Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting 11-20-14 (Reso 2753-2014) - GP Amend- Complete Streets RESOLUTION NO. 2753-2014 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A COMPLETE STREETS TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco (“City”) has prepared amendments to the City’s General Plan related to Complete Streets policies (“Project”); and, WHEREAS, the draft Complete Streets General Plan Amendments provides a policy framework designed to support implementation of Complete Streets concepts, including integrating Complete Streets infrastructure and design features into street design and construction projects and to make Complete Streets practices a routine part of South San Francisco’s everyday operations, and support the goals of Senate Bill 375; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA, an initial study was performed, the result of which was preparation and circulation of a mitigated negative declaration (“IS/MND”) analyzing the proposed Project and concluding that approval of the Project could not have a significant effect on the environment because the impacts of the Project could all be mitigated to levels below established CEQA thresholds of significance with the adoption of mitigation measures; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 20, 2014, to consider the IS/MND and the proposed General Plan Amendments, and to take public testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council on the IS/MND and the Project; and, WHEREAS, as required by State law and the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the Planning Commission has independently reviewed the Project and the IS/MND, and makes the findings contained herein in support of the General Plan Amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the South San Francisco General Plan Update and General Plan Update EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, prepared for the Project, including all written comments received; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed public hearing on November 20, 2014; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: I. General Findings 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct. 2. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the proposed General Plan Amendments (Exhibit A), are each incorporated by reference into this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin. II. General Plan Amendments 1. As described in Exhibit A, the General Plan Amendments propose modifications intended to implement Complete Streets policies. The amendments would not include any changes to existing land use designations. The amendments provide a policy framework designed to support implementation of Complete Streets concepts, including integrating Complete Streets infrastructure and design features into street design and construction projects and to make Complete Streets practices a routine part of South San Francisco’s everyday operations. 2. As required under State law, the South San Francisco General Plan, and the South San Francisco Municipal Code, in support of the General Plan Amendments, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed General Plan Amendments are otherwise consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan, do not obstruct or impede achievement of any General Plan policies, and further a number of important Guiding and Implementing Policies set forth in the Transportation Element, including: Guiding Policy 4.3-G-2. “Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers.” Implementing Policy 4.3-I-8. “Track and implement pedestrian improvements through municipal projects and operations on an ongoing basis, including monitoring and updating of the PMP for project prioritization, funding opportunities, and project readiness.” Implementing Policy 4.3-I-13. “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 El 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.” The General Plan Amendments are therefore consistent with the City’s General Plan (as proposed for amendment). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the South San Francisco City Council approve the General Plan Amendments attached as Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. * * * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 20th day of November, 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Chairperson Martin, Vice Chairperson Wong, Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Khalfin, Commissioner Ochsenhirt, Commissioner Ruiz and Commissioner Zemke NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Attest: /s/Susy Kalkin Susy Kalkin Secretary to the Planning Commission Exhibit A General Plan Amendments GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR COMPLETE STREETS POLICIES The proposed General Plan Amendments provide recommended policy updates to the City of South San Francisco’s existing General Plan, including goals and policies upon which proposed Complete Streets measures and actions are based. The General Plan Amendments include edits and additions to existing text and policies in the following elements: • Transportation These amendments integrate the objectives of the Complete Streets policies into the City’s long- term planning framework. The proposed General Plan Amendments are provided in the attached document in redlined format. 