HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 78-2001- .. RESOLUTION NO. 78-2001
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION
APPROVING
AMENDMENT
FRANCISCO
DISTRICT
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
GPA-01-041 RELATING TO THE SOUTH SAN
BART STATION TRANSIT VILLAGE ZONING
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2001, the Planning Commission held a study session to
consider the Draft South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan and General Plan
Amendment; and
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2001, the City of South San Francisco City Council and the
Planning Commission held a joint study session to consider the Draft South San Francisco
BART Transit Village Plan and General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public heating to
consider the Draft South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan and General Plan
Amendment and recommended that the City Council adopt the Transit Village Plan and
General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, Section 65300 et sequiter of the State Planning and Zoning Law (Division
1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code) requires every City to adopt a
comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the city which bears a
reasonable relationship to the planning and development of the city; and
WHEREAS, on October 13, 1999, the City of South San Francisco City Council
adopted the South San Francisco General Plan in accordance with state law and the guidelines
of the State Office Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Update consists of the mandatory and optional elements
each containing goals and policies. The elements in the General Plan Update are Land Use,
Planning Sub-Areas, Transportation, Parks, Recreation and Services, Economic Development,
Open Space and Conservation, Health and Safety, and Noise; and
WHEREAS, the South San Francisco General Plan's Planning Sub-Areas Element
includes policies, programs, and standards to develop a pedestrian-oriented transit oriented
development center; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Guiding Policy 3.4-G-3 in the South San Francisco General
Plan Planning Sub-Areas Element states "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"; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Implementing Policies 3.4-1-3, 3.4-1-5, 3.4-I-6, 3.4-I-7, 3.4-1-
8, 3.4-1-9, 3.4-1-10 and, 3.4-1-11 that require the establishment of a pedestrian-oriented transit
village, with transit-supportive development requirements, within ½ mile of the South San
Francisco BART Station; and
WHEREAS, since October 2000, the City has been working with a transit village
planning consultant to prepare a detailed South San Francisco BART Transit Village Zoning
District and Plan; and
WHEREAS, The City has facilitated public participation in the preparation of South
San Francisco BART Station Transit Village Plan by conducting both City Council and
Planning Commission public hearings, a Planning Commission study session, one community
meeting, one open house, three Planning Commission/Design Review Board Subcommittee
meetings, and a joint City Council/Planning Commission study session over a period of six
months; and
WHEREAS, The City of South San Francisco has provided decision makers and the
public with background information, including Land Use and Circulation diagrams, the Draft
South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan, and other Policy Documents; and
WHEREAS, the objective of the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment is to
modify the General Plan Classification for the parcels identified as APN 011-202-010, APN
011-202-540, APN 011-171-320, APN 011-171-330, APN 011-171-420, APN 011-171-
430, APN 011-171-440, APN 011-171-450, APN 011-171-460, APN 011-171-470, APN
011-171-480, APN 011-171-490, APN 011-171-500, APN 011-171-510, APN 011-171-520,
APN 011-171-530, APN 011-171-540, APN 011-171-550, and APN 011-171-560, located on
Mission Road from Low Density Residential to Median Density Residential; and
WHEREAS, on October 13, 1999, the South San Francisco City Council certified the
South San Francisco General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as part of the South
San Francisco General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the South San Francisco BART Village Zoning District and Plan Negative
Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the South San Francisco BART Village Plan Negative Declaration was
circulated for a 30-day public agency review period beginning on June 4, 2001. Public notice
of the availability of the South San Francisco BART Village Plan Negative Declaration was
published in a newspaper of general circulation and mailed to agencies. In addition, all
persons who had requested notification were mailed a notice; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared responses to comments on environmental issues received
during the public review period and at the public hearing, which responses clarify, amplify,
and make minor corrections to the information contained in the South San Francisco BART
Village Plan Negative Declaration, providing good faith reasoned analysis supported by
factual information. The comments were distributed to or otherwise made available to the
City Council, the Planning Commission, responsible agencies, and other interested parties;
and,
WHEREAS, the findings and determinations contained herein are based on all
competent and substantial evidence in the record, both oral and written, contained in the entire
record relating to the project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent
findings and determinations of the Planning Commission and are supported by substantial
evidence in the record, including the General 'Plan adopted in 1999 and environmental
documents supporting the General Plan, the staff reports and consultant reports submitted at
the Planning Commission meeting on June 21, 2001, July 19, 2001, and August 16, 2001 and
the proposed General Plan Amendment Negative Declaration related thereto:
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds
as follows:
The General Plan Amendment, which implements a land use reclassification of four
parcels in the South San Francisco BART Station Transit Village Zoning District, is
internally consistent and compatible with all elements in the City of South San
Francisco General Plan.
Analysis: The proposed amendment would be consistent and compatible with the
existing policies in the General Plan. The General Plan Guiding Policy 3.4-G-3 in the
South San Francisco General Plan Planning Sub-Areas Element states "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". The
General Plan Implementing Policies 3.4-1-3, 3.4-1-5, 3.4-1-6, 3.4-1-7, 3.4-1-8, 3.4-I-9,
3.4-1-10 and, 3.4-1-11 require the establishment of a pedestrian-oriented transit village,
with transit-supportive development requirements, within ½ mile of the South San
Francisco BART Station.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and as required by Public
Resources Code § 21081, after reviewing the Negative Declaration and all comments
and responses thereto, determines that there are no significant impacts from the
proposed General Plan Amendment and South San Francisco BART Transit Village
Zoning District.
o
Documents and other material constituting the record of the proceedings upon which the
City's decision and its findings are based are located at the Planning Department of the
City of South San Francisco in the custody of Chief Planner, Thomas C. Sparks.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco that the Council does hereby:
Certify the Negative Declaration attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein
by reference.
Adopt GPA-01-041 to change the General Plan Land Use Classification for the parcels
identified as APN 011-202-010, APN 011-202-540, APN 011-171-320, APN 011-171-
330, APN 011-171-420, APN 011-171-430, APN 011-171-440, APN 011-171-450,
APN 011-171-460, APN 011-171-470, APN 011-171-480, APN 011-171-490, APN
011-171-500, APN 011-171-510, APN 011-171-520, APN 011-171-530, APN 011-171-
540, APN 011-171-550, and APN 011-171-560 from Low Density Residential to
Median Density Residential as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated
by reference.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by
the City Council of the City of South San FranciscO at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day
of August 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Pedro Gonzalez, and Karyl Matsumoto,
Mayor Pro Tem Eugene R. Mullin and Mayor Joseph A. Femekes
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Councilmember John R. Penna
None.
None.
ATTEST:
EXHIBIT A
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BART TRANSIT VILLAGE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT MAP
GPA-01-041
EXHIBIT B
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BART TRANSIT VILLAGE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, ND-01-041
\WIULDER\VGATTRELL\file cabinet\Current Reso's\8-22tod.gpa.neg.dec.res.rtf
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Prepared for
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BART STATION TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND
ZONING DISTRICT
CASE NUMBERS: GPA-01-041, RZ-01-041, ZA-01-041, & ND-01-041
THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, APPLICANT
JUNE 4, 2001
Prepared By:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
(650) 877-8535
FAX (650) 829-6639
Neg. Dec. No.:
Circulated:
Adopted:
"NEGATIVE DECLARATION"
ND-01-041
June 4, 2001
The Planning Division of the City of South San Francisco considered the following proposed projected,
and has prepared the following "Negative Declaration."
Proposed Project:
The City of South San Francisco is requesting adoption of a General Plan amendment, Zoning
Amendment, and Rezone to create the Transit Oriented Development Plan and Zoning District for a
specified area (approximately the 1/4 mile area) adjacent to the SSF BART Station. The project would
implement the General Plan policies that promote the development of transit oriented development
adjacent to the BART Station. The project provides specific design and development standards for future
projects in the area. The project does not include any specific development applications in the proposed
area; any future development application would be subject to a separate environmental review and City
approvals.
