l\lternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t12 1-280 NB Ramps / Westborough Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 180 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : l\verage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 1.829 382.6 F ******************************************************************************** l\pproach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R I I I I I I Control: Rights: Min. Green: Y+R: Lanes: Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 210 4.0 1 0 Split Phase Include 000 4.0 4.0 4.0 10201 Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 4.0 1 0 Protected Include 000 4.0 4.0 101 4.0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 918 533 Growth l\dj: 1.641.64 Initial Bse: l\dded Vol: 1505 o 874 o PasserByVol: 0 0 Ini tial Fut: 1505 874 User l\dj: 1.00 1.00 PHF l\dj: 0.720.72 PHF Volume: 2090 1213 Reduct Vol: 0 0 Reduced Vol: 2090 1213 PCE l\dj: 1.001.00 MLFl\dj: 1.001.00 FinalVolume: 2090 1213 I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 l\djustment: 0.86 0.89 Lanes: 2.17 1.22 Final Sat.: 3545 2058 I 225 1. 64 369 64 o 433 1. 00 0.72 601 o 601 1. 00 1. 00 601 1900 0.89 0.61 I I I I 154 245 1.64 1.64 252 402 o 0 o 0 252 402 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 300 478 o 0 300 478 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 300 478 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 1.00 2.00 1020 1769 3538 I I Capacity l\nalysis Module: 22 1. 64 36 o o 36 1. 00 0.84 43 o 43 1. 00 1. 00 43 1900 0.83 1. 00 I I I I 146 901 1.64 1.64 239 1477 o 96 o 0 239 1573 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 252 1656 o 0 252 1656 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 252 1656 1900 1900 0.93 0.92 1.00 1.80 1583 1769 3141 I I 105 1. 64 172 o o 172 1. 00 0.95 181 o 181 1. 00 1. 00 181 1900 0.92 0.20 I I I I 188 1077 1.64 1.64 308 1765 50 75 o 0 358 1840 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 412 2115 o 0 412 2115 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 412 2115 1900 1900 0.93 0.91 1.001.73 344 1769 2990 I I 178 1. 64 292 o o 292 1. 00 0.87 335 o 335 1. 00 1. 00 335 1900 0.91 0.27 474 Vol/Sat: 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.17 0.14 0.03 0.14 0.53 0.53 0.23 0.71 0.71 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.32 0.32 0.32 Volume/Cap: 1.83 1.83 1.83 **** 0.09 0.09 1.83 1.45 Uniform Del: 33.9 33.9 33.9 45.4 45.4 IncremntDel:374.8 375 374.8 395.7 221 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay l\dj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 Delay/Veh: 408.6 409 408.6 441.0 266 User Dell\dj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 l\djDel/Veh: 408.6 409 408.6 441.0 266 LOS by Move: F F F F F HCM2kl\vgQ: 90 90 90 27 19 **** **** 0.09 0.08 0.32 0.32 0.14 0.39 0.39 0.29 1.83 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.83 1.83 42.3 46.1 33.9 33.9 42.9 30.7 30.7 1.1 399.8 290 289.7 303.0 376 375.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 43.4 445.9 324 323.6 345.9 406 406.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 43.4 445.9 324 323.6 345.9 406 406.5 D F F F F F F 2 23 76 76 34 III III I I ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling l\ssoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, Sl\N Rl\MON O. Intersection LOS Analysis Sheets - Cumulative + Project + Mitigation AM City of South San Francisco EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Cum + Project AM -mit Mon Jan 24, 2011 18:09:33 Page 1-1 Cum + Project AM -mit Mon Jan 24, 2011 18:09:34 Page 2-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Report Impact Analysis Report Scenario: Cum + Project AM -mit Level Of Service Command: Cum + Project AM Intersection Base Future Change Volume: Cumulative AM Del! vi Del! vi in Geometry: Cum -Mitigated LOS Veh C LOS Veh C Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee El Camino Real Hickey Blvd D 44.4 0.963 D 53.6 1.016 + 9.226 D/V Trip Generation: Project AM Trip Distribution: SSF SP El Camino Real McLellan Dr D 54.0 0.995 E 66.6 1.054 +12.533 D/v Paths: Default Path Routes: Default Route El Camino Real Arroyo Dr D 37.8 0.931 D 47.1 0.986 + 9.353 D/V Configuration: Cum + Project AM El Camino Real Chestnut Ave F 94.6 1.184 F 115.5 1. 2 42 +20.904 D/V El Camino Real W. Orange Ave E 74.3 1.129 E 77.8 1.147 + 3.470 D/v Mission Rd / Grand Ave C 25.9 0.666 C 26.1 o . 702 + 0.134 D/V Grand Ave I Chestnut Ave D 50.9 0.945 D 54.4 0.970 + 3.466 D/V Mission Rd Oak Ave E 44.8 0.000 F 61. 3 0.000 +16.426 D/v Mission Rd Chestnut Ave D 43.8 1.004 D 50.9 1.037 + 7.077 D/V 10 Juniperro Serra Blvd / Arroyo F OVRFL 0.000 F OVRFL 0.000 + 0.000 D/V 11 1-280 SB Ramps Westborough B C 34.3 0.998 D 35.3 1.002 + 1.062 D/V 12 1-280 NB Ramps Westborough B F 151.3 1.364 F 172.5 1. 445 +21.182 D/V Traffix 7.9.0215 Ic) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY HORN, ORANGE, CA Traffix 7.9.0215 Ic) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY HORN, ORANGE, CA Cum + Project AM -mit Mon Jan 24, 2011 18:09:34 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 EI Camino Real/Hickey Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : 1.016 53.6 D Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R~4. 0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R II II II Control: Rights: Protected Include o Protected Include o Split Phase Ovl Spli t Phase Include Min. Green: Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: 540 276 Growth Adj: 1.64 1.64 Initial Bse: 885 452 Added Vol: 84 140 PasserByVol: Initial Fut: 969 592 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.86 0.86 PHF Volume: 1127 689 Reduct Vol: 0 Reduced Vol: 1127 689 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 1127 689 I Saturation Flow Module: 11 1. 64 18 18 1. 00 0.86 21 21 1. 00 1. 00 II 468 1.64 1.64 10 767 76 o 10 843 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 12 1054 12 1054 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 21 12 1054 II 48 1. 64 79 o 79 1. 00 0.80 98 98 1. 00 1. 00 II o 122 1.64 1.64 200 10 200 10 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.82 247 12 o 247 12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 654 1. 64 1072 45 1117 1. 00 0.81 1379 o 1379 1. 00 1. 00 II o 1! 0 23 24 1.64 1.64 38 39 38 39 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.70 54 56 54 56 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 98 247 II 12 1379 54 56 II 1. 64 10 10 1. 00 0.70 14 14 1. 00 1. 00 14 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 0.93 Lanes: 2.00 1.94 Final Sat.: 3432 3420 I 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.06 1.00 1.83 104 1769 3194 II Capacity Analysis Module: 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.17 1.91 0.09 298 3388 165 II 0.73 0.95 0.95 2.00 0.43 0.46 2786 779 813 II 0.95 0.11 203 Vol/Sat: 0.33 0.20 0.20 0.01 0.33 0.33 0.07 0.07 0.50 0.07 0.07 0.07 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.32 0.63 Volume/Cap: 1.02 0.32 Uniform Del: 33.8 8.7 IncremntDel: 31.1 0.1 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 64.9 8.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 64.9 8.8 LOS by Move: HCM2kAvgQ: E 25 A 5 0.63 0.32 8.7 0.1 0.0 1. 00 8.8 1. 00 8.8 A 5 0.02 0.32 0.32 1.02 48.2 33.8 4.8 30.8 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 53.0 64.5 1.00 1.00 53.0 64.5 D E 1 26 0.32 1. 02 33.8 30.8 0.0 1. 00 64.5 1. 00 64.5 E 26 0.16 0.16 0.44 0.44 37.7 37.7 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 38.2 38.2 1.00 1.00 38.2 38.2 D D 4 4 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 0.49 0.07 0.07 0.07 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 25.6 46.6 46.6 46.6 28.5 85.8 85.8 85.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 54.1 132.4 132 132.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 54.1 132.4 132 132.4 D 32 F 8 F 8 F 8 Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY HORN, ORANGE, CA I I Cum + Project AM -mit Mon Jan 24, 2011 18:09:34 Page 4-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 EI Camino Real/McLellan Dr Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R~4. 0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: Approach: North Bound Movement: L T R Control: Rights: Min. Green: Protected Include o Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: 34 394 Growth Adj: 1.64 1.64 Initial Bse: 56 646 Added Vol: 178 PasserByVol: 0 Initial Fut: 56 824 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.83 0.83 PHF Volume: 67 992 Reduct Vol: 0 Reduced Vol: 67 992 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 120 1. 64 197 13 210 1. 00 0.83 253 253 1. 00 1. 00 II II South Bound L T R Protected Include o II II East Bound L T R Split Phase Include o 395 904 1.64 1.64 647 1482 12 110 26 47 36 57 659 1592 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 767 1851 o 767 1851 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.64 1.64 1.64 43 43 1. 00 0.86 50 50 1. 00 1. 00 77 59 o 77 59 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.76 101 78 o 101 78 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 64 93 93 1. 00 0.76 123 123 1. 00 1. 00 II II 1.054 66.6 E West Bound L T R Spli t Phase Include o 1! 0 212 30 1.64 1.64 347 49 9 356 49 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 435 60 435 60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 67 992 253 767 1851 II 50 101 II 78 123 435 II 60 375 1. 64 615 47 o 662 1. 00 0.82 807 o 807 1. 00 1. 00 807 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.89 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 Final Sat.: 1769 5083 I 0.83 0.90 0.89 1.00 2.002.92 1583 3432 4931 II Capacity Analysis Module: 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.08 0.57 0.43 132 1025 785 II 0.83 0.87 0.87 1.00 1.32 0.09 1583 2192 146 II 0.87 1. 59 2647 Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.20 0.16 0.22 0.38 0.38 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.20 0.41 0.30 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.04 0.19 Volume/Cap: 1.04 1.05 Uniform Del: 48.2 40.7 IncremntDel:123.6 44.5 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 171.8 85.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 171.8 85.2 LOS by Move: F F HCM2kAvgQ: 5 18 0.19 0.86 39.5 22.0 0.0 1. 00 61. 4 1. 00 61. 4 E 10 0.21 0.36 1.05 1.04 39.4 32.0 48.4 32.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 87.8 64.3 1.00 1.00 87.8 64.3 F E 19 30 0.36 0.09 0.09 1.04 1.05 1.05 32.0 45.3 45.3 32.3 84.0 84.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 64.3 129.3 129 1.00 1.00 1.00 64.3 129.3 129 E 30 F 10 F 10 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 0.09 0.83 44.5 30.3 0.0 1. 00 74.8 1. 00 74.8 E 6 0.39 0.39 0.51 1.05 23.3 30.6 0.2 41.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 23.5 71.6 1.00 1.00 23.5 71.6 C E 8 31 0.39 0.78 26. 9 2.5 0.0 1. 00 29.4 1. 00 29.4 C 15 Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY HORN, ORANGE, CA I I Cum + Project AM -mit Mon Jan 24, 2011 18:09:34 Page 5-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 EI Camino Real/Arroyo Dr Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : 0.986 47.1 D Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R~4. 0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): Optimal Cycle: 172 Level Of Service: Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R II II II Control: Rights: Protected Include o Protected Include o Split Phase Include Spli t Phase Include Min. Green: o o Lanes: 1! 0 II II II Volume Module: Base Vol: 155 764 35 22 712 190 298 260 71 13 Growth Adj: 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 Initial Ese: Added Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: 254 1252 120 255 1372 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 300 1614 300 1614 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 300 1614 Saturation Flow Module: 57 29 86 1. 00 0.85 102 102 1. 00 1. 00 102 II 36 1167 32 38 68 1205 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 82 1452 82 1452 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 82 1452 311 488 49 360 488 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.89 0.89 434 549 434 549 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 434 549 II 426 426 1. 00 0.89 479 o 479 1. 00 1. 00 479 II 116 69 185 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 185 185 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 185 21 70 o 91 1. 00 1. 00 91 91 1. 00 1. 00 91 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.88 Lanes: 1.00 2.82 Final Sat.: 1769 4739 I 0.88 0.93 0.89 0.18 1.00 3.00 298 1769 5083 II Capacity Analysis Module: 0.83 0.89 0.89 1.00 1.53 0.01 1583 2581 18 II 0.89 0.93 0.84 1.46 1.00 0.03 2467 1769 55 II 0.84 0.97 1537 Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.34 0.34 0.05 0.29 0.27 0.21 0.31 0.19 0.10 0.06 0.06 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.41 0.41 0.06 0.29 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.11 0.11 Volume/Cap: 0.99 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.99 0.95 0.68 0.99 0.62 0.99 0.56 0.56 Uniform Del: IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay Adj: Delay/Veh: User DelAdj: Adj Del/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kAvgQ: 41.3 26.7 47.6 3.2 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 88.8 29.9 1.00 1.00 88.8 29.9 F C 14 20 26.7 3.2 0.0 1. 00 29.9 1. 00 29.9 C 20 46.8 35.3 44.0 20.1 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 90.8 55.4 1.00 1.00 90.8 55.4 F E 5 22 34.8 29.0 0.0 1. 00 63.8 1. 00 63.8 E 18 30.1 34.2 1.3 24.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 31.3 58.5 1.00 1.00 31.3 58.5 C E 11 22 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 29.4 44.6 42.5 0.7 61.3 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 30.1 105.9 46.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 30.1 105.9 46.6 C 9 F 10 D 4 42.5 4.2 0.0 1. 00 46.6 1. 00 46.6 D 4 Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY HORN, ORANGE, CA I I Cum + Project AM -mit Mon Jan 24, 2011 18:09:34 Page 6-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 EI Camino Real/Chestnut Ave Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : 1. 2 42 115.5 F Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R~4. 0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R II II II Control: Rights: Min. Green: Protected Include o Protected Include o Protected Include o Protected Include o Lanes: II II II Volume Module: Base Vol: 423 550 293 161 748 88 249 629 424 314 553 116 Growth Adj: 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 Initial Ese: Added Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: 693 901 31 94 724 995 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 852 1171 o 852 1171 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 852 1171 Saturation Flow Module: 480 18 498 1. 00 0.85 586 586 1. 00 1. 00 586 II 264 1226 15 65 279 1291 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 310 1434 310 1434 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 310 1434 144 46 190 1. 00 0.90 211 211 1. 00 1. 00 211 II 408 1031 93 25 501 1056 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.81 619 1304 619 1304 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 619 1304 695 703 1. 00 0.81 868 868 1. 00 1. 00 868 II 515 906 50 64 565 970 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 664 1142 664 1142 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 664 1142 190 39 229 1. 00 0.85 270 o 270 1. 00 1. 00 270 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.90 0.93 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 Final Sat.: 3432 3538 I 0.83 0.90 0.89 1.00 2.00 3.00 1583 3432 5083 II Capacity Analysis Module: 0.83 0.90 0.93 1.00 2.00 2.00 1583 3432 3538 II 0.73 0.90 0.93 2.00 2.00 2.00 2786 3432 3538 II 0.83 1. 00 1583 Vol/Sat: 0.25 0.33 0.37 0.09 0.28 0.13 0.18 0.37 0.31 0.19 0.32 0.17 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.20 0.34 0.34 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.16 0.30 0.30 0.16 0.29 0.29 Volume/Cap: 1.24 0.96 1.08 1.08 1.24 0.59 1.11 1.24 1.05 1.24 1.11 0.59 Uniform Del: 40.0 32.2 IncremntDel:120.8 17.7 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 160.8 49.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 160.8 49.9 LOS by Move: F D HCM2kAvgQ: 27 24 32.8 45.8 38.6 61.3 75.4 116 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 94.1 121.2 155 1.00 1.00 1.00 94.1 121.2 155 F 28 F 10 F 31 34.5 41.9 35.2 2.5 72.3 117 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 37.0 114.2 152 1.00 1.00 1.00 37.0 114.2 152 D F 17 F 40 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 35.2 42.2 35.5 45.1 123.9 63.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 80.3 166.1 99.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 80.3 166.1 99.2 F 23 F 21 F 30 30.3 2.0 0.0 1. 00 32.3 1. 00 32.3 C 8 Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY HORN, ORANGE, CA I I Cum + Project AM -mit Mon Jan 24, 2011 18:09:34 Page 7-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 EI Camino Real / W. Orange Ave Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : 12 (Y+R~4. 0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 180 Level Of Service: 1.147 77.8 E Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R II II II Control: Rights: Protected Include o Protected Include o Split Phase Include Spli t Phase Include Min. Green: Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: 29 864 Growth Adj: 1.64 1.64 Initial Bse: 48 1416 Added Vol: 61 PasserByVol: Initial Fut: 48 1477 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.78 0.78 PHF Volume: 61 1894 Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: 61 1894 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 61 1894 Saturation Flow Module: 109 1. 64 179 o 179 1. 00 0.78 229 229 1. 00 1. 00 II 235 1160 1.64 1.64 385 1901 112 385 2013 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 414 2165 414 2165 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 229 414 2165 II 57 1. 64 93 93 1. 00 0.93 100 100 1. 00 1. 00 II o 152 111 1.64 1.64 249 182 249 182 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 283 207 o 283 207 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 283 207 II 48 1. 64 79 o 79 1. 00 0.88 89 89 1. 00 1. 00 II o 115 61 1.64 1.64 188 100 188 100 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 217 115 o 217 115 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 89 217115 II 186 1. 64 305 305 1. 00 0.87 350 350 1. 