4 - TRANSPORTATION Transportation has long played a key role in shaping South San Francisco. Like much of the rest of San Mateo County, South San Francisco initially developed as a “railroad suburb” to San Francisco. The Caltrain service that now uses the Union Pacific (formerly Southern Pacific Railroad) tracks continues that early commute pattern; the earlier train route is paralleled by El Camino Real (State Route 82), the first highway and automobile route through the Peninsula. Since World War II, these early commute routes have been replaced by freeways – first, U.S. 101 (the Bayshore Freeway) east of El Camino Real and Caltrain and, later, I–280, which defines much of the western edge of the City. South San Francisco has extraordinary access to all transportation modes, including air, water, rail, bus, and automobiles, though capacity and access to the principal route—U.S. 101—is constrained. With the BART extension, the soon to be constructed Airport Rail Transit (ART) System, and ferry service on the horizon, access to the City has been enhanced even further in the last decade. (Amended by Resolution 26-2014. Adopted February 12, 2014) The Transportation Element includes policies, programs, and standards to enhance capacity and provide new linkages to provide “Complete Streets” that are safe, comfortable, and convenient routes for walking, bicycling, and public transportation to increase use of these modes of transportation, enable active travel as part of daily activities, reduce pollution, further an integrated multi-modal transportation system that encourages transit and meets the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as programs to help reduce transportation demand., and meet the needs of all users of the streets, including bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, pedestrians, users of public transportation, seniors, youth, and families, while continuing to maintain a safe and effective transportation system for motorists and movers of commercial goods consistent with the other goals, objectives, and policies of this plan. Issues from a citywide to a neighborhood- and block-level scale are addressed. The relationship between the local and the regional system and agencies is also examined. The element contains policies to ensure that existing uses and neighborhoods are not unduly impacted as the city grows. The Transportation Element identifies future circulation needs for a long-range planning horizon. The City is implementing these long-range objectives through numerous near-term, strategic planning documents. The South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan (PMP) are two examples, both providing detailed recommendations and concept plans that support General Plan objectives. Building on the General Plan’s overarching vision for safe and convenient pedestrian facilities, the PMP provides tools that respond to the City’s current pedestrian challenges. Similarly, the Bicycle Master Plan supports the General Plan, identifying actionable, near-term objectives to expand and enhance the City’s network of bicycle paths. In addition, the City Council adopted a Citywide Complete Streets policy (Resolution 86-2012, October 24, 2012) in accordance with the guidelines provided by MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission). (Amended by Resolution 26-2014. Adopted February 12, 2014) Many of the improvements identified will be studied later in greater detail, and funding and implementation sources will be identified. Some of these projects, in order to be funded, must be part of local and regional programs, including the City’s Capital Improvement Program and the County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Strategic plans such as the Bicycle Master Plan and PMP assist the City with project prioritization for funding and implementation. (Amended by Resolution 26-2014. Adopted February 12, 2014) Policies related to the physical framework for development that the circulation system is designed to serve are included in Chapter 2: Land Use Element and Chapter 3: Planning Sub- Areas Element. Included in these elements are policies to promote transit-supportive land uses, creation of pedestrian-friendly environments, and design to promote alternate modes. 4.1 TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS AND REGIONAL FRAMEWORK COMMUTE MODES Residents and workers use a variety of modes for travel. Census data from 1990, presented in Table 4-1, show most people traveling to jobs in South San Francisco using single-occupant vehicles (77 percent), with carpools garnering the second highest mode share at 16 percent. Approximately four percent of South San Francisco workers used transit as their mode of travel to work. Bicycles accounted for only 0.5 percent of travel while walking represented a 1.5 percent share in 1990. These figures represent an increase in single-occupant vehicle travel and a decrease in carpool and transit usage from 1980. A 1998 survey of employees by the Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance (PCRA) of 375 employees in South San Francisco found a higher transit use, with about 30 percent of South San Francisco employees using non-drive alone commute modes. The reported increase in bus and rail usage is a reflection of the improved shuttle bus service from the Caltrain and BART stations to area employment sites. WORK TRIP PATTERNS While South San Francisco is part of the larger Bay Area commutershed, in 1990 over half of the city’s residents worked in either San Francisco (35 percent) or South San Francisco (23 percent). However, as city residents continue to take advantage of emerging job opportunities in other San Mateo County cities, the proportion of residents working in the city or in San Francisco has declined by ten percent since 1980. Most city workers live in distant locations, partly due to the presence of large high-technology employers such as Genentech (the largest employer in the North County region, with 45 percent of the workforce residing outside of San Mateo County), that attract employees from a wide region. In effect, more San Francisco and San Mateo residents work in South San Francisco than South San Franciscans. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The City of South San Francisco has jurisdiction over all City streets and City-operated traffic signals. The freeways, freeway ramps, and State routes (such as El Camino Real) are under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The transit service providers have jurisdiction over their services. These include San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) fixed-route bus service and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) commuter rail service (Caltrain). There are several regional agencies that oversee and coordinate transportation improvement programs affecting South San Francisco, including: • San Mateo County Transportation Authority, which oversees improvements contained in the County Measure A Strategic Plan. Improvements affecting South San Francisco include auxiliary lanes on U.S. 101; • The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), which is the Congestion Management Agency that sets State and federal funding priorities for improvements affecting the CMP Roadway System. The CMP roadway system components in South San Francisco include U.S. 101, I-280, and SR 82 (El Camino Real). C/CAG also reviews transportation impact analyses included in environmental clearance documents for land use applications prepared by jurisdictions in San Mateo County to ensure that impacts to the CMP Roadway System are adequately addressed. State law no longer requires congestion management programs. San Mateo County, like all other counties in the Bay Area, has opted to continue with its CMP; and • Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which is the regional clearinghouse for both State and federal funds for transportation improvements. 4.2 STREET NETWORK, CLASSIFICATION, AND OPERATIONS Two north-south freeways, U.S. 101 and I-280, form the backbone of the street system in South San Francisco, carrying regional traffic between San Francisco and Santa Clara County. I-380, an east-west connector between these two freeways, lies just south of the city. A network of arterial, collector, and local streets provides mobility within South San Francisco. STREET CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Figure 4-1 illustrates the street system serving South San Francisco and identifies the roadway classifications. This classification system includes: • Freeways. Freeways are limited-access, high-speed travelways included in the State and federal highway 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 two freeways in South San Francisco – U.S. 101 and I-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 with four to six travel lanes and major intersections are signalized. In South San Francisco, there are two 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 El Camino Real, Sisters Cities Boulevard, Junipero Serra Boulevard, and East Grand Avenue. Minor arterials include Mission Road and Orange Avenue. • Collectors. Collectors connect arterials with local streets, and provide access and circulation within neighborhoods. Collectors are typically designed with two travel lanes, parking lanes, planter strips, and sidewalks. 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 two travel lanes. STANDARDS FOR TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE Traffic service levels for intersections and roadway segments are characterized by examining peak period and daily operations. The standard used for evaluating traffic flow is called level of service (LOS) ( Table 4.2-1). Levels of service are classified by a letter grade that describes the quality of flow, ranging from the best condition (LOS A) through extreme congestion associated with over-capacity conditions (LOS F). One measure of level of service is volume-to-capacity (or demand-to-capacity). Traffic demand modeling assumes that travel demand is a response to the patterns of land use activity in a city and surrounding region. The transportation analysis process for the Transportation Element uses existing and projected land use to evaluate transportation system improvement and demand management needs. TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Existing Operations The 1995 Congestion Management Program for San Mateo County reports I-280 operating at LOS F and U.S. 101 operating at LOS D in the vicinity of South San Francisco during peak commute hours. Levels of service were calculated for the city’s roadway segments with current daily volume counts. The resulting volume-to-capacity ratios are presented in Table 4.2-2. Current congestion on South San Francisco streets occurs along the Oyster Point Boulevard, East Grand Avenue, Dubuque Avenue, and Airport Boulevard corridors, and on Westborough Boulevard near the I-280 interchange and the Junipero Serra Boulevard intersection. Other locations with congestion include the intersection of El Camino Real with Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue and the Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue/U.S. 101 interchange. During the evening peak commute period, East Grand Avenue under the U.S. 101 overpass has some back up. Projected Operations The Countywide Transportation Plan projections, recognizing the effects of two major transportation infrastructure improvements—the proposed BART and Caltrain extension projects—show projected operations of LOS F on U.S. 101 and LOS E on I-280. Within the City, the transportation system can adequately serve existing travel demand, provided improvements outlined in the General Plan (Figure 4-2; also see Policy 4.2-I-2) are implemented. In general, with the improvements, existing service levels along most roadway segments are expected to be maintained. However, portions of Westborough Boulevard, El Camino Real, East Grand Avenue, and Oyster Point Boulevard are expected to continue operating at congested levels. (See Table 4.2-2) The East of 101 Area Plan prepared in 1994 presents several intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service (LOS E and F) under future conditions with growth and development in