The project includes the following entitlements and actions:
General Plan Amendment to change the designation of the property located on the northside of
Mission Road between Evergreen and Sequoia, APN 011-171-320 and APN 011-171-330 totaling
approximately 1.72+ acres, (hereafter referred to as the Cuneo property) from Low Density
Residential to High Density Residential.
An amendment to the Zoning Map to change the zoning designation for the parcels within the
proposed district from the existing zoning to the Transit Oriented Development District.
An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to create The Transit Oriented Development District.
The Transit Oriented Development Plan and District recommends major traffic engineering and streetscape
design changes to two street areas -- McLellan Drive (between El Camino Real and Mission Road) and
Mission Road -- as basic elements of the pedestrian focused village. New mixed use housing will be
developed in response to the ease of access to public transportation. The mixed use development will
support higher residential densities and lower parking requirements than in other areas in South San
Francisco.
To summarize, the Transit Oriented Development District will include specific development and design
standards, summarized as follows:
Street Improvements and Open Space
400 GRAND AVENUE - P.O. BOX 711 · SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
Mitigated Negative Declaration, ND-O]-041
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development District
June 4, 2000
Page 2
improvements, These improvements could include raised, wide, concrete pedestrian crossings,
bulb-outs at comers, and monuments with neighborhood name and/or street names.
Substantial open space improvements and pedestrian connections along the Linear Park, the stairs
on E1 Camino Real, and the PG&E easement.
The BART plaza would provide on-going, weekend and nighttime programs to draw community
residents and visitors.
Development Parcels
· The development parcels would be developed with a high density mixed use (residential, flex units
and commercial) with tuck-under or podium parking.
· Approximately 5,000 to 10,000 square feet retail space would be developed on the parcels facing
McLellan Drive.
· The vacant parcel at 1410 E1 Camino Real would be developed as a medium density mixed use
project.
· The vacant site at the comer of McLellan Drive and Mission Road is the preferred location for the
Child Care facility at this time.
The Transit Oriented Development Plan and District comes at a time when significant change is already
underway in the area, and it is anticipated that the area will continue to experience further change with the
opening of the BART Station and the addition of new housing. In addition the General Plan process,
several other planning processes have occurred within the proposed transit oriented development area in
the past several years. These include the BART Station Plan and EIR, the Hickey (McLellan) Boulevard
Extension Plan and EIR, the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan and EIR, the Costco Plan and EIR,
and the South San Francisco BART Station Concept Plan. The Transit Oriented Development Plan and
District incorporates the recommendations and policies to the extent feasible, to recommend alternatives
where appropriate, and to create a clear framework upon which future change can be managed and directed
in order to ensure an outcome consistent with the General Plan.
"Negative Declaration"
Findings: The project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
Reasons Supporting Findings: An "Initial Study" has been prepared for the above project, under the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on the results of the Initial
Study, it has been determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment.
Initial Study Prepared by.' Michael Lappen, Senior Planner, City of South San Francisco
A copy of the initial study may be obtained at the Planning Division, City Hall Annex, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, California 94080.
Mitigated Negative Declaration, ND- 01-041
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development District
.June 4, 2000
Page 3
I, Thomas C. Sparks, hereby certify that this "Mitigated Negative Declaration" was prepared in accordance
with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and applicable state
and city guidelines.
Thomas C. Sparks
Chief Planner
cc: City Clerk
Attachments:
Map of Project Location
Environmental Checklist with Appendices Appendix A - General Plan Map
Appendix B - Existing Zoning Map and Proposed Transit Oriented Development District
Appendix C - SSF BART Station - Roadway and Traffic Issues, March 30, 2001
Appendix D - Transit Oriented Development Maps off
Land Use
Height Zones
Required Setbacks
Parking Configuration
Principal Streets
South San Francisco BART Station
Transit Oriented Development Planning Area
SSF BART Station ~/4 Mile Area
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Negative Declaration, ND-OI-022
Project title: South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and
Ordinance
Lead agency name and address: City of South San Francisco
Contact person and phone number: Michael Lappen, Senior Planner
Phone (650) 877-8535/FAX (650) 829-6639
Project location: The major components of the Transit Oriented Development Plan and District
are Circulation & Street Design, Open Space, and Development and Architecture. The planning
area covers approximately 1/2 mile radius from the BART Station, and consists of the BART
Station and the Parking Garage, about 40 acres of development or potential development land,
areas of the adjacent Sunshine Gardens, Buri Buri, and the Promenade neighborhoods, and a
circulation and open space network that includes the linear park right-of-way along the
underground BART tracks, and several smaller plazas and parks associated with new development
(see attached planning area map in Appendix B).
Project sponsor's name and address: City of South San Francisco, 400 Grand Avenue, South San
Francisco California, 94080
General plan designation: The South San Francisco BART Station is designated a "Transportation
Center"; The parcels north of the BART Station are designated mixed "Commercial, High Density
Residential, and Office"; the parcels south of the BART Station are designated mixed
"Commercial and High Density Residential"; the Kaiser Hospital site is designated "Office"; and
the parcels located on Mission Road are not designated for mixed use and the designations range
from "Low Density Residential" (residential neighborhoods on the east side of Mission Road),
"Commercial (Sunshine Gardens Center)," and "Office (parcels located on the west side of
Mission Road)". (refer to the attached General Plan map in Appendix A)
Zoning: The majority of the proposed Transit Oriented Development District is within the
Planned Commercial district. Residential parcels located on Mission Road are zoned R-1. The
majority of the area is also located in El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project Area (refer to
the attached Zoning Map). The project includes changing the Zoning designation from the
existing zoning designations to the Transit Oriented Development District.
Description of project: The City of South San Francisco is requesting adoption of a General Plan
amendment, Zoning Amendment, and Rezone to create the Transit Oriented Development Plan
and Zoning District for a specified area (approximately the 1/4 mile area) adjacent to the SSF
BART Station. The project would implement the General Plan policies that promote the
development of transit oriented development adjacent to the BART Station. The project provides
specific design and development standards for future projects in the area. The project does not
include any specific development applications in the proposed area; any future development
application would be subject to a separate environmental review and City approvals.
The project includes the following entitlements and actions:
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance Negative Declaration, ND-OI-022
General Plan Amendment to change the designation of the property located on the
northside of Mission Road between Evergreen and Sequoia, APN 011-171-320 and APN
011-171-330 totaling approximately 1.72+ acres, (hereafter referred to as the Cuneo
property) from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential.
An amendment to the Zoning Map to change the zoning designation for the parcels within
the proposed district from the existing zoning to the Transit Oriented Development
District.
An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to create The Transit Oriented Development
District.
The Transit Oriented Development Plan and District recommends major traffic engineering and
streetscape design changes to two street areas -- McLellan Drive (between El Camino Real and
Mission Road) and Mission Road -- as basic elements of the pedestrian focused village. New
mixed use housing will be developed in response to the ease of access to public transportation.
The mixed use development will support higher residential densities and lower parking
requirements than in other areas in South San Francisco.
To summarize, the Transit Oriented Development District will include specific development and
design standards, summarized as follows (see Appendix D for map illustrations):
Street Improvements and Open Space
· Street improvements to McLellan Drive and Mission Road.
· Traffic calming improvements on Evergreen Drive and other neighborhood streets and
intersection improvements. These improvements could include raised, wide, concrete
pedestrian crossings, bulb-outs at corners, and monuments with neighborhood name and/or
street names.
· Substantial open space improvements and pedestrian connections along the Linear Park,
the stairs on El Camino Real, and the PG&E easement.
· The BART plaza would provide on-going, weekend and nighttime programs to draw
community residents and visitors.
Development Parcels
· The development parcels would be developed with a high density mixed use (residential,
flex units and commercial) with tuck-under or podium parking.
· Approximately 5,000 to 10,000 square feet retail space would be developed on the parcels
facing McLellan Drive.
· The vacant parcel at 1410 El Camino Real would be developed as a medium density mixed
use project.