00 1. 00 350 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 0.88 Lanes: 1.00 2.68 Final Sat.: 1769 4462 I 0.88 0.93 0.89 0.32 1.00 2.87 540 1769 4824 II Capacity Analysis Module: 0.89 0.93 0.94 0.13 1.00 0.70 224 1769 1241 II 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.30 0.65 0.35 537 1178 625 II 0.73 2.00 2786 Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.42 0.42 0.23 0.45 0.45 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.13 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.04 0.37 0.37 0.20 0.53 Volume/Cap: 0.84 1.15 1.15 1.15 0.84 Uniform Del: 47.6 31.5 31.5 39.8 19.8 IncremntDel: 55.4 72.9 72.9 93.5 2.6 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 103.0 104 104.4 133.3 22.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 103.0 104 104.4 133.3 22.3 LOS by Move: F F F F C HCM2kAvgQ: 4 39 39 23 24 0.53 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.84 1.10 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 19.8 42.7 42.7 42.7 42.0 42.0 2.6 86.2 101 101.4 98.6 98.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 22.3 128.9 144 144.2 140.5 141 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 22.3 128.9 144 144.2 140.5 141 C 24 F 16 F 17 F 17 F 19 F 19 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 0.16 0.78 40.3 8.8 0.0 1. 00 49.1 1. 00 49.1 D 8 Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY HORN, ORANGE, CA I I Cum + Project AM -mit Mon Jan 24, 2011 18:09:34 Page 8-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #6 Mission Rd / Grand Ave Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : o . 702 26.1 C Loss Time (sec): (Y+R~4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): Optimal Cycle: 42 Level Of Service: Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R II II II Control: Rights: Permitted Include Protected Include o Permitted Include Protected Include o Min. Green: o Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: Growth Adj: Initial Bse: Added Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: Reduced Vol: PCE Adj: MLF Adj: FinalVolume: 348 1.64 1.64 570 79 o 649 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.74 o 878 o 878 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 878 Saturation Flow Module: 29 1. 64 48 56 1. 00 0.74 75 o 75 1. 00 1. 00 II 124 319 1.64 1.64 203 523 27 o 203 550 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 221 598 221 598 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 75 221 598 II 1. 64 1. 00 0.92 1. 00 1. 00 o II II o 1.64 1.64 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 64 1. 00 0.30 1. 00 1. 00 II 51 1.64 1.64 84 86 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 95 95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 o 95 II 228 1. 64 374 o 374 1. 00 0.90 415 415 1. 00 1. 00 415 Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: 1.00 0.92 0.00 1.84 3220 0.92 0.93 0.98 0.16 1.00 1.00 275 1769 1862 II Capacity Analysis Module: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o II 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 o 1769 II 0.83 1. 00 1583 Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.12 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.26 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.39 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.70 Uniform Del: 0.0 25.7 IncremntDel: 0.0 1.7 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 27.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 27.4 LOS by Move: HCM2kAvgQ: A o C 14 0.39 0.70 25.7 1.7 0.0 1. 00 27.4 1. 00 27.4 C 14 0.18 0.57 0.70 0.57 38.6 13.9 7.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 45.6 14.6 1.00 1.00 45.6 14.6 D B 8 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 A A A o 0 0 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.70 0.0 20.7 0.0 26.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.0 20.8 0.0 30.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0 20.8 0.0 30.4 A C A C o 2 0 12 Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY HORN, ORANGE, CA I I Cum + Project AM -mit Mon Jan 24, 2011 18:09:34 Page 9-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #7 Grand Ave / Chestnut Ave Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 100 12 (Y+R~4. 0 sec) 156 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.970 54.4 D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R II II II Control: Rights: Min. Green: Protected Include o Protected Include o Protected Include o Protected Include o Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: 129 172 Growth Adj: 1.64 1.64 Initial Bse: 211 282 Added Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: 216 283 User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 223 292 Reduced Vol: 223 292 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 223 292 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 Adjustment: Lanes: Final Sat.: 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 1769 1862 I 59 1. 64 97 o 97 1. 00 O. 97 100 100 1. 00 1. 00 II 57 190 1.64 1.64 93 311 101 315 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 111 347 o 111 347 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 111 347 II 1900 1900 1900 0.83 0.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1583 1769 1862 II Capacity Analysis Module: 73 1. 64 120 120 1. 00 0.91 131 131 1. 00 1. 00 II 88 322 1.64 1.64 144 528 20 144 548 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 158 602 158 602 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 131 158 602 II 1900 1900 1900 0.83 0.93 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.69 1583 1769 1217 II 149 1. 64 244 251 1. 00 0.91 276 o 276 1. 00 1. 00 276 II II 45 300 1.64 1.64 74 492 o 13 74 505 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 82 561 82 561 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 82 561 1900 1900 1900 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.31 1.00 0.77 558 1769 1376 II 93 1. 64 152 154 1. 00 0.90 172 o 172 1. 00 1. 00 172 1900 0.95 0.23 421 Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.16 0.06 0.06 0.19 0.08 0.09 0.49 0.49 0.05 0.41 0.41 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.23 Volume/Cap: 0.97 0.68 Uniform Del: 43.3 35.2 IncremntDel: InitQueuDel: Delay Adj: Delay/Veh: User DelAdj: Adj Del/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kAvgQ: 50.6 4.5 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 93.9 39.7 1.00 1.00 93.9 39.7 F 11 D 9 0.23 0.27 31. 7 0.4 0.0 1. 00 32.1 1. 00 32.1 C 3 0.09 0.19 0.68 0.97 44.0 40.1 11.2 39.4 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 55.2 79.5 1.00 1.00 55.2 79.5 E 5 E 16 0.19 0.43 35.6 1.0 0.0 1. 00 36.6 1. 00 36.6 D 4 0.10 0.51 0.89 0.97 44.4 23.7 38.3 22.7 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 82.8 46.5 1.00 1.00 82.8 46.5 F 8 D 33 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 0.51 O. 97 23.7 22.7 0.0 1. 00 0.05 0.46 0.97 0.89 47.5 24.8 87.5 11.9 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 46.5 135.0 36.7 1.00 1.00 1.00 46.5 135.0 36.7 D 33 F 5 D 24 0.46 0.89 24.8 11. 9 0.0 1. 00 36.7 1. 00 36.7 D 24 Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY HORN, ORANGE, CA I I Cum + Project AM -mit Mon Jan 24, 2011 18:09:34 Page 10-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #8 Mission Rd Oak Ave Average Delay (sec/veh): 8.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[ 61.3J Approach: Movement: Control: Rights: Lanes: Volume Module: North Bound L T R Uncontrolled Include 011 II II South Bound L T R Uncontrolled Include 101 II II East Bound L T R stop Sign Include 001 II II West Bound L T stop Sign Include 001 R Base Vol: 13 389 10 292 71 35 18 40 29 Growth Adj: 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 Initial Bse: Added Vol: PasserByVol: Initial Fut: User Adj: PHF Adj: PHF Volume: Reduct Vol: FinalVolume: 21 638 13 21 651 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 26 793 o 26 793 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 FollowUpTim: 2.2 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 794 Potent Cap.: 823 Move Cap.: Volume/Cap: 823 0.03 I Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.1 Control Del: 9.5 LOS by Move: A 16 479 26 7 18 505 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.86 0.86 21 587 o 8 21 587 II II A 116 57 62 24 178 81 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 207 81 o 207 81 II II II 7.5 6.5 3.5 4.0 1185 1587 144 107 118 101 0.69 0.08 F 30 39 1. 00 1. 00 39 39 6.9 3.3 397 602 II II 66 66 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 85 6 85 7.5 6.5 3.5 4.0 1189 1686 143 93 602 120 87 0.06 0.71 0.06 II F 48 48 1. 00 0.77 62 62 6. 9 3.3 401 599 599 0.10 Movement: LT -LTR -RT LT -LTR -RT LT -LTR -RT LT -LTR -RT Shared Cap.: SharedQueue: Shrd ConDel: Shared LOS: A ApproachDel: ApproachLOS: Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. 61. 3 F 325 0.5 17.9 C 55.5 F 404 0.6 15.7 C Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY HORN, ORANGE, CA I I I Appendix C: Northwest Information Center Letter CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM October 13, 2010 Melinda Hue Dyett & Bhatia 755 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111 ALAMEDA COLUSA CONTRA COSTA LAKE MARIN MENDOCINO MONTEREY NAPA SAN BENITO SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATEO SANTA CLARA SANTACRUZ SOLANO SONOMA YOLO Northwest Information Center Sonoma State University 150 Professional Center Drive, Suite E Rohnert Park, California 94928·3609 Tel: 707,588.8455 Email: lelgh.jordan@sonoma,edu http://www.sonoma.edu/nwlc NWIC File No .. : 10-0287 Re: Record search results for the proposed EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, City of 80uth San Francisco. Dear Ms. Hue: Per your request received by our office on September 21,2010, a records search was conducted for the above referenced project by reviewing pertinent Northwest Information Center (NWIC) base maps that reference'cultural resources records and reports, historic-period maps, and literature for San Mateo County. Please note that use of the term cultural resources includes both archaeological resources and historical buildings and/or structures. Review of-this information indicates that there have been fifteen cultural resource studies that in total cover approximately 60% of the EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan project area (Chavez 1977: 8-3043, Baker 1979: 8-3074, Young 1976: S-3134, Clark 1992·: S-13543, Rice 1994: 8-16687, Rice 1994: 8-16688, 8houp et al 1994: 8-17192, Baker 1999: 8-22258, Baker 1999: 8-22259, Clark 2000: 8-22656, Clark 2000: S-22972, Clark 2000: 8-23271, Brown et al 2003: 8-27930, Clark 2006: 8-33611, and Clark 2008: S-35507). This project area contains two recorded Native American archaeological resources, P-41-000409 and P-41-000495, both prehistoric habitation sites. P-41-000409 is listed in the 8tate Office of Historic Preservation's Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility with a status code of 6Y, meaning it was determined ineligible for the National Register (NR) by consensus through 8ection 106 process, but not evaluated for the California Register (CR) or Local Listing. See enclosed Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility page. Local, state and federal inventories include two recorded properties within the proposed project area. The 8an Mateo County Heritage Listing, the California Inventory of Historic Resources, and the State Office of Historic Preservation's Historic Property Directory (OHP HPD) all indicate the site of the former Twelve Mile House (Property #091172) with a status code of 7L, meaning this is a State Historic Landmark and Point of Historical Interest that was designated prior to January 1998, and needs to be revaluated using current standards. In addition, the OHP HPD indicates an unnamed property at 1171 EI Camino Real (Property #101757) with a status code of 6Y (see definition above). See enclosed OHP HPD pages. In addition to these inventories, the NWIC base maps show one recorded building, P-41-000382, at 1281 Mission Road. At the time of Euroamerican contact the Native Americans that lived in the area were speakers of the Ramaytush language, part of the Costanoan language family (Levy 1978:485). There is one Native American resource in or adjacent to the proposed project _ _ ____ _ ______ 9 rea refere!l c~Q .Ln_th~_~th 1"!9JJ rap!1 iC?J~~I?tu_r~J!h~cipe lel~~ rrit~Hy __ of tile U l~Q!-l_r§jJ~~HHL~_~Q_ ___ ____ _ __ _ 1995:258)]. Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites, Native American resources in this part of San Mateo County have been found in areas marginal to the San Francisco Bay Shore, and inland near intermittent and perennial watercourses. The EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan project area is located approximately 0.5 miles northwest of a former inlet of the San Francisco Bay and contains valley lands at the hill to valley interface, bisected by Colma Creek and a couple unnamed drainages. Given the similarity of one or more of these environmental factors and the ethnographic sensitivity of the area, there is a moderate to high potential of identifying unrecorded Native American resources in the proposed EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan project area. Review of historical literature and maps indicated the possibility of historic-period archaeological resources within the EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan project area. The 1858 Rancho Buri Buri Plat Map indicated the Twelve Mile House, Luxe's House, and Irish House all in the approximate location of the project area. The 1915 USGS San Mateo 15-minute topographic quadrangle depicts four buildings and a segment of the Southern Pacific Railroad within the project area. With this in mind, there is a moderate to high potential of identifying unrecorded historic-period archaeological resources in the proposed EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan project area. The 1956 USGS San Mateo 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle depicts six buildings and a segment of the Southern Pacific Railroad within the EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan project area. These unrecorded buildings/structures meet the Office of Historic Preservation's minimum age standard that buildings, structures, and objects 45 years or older may be of historical value. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) As per Senate Bill 18 (Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004), local governments are required to consult with California Native American tribes prior to making certain planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process. These consultation and notice requirements apply to adoption and amendment of general plans (defined in Government Code §65300 et seq.) and specific plans (defined in Government Code (§65450 et seq.). Each time a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend the general plan or specific plan, they are required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. While the applicability of SB 18 to your EI Camino ReallChestnut Avenue Area Plan cannot be assessed given the information available to our office, it appears that significant land use changes are proposed. In keeping with the spirit of S8 18, we recommend consultation with the California Native American tribes as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. 2) There are two recorded archaeological resources in the proposed project area, P-41-000409 and P-41-000495, both prehistoric habitation sites. It is recommended that a professional archaeologist assess the resources and provide project-specific recommendations. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior's StandardS at http://www.chrisinfo.org. 3) There is a moderate to high possibility of identifying Native American archaeological resources and a moderate to high possibility of identifying historic-period archaeological resources in the unsurveyed portion of the project area. We recommend a qualified archaeologist conduct further archival and field study to identify cultural resources. Field study may include, but is not limited to, pedestrian survey, hand auger sampling, shovel test units, or geoarchaeological analyses as well as other common methods used to identify the presence of archaeological resources. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior's Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org. 4) The proposed project area contains three recorded properties; the site of the Twelve Mile House (Property #091172) at 1076 Old Mission Road, 1171 EI Camino Real (Property #101757), P-41-000382 at 1281 Mission Road, and seven unrecorded properties, including six buildings and a segment of the Southern Pacific Railroad, as indicated on the 1956 USGS San Mateo 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. Therefore, prior to commencement of project activities, it is recommended that this resource be assessed by a professional familiar with the architecture and history of San Mateo County. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior's Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org. 5) Review for possible historic-period buildings or structures has included only those sources listed in the attached bibliography and should not be considered. comprehensive. 6) The purpose of this Area Plan is to provide a planning document that will guide future development. Given the presence of known cultural resources and the likelihood of additional unrecorded cultural resources in unsurveyed areas in the EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, it is recommended that future projects be considered on an individual basis under the NWIC's Project Review Program. This Program is organized to aid cities and counties in meeting their CEQA obligations during the initial study phase. These reviews result in project specific information and recommendations, and are completed in seven calendar days. Please contact the NWIC Coordinator at 707/588-8455 for additional information. 7) If archaeological resources are encountered during construction. work should be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and workers should avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has· evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources. Native American resources include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shE?1I and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic-period resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often located in old wells or privies. 