that area. The plan identified improvements to accommodate the traffic generated by the anticipated growth. A transportation analysis of the East of 101 area is currently being prepared to assess land use revisions of the 1994 plan. The results of this updated analysis will be a set of transportation system improvements to accommodate current growth projections in that area of South San Francisco. For a full evaluation of projected traffic operations, the Environmental Impact Report on the General Plan should be consulted. Because existing development limits the City’s ability to undertake improvements in some neighborhoods, a continued emphasis on alternative transportation modes will be needed to maintain mobility in future. GUIDING POLICIES: STREET SYSTEM AND STANDARDS OF SERVICE Also see Chapter 3: Planning Sub-Areas Element, for policies related to streets in specific areas. Truck movement issues in Lindenville are addressed in Section 3.2: Lindenville. Street System 4.2-G-1 Undertake efforts to enhance transportation capacity, especially in growth and emerging employment areas such as in the East of 101 area. 4.2-G-2 Improve connections between different parts of the city. These would help integrate different parts of the city. Connections between areas west and east of U.S. 101 (currently limited to streets that provide freeway access) would also free-up capacity along streets such as Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard that provide access to U.S. 101. Connections are also critical across El Camino Real and Junipero Serra Boulevard and from Westborough to Downtown. Connections should provide access for multiple modes of transportation including bicycle and pedestrian access. (Amended by Resolution 26-2014. Adopted Febrary 12, 2014) 4.2-G-3 Where appropriate, use abandoned railroad rights-of-way and the BART right-of- way to establish new streets. 4.2-G-4 Use the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan as a guide for detailed implementation of General Plan transportation policies for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area 4.2-G-5 Use Figure 4-1: Street Classifications, to identify, schedule, and implement roadway improvements. Use the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan to identify, schedule, and implement roadway improvements for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area. (Amended by City Council Resolutions 97-2011 and 99- 2011, Adopted July 27, 2011) 4.2-G-6 Use the Bicycle Master Plan (refer to Figure 4-2) to identify, schedule, and implement roadway improvements that enhance bicycle access. (Amended by Resolution 26-2014. Adopted Febrary 12, 2014) 4.2-G-7 Use the Pedestrian Master Plan (refer to Figure 4-3) to identify, schedule, and implement roadway improvements that enhance pedestrian access. (Amended by Resolution 26-2014. Adopted Febrary 12, 2014) 4.2-G-8 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-9 Coordinate local actions with regional agencies, and undertake active efforts to undertake transportation improvements. 4.2-G-10 Provide fair and equitable means for paying for future street improvements including mechanisms such as development impact fees. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001, Adopted September 26, 2001) 4.2-G-11 Integrate Complete Streets infrastructure and design features into street design and construction to create safe and inviting environments for people to walk, bicycle, and use public transportation. 4.2-G-12 Make Complete Streets practice a routine part of South San Francisco’s everyday operations. Traffic Operations and Service Standards 4.2-G-131 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-142 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-G-153 Exempt development within one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART station, or a City-designated ferry terminal, from LOS standards. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: STREET SYSTEM AND STANDARDS OF SERVICE Street System and Improvements 4.2-I-1 Continue using the Capital Improvement Program to program and implement needed improvements to the street system. 4.2-I-2 Undertake street improvements identified in Figures 4-1 and 4-2. (Amended by City Council Resolution 31-2002, Adopted April 24, 2002) Improvements 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 ensure that El Camino Real traffic flow is not impeded. Use the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan to guide the development of the Arroyo/Oak Avenue connection. (Amended by City Council Resolution 97-2011 and 99-2011, Adopted July 27, 2011) • 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. • Myrtle Avenue extension to South Linden Avenue. This will run parallel (on the north side) of the former Zellerbach Paper plant. Alignment study will be needed, and some small existing structures may need to be removed. • South Maple Avenue extension to Noor Avenue at Huntington Avenue. While this connection is short and within the City limits, it may be viable only at the time of redevelopment of the site along Browning Way (designated for high-intensity office development, as it is adjacent to the San Bruno BART Station). This connection should be a condition of redevelopment of sites in the area. • South Linden Avenue extension to Sneath Lane. This would dramatically increase access to Lindenville and enable trucks to get to I-380 without going through Downtown. This connection is also extremely critical to ensure connection between Downtown and the (San Bruno) BART Station. • Railroad Avenue extension from South Linden Avenue to East Grand Avenue, following the general alignment of an abandoned railroad right-of- way. This would be the first non-freeway related connection between the areas east and west of U.S. 101. The street will go under U.S. 101. Either a depressed intersection at Railroad Avenue