· The vacant site at the corner of McLellan Drive and Mission Road is the preferred location
for the Child Care facility at this time.
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance Negative Declaration, ND-OI-022
The Transit Oriented Development Plan and District comes at a time when significant change is
already underway in the area, and it is anticipated that the area will continue to experience further
change with the opening of the BART Station and the addition of new housing. In addition the
General Plan process, several other planning processes have occurred within the proposed transit
oriented development area in the past several years. These include the BART Station Plan and
E1R, the Hickey (McLellan) Boulevard Extension Plan and EIR, the E1 Camino Corridor
Redevelopment Plan and EIR, the Costco Plan and EIR, and the South San Francisco BART
Station Concept Plan. The Transit Oriented Development Plan and District incorporates the
recommendations and policies to the extent feasible, to recommend alternatives where appropriate,
and to create a clear framework upon which future change can be managed and directed in order to
ensure an outcome consistent with the General Plan.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting:
The South San Francisco BART Station is located the area of the City identified in the General
Plan as the El Camino Corridor. El Camino Real, almost two miles long through its stretch in the
city, is South San Francisco's most diverse area in terms of land use. Reflecting the regional
heritage of the corridor, commercial uses such as hotels, fast-food restaurants, and shopping
centers selling home furnishing and comparison goods predominate. Residential uses, offices, and
service commercial uses are located in small pockets. El Camino Real is also a major
neighborhood commercial center; all but one of the city's neighborhood shopping centers are
located in the corridor.
The northern portion of EL Camino Real, where the proposed transit district would be located,
contains a mix of commercial, institutional, and residential uses, such as the South San Francisco
BART station, The Winston Manor shopping center, the Sunshine Gardens shopping center
(located on Mission Road), the Kaiser Permanente Medical Facility, the County Government
Center, and the Costco store. New housing developments along El Camino Real include the
Promenade and Greenridge.
10.
Other Public Agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement): The City of South San Francisco is the lead agency in the CEQA
process and will review the proposed General Plan amendment, Zoning amendment and
amendment to the Zoning Map. Responsible agencies in the CEQA process include the State of
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The Airport Land Use Commission for San
Mateo County designates height restrictions in the city.
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance Negative Declaration, ND-O I-022
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources Noise
Population / Housing
Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities / Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the.proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment them
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the p[gposed project,//}l~thing further is required.
Signature
Printed name
For
, South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance
.... EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Negative Declaration, ND-O I-022
I. AESTHETICS --
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (3)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway? (3)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings? (3)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area? (3)
Explanation: (a,b,c,d)
The major components of the Transit Oriented Development Plan and District are Circulation & Street Design,
Open Space, and Development and Architecture. ~ The planning area covers approximately ½ mile radius from
the BART Station, and consists of the BART Station and the Parking Garage, about 40 acres of development
or potential development land, areas of the adjacent Sunshine Gardens, Burl Buri, and the Promenade
neighborhoods, and a circulation and open space network that includes the linear park right-of-way along the
underground BART tracks, and several smaller plazas and parks associated with new development.
Area Characteristics
El Camino Real (State Route 82), was the first highway and automobile route through the Peninsula. It
developed parallel to the former Southern Pacific tracks (owned by Union Pacific) that linked the "railroad
suburbs" of San Mateo County to San Francisco. The corridor continues to be an important movement route
through the Peninsula. The downtowns of most of the County's cities--including San Mateo, Burlingame,
Redwood City, Belmont, Atherton, San Bruno and Millbrae--are located on or adjacent to either El Camino
Real or the Union Pacific tracks. Recent commercial development with a regional emphasis has occurred
recently along El Camino Real, including Costco and Towne Center.
El Camino Real, almost two miles long through its stretch in the city, is South San Francisco's most diverse
area in terms of land use. Reflecting the regional heritage of the corridor, commercial uses such as hotels, fast-
food restaurants, and shopping centers selling home furnishing and comparison goods predominate.
Residential uses, offices, and service commercial uses are located in small pockets. El Camino Real is also a
major neighborhood commercial center; all but one of the city's neighborhood shopping centers are located in
the corridor. In addition, the area contains the See's Candies manufacturing plant, the Kaiser Permanente
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance Negative Declaration, ND-OI-022
Medical Facility, the County Government Center, and the planned South San Francisco BART station. New
residential developments along El Camino Real include the Promenade and Greenridge.
South San Francisco BART Station area
This is the northernmost part of the corridor, and site for the planned South San Francisco BART station.
Development is set-back from the streets and is extremely auto-oriented; there are no sidewalks or other
pedestrian amenities and no on-street parking is allowed. Development opportunities are in the eastern half of
the corridor, and in addition to the BART station, include the eight-acre southeast portion the former Macy's
Service Center (Costco parcels).
Proposed Development and Design Guidelines
Urban design is key to the success of the Transit Oriented Development Plan and District. The appropriate
scale, design, and siting of buildings will help to encourage the creation of a lively neighborhood center with
shops and open space around the new BART Station, and the careful design of the streets and the pedestrian
realm will support pedestrians and residents from the surrounding neighborhoods.
The intent of the Zoning, Standards, and Design Guidelines is to provide a clear set of design policies for
developers, City policy makers, and City staff in developing and evaluating future development proposals.
The broad objectives of the Design Guidelines includes the following:
Create a pedestrian oriented "main street" district along McLellan Drive between El Camino Real and
Mission Road
Establish design guidelines for a wide linear park and nature resource in the community with direct
connections to the BART Station.
Establish Mission Road as the community "front door" to the BART Station, and as an identifiable
street that connects and buffers the adjacent neighborhood to the community.
Establish design guidelines for El Camino Real, the McLellan Boulevard Extension, McLellan Drive
between El Camino Real and Mission Road, and Mission Road.
Establish Zoning Standards that will become the regulatory principles that provide the base
information for all new or re-development in the transit orientated development area.
Impacts:
The South San Francisco General Plan EIR includes an Urban Form Analysis of the El Camino Corridor area,
including the BART Station. The EIR concludes that El Camino Real is one the community's primary focal
points and that the City should maintain the corridor's historical importance as a transportation route and
commercial center. The new BART Station will provide the impetus for transformation of the corridor,
particularly on vacant and underutilized parcels near the BART station area. This potential redevelopment will
provide the opportunity to create a new visual identity for the northern portion of El Camino Real in the city.
The project would implement General Plan policies promoting transit oriented development and aesthetic
improvements along El Camino Real. The proposed project would not adversely affect surrounding land uses.
The project would have a beneficial impact to the E! Camino Corridor area by providing specific design
guidelines and development standards.
Mitigation Measures:
None required.
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance Negative Declaration, ND-O I-022
Il. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural 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. Would
The project: (7,13)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use? (7,13)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (7,13)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (7,13)
Explanation: (a, b, c)
The City does not zone any parcels for agricultural use and no parcels are classified Williamson Act contract
lands. El Camino Real area has a history of supporting agricultural uses, specifically small to medium sized
vegetable farms and greenhouses. Previous agricultural users include McLellan Nursery, which is now the
Promenade residential development, and the SSF BART Station, which is located on the site which was
farmed by the Cuneo family. The Cuneo family still maintains a small vegetable farm on Mission Road. The
draft Transit Oriented District plan proposes that the site be used to locate a medium density housing project.
Impacts:
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures:
None required.
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance Negative Declaration, ND-OI-022
III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations. Would the
project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? (13)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation? (13)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (13)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (13)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people? (13)
Explanation: (a,b,c,d,e)
South San Francisco is located within the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Air quality in the
basin is monitored by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which operates a regional
network of air pollution monitoring stations to determine if the national and State standards for criteria air
pollutants and emissions limits of toxic air contaminants are being achieved. Consistent with the BAAQMD
CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project development and air quality impacts were previously assessed and
analyzed in the following documents:
1999 South San Francisco General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
In order to determine the city's potential buildout to 2020, the South San Francisco General Plan EIR analyzed
projects that were either under construction or approved. The EIR also calculated potential future development
by using average densities and intensities from the different land use classifications to vacant and sites with
potential redevelopment/intensification opportunities. The General Plan buildout is described in Table 3.4-1 in
the Draft EIR. The General Plan also contains specific policies that require the City to adhere to current State
and federal regulations. Policy 7.3-I-2 states: "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 air
pollution control measures as required by State and federal statutes."