8) It is recommended that any identified cultural resources be recorded on OPR 523 historic resource recordation forms, available online from the Office of Historic Preservation's website: http://ohp.parks.ca .gov/defaultasp?page id:::: 1 069 Thank you for using our services. Please contact this office if you have any questions, (707) 588-8455. Sincerely, ~~ ___ G\~~ Jillian E. Guldenbrein Researcher LITERATURE REVIEWED In addition to archaeological maps and site records on file at the Northwest Information Center of the Historical Resources Information System, the following literature was reviewed: Baker, Suzanne (Archaeological Consultants) 1979 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed San Andreas Pipeline No.3, San Mateo County. NWIC Report S-003074 1999 BART Construction Archaeological Monitoring, Prehistoric Site CA- SMA-299 (letter report). NWIC Report S-022258 1999 BART Construction Archaeological Monitoring, Prehistoric Site CA- SMA-299 (letter report). NWIC Report S-022259 Bowman, J.N. 1951 Adobe Houses in the San Francisco Bay Region. In Geologic Guidebook of the San Francisco Bay Counties, Bulletin 154. California Division of Mines, Ferry Building, San Francisco, CA. Brabb, Earl E., Fred A. Taylor, and George P. Miller 1982 Geologic, Scenic, and Historic Points of Interest in San Mateo County, California. Miscellaneous Investigations Series, Map 1-1257-B, 1 :62,500. Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Brown, Kyle, Adam Marlow, James Allan, and William Self (William Self Associates, Inc.) 2003 Cultural Resource Assessment of Alternative Routes for PG&E's . Jefferson-Marlin Transmission Line, San Mateo County, California. NWIC Report S-027930 Chavez, David 1977 Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Colma Wastewater Collection System, Town of Colma, San Mateo County, California. NWIC Report S-003043 Clark, Matthew R. 1992 Initial Archaeological Evaluation of Proposed Park Additions and a Porlion of the Colma Creek Channel for the Orange Memorial Park Master Plan EIR, South San Francisco. NWIC Report S-013543 2000 Initial Subsurface Archaeological Reconnaissance of Two Redevelopment Parcels on Chestnut Avenue in the City of South San Francisco, California; with Preliminary Resource Evaluation and Management Recommendations. NWIC Report S-022656 2000 An Addendum To: Initial Subsurface Archaeological Reconnaissance of Two Redevelopment Parcels on Chestnut Avenue in the City of South San Francisco, California; with Preliminary Resource Evaluation and Management Recommendations. NWIC Report S-022972 2000 Final Report: Subsw1ace Archaeological Reconnaissance, Assessment of Potential Project Impacts, and Resource Management Recommendations for the Chestnut Creek Senior Housing Project, South San Francisco NWIC Report S-023271 2006 South San Francisco Wet Weather Program: Phase 1/ Altered APE & Effect on MOA (letter report). NWIC Report S-033611 2008 City of South San Francisco Wet Weather Program Project, Section 106 Compliance for the South San Francisco Wet Weather Program: Phase 1/ Archaeological Monitoring Report. NWIC Report S-035507 Fickewirth, Alvin A. 1992 California Railroads. Golden West Books, San Marino, CA. General Land Office 1858 Survey Plat for Rancho Suri Buri. Helley, E.,J., K.R. Lajoie, W.E. Spangle, and M.L. Blair 1979 Flatland Deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region -Their Geology and Engineering Properties, and Their Importance to Comprehensive Planning. Geological Survey Professional Paper 943. United States Geological Survey and Department of Housing and Urban Development. Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, and Ethel Rensch, revised by William N. Abeloe 1966 Historic Spots in California. Third Edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, and Ethel Rensch, William N. Abeloe, revised by Douglas E. Kyle 1990 Historic Spots in California. Fourth Edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Hynding, Alan 1984 From Frontier to Suburb: The Story of San Mateo Penninsula. Star Publishing Company, San Mateo, CA. Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Reprint by Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1976) Levy, Richard 1978 Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Milliken, Randall 1995 A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area 1769-1810. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 43, Menlo Park, CA. . Myers, William A. (editor) 1977 Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks of San Francisco and Northern California. Prepared by The History and Heritage Committee, San Francisco Section, American Society of Civil Engineers. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, CA. Nelson, N.C. 1909 Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(4):309-356. Berkeley. (Reprint by Kraus Reprint Corporation, New York, 1964) Postel, Mitchell P. 1994 San Mateo, A Centennial History. Scottwall Associates, San Francisco, CA. Rice, Carolyn 1994 BART-San Francisco Airport Extension Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report / Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Archaeological Survey. NWIC Report S-016687 1994 BART-San Francisco Airport Extension Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report / Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Archaeological Resources Technical Report. NWIC Report S-016688 San Mateo County Historic Resources Advisory Board 1984 San Mateo County: Its History and Heritage. Second Edition. Division of Planning and Development Department of Environmental Management. San Mateo County Planning and Development Department n.d. "Historical and Archaeologlcal Resources, Section 5" from the San Mateo CountyGeneral Plan. Shoup, Laurence H., Mark Brack, Nancy Fee, and Bruno Giberti (Archaeological/Historical Consultants) 1994 BART-San Francisco Airport Extension Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Historic Architectural Survey Technical Report. NWIC Report S-017192 State of California Department of Parks and Recreation 1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. State of California Office of Historic Preservation ** 2010 Historic Properties Directory. LIsting by City (through May 2010). State of California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. Woodbridge, Sally B. 1988 California Architecture: Historic American Buildings Survey. Chronicle Books, San Francisco, CA. Works Progress Administration 1984 The WPA Guide to California. Reprint by Pantheon Books, New York. (Originally published as California: A Guide to the Golden State in 1939 by Books, Inc., distributed by Hastings House Publishers, New York.) Young, Daniel L. (Caltrans) 1976 Archaeological Survey Report for Widening Project on 4-SM-82- NWIC Report S-003134 **Note that the Office of Historic Preservation's Historic Properties Directory includes National Register, State Registered Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the California Register of Historical Resources as well as Certified Local Government surveys that have undergone Section 106 review. . INWIC File #10-0287 Historic Properties within the EI Cmaino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan p. 1 of 2 OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION * * ~ Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for SAN MATEO CO\L~ty. Page 45 05-18-10 PROPERTY-NUMBER PRIMARY-# STREET.ADDRESS ............. NAMES ............................. CITY.NAME ......•. OWN ¥R-C OHP-PROG .. PRG-REFERENCE-NUMBER STAT-DAT ~KS CRIT 101699 41-001608 101700 41-001609 101701 41-001610 101704 41-001611 101705 41-001612 101706 41-001613 101707 41-001614 10170B 41-001615 101709 41-001616 101710 41-001617 101711 41-00161B 101713 41-001619 101714 41-001620 101715 41-001621 005576 005577 005575 ~Q~g7~? 005573 41-000946 41-000947 41-000945 '~~EiiliIK~' 41-000g.:!B 005579 41-000949 00~5S0 41-000950 005581 41-000951 005583 41-000953 005574 41-000944 072787 41-001402 005570 41-000940 005571 005572 005573 005582 161890 161991 176520 101765 101759 41-000941 'J,1~0009~2 41-000943 41-000952 41-001660 41-001658 637 MYRTLE AVE 539 MYRTLE AVE 641 MYETLE AVE 643 MYRTLE AVE 645 MYRTLE AVE 647 MYRTLE AVE 649 MYRTLE AVE 551 MYRTLE AVE 653 MYRTLE AVE 655 MYRTLE AVE 657 MYRTLE AVE 659 MYRTLE AVE 661 MYRTLE AVE 663 MYRTLE AVE 41 OAK AVE 90 OAK AVE 150 OAl" AVE :Qw..l11~sIq~L@; 701 OLIVE AVE 716 OLIVE AVE 3()3 ORANGE AVE 349 OYSTE.'l. POINT BLVD PAR!( W'{ PINE AVE 222 PrNJ:: AVE 313 PINE AVE 317 PINE AVE 321 PillE AVE 343 PTIlE AVE 499 RAILROAD AVE 344 RA."lONA ST 348 RAMO?Oi"A ST S LINDEN AVE 325 S MAPLE S SPRUCE ST SANTO CRISTO HALL LUX KITC~ / WIESS HOME LOX BARN ,~_¥.ygJii!@~1l.@:g:; COLLINS HOUSE SOOTH SAN FRANCIS l? SOOTH SJlN FRANCIS P SOOTH SAN FRANCIS P SOOTH SAN FRANCIS l? SOOTrl SAN FRANCIS P SOOTH SAN PRANCIS P SOUTH SAN FRANCIS P SOOTH SAN FRANCIS P SOUTH SAN FRANCIS P SODTH SAN FEANCIS P SOOTH SAN FRANCIS P SOOTH SAN FRANCIS P SOUTH SAN FRANCIS P SOUTH SAN FRANCIS P SOUTH SAL'" FRANCIS P SOUTH SAN FRANCIS P SOUTH SAN FRllliCIS P ;§Q1liM:=~.!,,:g@;Q!§i 'jI SOUTH SAN FRANCIS P SOUTH SAN FRANCIS P ESCRELEAC!C HOME SOOTH SAN FRANCIS P WILDBERG BROS REFINERY SOUTH SAN FRANCIS P SOOTH SA.~ FRANCISCO HILLSIDE SIGN SOUTH SAN FRANCIS M SOUT.~ CITY LUMBER CO 1-5 S LINDEN AVE POETSCH A."1D PET"...RSON TANNERY SOUTHERN· PACIFIC LINE RAILaOAD BRI SODTH SAN F'RA!'ICIS P SOOTH SAN FRANCIS U SOUTH SAN FRANCIS P SOUTH SAN FRANCIS P SOOTH SAN FRANCIS P SOUTH SAN FRANCIS P soOTH SAN FRA1'lCIS P SOUT>! SAN FRA."lCIS P SOUTH SAN FRANCIS P SOOTH SAN PRANC~S P SOUTH SAN ~~CIS P 50~rl SAN FRF~CIS S PROJ.REVW. 1944 HIST<RES. PROJ.REVW. 1944 HIST . RES • PROJ • Rl;,"'VW • 1944 HIST.RES. PROJ.REVW. 1944 HIST.RES. PROJ.REVW. 1944 EIST.RES. PROJ .REV-"'. 1944 HIST.RES. PROJ.REV"'. 1944 HIST.RES. PROJ.REVW. 1944 HIST. RES. PROJ.REVW. 1944 HIST. RES. PROJ. ru,,"'VW. 1944 HIST.RES. PROJ.REVW. 1944 HIST.RES. PROJ.REVW. 1944 HIST.RES. PROJ.REVW. 1944 flIST.RES. PROJ.REVW. 1944 HIST.RES. PROJ.REVW. 1900 HIST.SURV. 1903 HIST .SURV. 1854 JUST. SURY. l1'§i'!ifSTdli'[; l896 HIST.SURY. UMTA900S28A DOE-41-96-001S-0000 UMTA900828A DOE-41-9~-0019-0000 UMTA900828A DOE-41-96-0020-0000 UMTA900828A DOE-41-96-D021-0000 UMTA30082SA DOE-41-96-0022-0000 UMTA900828A DOE-41-96-0023-0000 UMTA900828A DOE-41-96-0024-0000 OMTA900828A DOE"41~96 .. 0025-0000 UM.TA900829A DOE-41-96-0026-0000 UMTA900S28A DOE-41-96-0027-0000 OMTA900828A DOE-41-96-002S-0000 UMTA900S28A DOE-41-96-0029-0000 OMTA900828A DOE-41-96~0030-0000 UMTA90082£A DOE-41-96-0031-0000 UMTA900828A 4080-0125-0000 4080-0126-0000 4080-0:1.24-0000 'e~-.§~~ 4080-0127-0000 1928 HIST.SURV. 4080-0128-0000 1926 HIST.SURY. 4080-0129-0000 1907 HIST.SURV. 4080-0130-9999 1929 HIST.RES. NPS-96000761-0000 NAT. REG. 41-0015 NAT. REG. 41-0014 HIST.SURV. 4080-0132-0000 1922 HIST.SORV. 4080-0123-9999 J.945 PROJ.REVW. HUD910709A 1922 PROJ.REVW. HUD890707C 1922 1922 1922 1928 2934 1952 1958 2942 1863 EIST.SURY. HIS'I' . SURV . HIST.SURV. HIST.SORY. HIST.SORV. PROJ .1k"VW. PROJ.REVW. PROJ.REVW. HIST.RES. PROJ. RE'iW. HIST.RES. 4080-0123-0001 4080-0123-0002 4080-0123-0003 4080-0123-0004 40BO-0131-9999 HUD060405B HlID060405C FTA040913A DOE-41-96-0072-0000 UMTA900828A DOE-41-96-0069-0000 04/19/96 6Y 04/18/96 6Y 04/18/96 6Y 04/18/96 6Y 04/18/96 GY 04/19/96 SY 04/18/96 6Y 04/18/96 5Y 04/18/96 5Y 04/18/96 6;:- 04/18/96 6Y 04/18/96 6Y 04/18/96 6Y 04/18/96 6Y 04/3:8/96 6Y 04/1£/96 6Y 04/18/96 6Y 04/1B/96 6Y 04/18/96 6Y 04/18/96 6Y 04/18/96 6Y 04/18/96 GY 04/18/96 GY 04/18/% 6Y 04/lS/96 5Y 04/19/96 GY 04/18/96 6Y 04/18/96 6Y 04/18/96 6Y 5S;; 552 55;'; !'l~LO:1J.2.~I~ 7N 7N 3S 5S2 07/11/96 IS A 07/11/96 1S A 04/24/95 7W 3S 7R 08/06/91 6Y 08/02/89 6Y 7R 04/11/06 04/11/06 08/06/07 04/18/96 04/18/96 04/18/96 7R 7R 7R 552 6Y 5Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 2S2 C " ~ OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION * *. Directory of properties in the Historic Property Data File for S~~ MATEO County. Page 40 05-~8-10 PROPERTY-~1BER PRIMP~Y-~ STREET.ADDRESS ............. NAMES ..................... _ ....•.. CITY.NAME ........ OWN YR-C CnP-PROG .. PRG-REFERENCE-NUMBER STAT-OAT MRS CRIT 005472 41-000842 ;l:jl:t1Xi Mi-:o~~1i 005473 091.165 005474 005475 005476 005477 005478 101738 10l73S 101740 101741 101742 101743 101744 101745 101746 101747 10n48 101749 005481 145323 005587 066727 005588 005589 005598 066603 005599 005590 005600 41-000843 42-001506 41-000844 41-000845 41-000846 41-000847 41-000848 41-001638 41-001639 41-002640 41-001641 41-001642 41-001643 41-001644 41-001645 41-001646 41-001647 41-001648 41-001649 43.-000851 41-000%7 41-001133 4:\.-000958 41-000959 41-000968 41-001328 41.-000969 4l-00Q960 41-000970 0711.50 41-001397 005601 41.-000971 005591 41.-000961 900 EL CAMINO REAL J~;71;gk~q::~· 1410 EL CllMINO REAL EUCALYF'J;'US AVE 201. EUCALYPTUS AVE 210 EUCALYPTUS AVE 211. EUCALYPTUS AVE 3:n EOCALYFTUS ~_il"E 410 EUCl'.LYF'J;'US AVE 101 FRANCISCO DR 103 FRANCISCO DR 105 ~~CISCO DR 107 ~~CISCO DR 109 FRANCISCO DR l11 FRANCISCO DR 113 FRANCISCO DR 115 FRANCISCO DR ll7 FRANCISCO DR 119 FRANCISCO DR 121 FRANCISCO DR 1.23 FRANCISCO DR GRk"ID AVE GRAND ]I_VE 108 GRAND AVE 113 GRA.."ID AVE 115 GR1\ND AVE 200 = AVE 201. GRAiIDAVE 202 GRAND AVE 205 GRAND AVE 206 GRAND AVE 219 GRAND AVE 219 Gl<AND AVE 223 GRAND AVE 224 GRA."ID AVE FAIm-lAY CLUB WILDWOOD W.J. MARTIN HOME DENNING BOOSE SPANGLER HOUSE· HYNDING HOW;; MITCHELL HOOSE M'lRTIN MEMORIAL FOUNT1\.IN GRJ>,!..'D AVENOE COMME..'<CIAL HISTORIC D MERRIAM BLOCK COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION CHINA RESTAURA...W MARIO'S S~_TES TAVERN COMMERCIAL R)!:EABILITATION M/I .. -'UA' S RESTAORlINT RAILROllD STATION GOCK"'-AILS FIVE BROl;lERS SALOON SOUTH SA.."1 FRA."1CIS P ;[~m.:.~g~)E SOOTH SAN FRANCIS P S01JT'd SAN FRANCIS U SOUTH. SAN FRANCIS P SOOT!! SAN FRlINc-.LS P SOUTH SAN FRANCIS P SOOTH SAN FRANCIS P SOUTH Sllli FR.l!.NCIS P SOUTH Sllli FrulNCIS P SOUTH SAN FRANCIS P SOUTH SAN FRANCIS P SOOTH SAN FRANCIS P SOUTH SAN FRANCIS P SOUTH SAN FR.l!.NCIS P SOUTH SAN FRANCIS P SOUTH SAN FRANCIS P SOUTH SAN FRANCIS P SOUTH SAN FRANCIS P SOOTH SAN FRANCIS P SOUTH SAN FRANCIS P SOUTH SAN FRANCIS M SOUT>'! SAN FRANCIS P SOUTH SAN FRANCIS P BOUTH SAN FR1INCIS U SOOTH SAN FR."'-"'CIS P SOUTH SAN .FRl\NCIS P SOUTH SlL'" FRANCIS P SOUTH SAN FRANCIS U SOOTH SAN F~~CIS P SOUTH SAN PRANCIS P SOUTH SAN FRANCIS P SOtn'll: SAN FRlINCIS U LIND'S STORE, MEXICO TIPlCO RESTAU SOOTH SAN FRANCIS P SON DBL CAFE SOUTH SAN FAANCIS P 2912 PROJ_REVW. HUD930120C :1."i@ 1946 .1892 1920 1916 1326- 1.905 19Q1 1948 1.948 1948 1948 1948 1945 1.948 1.948 1948 1948 1948 1948 .1926 1891 1891 1918 1.S99 1907 1907 1.906 1914 .IlIST.SURV. HIST.i<ES. PROJ.REVW. mGT.BURV. HIST.RES. HIST.SURV. lUST.BURV. HIS'!'. SURV . lUST_SURV. iuST .. SURV. EIBT.RES. PRW.REVW. F..IST.RES. PROJ • .RBVW. JUST.RES. PROJ.REVW. mST • REB . PRoJ.REVW. HIST.RES. PROJ.REVW. mST.RES. PROJ.REVW. HISTcRES. PROJ.REVW. mST.RES. PROJ.REVw. HIST_RES. .fROJ. lili"-VW • EIST.RES .. PRDJ.REVW .. RIST.RES_ PROJ.REVW .. mST.RES. PROJ.REVW. RIST .. BURV_ HlST.BURY. HIBT.SURY .. PROJ.REVw. );'ROJ.REVW. lUST.BURV. PROJ .RE"VW. HIST.SURY. BrST. SURV. :i?ROJ. Rh--VW • HIBT.SURV. HIST.SURY. IlIST.RES. PROJ • Rb--VW_ !lIST.BURV. 1.914 PROO .REVW. 191.0 EIST.SORV. 1900 mST .smw. 4080-0028-0000 7§6=-M6Sc-;oOOG> ~i~"~~~ DOE-41-96-0067-0000 UM1'A900828A 4080-0029-0000 SPl:!I-SMA~020 4080-0030-0000 4080-0031-0{lOO 4080-0032-0000 4080-0033-0000 4080-0034-0000 DOE-41.-96-0048-000Q QMTA900828A DOE-4l-96-0049-0000 UMTA900828A DOE-4l-96-00S0-0000 UMTA90QS28A DOE-41-96-0051-0000 UM1'A900828A DOE-4l_96-00S2-0000 OMTA900828A DOE-4:\.-96-0053-0000 UMTA900828A DOE-41.-96-00S4-0000 UMTA900828A DOE-41.-96-0055-0000 UMTA900828A DOE-4l-96-0056-0000 UMTIIS00828A DOE-41.-96-00S7-0000 UMTA900S29A DOE-41-96-00S8-0000 llMTl'-.900828A DOE-41-96-0059-0000 tlMTA900S2$A 4080-0037-0000 4080-0136-9999 4080-0136-0001 HOD930519E llUD880404L 4080-0136-0002 HUDS80404J 4080-0136-0003 408{l-(1l36-0012 hVDBS0404J 4080-0136-0013 4080-013£-0004 DOE-41-99-0004-0000 HlJD93 02:25 Z 4080-0136-0014 lWP910515A 408Q-OB6-0015 40$O-OB6-0005 02/10/93 6Y @Mlli@ 'JI'!,/T:8[!}.W Qtj/18/96 04/18/96 05/01/86 01/19/72 04/18/96 04/18/96- 04/lS/96 ·04/1.8/96 04/18/96 04/1.8/96 04/18/96 04/18/96 04/18/96 04/18/96 04/18/96 04/18/96 04/18/96 04/18/96- 04/18/96 04/18/96 04/18/96 04/18/96 04/18/96 04/1B/96 04/18/96 04/J.8/96 04/18/% 04/18/96 04/01/86 07/09/93 07/14/88 08/29/88 05/04/88 03/].7/99 03/27/99 7R :~ 6Y 6Y 7R 7L 7R 582 5S2 5S2 5S2 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y. 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 6Y 7l!1 3S 7N 6Y 5D2 6Y 7N 7N 6Y 7N 7N 6Y 6Y 7R 06/19/91 6Y 7N 7R :;:" INWIC File #10-0287 Archaeological Site within the EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan p. 1 of 1 I CALIFORNIA OHP * ARCHEOI,OGICAL DETERMINATIONS OF ELIGIBILITY * SAN MATEO COUNTY k 10:12:24 OS-lS-10 PAGE 24B SITE-NUMBER. PRIMARY-NUM NRS BVL·DATE PROGRAM REF ....... EVAL OTHER NAMES AND NUMSERS ............................................ . SMA-OOOIS1 41-000001 15 02/23/18 7~000771 KPNP U. C. ARCHAEOLOGICAL W;:SEARCIl FACILITY NO. SMA-lSI DC-ARI' 61,62,63 SMA-000152 41-000162 41-000230 SMA-Doon3 41-000231 41-000409 SMA-000336H SMA-000337H 41-000279 SMlI-000338H 41-000280 SMA-000353H SMA-000378H SMA-00353HH SMA·00376HH 6Y 10/30/86 ADOE-Ql-96-001-000 RJPR DOT·04-SMA-I-Z GY 10/30/86 FHWA86091911 RJPR 6Y 07/17/95 lIDDE-41·SS-002-000 SGPR 82-911 6Y 07/17/95 FHWA950714X SGPR 6Y 01/17/~s ADOE-41-~S-003-000 SGPR 6Y 07/17/95 FHWA950714X SGPR (~iJ (t}ittuM :M"iQiB.:i,~~~::'j:iQ~£(i9{· j'i14'~,: (~'ii Cl~1~t!~.5 .'9!1fji..~JiJia~ill'\' (¢R~ii,~ 6Y 04/04/94 ADOE-41-94-003-000 GRPR 6Y 04/04/94 G81194032211 GRPR 6Y 04/04/94 A008-41-94-001-000 GRPR 6Y 04/0~/94 GSA940322A GRPR 6Y 04/04/9~ ADOE-41·94-Q02-DOO GRPR ~Y 04/04/94 GSA940J22A GRPR 6Y2 09/06/07 FTA040913A CFPR PN-l HZ 08/0£/0'/ F'rAD40913A CFPR FT-;;; 6Y2 08/06/07 FTA040913A CFPR HZ 08/06/0'/ FTA040913A Cl"PR EI Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH # 2010072015 Prepared for the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO by 755 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, California 941 I I 4159564300 4159567315 FEBRUARY 2011 DYE u 755 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, California 941 I I 415 956 4300 415 956 7315 El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH # 2010072015 Prepared for the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO by YA. ..111.. Err & .. Ill..b 11AT LA Urban and Regional 11anners 755 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, California 941 1 1 0ho? 415 956 4300,Q, 415 956 7315 APRIL 2011 Table of Contents Introduction........................................................................................... ............................... 