or an elevated section that goes above the Caltrain tracks would be needed. This will probably be an expensive improvement ($15-20 million), requiring detailed studies. However, it is expected to accommodate more than 20,000 trips per day and existing structures will not need to be removed. Consideration should be given to providing a bikeway and pedestrian access in conjunction with the street design. (Revised by resolution 26-2014. Adopted February 12, 2014) • Victory Avenue extension from South Linden Avenue to South Airport Boulevard. This will need to be undertaken in conjunction with development of the regional commercial facilities designated on the General Plan Diagram. • New interchange at Victory Avenue and U.S. 101. This will provide direct connection between Lindenville and U.S. 101, and be the primary truck ingress/egress point in South San Francisco, obviating the need for trucks to negotiate Downtown streets. As with Victory Avenue extension, development will need to occur in conjunction with development of regional commercial facilities. • Produce Avenue extension to Shaw Road. This will run parallel to U.S. 101 on the western side. 4.2-I-3 Undertake studies to establish precise alignments for streets in order to identify future right-of-way needs. Locate future arterials and collectors according to the general alignments shown in Figure 4-2. Minor variation from the depicted alignments will not require a General Plan amendment. 4.2-I-4 Establish priorities for transportation improvements, and prepare an action program to implement identified street improvements. This would require working with other agencies, including BART for the Mission Road extension on the BART right-of-way, Caltrans on the new U.S. 101 interchange, and with C/CAG on several other projects. 4.2-I-5 Establish accessibility requirements for all streets designated as arterial or collector on Figure 4-1. As part of development review of all projects along these streets, ensure that access to individual sites does not impede through traffic flow. The General Plan anticipates development along several arterial and collector streets, including in much of Downtown, and along El Camino Real, Gellert Boulevard, Arroyo Drive, Victory Avenue extension, Hillside Boulevard, Mission Road extension, and East Grand Avenue. Accessibility requirements should ensure that ingress/egress from sites along arterial and collector streets is limited to a few locations, and residential developments do not have driveways lined up along the streets, which would represent a safety hazard and impede traffic flow. 4.2-I-6 Incorporate as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) needed intersection and roadway improvements to enhance mobility in the East of 101 Area. These improvements shall include consideration of bike lanes and pedestrian routes. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001 and 26-2014.) The East of 101 traffic study, prepared by the City in April 2001, identifies improvements that would result in better traffic flow and a reduction of congestion during peak hours. The following improvements have been proposed and evaluated: • Bayshore Boulevard and US 101 South Hook Ramp(s); • Bayshore Boulevard and Sister Cities/Oyster Point Boulevard; • Dubuque Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard; • Eccles Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard; • Gull Drive and Oyster Point Boulevard; • Airport Boulevard and Miller Avenue/US 101 Southbound off-ramp; • Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue; • Dubuque Avenue and East Grand Avenue; • Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue • Forbes Boulevard/Harbor Way and East Grand Avenue; • East Grand Avenue and Grandview Drive; • Airport Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue; • South Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue and Gateway Boulevard; • South Airport Boulevard and Utah Avenue; • Harbor Way; • Mitchell Avenue. 4.2-I-7 Continue to require that new development pays a fair share of the costs of street and other traffic and transportation improvements, based on traffic generated and impacts on service levels. Explore the feasibility of establishing impact fee, especially for improvements required in the Lindenville area. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001, Adopted September 26, 2001) 4.2-I-7a Establish a traffic improvement fee to fund transportation improvements in the East of 101 area. The fee should be updated to also fund enhancements to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, consistent with the objectives of the Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001 and 27-2014) 4.2-I-8 Develop and implement a standard method to evaluate the traffic impacts of individual developments. Currently, the City does not have an adopted LOS calculation method or a traffic analysis procedure. Therefore, it is difficult to ensure that impacts and appropriate mitigation measures are identified and that developers pay their fair-share of the transportation system improvement costs. 