10
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance
Impact:
Negative Declaration, ND-O I-022
Less than Significant. The mixed use development characteristics and the potential density of the development
were previously assessed in the South San Francisco General Plan EIR.
Mitigation Measure:
The South San Francisco General Plan EIR provides mitigation measures that require the City to 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, were feasible. The
mitigation measures also encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote the use of alternatives
to the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit, transit centers, and carpooling.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would the project:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department offish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? (2,7,9,13)
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
California Department ofFish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service? (2,7,9,13)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
Vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
Hydrological interruption, or other means? (2,7,9,13)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
(2,7,9,13)
11
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance Negative Declaration. ND-OI-022
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? (2,7,9,13)
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? (2,7,9,13)
Explanation: (a, b, c, d, e,J)
Biological resources were previously assessed in the South San Francisco General Plan EIR. The proposed
transit oriented development district area is primarily located on parcels that have been developed for a variety
of commercial, residential and industrial uses. The area does not contain any environmentally sensitive lands.
(Figure 4.13-3 in the South San Francisco General Plan EIR).
Impacts:
No Impact.
Mitigation Measures:
The South San Francisco General Plan EIR provides mitigation measures that protect special status species and
supporting habitats, cooperate with State and Federal agencies to ensure that future development does not
substantially affect special status species, and require assessment of biological resources.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -
Would the project:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5? (8,9)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§1 5064.5? (8,9)
12
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance Negative Declaration, ND-O l-022
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
Resource or site or unique geologic feature? (8,9)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? (8,9)
Explanation: (a,b,c)
Cultural resources were previously assessed in the South San Francisco General Plan EIR, which identified
historical trends, archeological resources, the concentration of historical resources near downtown, and the
location of historically important commercial uses. The proposed transit oriented development district area is
located on parcels that have been developed for a variety of commercial, residential and industrial uses.
According to the General Plan EIR, an archeological site has been identified on the El Camino corridor. To
date, no archeological resources has been uncovered on sites within the area.
Impacts:
No impact.
Mitigation Measures:
The South San Francisco General Plan EIR provides mitigation measures as follows: conserves historic,
cultural and archeological resources; encourages municipal and community awareness; the feasibility of a
downtown historic district; and ensures the protection of archeological resources.
IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -
Would the project:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) 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.
(7,13)
13
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Negative Declaration, ND-O I-022
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (7,13)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(7,13)
iv) Landslides? (7,13)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil?
(7,13)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that is unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (7,13)
d) Be located on a 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? (7,13)
e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property? (3,7,13)
f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water? (3,7,13)
Explanation: (a,b,c,d,e,J)
Geology, Soils and Seismicity were previously assessed in the South San Francisco General Plan EIR. The
proposed transit oriented development district area is located on parcels that have been developed for a variety
of commercial, residential and industrial uses. The area is adjacent to Colma Creek and subject to variable
liquefaction and 100-year floor (Figure 4.11-1 in the South San Francisco General Plan EIR). The area would
be subject to moderately low amplification ground shaking (Figure 4.11-4 in the South San Francisco General
14
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance Negative Declaration, ND-O I-022
Plan EIR) and Non-structural intensity damage from groundshaking from a 7.1 San Andreas Earthquake
(Figure 4.11-5 in the South San Francisco General Plan EIR).
Impacts
Less than significant.
Mitigation Measure:
The South San Francisco General Plan EIR provides mitigation measures to minimize the risk to life and
property from flooding, seismic activity and geologic hazards in South San Francisco.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials? (9,13)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment? (9,13)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (9,13)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment? (9,13)
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
working in the project area? (9,13)
15
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance Negative Declaration, ND-OI-022
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
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? (9,13)
Explanation:
Hazards and Hazardous Materials were previously assessed in the South San Francisco General Plan EIR
(Flooding, Hazardous Materials and Emergency Response). Moreover, inclusion of a new Safety Element in
the General Plan allows the City to address hazards in a comprehensive manner through hazard abatement
policies and measures to reduce risks to life and property in existing and new development.
Impacts:
Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
Inclusion of a new Safety Element in the General Plan allows the City to address hazards in a comprehensive
manner through hazard abatement policies and measures to reduce risks to life and property in existing and
new development.
VllI. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -
Would the project:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements? (9,13)
b) 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 (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)? (9,13)
16
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance Negative Declaration, ND-O I-022
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than No
Significant lmpact
Impact
C) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course
of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (9,13)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course
of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result
in flooding on- or off-site? (9,13)
e) Create or contribute runoffwater which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?. (9,13)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (9,13)
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map? (9,13)
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows? (9,13)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam? (3,4)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (3,4)
Explanation: (a, b,c,d, e,f,g,h, i,j)
Hydrology, Water Quality and Flooding were previously assessed in the South San Francisco General Plan
EIR (Chapter 4: subsection "Flooding, Hazardous Materials and Emergency Response" and subsection
"Hydrology and Water Quality"). A portion of the planning area is located in the 100-year flood area (Figure
17
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance
Negative Declaration, ND-O I-022
4.7-1 in the General Plan EIR). Inclusion of a new Safety Element in the General Plan allows the City to
address flooding, water quality and hydrology issues in a comprehensive manner through hazard abatement
policies and measures to reduce risks to life and property in existing and new development
Impacts:
Less than significant. Any development project will be subject to normal City review and requirements and
will have no significant impacts. The General Plan contains specific policies that encourages the City to use
the development process to ensure that proposed development subject to the 100-year flood provides adequate
protection from flood hazards. In addition, a wide range of Federal and State laws protecting water and air
quality and hazardous materials use would regulate the project. Water quality would be protected through
compliance with the following standards:
Clean Water Act, administered by EPA, Regulation 40CFR, 403,439.
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for Categories of Point Sources, administered by EPA, 40CFR 401-
469.
NPDES Permit Program, administered by EPA and California Regional Water Quality Control Boards.
40CFR 120-123, 125, 133.
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, administered by EPA. 40CFR 439.
Mitigation Measures:
None required..
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
a) Physically divide an established community?
(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,13)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction 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 mitigating an
environmental effect? (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,13)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan? (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,13)
Explanation: (a,b,c)
18
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance
Negative Declaration, ND-OI-022
The project would implement the General Plan policies that promote the development of transit oriented
development adjacent to the BART Station. The project provides specific design and development standards
for future projects in the area. The project includes the following entitlements and actions:
A General Plan Amendment to change the land use classification of the property located on the northside
of Mission Road between Evergreen and Sequoia, APN 011-171-320 and APN 011-171-330 totaling
approximately 1.72+ acres, (hereafter referred to as the Cuneo property) from Low Density Residential to
High Density Residential.
An amendment to the Zoning Map to change the zoning designation for the parcels within the proposed
district from the existing zoning to the Transit Oriented Development District.
An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to create The Transit Oriented Development District.
The Transit Oriented Development Plan and District recommends major traffic engineering and streetscape
design changes to two street areas -- McLellan Drive and Mission Road -- as basic elements of the pedestrian
focused village. New mixed use housing will be developed in response to the ease of access to public
transportation. The mixed use development will support higher residential densities and lower parking
requirements than in other areas in South San Francisco.
Planning Context
In October, 1999, The City Council adopted the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan. The Plan presents a
long-term, comprehensive plan to help the community understand the issues and find solutions for land use,
housing, economic development, alternative transportation, and conservation needs for the various
neighborhoods that make up our city. The Plan also reflects a pro-active community outreach which involved
community and public meetings held by the City Council, the Planning Commission, other City commissions
and boards, the Chamber of Commerce, and several community organizations over two years.