1 -1 Purpose........................................................................................................ ............................... 1 -1 Organization............................................................................................... ............................... 1 -1 Process......................................................................................................... ............................... 1 -2 2 Comments on the Draft EIR .......................................................... ............................2 -1 3 Response to Comments on the Draft EIR ............................. ............................3 -1 Agencies....................................................................................................... ............................... 3 -1 Organizations / Individuals ......................................................................... ............................... 3 -4 OralComments ............................................................................................ ............................3 -4 4 Revisions to the Draft EIR ............................................................... ............................4 -1 Appendix A: Revisions to the Draft Area Plan and Associated General Plan and Zoning Amendments ............................................................. ............................A -I Introduction This Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of South San Francisco (City) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA). The City is the lead agency responsible for ensuring that the proposed El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments (Plan) comply with CEQA. PURPOSE The Final EIR incorporates the Draft EIR (for which a NOP was published July 5, 2010 and a public scoping meeting was held July 16, 2010) and includes Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR, and minor corrections and clarifications to the Draft EIR. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the Final EIR only contains responses to significant environmental issues raised in the comments received on the Draft EIR. It is intended to disclose to City decision makers, responsible agencies, organizations, and the general public, the potential impacts of implementing the proposed Plan. This program level analysis addresses potential impacts of activities associated with approval and implementation of the Plan, which is described in Chapter 2: Project Description, of the Draft EIR. The primary purpose of the Final EIR is to respond to comments received on the Draft EIR during the 45 -day public review period. The review period for the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2010072015) was from February 25, 2011 to April 11, 2011. This document, combined with the Draft EIR, constitutes the Final EIR on the project. This Final EIR amends and incorporates by reference the Draft EIR, which is available as a separately bound document from the City of South San Francisco Planning Division, 315 Maple Ave., in South San Francisco and online on the City of South San Francisco website at http:// www.ci.ssf.ca.us /index.aspx ?NID =367. ORGANIZATION This document contains the following components: Chapter 2 lists all of the agencies and individuals that submitted either written or oral comments on the Draft EIR; reproduces all comments and provides a unique number for each EIR comment in the page margin. Chapter 3 provides responses to comments, numbered, and in order according to the comments in Chapter 2. Chapter 4 lists revisions to the Draft EIR by chapter and page, in the same order as the revisions would appear in the Draft EIR. Actual revised pages of the Draft EIR appear at the end of the section, also in the same order that they would appear in the Draft EIR. Appendix A lists revisions to the Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Ordin- ance amendments. El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report PROCESS Upon publication of the Final FIR, the Planning Commission and City Council will hold public hearings to certify the FIR and to consider adoption of the proposed Plan. The Commission and Council will determine the adequacy of the Final FIR, and, if determined adequate, will make findings and certify the document as compliant with CEQA. Copies of the Final FIR have been provided to agencies and other parties that commented on the Draft FIR or have requested the Final FIR. The Final FIR is also available at the City of South San Francisco, Planning Division, 315 Maple Ave., in South San Francisco. 1 -2 2 Comments on the Draft EIR This chapter contains copies of the comment letters and oral comments received on the Draft EIR of the proposed Plan. A total of five comment letters were received during the 45 -day comment period. One additional letter was received after the close of comment period. CEQA does not require that lead agencies respond to late comments. (Pub. Resources Code, 4 21091(d).) While no response to this late comment is required, one is included in Chapter 3. Additionally, oral comments were received at a Planning Commission public hearing on the Draft EIR. Each comment letter is numbered, and each individual comment is assigned a number in the page margin. Responses to each comment are provided in Chapter 3 of this document. Please note that only comments on the Draft EIR are addressed in this Final EIR. Where appropriate, the information and /or revisions suggested in these comment letters have been incorporated into the Final EIR. These revisions are included in Chapter 4 of this document. Where comments address the merits of the proposed Plan rather than on the Draft EIR, this is noted in the response. Comments Received on the proposed Plan Com- ment # Date AgencylOrganization Commenter Agencies (Federal, State Regional, Local) (A) AI March 15, 2011 San Francisco International Airport John Bergener A2 March 28, 2011 City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo David Carbone A3 April 11, 2011 Department of Transportation Becky Frank A4 April 12, 2011 (re- ceived after close of comment period) Town of Colma Colette Meunier Organizations /Individuals (B) BI April 5, 2011 South San Francisco Rotary Club Dennis Rosaia B2 April 11, 2011 Kaiser Permanente Linda Jensen Oral Testimony (C) CI April 7, 2011 Planning Commission Hearing on Draft EIR Oral Comments 2 -1 March 15, 2011 Mr. Gera* Beaudin, AICP Senior Planner Citv of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department Planning Division P. O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 rr rri i rr Sant Fraricisc r lnt rrtatlona , rpart Subject: El Camino Real /Chestnut Aiwnue Area Plan, Draft En>ironmental Impact Report — City ofSouth San Francisco Dear Mr. Beaudin: Thank you for notIA-ing San Francisco International Airport (SFO or the Airport) of the availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan (the Plan). We appreciate this opportunity to coordinate Nvith the City of South San Francisco (the City) in considering and evaluating potential land use compatibility issues that this and similar projects may pose for the Airport. Airport staff has revieNved the Plan's DEIR that Nvas made available for public review on February 25, 2011. This letter presents the Airport's comments on the proposed project. As described in the DEIR, the Planning Area encompasses approximately 98 acres in the geographic center ofthe City along El Camino Real, and includes lands formerly ovmed by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the Kaiser Hospital site, and the City's Municipal Services Building. The Planning Area envisions a new mixed -use district oriented toNvard pedestrian and transit access, Nvith medium to high density development. At project buildout, the Planning Area could contain up to a total of 1,500 residential units and 2,500 jobs. Located approximately three miles northNvest ofthe Airport, the Planning Area is subject to the policies of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) for SFO. The SFO CLUP addresses issues related to compatibility between airport operations and surrounding land use development, considering noise impacts, safety ofpersons on the ground and in flight, height III - III restrictions /airspace protection, and overflight notification. Land use development Nvithin the Airport Influence Area is currently governed by the CLUP adopted by the City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C /CAG) in 1996, amended 1998. The SFO CLUP is in the process of being updated and is anticipated to be completed by mid -2011. Since AIRPORT OOMM ISSIONl Cpl °' AND C VICTY OF SAN FRAWS E15WIN Maw Lft LARNY MAZ201.,A A"m 5, CRd Y10N LUANOR [OHNI AICHAWD A' (W6(j 41111ME PETE!A A 51 EftN 10111N L MAR'VI pry (Dffdw.M Box 8,097 Swl fir,soluY Iiv co, V,wahff` tnia 94128 'To1650. V 11 30M F w 650. 8,21 .1304)5 N w.flyf wwm Mr. Gerry Beaudin, AKT March 1S, 2011 Page 2 of3 the CLUP update is likely to be completed and adopted before the Final EIR, it is advisable to consider the policies ofthe draft updated CLUP in preparing the environmental documentation. Future development Nvithin the Planning Area should be consistent Nvith CLUP policies Nvith regard to height, noise, and safety compatibility. This is supported by South San Francisco General Plan Policy 2 -I -22, which states: "Require that all future development conforms Nvith the relevant height, aircraft noise, and safety policies and compatibility criteria contained in the most recently adopted version ofthe San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the environs of San Francisco International Airport." In order to protect airspace used for aircraft departure and arrival procedures, the height ofnew development surrounding the Airport must be maintained below defined critical airspace protection surfaces. Figure 3.9 -1, provided by SFO in August 2010, illustrates that the ground elevation of the Planning Area is estimated to be at least 160 feet below SFO's composite critical III -2 airspace protection surface. According to a preliminary airspace analysis, the maximum permissible building height at the former San Francisco Public Utilities Commission site, where the greatest discretionary building heights Nvould be alloNved, is approximately 240 feet above mean seal level (AMSL). At the Safewa -,T /Chestnut Center site, the maximum permissible building height is approximately 220 feet AMSL. The finished height of any proposed development should be maintained below critical airspace protection surface limits. With regard to noise impacts, the Planning Area is situated outside of the Airport's 65 dB CNEL noise contour. HoNvever, the Planning Area is still subject to intermittent noise from aircraft III -3 departing SFO, in addition to other sources of ambient noise. Proposed land uses should meet the interior noise requirements of the 2007 California Building Code and the South San Francisco General Plan. III -4 The Planning Area is not situated Nvithin a runwa -,T end safety zone for SFO, and therefore the proposed project does not pose an airport land use compatibility issue Nvith regard to safety. A minor correction may be needed to a statement on page 3.9 -6. The end of the second paragraph III -5 reads: "CLUP guidelines regarding noise are presented in Section 3.2." This should more appropriately refer to Section 3.5. The Airport appreciates your consideration of these comments. If I can be of assistance as the City considers airport land use compatibility as they relate to this project or future projects, please do not hesitate to contact me at (650) 821 -7867 or atjohn.bergenera- .fIvsfo.com Sincerely, John Bergener Airport Planning Manager San Francisco International Airport Bureau of Planning and Environmental Affairs Mr. Gerry Beaudin, ART March 1 S, 2011 Page 3 of3 cc: Nixon Lam, SFO, Manager of Environmental Affairs Dave Carbone, Airport Land Use Commission E0_11M11M11111MT` 1 1ET`T`11E11RA2 Nomprom City/County Association of Governments San Mateo County Atherton - Belmont - Brisbane - Burlingame - Colma - Daly City - East Palo Alto - Foster City - Half Moon BayHillsborough - Menlo Park - Millbrae - Pacifica - Portola Valley - Redwood City - San Bruno - San Carlos - San Mateo Mateo County - South San Francisco - Woodside March 23, 2011 '! . .. ..... I W - NE: C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Staff Comments on the Relevant Content of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the El Camino ReallChestnut Land Use Plan and Associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments 01MillnosiM1111:11 -1 • 110 TT=M17=- - The airport/land use compatibility issues of concern to the C/CAG Board are (1) height of structures/airspace prutection, (2) aircraft noise impacts, and (3) runway end safety issues. Each issue related to the proposed project is addressed on the next page. ALUC Chairperson: ALUC Vice Chairperson: C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Staff:Richard Newman Ann Keighran, Council Member David F. Carbone, Transportation Systems Coordinator/Airport EnvironsAviationRepresentativeCityofBurlingame, California Planning, County of San Mateo Planning and Building Department. 555 COUNTY CENTER, 5TH FLOOR, REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 - 650/599-1406 - 650/594-9980 This rewritten text is more "height of structures" specific than the current text in Section 4.4 and supports the text in the second paragraph on p. 3.9-7. 1 ........................................................................ 'Runway Safety Issues/Zones. The El Camino ReallChestnut Land Use Plan is not A2-5 located within any runway end safety zones for San Francisco International Airport. Therefore, runway safety is not an airport land use compatibility issue for future development on the project site. A2-6 p. 3.5-12 Add the following sentence at the end of the last full paragraph regarding the Airport/Community Roundtable: lialloollillillillillillillilliilillilI IN! I'll11111111 A2-7 p. 3.9-6 Revise the second sentence in the first paragraph to read as follows: The updated Plan will include the 2001/2006 FAA-accepted Noise Exposure Maps The proposed Plan would adhere to policies set forth in the 1996 CLUP (Amended in 1998)." The updated Flan will include the 2001/2006 FAA-accepted Noise Exposure ffinaps cc: C/CAG Airport Land Use Commiftee (ALUC) Members Richard Napier, C/CAG Executive Director Richard Newman, C/CAG ALUC Chairperson John Bergener, SFO Planning Manager t C 0 IIM IIM IIE N'T I 11E'I 11 ................................................................................................................................................................. TOMN OPCOLNIA PLANNING DEPART)l IIIIIIIIIIIIII .............. "I'll", April 11, 20.11 IMr. Gerry Beaudin, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division P,O. Box 711 South San Francisco,, CA 94083 VIA Email rLt) Itc) 1,1 C"Anilin"D Rt..d a ("cAll ("'alifornia 91,0I1 Phone (65o) 9 0 FAX ( 9 RE: Environmental Imipact Report (EIR) — El Camino Rea Area Plan lzmmaw= is you for the opportunity to review and' comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan (Plan). Afte review of the DEIR, the Planning Department offersthe following comment,s on beha of the'Town of Colmai: I 5 oil 0 Letter to SSF April 11, 2011 Comments on D R, - El Carnino Real/Chestnut, Avenue Area Plan Page 2 of 2 oil1WHOM=gJ11*3#111SOamI I; r, Ifram is W At P'lan buildout, and as other areas such as the Treasure Island Mobile Home Park are redeveloped with Medium Density Resil ential uses in accordance with the South San Francisco General Plainthere will be a signcant increase in traffic volumes along El Camino Real. The intersections north of Hickey Boulevard have not been evaluated in the DEIR, and impacts associated with, Plan buildout could detrimentally affect the Town of Colma's circulation and transportation network. We request that the DEIR buildout along El Camino Real north of Hickey Boulevard. AtIncludetheimpactsofPla a minimurn, anal'ysis, should be Provided for the intersection of Arlington Drive and El Camino Real. sr-MOUMIN t C. Laura Allen, Colma City Manager (dectronically) Brad Donohue, Deputy Public Works Director (electronically) Almi 15, 20 11 Chy of SmAi San Francisc) Planrting Ccmnmission Planning Nvkimr cAy Hall 400 Graod Avenix, South an Fram,isco. (,,,A )*'V) td C'amnno RealX-Iiestnut rk'venue Ares 1 axi & Associated Gencial Pl-an Ammidmesa and Zoriing Or(]inance Arn,endiri('111 Dear Planninig ('c' Wn",bers Thank you i"Z)r 1.1.6s opporaimitym 1,'x'ovide you "Ali, comulentson the F,] Catninc) Re",11/01'eslni]L Averiue Nrea Plan, & Ass("x, (3o 1"I'lan 1,cming Ordinance III III III Tl'ic overall m ision Set fo'rt i n I 1"'le /firea Plan is a VVq mot ing one W (mr Coy Thie Rotary Cub of Somh San Fkanciw,"I' toc)ks fi')rward to being"PW1 of its implementation by sponsoring the 01mclopmem of an atmactively designed aftli.'rrdabtc segficir hc)tisirig comri'll""u'lity consis'ling of 100 units. We belicve ffiat our paxfiLipation in the dkl'Ca Plan vvilli sig"filricantly enh'511ce camumnity omppml Rw 11'iecrvietall j,')rc)grmrr VoT thiS Vf.01,SOR, Wt-, N-IieTeit iS m'iport""I'm th"It the Plan m(',1trde maligic lain amers that iaccornmindme dic flasibUity Of SUch anat"R.')vdable senjor fioi, sing Wc have engRged HKWArWems, whc) 60 pm,miks emailng 5000 uniN ofoUbWaNe senior housing- kVc have als('l selected a:ii expevienced mJcvelcqment pannar American Baptistffonies ofthe WesL QUA10AVIMich has miccessfufly devdoped 23 wrik')r hous,'ing conmunhies cam mpiiing arm er 4,150 urdis, inclulng 12 a0blAW smim houNg pnMgydes HKIT and ABI-10M ll'ilrve assim.cd 5.ts in rwcpannj., tke Wowing c which a,ie intunded lo suggem modrfications requked to ac,c,oairnod al c the NOW Lit ar a 100 mink 05440', senior llon.sing ccrml 1munril Y, housing in 1,11e 1?1 high dens'hy nudimit teddeMMI in generat 2, &v both (,,urr'( m and conditions, the 15 for residential tomms shown at Me lo,cation ctf the popeny most st6mble Or aflIm-dables,enlrmrdr housing m11 most likely not be f , tasiblc I' r a no mtbel,' of years, - rtii s i'aci is reno,:,wmi in,RQ,BQX563 SWJTI-r SAN FRANCrSCO CA 94080 the site development listed as Phase 5 in the city's program. The site's raster -plan indicates a, single development approach to each of the 3 residential towers thus requiring a joint venture for tile affordable senior housing component with a market rate multifamily development. We would like to see the affordable senior component acknowledged and located as a, potential separate element in the rnaster-plan along the creek side that can be developed independently fironi the eventual market that will drive the viability of the high density residential towers. The 2 residential components can then complement each other and perhaps join at a cornmon phased parking structure, The desired high site density would then be achieved over the entire site development as a goal, while allowing the senior component to be built and financed in a time line and economic climate that reflects the opportunities available to nonprofit developers versus the larger more volatile markets that drive typical multifamily developers. 