4.2-I-9 Where appropriate, consider upfronting portions of improvement costs where the City’s economic development interests may be served. This technique may be appropriate for improvements such as the Victory Avenue extension, the Railroad extension and U.S. 101 interchange to facilitate development of a regional commercial center, sales tax revenues from which (potentially in excess of $1 million per year) could help retire the improvement debt. 4.2-I-10 In planning, designing, and constructing Complete Streets: • Include infrastructure that promotes a safe means of travel for all users along the right of way, such as sidewalks, shared use paths, bicycle lanes, and paved shoulders. • Include infrastructure that facilitates safe crossing of the right of way, such as accessible curb ramps, crosswalks, refuge islands, and pedestrian signals; such infrastructure must meet the needs of people with different types of disabilities and people of different ages. • Ensure that sidewalks, crosswalks, public transportation stops and facilities, and other aspects of the transportation right of way are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act and meet the needs of people with different types of disabilities, including mobility impairments, vision impairments, hearing impairments, and others. Ensure that the South San Francisco ADA Transition Plan includes a prioritization method for enhancements and revise if necessary. • Prioritize incorporation of street design features and techniques that promote safe and comfortable travel by pedestrians, bicyclists, and users of public transportation, such as traffic calming circles, additional traffic calming mechanisms, narrow vehicle lanes, raised medians, dedicated transit lanes, transit priority signalization, transit bulb outs, road diets, high street connectivity, and physical buffers and separations between vehicular traffic and other users. • Ensure use of additional features that improve the comfort and safety of users: o Provide pedestrian-oriented signs, pedestrian-scale lighting, benches and other street furniture, bicycle parking facilities, and comfortable and attractive public transportation stops and facilities. o Encourage street trees, landscaping, and planting strips, including native plants where possible, in order to buffer traffic noise and protect and shade pedestrians and bicyclists. o Reduce surface water runoff by reducing the amount of impervious surfaces on the streets. 4.2-I-11 In all street projects, include infrastructure that improves transportation options for pedestrians, bicyclists, and users of public transportation of all ages and abilities. • Ensure that this infrastructure is included in planning, design, approval, construction, operations, and maintenance phases of street projects. • Incorporate this infrastructure into all construction, reconstruction, retrofit, maintenance, alteration, and repair of streets, bridges, and other portions of the transportation network. • Incorporate multimodal improvements into pavement resurfacing, restriping, and signalization operations where the safety and convenience of users can be improved within the scope of the work. • Allow exclusion of such infrastructure from street projects under the following conditions: o Project involving only ordinary maintenance activities designed to keep assets in serviceable condition, such as emergency road repair, cleaning, spot repair, concrete joint repair, pothole filling, or when interim measures are implemented on temporary detour or haul routes. o Upon written approval by the Public Works Director, in consultation with related City Department Directors, and only where documentation and supporting data indicate one of the following bases for the exemption: (a) use by a specific category of users is prohibited by law; (b) the cost would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable future use over the long term; (c) there is an absence of current and future need; or (d) significant adverse impacts outweigh the positive effects of the infrastructure. • Provide an annual report to the City Council listing the street projects undertaken in the past year and briefly summarizing the complete streets infrastructure used in those projects and, if applicable, the basis for excluding complete streets infrastructure from those projects. 4.2-I-12 Develop policies and tools to improve South San Francisco’s Complete Streets practices. • Develop a pedestrian crossings policy, addressing matters such as where to place crosswalks and when to use enhanced crossing treatments. • Develop policies to improve the safety of crossings and travel in the vicinity of schools and parks. • Develop a checklist for South San Francisco’s development and redevelopment projects, to ensure the inclusion of infrastructure providing for safe travel for all users and enhance project outcomes and community impact. • As feasible, South San Francisco shall incorporate Complete Streets infrastructure into existing public and private streets to improve the safety and convenience of Users, construct and enhance the transportation network for each category of Users, and create employment. 4.2-I-13 Change transportation investment criteria to ensure that existing transportation funds are available for Complete Streets infrastructure. 4.2-I-14 Identify additional funding streams and implementation strategies to retrofit existing streets to include Complete Streets infrastructure. 4.2-I-15 As necessary, restructure and revise the zoning, subdivision, and public improvement codes, and other plans, laws, procedures, rules, regulations, guidelines, programs, templates, and design manuals in order to integrate, accommodate, and balance the needs of all users in all street projects on public streets. 4.2-I-16 Develop or revise street standards and design manuals, including cross-section templates and design treatment details, to ensure that standards support and do not impede Complete Streets; coordinate with related policy documents such as the Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan. • Assess current requirements with regard to road width and turning radii in order to determine the narrowest vehicle lane width and tightest corner radii that safely balance other needs; adjust design guidelines and templates to reflect ideal widths and radii. Level of Service 4.2-I-170 Design roadway improvements and evaluate development proposals based on LOS standards. 4.2-I-181 Implement, to the extent feasible, circulation system improvements illustrated in Figures 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3 prior to deterioration in levels of service below the stated standard.