The Transit Oriented Development Plan and District comes at a time when significant change is already
underway in the area, and it is anticipated that the area will continue to experience further change with the
opening of the BART Station and the addition of new housing. In addition the General Plan process, several
other planning processes have occurred within the proposed transit oriented development area in the past
several years. These include the BART Station Plan and EIR, the Hickey (McLellan) Boulevard Extension
Plan and EIR, the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan and EIR, the Costco Plan and EIR, and the South
San Francisco BART Station Concept Plan. The Transit Oriented Development Plan and District incorporates
the recommendations and policies to the extent feasible, to recommend alternatives where appropriate, and to
create a clear framework upon which future change can be managed and directed in order to ensure an
outcome consistent with the General Plan.
Use of the Design Guidelines and Zoning Regulations
The Zoning Standards, establishes the regulatory principles that provide the base information for new
development and re-development in the transit oriented development area. All existing uses in the transit
oriented development planning area remain as conforming uses until such time they change. Allowances will
be made, as per the Zoning Standards. The general "up zoning" of land in the transit oriented development
area will result in more intensive uses, slightly higher residential densities that in other areas of the city, new
height zones, and new parking standards for the district.
The Guidelines will further inform the implementation of the Standards to ensure the realization of the
intended character of place in the transit oriented development area. They are to be used by the development
applicants to assist them in producing a quality proposal. The City will use the Guidelines as a framework for
evaluating development proposals for commenting on the design aspects of the proposed projects.
19
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance Negative Declaration, ND-OI-022
Developers, property owners, and designers should familiarize themselves with all aspects of the Design
Guidelines for the South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development District, even when they
do not directly apply to their property or project. It is the intent of the Guidelines to be specific enough to be
able to guide development, while at the game time flexible go ag not to preclude creative degign goluti0ng.
General Plan Consistency
The General Plan contains policies that call for the establishment of transit-oriented development adjacent to
the South San Francisco BART Station. The Plan identifies 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. The General Plan contains specific policies that encourage the development of a transit
village on two parcels located north of the BART Station. The Plan also permitted a mix of uses, with retail
and other concessions at the ground floor, high density residential, and active retail uses/concessions to be
located near the BART station. The transit village or transit oriented development should be a compact,
mixed-use community, centered around the South San Francisco BART Station. The transit oriented
development would extend roughly one-quarter mile from a transit station, a distance that can be covered in
about five minutes by foot, which is consistent with published reports promoting transit villages and several
other transit oriented developments in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Beyond the one-quarter mile area, the Plan called for the City to prepare a focused plan for public
improvements that includes: Streets and other infrastructure improvements; and Sidewalk design and
construction within a one-half mile of the BART station to integrate the station with the surroundings.
South San Francisco General Plan Policies
Guiding Policies
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.
Implementing Policies
BART Station Area
3.4-1-3 In partnership with property owners, area residents, and BART and other agencies, develop the
approximately eight-acre McLellan Drive Extension area (north of the BART station between El Camino Real
and Mission Boulevard; see Figure 3-4) as a pedestrian-oriented spine fronted by active uses.
3.4-1-4 Permit big-box or other regional commercial activities north of the pedestrian-oriented center, but not
in the center.
3.4-1-5 Establish transit-supportive development requirements for the approximately eight-acre station area
that include:
Designation of the area as a transit-overlay zone, with specific development requirements established in the
Zoning Ordinance;
Transit-oriented design and development standards that address pedestrian scale, comfort and safety,
including maximum setbacks or "build-to" lines, and building transparency requirements;
20
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance
Negative Declaration, ND-OI-022
Inclusion of child care facilities;
Prohibition on auto-oriented and drive-through establishments; and
Minimum density and development intensity requirements.
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 V2-mile of the BART station to integrate the station with the
surroundings.
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 El Camino High School and direct pedestrian connection
at the terminus of Evergreen Drive to the terminal;
These connections are currently not incorporated in the station-area layout. As currently designed,
pedestrian connections will occur through a kiss-and-ride parking lot.
Continuation of the two-mile long bikeway (included in Section 4-3: Alternative Transportation Systems
and Parking) at the surface of BART tracks directly to the terminal building/bicycle parking area; and
Concessions fronting the entire northern frontage (which faces the plaza) of the parking structure.
3.4-1-8 Require any new development/redevelopment within 1/2 mile of the BART station at a density of no
less than 30 units per net acre for residential uses, or an FAR of 1.5 for non-residential uses, or an appropriate
combination of the two. Maintain higher intensities where specified otherwise in the General Plan.
3.4-1-9 Ensure that the development program for the (approximately 2.5 acre) northwest part of the block that
includes the BART station includes:
· Mix of uses, with retail and other concessions at the ground floor, and a required minimum of 100
housing units at upper floors; and
· Active retail uses/concessions along the north, east, and south faces of the property.
3.4-1-10 Ensure that the development program for the former Macy's warehouse site includes:
Active retail/concession uses along McLellan Drive Extension (fronting the northern part of the street);
Intensive residential and/or office uses at upper floors within 400 feet of McLellan Drive; and
A variety of commercial uses in the portion of the site that extends beyond 400 feet of McLellan Drive.
3.4-1-11 Work with BART on the potential for joint development of the property east of the former Macy's
warehouse site, and north of McLellan Drive Extension and BART right-of-way adjacent, with transit-
oriented uses. Explore the feasibility for joint development other areas.
3.4-1-12 Encourage redevelopment of the Treasure Island Trailer Park as Medium Density Residential
development; permit no more than 50,000 square feet of commercial uses at the site, fronting the intersection
of McLellan Drive and El Camino Real.
Impacts:
Less than significant. The Transit Oriented Development Plan and District would implement the 1999 General
Plan transit-oriented development goals and policies and be consistent with the transit village plan
21
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance
Negative Declaration, ND-OI-022
characteristics identified in State law (Article 8.5, Transit Village Development Planning Act of 1994). The
plan would demonstrate the City's commitment to the creation of a transit-oriented district that builds on the
unique quality of life enjoyed by South San Francisco residents, lnstead of being a single-purpose
transportation facility, the South San Francisco BART Station would serve as a vibrant activity center with a
mixture of uses that enhances the viability of transit and the attractiveness of South San Francisco as a
community in which to live and work.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required. The project does not include any specific development applications in the proposed area; any
future development application would be subject to a separate environmental review and City approvals.
IX. MINERAL RESOURCES -
Would the project:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
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? (3,13)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (3,13)
Explanation: ( a,b )
Mineral Resources are evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
Itnpacts:
Less than significant
Mitigation Measures:
None required.
22
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance Negative Declaration, ND-OI-022
XI. NOISE - Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant
Would the project: lmpact With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies? (1,2,3,9,13)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
(1,2,3,9,13)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without
the project? (1,2,3,9,13)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project? (1,2,3,9,13)
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
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (1,2,3,9,13)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels? (1,2,3,9,13)
Explanation: ( a,b,c,d,e,f)
Noise is evaluated in the South San Francisco General Plan EIR. The General Plan Noise Element establishes
policies to provide acceptable acoustical environmental for the land uses. All future development projects
would be required to comply with the policies stated in the General Plan.
Zoning Ordinance
The City of South San Francisco regulates noise through its Noise Ordinance, which is an enforceable
regulation that is directed primarily at fixed noise sources generated on City and privately owned property.
The noise ordinance specifies noise standards based on the duration of the noise event over a given hour
23
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance Negative Declaration, ND-OI-022
period. These noise standards are then made applicable to the areas of potential impact (those properties
affected by the intrusive noise).