3. As the Area Plan is presently written,, there is no practical way for an affordable low-income housing development to move Forward independent of the other developments in the Plan. Funding cycles and development limelines unique to affordable housing should be given, more consideration when adopting a final Plan. 4. The proposal to include a ryunimUrn density of SO units per acre at this site also presents problems for the development of senior affordable housing. Given the current sources of public funding foi such housing such as the l IUD Section 202 and Low-Incorne Housing Tax Credit programs, it would be difficult to create a feasible financing structure that would allow fbr much more than 1100 units, Also, the limitations of these federal sources of Binding and the per-Unit costs of developing a inid-rise or high-rise property would likely require: that an unusually large arnount of city funding be secured. We would suggest that an affordable housing overlay zone be included for this site that would allow for a minii density of 50 units per acre. This zone could also specify that only 40 percent of the site in question could be eligible for this use, with the balance to be developed at 100 units per acre, If this zone were created, the senior affordable housing development could move forward quickly and independently while still allowing the site as a whole to meet the original 80 unit per acre minimum density target, Alternatively or additively, a master planning process could also be used to allow for the inclusion of these affordable senior units in a manner that is feasible arid, that is cowatible with the ovell goals and intention of the area, plan. 5- "The coTwerns above also relate to the Plan recomniendation that the portion. the site in (piestion'be developed. as the last of five phases. We argethat the City provide for badly needed, afforoable senior housing to move for on the fa mest firrie frarrie possible, urge you to mnsider modifications to the draft Area Plari that will accommodate the reasibifity of a, well-designed 100 unit affordable senior housing cornplex- "I'he Delmr(trient of Health and I-Rallan Services' Administration on. Aging ageticy rep orls that 1, out f v rry 2 d yerl houseMold s eam less than our Area Media, loan onie. The average time on the waiting lists ofsernor bousing conInTUnifies in the City is2-5 years. Witbflie rise in the number of baby-boomers, the demand of they type Of h0USir.Ig proposed will increase exponentially ir thecoming years. The South San Franckeo Rotary Club is excited by the prospect (, being part of this important element of our City's fitture. We hope to Play an imponant role ui helping to make the vision of th.e Area Plan corn to fruition, MIe look forward as well to working with the City on approp standards foi much needed. afl'brdable senior houmg, Than you for your attention and consideration, 1011 KAISER, PERMANENTEce, ApH I IL 201 Ni r. Nfike Laplpen Fcotuijiiic Develo latfarrientCo , or Deparivnexit of [Ec(,) auid (,oinTnwdt)r Develaypimeapt Ciq (A'Soirth, S"in Fnancis 315 Woe A"evue S(,ntth Baru I`rancisoo, CA, 9408:3 Kaki ep Pw"nwiemv Medkal Comm,, Re: El ("4111j"o, Real/chestnut Avefsueikrear Plan - Draft F`nvir( 'ipact Repart De-,tr N4,r. L nmnk you hm the opportunily to r,vview the Draft Impact Report (br the E] Camino Real)(7hestnut Avenite Area Plan ("DEIR") flue Kaiser NWdical Center MrRruly occupies ov'er 2(L4 acres %A the 98 acre El Carnino)(leswin Avenue Am 14an (IArea Flatf ) awa and Crony enAly 1, slate of the gui inwgrmed rneodical care scrvices ix) 3316 of South San Fmncisco residents. ()or substantial presence in the kxal an.d broider Smah San FMCiSe() C(HII[THU'lity wil I roniain anal will respond to the needs of" q, nicinbers heaftftcare rmarket IN- thie fum and dray IHI of dw Area Plan, Hiser Permariente ("`f aisQx") WOUld like to concerns aK,)ul: the DETIR. thelroject Deserilption and die analysis clontained, in die DEIR. I ()ur rnajo• concern is that the Area Plan and Fun1posed Zonhig Ord inance Atnen(Jnwnt does not adequawly acknovdedge ot- address the presence of the Kaiser Niedical Ctnter, rio• acknowleidge that It will rcniai,rt, expand, adapt and change ovvr the I& of Me i9ca Phin as a ky and %lial citiinponent of the Plan. MHe the Area Plain menfions dir pres nice of flie 132-1 Kaker WWI Unter. auid (711 slaff"clearly ack.no%vledges hi public study sesskms Mal the NUN] Cenwr in one of the regional avtractio and features Area Pkin the Medical Cenwr qjwwN to be an, ahi'tost tatigen6al afterthoughtwhen reading, 1he Area Plaxi,.,, Thiis, r in a s;oniewhat confiming Project Eksaymbn hi Me DEUt hi which it is unclear what ilie Kaiser W1121 Water in the Agra llhtn, xacerhating this pr(, is th, tlie Areki Plari—Zcniing ("ode Awwndtnan and DUR conmin comems dul are too prcCripfivr,and ttnwcessafily tvNi:t'i10 redevelqj,, niient ()PpOrl U,nities V%Vetprw ,% Baqj4evard Redwood Oly, Cahfewi4a 94063-2087 pa- 1457704 , WSW =wo mm"M MN Mh Mr. Mike U"I p en Apri I l, 201 l Page Two prioi.7 to any specific pro " iiect-le'vel phanning by Kaisei, We are concerned that t1lis pretnaftltd) MSU language has resulted in an enivironn, anal in the I)EIR that. Will preclude further discussio13s between Kaiser and, (lie City pric)ri 110 adcTtion, oftheAiva I'lan a nd Zoning Ordinance Amenthii'ient regarding, appr( mutually livneficial niodilleatio to the Area Plan and Zoning ( - dinanicc Aniendrnent, Spedfically, with respect to thc Zoning Ordhmrice Amenchnient Kaim is concerned tbat the Medical Center is II,,, S 2 - 2 nap] it between two dilki zx designations, the El C',i Mixed kJse North, Mediulml. Intensity alid, thin, Et Camit"to Mixed Use North, 1-figh Intietisity zones., With; its unique integrated care delive r.) inodel, Kaiser needs to retait.i the flexibility to provide all tYI)CS ot medical services anywhere on its canipus. As proposed, hospital uses are not perlifitted III the EI (.'anlino Mixed Use N0,1111, I ligh Intensity portion of the Nd'edical Center thereby prepnialurely Precluding Kaiser from expanding on to property fliat it has acquired Soir eXj)aIIMOn j)LU'P(')SCS, NI sorne date in the not so clistana flutui,re Kaiser will need to replace portions 01" the existing hospital iii order to inneet regpilatory requiriernents and to provide the beM possible healtl°u care to its nienibem, "I"he pr(,)posed z(mws are undul restrictivv aud usurp the role of tlie Ph Gr:;mwissirOIII '1111(l Cjj)i' ( in deteninining, the inaster planned of' Kaiseri's South San Francisco Medical Celiter. Addifi(mally, i'nanyi of thie specific development statularcls containied, in the proPosed Zot Ordinance Ainicndiiiient And the Area Man, appear specifically aimeld at residential aind c ialdevelopiTiejit,, Health care a,Jjjd niedical centers in partiCLI.Iar ate highlyi specialized dtvielopments needing to urine specifilc foderal, and slate sakty, privacy, 11-juinciat II,,, S 2 - 3 and other regulatory dernarids. Whips Kaiser appreciates H. until it has as better sense of ilea long- Iiiiich IPlansfortheNIedical. ( enter, an;d is prepared to engage i n. a sl,)1w I'lic planning le proicies-,, it is preniature to include stir standards in the Area Plan dnd Zoning Ordiinance Aj:13endment. Tile cumej, dievelopet neat ,aanda,rds are,tiot necessarily appro Imate as ihey are too prescriptive and resirictivc.fat a.mIlliMU111, Kaiser would appreciate additionall language included in, the ii Plan and Zonirig Ordinance Aniiendn'leant that Meognizes the uniquo n')Ie of" Medical Center deveiopnieta ari,d an acknowledgernent flvit the proposed, developnient stamlards i I rtiot be app] ield literal lyi, Wesee:krC(:):tlfill°n'latlioNI'llia,t llie ad(fition of" thestatenientor ppr'hwi ple m.piestedby Kaiser R)i• the developn:iient oil' adlernati ve le-velo inIent Saandards an,d ip gn guideflines fo:r die 6edioul Centei are within the s,c(:)Pe the DI-IR, Basend , on the Ibregoing we believe that ilit is hni, fior Kaisiei-- arnd tile City to begitt meeting immediately to dliscus appropriate niodifications to dw Area Plain i Zoning III S 2 - 4 Ordinance Amendinent to onsure that thiese ainendments do ncit restrict Kaisers ability to cxN; its c,peri in South Saari Francisco pursuant to an reasoned dialogue i the city and K.aiser's own erivin"nuliental review proeess. Kaiser resPectfully rieclutiststhat thy, City instruct staffto trio if thy;, DI"IR. in acc with thc&e Co'llic'ey'lls. Mr. Mike 1"appel"l, Apri I 11, 20 1, 1 Page "hhr mummmur, As onc of the largest emp,'l(, in the City, Kzdser Perrvianonite WOUld, fikethe flexibifity 'to temain and grom its Medical Ce"11ter in dve Cily Of South San, F'v Once again, th, an k toreviov and provide. conunents on rho DIEUR, Please let ine know if you have rrn,.Y quesfiorls or t discuss 111ese matters; Further an I look 1,orvvvtrr'] u) rTkCeUtlg w you in the near 1.1iture, S i o'cereIV T. is PmSident & Area Managcr - Sa.ji Mateo pa- 14 5 7704 iii iii,,,,,, ii .............. iI iii SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS MADE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON THE DRAFT EIR Planning Commission Hearing April 7, 2011 Hollis Harris My name is Hollis Harris, Vice President of Capital Projects for Kaiser Permanente and I am here tonight speaking for Kaiser Permanente. We have been in South San Francisco for over 60 years as Kaiser Permanente. We opened our first hospital at Grand and Spruce and moved to our current site in 1975 and have been growing that site since then. We actually had an earlier involvement in South San Francisco that Doctor Garfield, one of our founders, had an original practice here in South San Francisco servicing the long shoremen who worked out at Oyster Point. So we feel very committed and very much a part of the community. In fact 33 percent of III III your residents are Kaiser Permanente members and we are proud of that fact, quite proud of that fact. We fell asleep at the wheel a little bit and missed the fact that the Draft EIR was out. We caught wind ofit and found it earlier this week. So we don't have specific comments to make but I just wanted to say we will be submitting a letter by Monday the deadline with our comments as we are scrambling to figure them out. We look forward to working with staff and the Commission on the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance changes to the Plan. That's all I have to say. I did it under three minutes. Thank you. Patrick Brosnan My name is Patrick Brosnan and I am looking at it from the point of view of, my family, we own some apartments at the corner of Grand and Mission. And just from my looking, I just started looking at it a few days ago, and my concern is with traffic, especially between Oak and Grand Avenue. It seems that the very high density residential, I think about 500 units are going in there, 111 -2 it seems that the only place to really approach, for cars to approach those buildings is on Mission Road. So that is concerning to us that there are so many residents right there and I don't see any other area that they can approach other than Mission Road, right off of Grand. That seems like a lot of traffic for such a small road. As far as the Environmental Report, that is what really jumps out at me. Charles Bona My name is Charles Bona and I am with the Mission Road Dental Center located on Mission Road. We have been located there for about 30, 40 years. This is very important to us and I don't know why we didn't get more notice about this Environmental Impact Report. I really feel like we are being pushed on the 11t to come up with things that seem to give a little concern for those 111 -3 tenants, those people who are currently owners of property within the confines of the 98 acres. And so I just wanted to say that I am not familiar with this process to a great degree but I wish we had more notice on this because I don't know what the impacts going to be because I don't know enough details. Perhaps we are going to have a lot more of an opportunity to work with the staff as it finalizes and gets down to the nitty gritty, but I just wanted to make this comment at this time. Anna Macedi My name is Anna Macedi and my comment is as a resident of South San Francisco, I did not receive a notice of this meeting. I would think that this project affects every resident of South San Francisco and not those within that specific area being planned. So I would've hoped that you 111 -4 would have taken that into consideration because the area you are discussing is already a traffic Larea so I don't see how this would benefit or improve the area at all. So I would hope that you take that into consideration. George Flynn By the information just given, it sounded like the traffic concerns were involved directly in the 111 -5 Environmental Impact Report. It sounds like the Environmental Impact Report grievances, arguments, whatever, it sounds like the end of that is going to be on May 11t And it sounds that looking from the presentation that that includes the traffic impact and all of that. Is that correct? Richard Hedges If I may, not trying to usurp the chair or the Commissioners. Just to make a comment about EIRs in general. But first Mr. Lohring wanted me to comment and I do too about how well you have handled this, how well your explanation was in particular about what the EIR is doing tonight. And I want to thank you for that. I think that EIRs in a lamen's opinion are much like constitutions. They are the rule of law or the rule of development for the City. They lay out the 111 future plans and what can be developed in an area. For example, ifyou would look at another city who went through a similar process that you are going through right now, San Mateo, with the corridor plan over a long period of time that laid out the rules about what would be developed there and later was incorporated into the City plan, overall General Plan by vote of the population, overwhelmingly 85 percent I might add. What I heard the most concern about tonight was traffic and that's always a concern for folks who live near any development. And what I would say tonight would have been the time for you to look at the modeling used for the documents, traffic in the EIR, for instance the model, you might find fault with it if a supercenter was going in and the modeling used was for a grocery store. Those would be the things you would bring up tonight to try to overturn. So it is simply not the night if you have some long term concerns about the development as you said. I think you explained it very well. 3 Response to Comments on the Draft EIR This chapter includes responses to each comment, and in the same order, as presented in Chapter 2. The responses are marked with the same number - letter combination as the comment to which they respond, as shown in the margin of the comment letters. AGENCIES A I: San Francisco International Airport AI -I: The current and most recently adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) for San Francisco International Airport (SFO) was adopted by the City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C /CAG) in 1996, amended 1998; therefore it was considered when preparing the Draft EIR. According to Dave Carbone from C /CAG, via phone correspondence on March 16, 2011, the public review draft of the SFO CLUP update is not yet ready for release, and adoption of the SFO CLUP update is not anticipated until the end of 2011. Adoption of the proposed Plan is anticipated to precede adoption —and possibly publication —of any update to the CLUP. Accordingly, the Plan is evaluated in light of the existing, and only available CLUP. As further described in Response AI -3, development within the Plan area will comply with the City's General Plan, including Policy 2 -I -22. AI -2: Comment noted. As the comment states, Figure 3.9 -1 illustrates that the ground level elevation of the Planning Area is estimated to be at least 160 feet below SFO's composite critical airspace protection surface. Since nowhere in the Planning Area are heights greater than 160 feet permitted, SFO's composite critical airspace protection surface limit will not be exceeded. The former San Francisco Public Utilities Commission site is approximately 50 feet above mean sea level. The maximum permitted height on that site is 160 feet with discretionary review; therefore the maximum permitted height of structures on that site would be approximately 210 feet above mean sea level, which is below the critical airspace protection surface limit of 240 feet for the site. The Safeway /Chestnut Center site is approximately 40 feet above mean sea level. The maximum permitted height on that site is approximately 120 feet with discretionary review; therefore the maximum permitted height of structures on that site would be approximately 160 feet above mean sea level, which is below the critical airspace surface limit of 220 feet above mean seal level for the site. Therefore, as the Draft EIR states, the proposed Plan does not conflict with heights established for SFO's airspace. AI -3: This information is provided in Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR. As stated on page 3.5 -18 of the Draft EIR, new development under the proposed Plan would have to adhere to noise standards in Section 20.300.