The City noise ordinance exempts construction noise from compliance with noise standards if construction
noise is generated between 8:00AM to 8:00 PM weekdays; 9:00AM to 8:00 PM Saturdays; and 10:00 AM to
6:00 PM Sundays. The City can permit construction noise outside of these hours, if the applicant can
demonstrate that the noise can meet additional specifications outlined in Section 8.32.050 (d) (1) and (2). The
ordinance also states that noise shall not exceed 90 dBA at any place on the property line of a project. The
Municipal Code Section 15.08.140 (5) limits the hours of grading and prohibits grading on Saturdays,
Sundays and Municipal holidays. Grading is restricted to the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM in non-residential
areas.
Itnpacts :
Less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -
Would the project:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)? (2,13)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? (2,13)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (2,13)
Explanation: ( a,b,c )
Cumulative housing impacts for the development of the City as evaluated and envisioned in the City's General
Plan are evaluated and considered in the General Plan and the General Plan Housing Element. The proposed
project will not displace existing housing or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Impact:
Less than significant.
24
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance
Mitigation Measures:
None required
Negative Declaration, ND-O I-022
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES-
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? (2,3,7,9,13)
Police protection? (2,3,7,9,13)
Schools? (2,3,7,9,13)
Parks? (2,3,7,9,13) ~
Other public facilities? (2,3,7,9,13)
Explanation: ( a )
Public Services were evaluated in the South San Francisco General Plan EIR. The project would be served by
the following public service provides:
· South San Francisco Fire Department
· South San Francisco Police Department
· South San Francisco Parks, Recreation and Community Services
· Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides natural gas service
· PG&E and Enron provide electrical service to industrial users and residents
· Pacific Bell provides telephone service
· San Mateo County Harbor District (security agreement, marina utilities, roads, and other infrastructure)
25
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance
Impacts:
Negative Declaration, ND-01-022
The proposed project does not include any application to develop a specific project. The project's design and
development standards would be consistent with the projected buildout identified in the South San Francisco
General Plan EIR. The public service impacts of the project are typical of the impacts of a mixed use
development, thus, would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
None required.
XIV. RECREATION-
Would the project:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
lmpact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated? (2,3,13)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (2,3,13)
Explanation: ( a,b )
Consistent with the General Plan objective to encourage the development of pedestrian amenities and open
space areas, the proposed project significant open space and pedestrian activity areas. The Plan includes two
new plaza areas, the development of the Linear Park along the BART right-of-way, and the creation of a
smaller linear park along the PG&E easement east of Mission Road.
Impacts:
The recreation impact resulting from development of the proposed project on the site is less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
The City of South San Francisco General Plan, Parks, Public Facilities, and Services, establishes policies and
programs which are intended to create and enhance the open space and recreation opportunities in the city.
26
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance Negative Declaration, ND-01-022
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than No
Significant lmpact
Impact
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either
the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio
on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,
9,10,12,13,14)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
(1,2,3, 4,5,6,7,9,10,12,13,14)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location
that results in substantial safety risks? (1,2,3,
9,10,12,13,14)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,
9,10,12,13,14)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,
9,10,12,13,14)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,
9,10,12,13,14)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks. (1,2,3, 4,5,6,7,9,10,12,13,14)
Explanation (a, c, d, e,f, g)
The Transit Oriented Development Plan and District recommends major traffic engineering and streetscape
design changes to two street areas -~ McLellan Drive and Mission Road -- as basic elements of the pedestrian
focused village. New mixed use housing will be developed in response to the ease of access to public
27
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance
Negative Declaration, ND-OI-022
transportation. The mixed use development will support higher residential densities and lower parking
requirements than in other areas in South San Francisco.
The transportation impacts resulting from the creation of a mixed use, transit oriented development and
potential development buildout is evaluated in the South San Francisco General Plan EIR. The McLellan
Drive extension was previously assessed in the Costco EIR and the BART EIR. The proposed project
includes specific street and intersection design changes on McLellan Drive and Mission Road. The
modification to the street and intersections are designed to calm through traffic in residential neighborhoods,
encourage pedestrian connections and easy access to the area from the adjacent neighborhood.
Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. is evaluating the feasibility of modifying several street and intersection designs
in the vicinity of the South San Francisco BART station to provide a more pedestrian-friendly environment.
The key issues that were addressed are:
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
The design and configuration of McLellan Extension
The lane configuration of the intersection of El Camino Real and McLellan, and several
intersections on Mission Road between Hickey Boulevard extension and Grand Avenue,
The cross-section for Mission Road from McLellan/Hickey to Grand Avenue
Hickey Boulevard extension design and pavement treatment
Traffic calming on Evergreen Drive and in the nearby neighborhood
For this memorandum, El Camino Real and Mission Road are assumed to be north-south streets and McLellan
Drive, Hickey Boulevard, and Evergreen Drive are assumed to be east west streets
McLellan Extension
The conceptual design for McLellan Drive shows it as a seven-lane wide street between the BART station and
El Camino Real. It narrows to four lanes at Mission Road. As described in the next section, the planned
intersection lane configurations on McLellan Drive are excessive given the projected traffic volumes. With
fewer lanes needed at the intersections, the number of travel lanes on McLellan can be reduced to two travel
lanes in each direction (with appropriate modifications to provide proper lane alignment across the
intersections).
Diagonal parking is being considered on McLellan Drive. Diagonal parking can be accommodated on calmed
four-lane streets with travel speeds of 25 miles per hour.
Modified Intersection Lane Configurations
Modified lane configurations have been proposed for several key intersections in the vicinity of the BART
station. The intersections are:
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
El Camino Real and McLellan Extension
McLellan/Hickey and Mission Road
Mission Road and Evergreen Drive/BART driveway
Mission Road and BART Drive
Mission Road and Grand Avenue
The modified lane configurations include reducing Mission Road to a three lane cross section and changing
the westbound McLellan Drive approach at E1 Camino Real. The planned lane configurations from the El
28
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance Negative Declaration, ND-Ol-022
Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR and the Hickey Boulevard
Expansion Conceptual Design are presented on Figure I in Appendix C.
Level of service calculations were conducted to evaluate the operations of these intersections with the lane
configuration modifications. Traffic projections for 20]0 from the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan
Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR were used in the analysis. The results are presented in the following
table.
The entries in the following table for the planned configuration scenario contain the LOS results from the El
Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR traffic study and Fehr & Peers
calculation results in parentheses (with the exception of McLellan/Hickey/Mission that includes only F&P's
LOS results with the lane configuration from the Hickey Boulevard Extension Conceptual Design study). The
differences between our results and the results presented in the EIR are due to slight changes in the cycle
lengths and in the peak hour factors. These small differences do not significantly alter the recommendations.
Intersection
Intersection Level of Service Analysis
Control Planned Configuration
Device LOS/Delay
AM PM
Modified Configuration
LOS/Delay
AM PM
El Camino Real and McLellan Extension Signal
McLellan/Hickey and Mission Road
Signal
Mission Road and Evergreen Drive/BART All-Way
driveway Stop
Mission Road and BART Drive
B/12.7 C/19.2
(C/I 7.3) (C/20.9)
EIR
C/16.9 C/17.7
(C/20.1) (C/22.1)
Conceptual Design
C/23.0 C/20.6
D/29.5 C/16.4
(C/15.8) (C/12.0)
All-Way C/I 8.5 C/I 1.1
Stop (C/I 3.7) (B/8.7)
C/19.6 D/36.2
D/34.5 D/27.8
Signal
B/13.5 I B/9.8
Signal
B/8.9 B/9.4
Mission Road and Grand Avenue
All-Way D/24.1 C/I 8.6 C/11.3 C/15.4
Stop (C/I 1.4) (C/I 6.4)
The LOS results with the modified lane configurations show acceptable results (LOS D or better). (The
calculation sheets are attached.) Therefore, the lanes could be reduced. Many of the intersections are
projected to operate at LOS B and C and therefore have with excess capacity to accommodate additional
growth.
Mission Road
Mission Road is currently a four-lane road with all-way stop controlled intersections. A reduced cross-section
is being considered to reduce the length of roadway that pedestrians must cross and their exposure to
vehicular traffic.
29
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance
Negative Declaration, ND-Ol-022
The traffic projections can be accommodated with a three-lane cross-section (one travel lane in each direction
with left-turn lanes at the ma or intersections). With the three-lane cross section, bike lanes and parking on
one side can be provided within the existing curb-to-curb width. Bike lanes may be redundant given the
potential for a bike path on the BART right-of way. However, they can be installed initially to provide a bike
facility in the corridor until the path is constructed. They will also help to provide a psychological narrowing
of the street that tends to reduce travel speeds.
At the intersections, bulb-outs (or neck-downs) will be provided in lieu of the parking area to minimize the
pedestrian crossing distance. At minor intersections where separate left-turn pockets are not needed, median
islands will be provided. Enhanced pedestrian crosswalk treatments (special paving or striping) should be
provided at Evergreen Drive and the BART driveway to accommodate the pedestrian volumes at these
locations.
Hickey Boulevard Extension
Hickey Boulevard extension is planned to be initially constructed as a two-lane road with an ultimate four-
lane cross-section. The 2010 traffic projections support the two-lane cross section. Therefore the strategy of
constructing only two lanes initially is appropriate.
The landscaping and pavement treatment on Hickey Boulevard will be modified near its intersection with
Mission Road to provide visual and textural cues that the environment is changing as one enters the transit
village. Examples of pavement textures and patterns are attached.
Traffic Calming
Traffic calming is a term used to describe devices and policies to reduce the negative effects of traffic
(including excessive speeds and volumes) in residential neighborhoods. One logical location for traffic
calming is Evergreen Drive, given the potential for increased traffic due to the BART station, and Sequoia
Drive. Potential measures to reduce cut-through traffic and travel speed on these roadways include adding
traffic circles to intersections and bulb-outs or neck-downs either at intersections or at mid-block locations to
act as "slow points". A successful traffic calming plan includes an extensive public involvement program
with the neighbors.
Reduced Parking Standards
The General Plan encourages the City to reduce the parking standards for projects adjacent to transportation
centers. The purpose of the policy would be to permit developers, residents and employees to use public
transportation. The Plan's development standards encourages residential development on the two vacant
parcels (also referred to as the Costco parcels) to use a parking ratio of 1 space per unit. Guest parking and
parking for the commercial units would be provided by on-street parking located on McLellan Drive and a
guest parking area near Colma Creek. Parking would only be permitted during off peak hour periods. Parking
would also be controlled by a time limitation in order to discourage BART users from occupying the spaces.
Impacts
Throughout the BART Station planning process, El Camino Real was viewed as the "front door" to the new
BART Station, the BART plaza located in such a way as to create and frame a significant view to the station
from El Camino Real. However, due to the amount and intensity of through traffic that this street carries, the
amount of large scale regional destinations it has, and its tendency to bisect the areas through which it passes,
30
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance Negative Declaration, ND-01-022
it will never be supportive of the type of pedestrian "main street" land uses that are generally associated with
a transit oriented development or transit village. The proposed changes would have a beneficial impact.
McLellan Drive (between El Camino Real and Mission Road) was also designed as a regional street. The
Transit Oriented Development Plan now identifies McLellan Drive as a local street - the "main street" of the
transit oriented development or transit village. Since it has not yet been constructed, and due to the number of
vacant development parcels adjacent to this street, there is a significant opportunity to create a place which
has the physical characteristics of a pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use, commercial center. The goal is to slow
traffic as it passes through the transit oriented development area to enhance pedestrian activity and support
commercial activity. Although the proposed changes to McLellan Drive would slow traffic in the immediate
area, implementing the proposed changes to McLellan would have a beneficial impact to the entire project
area since it encourages residents to use an alternative transportation system (BART) and promotes pedestrian
movement within the area.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (13,9)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (13,9)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (13,9)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed? (13,9)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (13,9)
31
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance Negative Declaration, ND-Ol-022
Potentially
Significant
lmpact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than No
Significant lmpact
Impact
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs? (13,9)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? (13,9)
Explanation: ( a, b,c,d,e,f, g )
Utilities and Service Systems were evaluated in the South San Francisco General Plan EIR. The proposed
project does not include any specific development at this time. However, the General Plan analyzed the
potential buildout from the transit oriented development policies for the BART Station area. The City of
South San Francisco General Plan establishes specific policies and criteria for the development of required
water, sewer, drainage, and utility facility in the city. The Plan's overall intent is to provide adequate
municipal services to serve all development, and to limit development if it would exceed available service
capacity.
Water Services
Water service provided in the area and would be extended to the site at the expense of the applicant. The
proposed project would be reviewed and conditioned through the entitlement process. At that time
infrastructure upgrades and fees for improvements would be identified, if necessary. The project would be
served by the following water provides:
California Water Service Company's Peninsula District
South San Francisco/San Bruno Wastewater Treatment Plant
Itnpacts:
The South San Francisco General Plan EIR contains the following analysis of the city's water needs and
capacity:
South San Francisco has two water suppliers. The California Water Service Company Peninsula District
(CWSC) serves the portion of the city east of 1-280. The CWSC also serves San Carlos and San Mateo with
no restrictions on water allocation among these communities. The General Plan DEIR states that the
Company has a contract with the San Francisco Water Department and is entitled to 42.3 Millions Gallons per
Day (MGD). An additional 1.4 MGD can be pumped from groundwater. The Westborough Water District
serves the area west of 1-280.
The CWSC bases its future water projections on estimates of both the number of future water users and the
amount of water each type of user will consume. The five-year average growth in the number of accounts is
the basis for the utility's projections of the number of water users through 2020. Water projections for 2020
32
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance Negative Declaration, ND-0]-022
range from 5.9 millions gallons per day to 9.1 MGD. Assuming the SFWD contract is modified during the
remaining contract period, CWSC has an adequate supply to meet even the highest projected demand.
hnpacts Identified in the South San Francisco General Plan EIR
The DEIR contains Impact 4.6a "Development may increase the demand for public water and exceed
available supply and distribution capacity" and responds with the following comment:
New development and intensification allowed under the General Plan will result in an increased demand for
public water. Water demand projections for the city by the California Water District for the year 2020 range
from 5.9 MGD to 9.1 MGD. Assuming the SFWD contract is modified during the remaining contract period,
CWSC has an adequate supply to meet even the highest projected demand. Draft General Plan policies and
implementation programs provide the framework for the continued provision of an adequate supply of high
quality water to existing and proposed development within the city. These policies and programs reduce the
impact to a level that is less than significant.
The mitigation measures include the General Plan policies that promote "the orderly and efficient operation
and expansion of the water supply system", work with the two water supplies to ensure "coordinated capital
improvements", and water conservation measures, programs and standards.
Mitigation Measures:
None Required.
33
South San Francisco BART Station Transit Oriented Development Plan and Ordinance Negative Declaration, ND-Ol-022
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE -
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than No
Significant Impact
lmpact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
LIST OF SOURCES
1. City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance
2. South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October 13, 1999
3. BART Station Plan and EIR
4. Hickey (McLellan) Boulevard Extension Plan and EIR
5. El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan and EIR
6. Costco Plan and EIR
7. South San Francisco BART Station Concept Plan
8. FEMA Flood Hazard Map
9. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
10. Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones Map
11. Existing Conditions and Planning lssues Report, City of South San Francisco, October 1997
12. Inventory of Potential Historic Resources
13. Uniform Building Code
14. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc, SSF BART Transit Village - Roadway and Traffic Issues, March 30, 2001
15. South San Francisco General Plan Environmental lmpact Report, certified October 13, 1999
34
APPENDIX A
General Plan Map
35
South San Francisco BART Station
Transit Oriented Development Plan and District
General Plan Map
Mixed Commercial,
High Density Residential & Office
Transportation
Mixed Commercial & High
Density Residential
APPENDIX B
Existing Zoning Map and
Proposed Transit Oriented Development District
36
I
I
1
I
!
APPENDIX C
SSF BART Transit Village - Roadway and Traffic Issues
March 30, 2001
37
I
FEHR~PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC.