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, future development would also have to adhere to Title 24 and noise policies set forth in the South San Francisco General Plan, which would effectively mitigate noise impacts. AI -4: Comment noted. This information is provided on page 3.9 -6 of the Draft EIR. 3 -1 El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report AI -5: In response to the comment, the section reference on page 3.9 -6 has been updated. A2: City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo A2 -1: This is a comment regarding the process established by Public Utilities Code Section 21676, rather than the Draft FIR. In order to comply with the process, a request was sent on March 30, 2011 to Dave Carbone of the C /CAG Airport Land Use Committee ALUC) to review the Plan at the next ALUC and C /CAG meeting. The Plan is on the ALUC agenda for May 19, 2011 and on the C /CAG agenda for June 9, 2011. A2 -2: See response to Comment AI -2. A2 -3: In response to the comment, the regulatory setting under San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan on page 3.9 -6 has been updated. A2 -4: In response to the comment, reference has been added to the Summary of Impacts on page 3.9 -7 to indicate that detailed noise analysis is located in Section 3.5 of the Draft FIR. A2 -5: In response to the comment, the Summary of Impacts on page 3.9 -7 has been updated to include reference to runway end safety zones. A2 -6: In response to the comment, the description of the Airport /Community Roundtable on page 3.5 -12 has been updated to include reference to the City of South San Francisco. A2 -7: In response to the comment, the regulatory setting under San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan on page 3.9 -6 has been updated. A2 -8: In response to the comment, the Summary of Impacts on page 3.9 -7 has been updated. A2 -9: In response to the comment, the regulatory setting under San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan on page 3.12 -15 has been updated. A3: Department of Transportation (Caltrans) A3 -1: Comment noted. A4: Town of Colma A4 -1: Comment noted. The comment restates portions of the analysis, but does not raise a significant environmental issue with the analysis. No further response to this comment is required. A4 -2: The comment restates certain information provided in the Draft EIR's traffic chapter, expresses a general concern regarding the increase in traffic, and requests analysis of additional intersections. The scope of the Draft EIR's traffic analysis, including the specific intersections to be evaluated, was developed in consultation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and nearby agencies and jurisdictions, including the commenter, were invited to participate in that scoping process. Per 3 -2 Chapter 3: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR CEQA Guidelines 4 15082(a), upon deciding that an environmental impact report was required for the Plan, the City of South San Francisco prepared a Notice of Preparation which was mailed to responsible agencies, including the Town of Colma, on July 5, 2010. Under CEQA, when a responsible agency fails by the end of the prescribed 30- day period to provide the lead agency with either a response to the notice or a well- justified request for additional time, the lead agency may presume that none of those entities have a response to make. (CEQA Guidelines 4 15082(b)(2) and 4 15103.) The City of South San Francisco did not receive a response to the Notice of Preparation from the Town of Colma. In addition to the Notice of Preparation, the City of South San Francisco also conducted a scoping meeting to determine the scope and content of the environmental information that responsible agencies may require. The notice of the scoping meeting, held on July 16, 2010, was provided in the Notice of Preparation. The Town of Colma did not attend the scoping meeting. The City did, however, work with Caltrans to establish the scope of the traffic study. Caltrans' responses to the Notice of Preparation were included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. These responses and correspondence from the lead agency's consultant is provided in Chapter 4 for reference. Pursuant to Caltrans' request, the lead agency expanded the scope of the traffic study to evaluate additional intersections that Caltrans believed could have potentially significant impacts resulting from adoption of the Plan. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City of South San Francisco prepared a Notice of Availability which was mailed to the Town of Colma on February 25, 2011. The Notice of Availability specified the 45 -day public review period, beginning on February 25, 2011 and ending at 5:00 pm on April 11, 2011. During the public review period, a Planning Commission Public Hearing was conducted on April 7, 2011 to receive oral public comments on the Draft EIR. The Town of Colma did not provide any oral comments at the Public Hearing. At the end of the public review period specified in the Notice of Availability, comments had not been submitted by the Town of Colma. A comment letter from the Town of Colma was received on April 11, 2011 via email at 5:32 pm, after the end of the public review period. Per CEQA Guidelines 4 15207, if any public agency fails to comment within a reasonable time as specified by the lead agency, it shall be assumed, absent a request for a specific extension of time, that such agency or person has no comment to make. Although the lead agency need not respond to late comments, the lead agency may choose to respond to them. As the comment letter from the Town of Colma was received after the end of the public review period, the City of South San Francisco is not required to respond to the late comment letter. Therefore, the response to comments being provided is for information purposes, as CEQA does not require a response. The City worked with the respondents to the NOP, including Caltrans, to develop the study area for the transportation and circulation analysis for the Plan. The study area intersections were chosen based on their location relative to the Planning Area and the potential for impacts on the transportation network. The City of South San Francisco and Caltrans developed and approved the list of study area intersections, with five intersections along El Camino Real, including the intersections at Hickey Boulevard 3 -3 El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report and McClellan Drive. There were no public comments received requesting any additional intersections be evaluated. While the intersection of El Camino Real /Arlington Drive was considered for inclusion in the traffic analysis study area, it was determined that Arlington Drive only provides access to a self- contained residential neighborhood. Therefore, Arlington Drive is a low volume local street. The intersection provides a traffic signal that controls traffic and allows protected turning movements into and out of the neighborhood. Given the low volume of traffic on Arlington Drive, and the existing signalization, the El Camino Real /Arlington Drive intersection would not be expected to be significantly impacted by the Plan. In addition, it is not expected that turning volumes at the El Camino Real /Arlington Drive intersection will significantly increase with the development of the Area Plan. Notably, Caltrans, which has jurisdiction over El Camino Real (State Route 82), did not request evaluation of this intersection. The Hickey Boulevard intersection to the south provides regional access to the freeway network with its interchange at I -280. Travel patterns and traffic volumes along El Camino Real north of Hickey Boulevard are significantly lower than south of Hickey Boulevard, as indicated in existing and proposed future northbound left turn and eastbound right turn peak hour volumes at the El Camino Real /Hickey Boulevard intersection. Furthermore, intersections north of Hickey Boulevard are farther removed from Planning Area, and accordingly would be expected to have lower impacts than those intersections evaluated in the Draft FIR. For the reasons stated in the Draft FIR and this response, the scope of the traffic analysis is adequate, and analysis of the additional intersections as requested in the comment is not necessary. B 1: Dennis Rosaia (South San Francisco Rotary Club) BI -1: The comment letter does not raise a significant environmental issue or address the adequacy of the FIR. As the commenter notes, the comments are on the proposed Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments, rather than the Draft FIR. The comment letter will be made a part of the record and provided to and considered by decision - makers as part of their deliberation as whether to approve the Plan. No further response is required as part of the Final FIR. 132: Linda Jensen (Kaiser Permanente) B2 -1: As stated in the introductory paragraph in Chapter 2 Project Description of the Draft FIR on page 2 -1, the project description provides background information regarding the regional location and boundaries of the Planning Area, as well as objectives, and key themes and components of the proposed Plan. Additional details are provided in the Plan itself. The proposed Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments were made available for review in conjunction with the Draft FIR. Figure 2.1 -2 in the Project Description of the Draft FIR shows the precise location and boundaries of the Planning Area (CEQA Guidelines 4 15124). Figure 2.1 -2 clearly shows the Kaiser Permanente site within the Planning Area. Kaiser, therefore is 3 -4 Chapter 3: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR included in the evaluation and review of environmental impacts in the Draft EIR. Figures 2.3 -I through 2.3 -6 show existing and proposed land uses, heights, and zoning for the Kaiser Permanente site; these maps along with supporting text provide a clear description of the proposed Plan as it applies to the Kaiser Permanente site. The existing land use, height and zoning maps, and supporting text in the Project Description show that the existing General Plan land use designation for the Kaiser Permanente site is office which has a base maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of I.0, up to 2.5 with discretionary approval and incentive based bonuses. The existing maximum height limit is 80 feet for the site and the site's existing zoning designation of Public /Quasi Public permits hospital uses after review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. The Plan proposes to change the General Plan land use designation of the Kaiser Permanente site to North El Camino Real Mixed Use, Medium Intensity and North El Camino Real Mixed Use, High Intensity. The proposed change in land use designation increases the base maximum FAR to 1.5 (Medium Intensity) and 2.0 (High Intensity). It also increases the maximum FAR with discretionary approval and incentive based bonuses to 3.0 for part of the site (High Intensity). Overall, the Plan would result in an increase of maximum FAR, which increases Kaiser's allowable building square footage on the site, compared to Kaiser's existing land use designation. In addition, the Plan proposes to increase the maximum height for the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center site to up to I20 feet with discretionary approval, while the existing height limit is 80 feet. The Plan would allow for taller buildings on the Kaiser Permanente site. The Plan is in effect malting the expansion of Kaiser more feasible through increasing the maximum FAR and height, compared to what is currently allowed. In terms of permitted uses, currently hospital is a conditionally permitted use at the Kaiser Permanente site. As proposed by the Plan, the existing Kaiser Permanente site would have two land use /zoning designations —in the El Camino Real /Chestnut Mixed Use, Medium Intensity sub - district, the Public Review Draft of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment continues to allow medical uses as conditionally permitted use. In response to the comment, the Zoning Ordinance has now been revised to allow hospital as a conditionally permitted use in the El Camino Real /Chestnut Mixed Use, High Intensity sub - district on the undeveloped narrow portion of the Kaiser Permanente site extending along El Camino Real as well. Thus, the proposed Zoning Ordinance would continue to allow hospital as a conditionally permitted use on all sites where these uses are currently conditionally permitted. Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment has been revised to clarify that the required minimum 0.3 FAR of active uses will not apply to the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center site designated as El Camino Real /Chestnut Mixed use, Medium Intensity. The Plan does not include any specific projects or development applications. Any specific proposal by Kaiser to expand, would be considered by the City pursuant to the development approval process, and subject to further CEQA review to evaluate project - level impacts. 3 -5 El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 132 -2: This is a comment on the merits of the Plan, rather than the Draft FIR. The environmental analysis in the Draft FIR does not preclude any discussions between Kaiser and the City regarding potential future modifications to the Area Plan, General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or development on the Kaiser site. The proposed Area Plan and Zoning regulations will require the review and approval of the Planning Commission and City Council; accordingly, they do not usurp the role of those bodies in determining the master planned future of the area. As Figure 2.3 -I in the Draft FIR shows, the three parcels north of the existing Kaiser Permanente site are currently designated Community Commercial /High Density Residential. Figure 2.3 -3 shows that the existing height limit is 80 feet for those three parcels. The parcel adjacent to the existing Kaiser site is currently zoned Transit Village Commercial (TV -C) while the other two parcels are zoned Transit Village High Density Residential (TV -RH). The maximum non - residential FAR for TV -C is 2.0, while the maximum non - residential FAR for TV -RH is I.O. Hospital use is currently not permitted on those three parcels. The 2009 City of South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element identified those three sites as housing opportunity sites. The Plan designates those three parcels as North El Camino Real Mixed Use, High Intensity. The Plan increases the base maximum FAR of TV -RH to 2.0 and allows a maximum FAR with discretionary approval and incentive base bonuses of 3.0 for all three sites. The Plan increases the height limit up to 120 feet with discretionary review. The Plan is not restricting redevelopment opportunities since it is not proposing any new restrictions on uses, compared to what is currently allowed. Instead, the Plan is expanding redevelopment opportunity by increasing the base maximum FAR on the site currently zoned TV -RH from 1.0 to 2.0 and the Plan is allowing for a maximum FAR with discretionary approval and incentive base bonuses of 3.0 where none currently exist, enabling more building square footage compared to what is currently allowed. In addition, the Plan increases maximum height to 120' with discretionary approval, which allows for taller buildings compared to what is currently allowed. The Plan is in effect malting the expansion of Kaiser more feasible. See Response to Comment 132 -I for detailed discussion regarding hospital uses and revisions to the Zoning Ordinance amendments. 132 -3: This is a comment on the Plan, rather than the Draft FIR. For information purposes, in response to the comment, Policy UD -I2, as revised, in the proposed Plan states Ensure that any Kaiser Hospital redevelopment is in accordance with the Area Plan, including the standards and guidelines spelled out in Chapter 5. While it is neither expected nor required that the hospital maintain an active frontage with ground floor commercial uses along El Camino Real (except as required in Figure 3 -3) the building itself should be designed to be visually cohesive in appearance, with articulated building form and massing, rather than a monolithic mass. The Area Plan would enable a taller hospital building to provide this flexibility in massing. Further, the hospital campus should be designed to take advantage of and be integrated with the surroundings, including the linear park and new commercial uses, to enable workers and visitors to enjoy the amenities and have easy access to eating establishments and 3 -6 Chapter 3: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR shops." Any potential policies or edits, as the comment requests, would not alter the conclusions presented in the Draft EIR regarding impacts as long as they are complementary to the policies included in the Draft Plan. 1324: This is a comment on the Plan, rather than the Draft EIR. See response to comments 132 -1 through 132 -3. C 1: Planning Commission Hearing on Draft EIR (Oral Comments) CIA: See responses to B2 comments. CI -2: This is a comment on the Plan, rather than the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR does show that overall traffic impacts will be significant and unavoidable. Table 3.1 -7 and 3.1 -8 show traffic impacts at individual intersection. On Mission Road /Grand Avenue, traffic impacts will be less than significant with improvements proposed by the Plan. On Mission Road /Oak Avenue, mitigation measures are infeasible and traffic impacts will be significant and unavoidable. The Plan does not include any specific projects or development applications. The traffic analysis is based on Plan buildout, or full development under the proposed Plan. The Plan does not specify or anticipate the exact time when development will occur, the exact locations where development will occur, or that exact size and intensity of the actual development. Therefore it is not known what development at Mission Road /Grand Avenue or Mission Road /Oak Avenue will look like until there is a specific development proposal. When there is a specific development proposal, the proposed development would be subject to further CEQA review to evaluate project -level impacts CI -3: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15105, the public review period for the Draft EIR was 45 days, beginning on February 25, 2011 and ending on April 11, 2011. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15807, the City of South San Francisco gave public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR through direct mailing to the owners and occupants of property contiguous to and within the Planning Area, and through posting of notice at the West Orange Library, Grand Avenue Library, City Clerk's office and Planning Division Counter, as well as the City's website. For informational purposes, in response to the comment, additional comments regarding the Plan may still be submitted to the City. CI -4: See Response to Comments CI -2 and CI -3. CI -5: See Response to Comments CI -2 and CI -3. At the time the comment was received, subsequent Planning Commission and City Council meetings required for the review and approval of the Plan had not yet been scheduled. A Planning Commission meeting has since been scheduled for May 5, 2011 for the Planning Commission to review and provide a recommendation to the City Council on the Plan. Public comments on the Plan are welcome by the City before adoption of the Plan. It is not anticipated that the Plan will be adopted by May 11, 2011. CI -6: Comment noted. 3 -7 4 Revisions to the Draft EIR This chapter includes the revisions to the Draft EIR. These revisions have been made in response to comments or based on review by the EIR preparers. The revisions appear here in the order they appear in the Draft EIR. Text additions are noted in underline and text deletions appear in s`--- Revisions to the Draft EIR are described in Table 4 -1 and organized by chapter, page and table or figure, where applicable. Certain pages have been appended to the end of this chapter, for clarity purposes; these pages are referenced in the table. Table 4.1: Revisions to the Draft EIR Chapter/ Page Table/ Correction Section Figure 3.5 3.5 -12 the Federal Aviation Administration, SFIA management and local govern- ment. The City of South San Francisco is a founding member of the Roundt- able. 3.9 3.9 -6 CLOP guidelines regarding noise are presented in Section -3 . 3_5 3.9 3.9 -6 4.4 Height Restrictions Exhibit 4D in the CLOP shows the F.A.R PART 77 airspace plan in the im- mediate San Francisco International Airport vicinity. The Planning Area is subject to height restrictions. The ALUC is currently preparing an update of the 1996 CLOP. As part of the update, the San Francisco International Air- port has prepared a set of maps to illustrate the critical aeronautical surfaces that protect the airspace for specific types of flight procedures. The aero- nautical surfaces include those established in accordance with FAA Order 8260.38, U.S. Standards for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) and a surface required for One - Engine Inoperative (OEI) procedures for aircraft departures on Runway 28 Left (to the west.) These surfaces indicate the maximum feasible building height at which structures in the Planning Area can be considered compatible with airport /aircraft operations. Consistencx with the SFO CLOP is determined when height of structures are maintained below critical airspace protection surface limits or below the height deter- mined to be a "hazard to air navigation" by the FAA in an aeronautical studx of the a proposed development project prepared pursuant to the filing of FAA Form 7460 -1, "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alternation," bx the project sponsor. The federal notice requirement and height determina- tion also applies to development projects based on certain maximum height parameters specified in the relevant FAA regulations (14 CFR Part 77, Sec- tion 77.9 and (b )(1)) Area (AIA) beundary area fer SFIA as well as an updated diagraffi ef the Is El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Table 4.1: Revisions to the Draft EIR Chapter/ Page Table/ Correction Section Figure 3.9 3.9 -6 The updated plan will include the 2-0 8 2001/2006 FAA - accepted Noise Ex- posure Maps (NEMs). 3.9 3.9 -7 ensure consistency between the three planning documents. The- presesed 3.9 3.9 -7 The Planning Area is not located within any runway end safety zones for San Francisco International Airport. Therefore, runway safety is not an airport land use compatibility issue for future development in the Planning Area. 3.9 3.9 -7 The Planning Area is eutside a" safety Pene and eutside ef the 65 G neise The Planning Area is not located within the 65 dB CNEL air-. craft noise contour or higher contour level, as shown on the most recent FAA- accepted Noise Exposure Malmo (NEM)(2001) for SFO nor within the 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour as shown on the SFO 2006 NEM males (five - year protection.) Detailed noise analysis is contained in Section 3.5. 3.12 3.12 -15 The updated plan will include the 2-0 82001/2006 FAA - accepted Noise Ex- posure Maps (NEMs). Appendix A Consultant correspondence with Caltrans regarding scope of Traffic study. Caltrans letters are included for reference. A -2 Draft Environmental Impact Report for El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures E. Noise 3. Noise Attenuation Measures. Noise attenuation measures identified in an acoustic study shall be incorporated into the project to reduce noise impacts to satisfactory levels. 4. Maximum Acceptable Interior Noise Levels. New noise - sensitive uses (e.g. schools, hospitals, churches, and residences) shall incorporate noise attenuation measures to achieve and maintain and interior noise level of CNEL 45 dB. 5. Residential Interior Noise Level Reduction. New dwellings exposed to CNEL above 65 dB shall incorporate the following noise reduction design measures unless alternative designs that achieve and maintain an interior noise level of CNEL 45 dB are incorporated and verified by a Board Certified Acoustical Engineer. a. All fagades must be constructed with substantial weight and insulation; b. Sound -rated windows providing noise reduction performance similar to that of the fagade must be included for habitable rooms; c. Sound -rated doors or storm doors providing noise reduction performance similar to that of the fagade must be included for all exterior entries; d. Acoustic baffling of vents is required for chimneys, fans, and gable ends; e. Installation of a mechanical ventilation system affording comfort under closed- window conditions; and f. Double -stud construction, double doors, and heavy roofs with ceilings of two layers of gypsum board on resilient channels. F. Vibration. No vibration shall be produced that is transmitted through the ground and is discernible without the aid of instruments by a reasonable person at the lot lines of the site. Vibrations from temporary construction, demolition, and vehicles that enter and leave the subject parcel (e.g., construction equipment, trains, trucks, etc.) are exempt from this standard. The Airport /Community Roundtable The Airport / Community Roundtable is a voluntary committee of elected representatives from 45 municipalities near SFIA, established in 1981 to address community noise impacts from aircraft operations at SFIA. The Roundtable monitors a performance -based noise mitigation program implemented by airport staff, interprets community concerns and attempts to achieve noise mitigation through a cooperative sharing of authority among the aviation industry, the Federal Aviation Administration, SFIA management and local government. The City of South San Francisco is a founding member of the Roundtable. Residential Sound Insulation Program The home insulation program at SFIA began in 1983, treating homes, churches, and schools in the County of San Mateo, Daly City, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno and South San Francisco. 3.5 -12 Draft Environmental Impact Report for El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures The ALUC is currently preparing an update of the 1996 CLUP, expected to be complete in 2011. The updated plan will include the -2008 2001/2006 FAA- accepted Noise Exposure Maps NEMs). It will also include an updated diagram that illustrates the configuration of the preliminary Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary area for SFIA as well as an updated diagram of the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 airspace protection surfaces. The Planning Area is not located within any runway end safety zones for the San Francisco International Airport. CLUP guidelines regarding noise are presented in Section 3-4 3_5. 4.4 Height Restrictions Exhibit 4D in the CLUP shows the F.A.R PART 77 airspace plan in the immediate San Francisco International Airport vicinity. The Planning Area is subject to height restrictions. The ALUC is currently preparing an update of the 1996 CLUP As part of the update, the San Francisco International Airport has prepared a set of maps to illustrate the critical aeronautical surfaces that protect the airspace for specific types of flight procedures. The aeronautical surfaces include those established in accordance with FAA Order 8260.313, U.S. Standards for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) and a surface required for One - Engine Inoperative OEI) procedures for aircraft departures on Runway 28 Left (to the west.) These surfaces indicate the maximum feasible building height at which structures in the Planning Area can be considered compatible with airport /aircraft operations. Consistency with the SFO CLUP is determined when height of structures are maintained below critical airspace protection surface limits or below the height determined to be a "hazard to air navigation" by the FAA in an aeronautical study of the a proposed development project prepared pursuant to the filing of FAA Form 7460 -1, "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alternation," by the project sponsor. The federal notice requirement and height determination also a112lies to development projects based on certain maximum height parameters specified in the relevant FAA regulations (14 CFR Part 77, Section 77.9(a ) and (b (1)). - Noise Exrosttfe Mars (NEN!s). it will also itteitttle att urtlatetl tliagfam that ilittstfates the IMPACT ANALYSIS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Implementation of the proposed Plan would have a potentially significant adverse impact on land use and housing if the proposed Plan would: Physically divide an established community; Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, population, or jobs, necessitating the construction of replacement housing or relocation of services elsewhere; Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with ju- risdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mi- tigating an environmental effect. 3.9 -6 Draft Environmental Impact Report for El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures METHODOLOGY & ASSUMPTIONS This analysis considers current policies and goals in the City's General Plan, existing and proposed land use conditions within the Planning Area, and applicable regulations and guidelines. Because the ALUC is still currently preparing an update of the 1996 CLUP, impacts are evaluated based on the most current adopted version of the plan, which is the 1996 CLUP, with 1998 Amendments, and in consultation with the San Francisco International Airport SFO). SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The proposed Plan does not physically divide any established community. Rather, by increasing compatibility along El Camino Real, increasing opportunities for housing, and improving linkages, the proposed Plan provides improves connections to and continuity with surrounding communities. The Planning Area primarily consists of commercial uses. The proposed will significantly increase the square footage of retail, services, and office space within the Planning Area. In addition, the proposed Plan will also significantly increase the number of housing units and removal of existing housing units as a result of the proposed Plan is not anticipated. Any housing removed as a result of the proposed Plan would be replaced through additional housing in the Planning Area. Overall, housing in the Planning Area is expected to increase from 132 units to 1,587 units. As part of adopting the proposed Plan, the General Plan will be amended and the Zoning Ordinance will be updated to ensure consistency between the three planning documents. eke The Planning Area is not located within any runway end safety zones for San Francisco International Airport. Therefore, runway is not an airport land use compatibilit issue for future development in the Planning Area. The Planning Area is not located within the 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour or higher contour level, as shown on the most recent FAA - accepted Noise Exposure Map (NEM)(2001) for SFO nor within the 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour as shown on the SFO 2006 NEM map (five -year protection.) Detailed noise analysis is contained in Section 3.5. The Planning Area is subject to height restrictions as identified in the CLUP. The ground elevation of all the parcels within the Planning Area are estimated to be at least 160 feet or more below SFO's critical airspace height limits. In addition, building heights will be required to adhere to the limits indicated in the most recently adopted CLUP. This requirement is reinforced by General Plan Policy 2 -I -22, which requires that "all development conforms to the most recently adopted version of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan." The Planning Area is not in an area subject to any habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans; thus, there will be no impact with regard to habitat conservation plans. 3.9 -7 Draft Environmental Impact Report for El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures General Plan Consistency with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans Public Utilities Code 21675 requires each airport land use commission to formulate an airport land use compatibility plan. California Government Code 65302.3 further requires that general plans be consistent with airport land use compatibility plans. In addition, general plans and applicable specific plans must be amended to reflect amendments to the airport land use compatibility plan. The San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan is discussed below. Local Regulations California Regional Water Quality Control Board In coordination with the SWRCB, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) adopts and implements water quality control plans that recognize the unique characteristics of each region with regard to natural water quality, actual and potential beneficial uses, and water quality problems. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (1996, amended 1998) The San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) develops and implements the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP). The current CLUP was adopted in December 1996, amended in 1998. In San Mateo County, the City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C /CAG) is the designated ALUC. The CLUP establishes the procedures that C /CAG uses in reviewing proposed local agency actions that affect land use decisions in the vicinity of San Mateo County's airports. Airport planning boundaries define where height, noise, and safety standards, policies, and criteria are applied to certain proposed land use policy actions. The ALUC is currently preparing an update of the 1996 CLUP. That plan is expected to be completed in final draft form in 2011. The updated plan will include the 2608 2001/2006 FAA - accepted Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs). It will also include an updated diagram that illustrates the configuration of the preliminary Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary area for SFIA as well as an updated diagram of the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 airspace protection surfaces. South San Francisco General Plan (1999) The South San Francisco General Plan includes a Health and Safety chapter which addresses hazards in a comprehensive manner through hazard abatement policies and measures to reduce risks to life and property in existing and new development. IMPACT ANALYSIS IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.12 -3 -1 Future land uses proposed by the proposed Plan may involve the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. (No Impact) 3.12 -15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA — BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE ° '" P_ O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623 -0660 Flex your power! PHONE (510) 622- 54910EIVE Be energy efficient!REDFAX (510) 286 -5559 TTY 711 AUG 10 2010 August 3, 2010 LECIDD) DEPARTMENT SM082265 SM -82 -20.65 -21.17 SCH #2010072015 Mr. Mike Lappen City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Lappen: El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan — Notice of Preparation Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan. The following comments are based on the Notice of Preparation. As lead agency, the City of South San Francisco is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to State highways. The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, and implementation responsibilities as well as lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures and the project's traffic mitigation fees should be specifically identified in the environmental document. Any required roadway improvements should be completed prior to issuance of project occupancy permits. An encroachment permit is required when the project involves work in the State's right of way (ROW). The Department will not issue an encroachment permit until our concerns are adequately addressed. Therefore, we strongly recommend that the lead agency ensure resolution of the Department's California Environmental Quality Act concerns prior to submittal of the encroachment permit application; see the end of this letter for more information regarding the encroachment permit process. Community Planning The Department encourages the City of South San Francisco to provide a street configuration that facilitates walking and biking to the South San Francisco BART station. We also recommend that the City refer to, "Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth," a Metropolitan Transportation Commission study funded by the Department, for sample parking ratios and strategies that support Transit Oriented Development. These actions will encourage alternate forms of transportation, reduce regional vehicle miles traveled and help alleviate future traffic impacts on the state highways. Traffic, Impact Study The environmental document should include,an analysis of the impacts of the proposed project on State highway facilities in the vicinity of the project site. Please ensure that a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is prepared providing the information detailed as follows: Caltrans improves mobility across California" Mr. Mike Lappen /City of South San Francisco August 3, 2010 Page 2 1. Information on the plan's traffic impacts in terms of trip generation, distribution, andassignment. The assumptions and methodologies used in compiling this information should beaddressed. The study should clearly show the percentage of project trips assigned to State facilities. 2. Current Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and AM and PM peak hour volumes on all significantly affected streets, highway segments and intersections. 3. Schematic illustration and level of service (LOS) analysis for the following scenarios: 1)existing, 2) existing plus project, 3) cumulative and 4) cumulative plus project for the roadways and intersections in the project area. 4. Calculation of cumulative traffic volumes should consider all traffic- generating developments,both existing and future, that would affect the State highway facilities being evaluated. 5. The procedures contained in the 2000 update of the Highway Capacity Manual should be usedasaguidefortheanalysis. We also recommend using the Department's "Guide for thePreparationofTrafficImpactStudies" it is available on the following web site: htt : / /www.dot.ca. ov /h / traffo s /develo sery / eerationals stems /re orts /tis uide. df . 6. Mitigation measures should be identified where plan implementation is expected to have asignificantimpact. Mitigation measures proposed should be fully discussed, includingfinancing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities, and lead agency monitoring. Encroachment PermitAnyworkortrafficcontrol within the State ROW requires an encroachment permit that is issuedbytheDepartment. Traffic - related mitigation measures will be incorporated into the constructionplansduringtheencroachmentpermitprocess. See the following website link for moreinformation: http: / /www. dot. ca. gov /hq /traffops /developsery /permits/ To apply for an encroachment permit, submit a completed encroachment permit application,environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans which clearly indicate State ROW to theaddressatthetopofthisletterhead, marked ATTN': Michael Condie, Mail Stop #5E. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call Sandra Finegan of my staff at 510) 622 -1644. Sincerely, LISA CARBONI District Branch Chief Local Development - Intergovernmental Review c: State Clearinghouse Caltrans improves mobility across California" Melinda Hue From: Melinda Hue [melinda @dyettandbhatia.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 10:38 AM To: 'sand ra_finegan @dot.ca.gov' Cc: 'hannah@dyettandbhatia.com' Subject: El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan EIR - Traffic Analysis Attachments: DOT com -ECR NOP.pdf; el cam overview.pdf Hi Sandra, I am writing to you in regards to the El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan in the City of South San Francisco. We received DOT's response to our Notice of Preparation for the EIR and I wanted to get in touch and run a list of potential traffic study intersections and freeways by you for comments. (I have attached a copy of the DOT comment letter and a map for your reference.) Potential Study Intersections 1. El Camino Real /Hickey Boulevard 2. El Camino Real /Arroyo Drive /Oak Extension 3. El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue 4. Mission Road /Oak Avenue 5. Mission Road /Chestnut Avenue 6. Westborough Boulevard /1 -280 NB On Ramp /Junipero Serra Boulevard 7. Westborough Boulevard /1 -280 SB Off Ramp The following are a list of potential study intersections that are further away from the study area and I would like your opinion on whether they should be studied: El Camino Real /Sneath Lane El Camino Real /1 -380 WB Off Ramp El Camino Real /1 -380 EB Off Ramp Are there any other intersections that you think should be studied? Potential Study Freeway Segments 8. 1 -280 mainline between Hickey to Westborough 9. 1 -280 mainline between Westborough and Avalon 10. 1 -280 mainline between Avalon and 1 -380 (Or is this too far south of the Planning Area ?) 11. 1 -380 mainline between US 101 and El Camino Real 12. 1 -380 mainline between El Camino Real and 1 -280 Our traffic consultant did not recommend the study of El Camino roadway segments or US 101 freeway segments. Can you please provide direction on whether those segments should be studied? Please let me know if you have any further questions or if you need more information. Thanks! Best, ZZ-311TF Melinda Hue, SEED AP I Planner DYETT & BHATIA I Urban and Regional Planners 755 Sansome Street, Suite 400 1 San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 Tel: 415 956 4300 x27 I Fax: 415 956 7315 1 http: / /www.dyettandbhatia.com STATE OFCALIFORNIA— BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623 -0660 PHONE (510) 622 -5491 FAX (510) 286 -5559 TTY 711 October 20, 2010 Q r R Flex yourpower! Be energy efficient! SM082265 SM -82- 20.65 -21.17 SCH #2010072015 Mr. Mike Lappen Planning Division City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Lappen: El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan — Traffic Impact Study Scope of Work Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the El Camino Real (ECR) /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan project. The following comments are based on your request for a review of the scope of work of the traffic impact study. Highway, Traffic, and Signal Operations 1. Please include the following study intersections: a. Chestnut Avenue /Grand Avenue b. McLellan Boulevard/ECR c. Orange Avenue /ECR d. Junipero Serra Boulevard/Arroyo Drive 2. You can exclude the following intersections and freeway segments: a. Sneath Lane /ECR b. I- 380 /ECR c. I -380 mainline between US -101 and ECR d. I -380 mainline between I -280 and ECR e. I -280 between Avalon Drive and I -380 Please forward at least one hard copy and one CD of the environmental document, TIS and its transportation related technical appendices including the Synchro output sheets to the address below as soon as they are available. Caltrans improves mobility across California" Mr. Mike Lappen October 20, 2010 Page 2 Sandra Finegan, Associate Transportation Planner Community Planning Office, Mail Station I OD California DOT, District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623 -0660 Please feel free to call or email Sandra Finegan ofmy staff at (510) 622 -1644 or sandra fineganAAdot.ca.gov with any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, 4(\ V LISA CARBONI District Branch Chief Local Development — Intergovernmental Review c: Ms. Terry Roberts, State Clearinghouse Caltrans improves mobility across California" Appendix A: Revisions to the Draft Area Plan and Associated General Plan and Zoning Amendments This Final FIR document responded to comments on the Draft FIR and, subsequently, identified relevant changes to the Plan and Draft FIR. The table below describes changes made to the Area Plan and associated Zoning amendments. These changes were also discussed in Chapter 3: Response to Comments on the FIR. It is organized by document and only reflects substantive changes. (Typos, formatting, clarifications, and updated cross - references are not recognized in the table.) Statements in bold, are followed by actual text and /or edits. Page, table, figure, goal, and policy numbers refer to the numbers in the February 2011 Public Review (PR) Drafts. Certain pages have been appended to the end of this appendix, for clarity purposes; these pages are referenced in the table. A -1 El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Draft Plan and associated Zoning Ordinance Amendment Revisions Table/ Page Figure Correction Revise Policy UD -12 to clarify the location of required active frontages. UD -12 Ensure that any Kaiser Hospital redevelopment is in accordance with the Area Plan, including the standards and guidelines spelled out in Chapter 5. While it is neither expected nor required that the hospital maintain an active frontage with ground floor commercial uses along El Camino Real (except as required in Figure 3 -3) the building itself should be designed to be visually co- hesive in appearance, with articulated building form and massing, rather than a 59 monolithic mass. 3 Revise Table 20.270.003: Land Use Regulations for El Camino Real /Chestnut Sub - Districts to clarify where Hospital uses are per- mitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. Insert map for further clarification. 7 Revised Table 20.270.004 -I: Lot, Density, and FAR Standards for El Camino Real /Chestnut Sub - Districts to clarify that the requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of Active Uses does not apply in the ECR /C- MXM sub - district along El Camino Real. I I Revise Figure 20.270.004 -2: Building height to revise error in legend. 30 Revise Figure 1: Existing Zoning to provide clarification regarding parcels. 31 Revise Figure 2: Proposed Zoning to provide clarification regarding changes and parcels. A -2 Guiding Principle a Develop the area with an overall character and urban design .scheme that promotes livability and .sus s inablll ya Creating a sense of continuity and cohesiveness throughout the district will require a well- defined urban design palette of building, landscape, and site design ele- ments. Place- making will be achieved through high quality building and site design that accentuates key corners and intersections. An emphasis on walkability and pedestrian orientation will maximize accessibility to Centennial Way and the BART Station and establish a district that encourages people to linger in plazas, walk along the parkway, or visit multiple destinations within the Planning Area. UD -6 IEm.stabhsh a comprehensive urban design scheme that specifies a paVette El Camino RcallChcstnutAvcnucArca Plan — Zoning OrdinanccAnicndmcnt Draftfor Review and Discussion TABLE 20,270,003: LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR EL CAMINO REALICHESTNUT SUB- DISTRICTS Uses Permitted ECR /C- ECR /C- ECR /G MXH MXM RH Additional Regulations Residential Use Classifications Single -Unit Dwelling See sub - classification below Single -Unit Attached P(1)I P P Multi -Unit Residential See sub - classifications below Multi -Unit P(1)P P Senior Citizen Residential P(1)P P Elderly and Long -term Care C(1)C C See Section 20.350.020 Group Residential Facilities Family Day Care Home See sub - classification below Small P(1)I P P Residential Care Facilities See sub - classifications below Limited P(1)P P General C C See Section 20.350.020 Group Residential Facilities Senior C C See Section 20.350.020 Group Residential Facilities Public and Semi- Public Use Classifications Colleges and Trade Schools, Public or Private MUP MUP MUP Community Assembly, 2000 square feet or less P P C See Section 20.350.012 Community Assembly Facilities Community Assembly, More Than 2000 square feet MUP MUP C See Section 20.350.012 Community Assembly Facilities Community Garden P(2)P(2)P(2) Cultural Institutions P P Day Care Centers P P Government Offices P P Hospitals and Clinics See sub - classification below Hospitals C eM IFiis;u,iiirg _ 20,220,003. Park and Recreation Facilities, Public P P P Public Safety Facilities P P Schools, Public or Private C C Social Service Facilities MUP MUP See Section 20.350.035 Social Service Facilities El Camino RcallChcstnutAvcnucArca Plan — Zoning OrdinanccAnicndmcnt Draftfor Review and Discussion TABLE 20,270,003: LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR EL CAMINO REALICHESTNUT SUB- DISTRICTS Uses Permitted ECR /C- MXH ECR /C- ECR /G MXM RH Additional Regulations Commercial Use Classifications Animal Care, Sales and Services See sub - classifications below Pet Stores P P See Section 20.350.005 Animal Care, Sales, and Services Veterinary Services P P See Section 20.350.005 Animal Care, Sales, and Services Artists' Studios P P Banks and Financial Institutions See sub - classification below Banks and Credit Unions PPA)P Business Services P(:44)P Commercial Entertainment and Recreation MUP C(4,5 Eating and Drinking Establishments See sub - classifications below Bars /Night Clubs /Lounges C Coffee Shops /Cafes P P C See Section 20.350.028 Outdoor Seating Restaurants, Full Service P See Section 20.350.028 Outdoor Seating Restaurants, Limited Service P C(45 )See Section 20.350.028 Outdoor Seating Food and Beverage Retail Sales P P Convenience Market P P See Section 20.350.013 Convenience Market Live -Work Units P(1)P See Section 20.350.023 Live - Work Units Lodging See sub - classification below Hotels and Motels C C C Maintenance and Repair Services P MUP Offices See sub - classifications below Business and Professional PPA)P Medical and Dental PPA)P Walk -In Clientele P P El Camino RcallChcstnutAvcnucArca Plan — Zoning OrdinanccAnicndmcnt Draftfor Review and Discussion TABLE 20,270,003: LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR EL CAMINO REALICHESTNUT SUB- DISTRICTS Uses Permitted ECR /C-ECR /C-ECR /G Additional Regulations MXH MXM RH Parking, Public or Private P(.s(,)P(.s(,) Personal Services See sub - classifications below General Personal Services P P See Section 20.350.030 Personal Services Retail Sales See sub - classifications below General Sales P P Employment Uses Recycling Facilities See sub - classification below Collection Facility C((,)C((,)See Section 20.350.032 Recycling Facilities Research and Development P P Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Use Classifications Communication Facilities See sub - classifications below Antennae and MUP(78 MUP(78 MUP( aL')See Chapter 20.370 Antennas Transmission Towers and Wireless Communications Facilities Facilities within Buildings MUP MUP MUP Utilities, Major C C Utilities, Minor P P P Other Applicable Use Regulations Accessory Uses See Section 20.300.002 Accessory Buildings and Structures Home Occupations P P P See Section 20.350.021 Home Occupations Nonconforming Use See Chapter 20.320 Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots Temporary Use See Chapter 20.340 Temporary Uses Limitations: 1. Not permitted on the ground floor along El Camino Real, Chestnut Avenue, Oak Avenue, or BART Right -of- Way south of Oak Avenue. 2. Subject to site evaluation based on prior use. 5k 4_ti'j - , 5kY71 (!_on_tht4 th4 E_t_c5k n4P_5k_I 1,_C_EI n, II YlS 4_E _EYlG APl,5 k j2L ive/ alk , - Aven tVe 0270Q_0'3. 34 . Customer service offices are permitted on the ground level, and other offices are permitted on the second floor or when conducted as an accessory use with a permitted use on the site, occupying no more than 25 percent of the floor area. Additional office space may be allowed with a Use Permit, upon finding that such use will not conflict with adjacent street level retail uses. 4,5. Not permitted along Mission Road. 56. Must be structured. 6 Large Collection Facilities are not permitted. 7-£k. Only building mounted or completely enclosed within a building. Not permitted on the ground floor. El Camino RcallChcstnutAvcnucArca Plan — Zoning OrdinanccAnicndmcnt Draftfor Review and Discussion F II SL IRIE 7.0.7. 0.003 IHOSII` USES E== Hospital use permitted after review and approval of a ondlbonal Use Perrnit by the (Planning Comrn ssion F - 20.270.004 Development Standards Tables 20.270.004 -1 to 20.270.004 -3 prescribe the development standards for the El Camino Real /Chestnut sub - districts. Additional regulations are denoted in the right hand column. Section numbers in this column refer to other sections of this Ordinance, while individual letters refer to subsections that follow the tables, under "Additional Development Standards ". The numbers in Figure 20.270.040 below refer to corresponding regulations in the column in the associated table. El Camino RcallChcstnutAvcnucArca Plan — Zoning OrdinanccAnicndmcnt Draftfor Review and Discussion TABLE 20.270.004 -I: LOT, DENSITY, AND FAR STANDARDS FOR EL CAMINO REALICHESTNUT SUB - DISTRICTS Standard ECR /C-ECR /C-ECRIG Additional Regulations MXH MXM RH Minimum Lot Size (sq ft)20,000 20,000 20,000 Minimum Lot Width (ft)50 50 50 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Minimum Floor Area 0.6 exclusive of areas n/a The requirement for a minimum Ratio devoted to parking, of 0.3 FAR of Active uses does not which a minimum 0.3 apply to projects where 30% of FAR shall be Active uses the units are restricted and affordable to low -or low - moderate income households oir in %;I'ua. IEICwR /Cww - -1W(M suailb- a;piisd.;iriict a Il,o iriii.,_ IC II _C iiiriiar,_I ,_ II _ Maximum Floor Area 2.0 1.5 n/a Exclusive of structured parking. Ratio Maximum Floor Area 3.0(A)2.5(A)n/a Exclusive of structured parking. Ratio with Incentive Program Residential Density (units per acre; included within the FAR above) Minimum Density n/a n/a 80 Maximum Density 80 40 120 See Chapter 20.390, Bonus Residential Density Maximum Density with 110 60 180 See (A) and See Chapter 20.390, Incentive Program Bonus Residential Density El Camino RcallChcstnutAvcnucArca Plan — Zoning OrdinanccAnicndmcnt Draftfor Review and Discussion FIGURE 20.270.004 -2: BUILDING HEIGHT 121/160 Feet 80/120 Feet. 40 Feet Qua r 11 xx /xx Base Height Liimit /'Height Limit with Discretionary Approvall See 20.270.004(A) D RH: High Density Residential* CC: Community Commercial BC: Business Commercial TV -C: Transit Village Commercial TV -RM: Transit Village Medium Density Residential TV -RH: Transit Village High Density Residential PQP: Public /Quasi Public PR: Parks and Recreation ECRMX: El Camino Real Mixed Use Numerical designators denote the maximum density allowed in each sub district. 0 100 ,000 FEET FIGURE 1: EXISTING ZONING D ECR /C -MXH: El Camino Real /Chestnut Mixed Use, High Intensity ECR /C -MXM: El Camino Real /Chestnut Mixed Use, Medium Intensity ECR /C -RH: El Camino Real /Chestnut Residential, High Density 0 100 500 1000 FEET FIGURE 2: PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES Urban and Regional F'Ianners 755 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, California 941 1 1 60 4 15 956 4300 ,1 1, 415 956 7315