Transportation Constdtants
I
I
255 North Market Street, Suite 200
SanJose, CA 95110
408 278-1700 · Fax 408 278-1717
vcww. fehrandpeers.corn
I
MEMORANDUM
I
I
To: Rick Williams
From: Jane Bierstedt
Date: March 30, 2001
Subject: SSF BART Transit Village - Roadway and Traffic Issues 1015-361
I
I
I
I
I
I
Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. is evaluating the feasibility of modifying several street and
intersection designs in the vicinity of the South San Francisco BART station to provide a
more pedestrian-friendly environment. The key issues that were addressed are:
1. The design and configuration of McLellan Extension
2. The lane configuration of the intersection of E1 Camino Real and McLellan, and
several intersections on Mission Road between Hickey Boulevard extension and
Grand Avenue,
3. The cross-section for Mission Road fi.om McLellan/Hickey to Grand Avenue
4. Hickey Boulevard extension design and pavement treatment
5. Traffic calming on Evergreen Drive and in the nearby neighborhood
For this memorandum, E1 Camino Real and Mission Road are assumed to be north-south
streets and McLellan Drive, Hickey Boulevard, and Evergreen Drive are assumed to be east-
west streets
McLellan Extension
I
I
I
The conceptual design for McLellan Drive shows it as a seven-lane wide street between the
BART station and E1 Camino Real. It narrows to four lanes at Mission Road. As described
in the next section, the planned intersection lane configurations on McLellan Drive are
excessive given the projected traffic volumes. With fewer lanes needed at the intersections,
the number of travel lanes on McLellan can be reduced to two travel lanes in each direction
(with appropriate modifications to provide proper lane alignment across the intersections).
I
I
FEHR~PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC.
Transportation Consultants
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Diagonal parking is being considered on McLellan Drive. Diagonal parking can be
accommodated on calmed four-lane streets with travel speeds of 25 miles per hour.
Modified Intersection Lane Configurations
Modified lane configurations have been proposed for several key intersections in the vicinity
of the BART station. The intersections are:
1. E1 Camino Real and McLellan Extension
2. McLellan/Hickey and Mission Road
3. Mission Road and Evergreen Drive/BART driveway
4. Mission Road and BART Drive
5. Mission Road and Grand Avenue
The modified lane configurations include reducing Mission Road to a three lane cross section
and changing the westbound McLellan Drive approach at El Camino Real. The planned lane
configurations from the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft
Supplemental EIR and the Hickey Boulevard Expansion Conceptual Design are presented on
Figure 1. The proposed modifications are also shown on Figure 1.
Level of service calculations were conducted to evaluate the operations of these intersections
with the lane configuration modifications. Traffic projections for 2010 from the E1 Camino
Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR were used in the
analysis. The results are presented in Table 1.
The entries in Table 1 for the planned configuration scenario contain the LOS results from
the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Draft Supplemental EIR traffic
study and Fehr & Peers calculation results in parentheses (with the exception of
McLellan/Hickey/Mission that includes only F&P's LOS results with the lane configuration
from the Hickey Boulevard Extension Conceptual Design study). The differences between
our results and the results presented in the EIR are due to slight changes in the cycle lengths
and in the peak hour factors. These small differences do not significantly alter the
recommendations.
I
I
I Planned Modified
Lane Configurations * Lane Configurations
~ Hickey Ext. Conc. Design
-- ~i~e~ ~n~o~ , -- ~i~e~ ~n[io~ , -- ~i~e~ ~n~io~ ,
G~nd Ave
~ =StopSign
· from El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan
Amendment
Draft
SEIR
~ = Traffic Signal
SSF BART Transit Village
March 2001
361-11-01
MODIFIED LANE CONFIGURATIONS
FIGURE 1
I
FEHR&PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC.
Transportation Consultants
InterSection
E1 Camino Real and McLellan Ext.
McLellan/Hickey and Mission
Road
Mission Road and Evergreen
Drive/BART driveway
Mission Road and BART Drive
Table 1
Intersection Level of service Analysis
Control Planned Configuration
Device LOS/Delay
AM PM
Signal B 12.7 C / 19.2
(C 17.3) (C/20.9)
Signal E1R
C/17.7
(C/22.1)
C 16.9
(C/20.1)
Conceptual Design
C / 23.0 C / 20.6
Mission Road and Grand Avenue
Modified Configuration
LOS/Delay
AM PM
C / 19.6 D / 36.2
D / 34.5 D / 27.8
All-Way D / 29.5 C / 16.4 Signal
Stop (C / 15.8) (C / 12.0) B / 13.5 I B / 9.8
All-Way C/18.5 C/11.1 Signal
Stop (C / 13.7) (B / 8.7) B / 8.9 B / 9.4
All-Way D / 24.1 C/18.6 C/11.3 C/15.4
Stop (C / 11.4) (C / 16.4)
The LOS results with the modified lane configurations show acceptable results (LOS D or
better). (The calculation sheets are attached.) Therefore, the lanes could be reduced. Many of
the intersections are projected to operate at LOS B and C and therefore have with excess
capacity to accommodate additional growth.
Mission Road
Mission Road is currently a four-lane road with all-way stop controlled intersections. A
reduced cross-section is being considered to reduce the length of roadway that pedestrians
must cross and their exposure to vehicular traffic.
The traffic projections can be accommodated with a three-lane cross-section (one travel lane
in each direction with left-turn lanes at the major intersections). With the three-lane cross-
section, bike lanes and parking on one side can be provided within the existing curb-to-curb
width. Bike lanes may be redundant given the potential for a bike path on the BART right-of-
way. However, they can be installed initially to provide a bike facility in the corridor until the
path is constructed. They will also help to provide a psychological narrowing of the street
that tends to reduce travel speeds.
At the intersections, bulb-outs (or neck-downs) will be provided in lieu of the parking area to
minimize the pedestrian crossing distance. At minor intersections where separate left-turn
pockets are not needed, median islands will be provided. Enhanced pedestrian crosswalk
treatments (special paving or striping) should be provided at Evergreen Drive and the BART
driveway to accommodate the pedestrian volumes at these locations.
I
FEHR :PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC.
Transportation Consultants
Hickey Boulevard Extension
I
I
I
Hickey Boulevard extension is planned to be initially constructed as a two-lane road with an
ultimate four-lane cross-section. The 2010 traffic projections support the two-lane cross
section. Therefore the strategy of constructing only two lanes initially is appropriate.
The landscaping and pavement treatment on Hickey Boulevard will be modified near its
intersection with Mission Road to provide visual and textural cues that the environment is
changing as one enters the transit village. Examples of pavement textures and patterns are
attached.
I
I
I
I
Traffic Calming
Traffic calming is a term used to describe devices and policies to reduce the negative effects
of traffic (including excessive speeds and volumes) in residential neighborhoods. One logical
location for traffic calming is Evergreen Drive, given the potential for increased traffic due to
the BART station, and Sequoia Drive. Potential measures to reduce cut-through traffic and
travel speed on these roadways include adding traffic circles to intersections and bulb-outs or
neck-downs either at intersections or at mid-block locations to act' as "slow points". A
successful traffic calming Plan includes an extensive public, involvement prOgram with the
neighbors.
I
I
Attachments
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LOS Calculation Sheets
MITIG8 Yr 2010 AM- ModifiFri Mar 30, 2001 10:53:13 Page 1-1
Level Of Service Computation Report
1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection ~1 E1 Camino Real/McLellan
Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.699
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 19.6
Optimal Cycle: 59 Level Of Service: C
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L - T R L - T R
Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 t0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 I 0 0 1 1 0 1! 0 1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 14 554 179 731 1436 11 22 30 26 268 13 293
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 14 554 179 731 1436 11 22 30 26 268 13 293
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVoi: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 14 554 179 731 1436 11 22 30 26 268 13 293
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 14 554 179 731 1436 11 22 30 26 268 13 293
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 14 554 179 731 1436 11 22 30 26 268 13 293
PCE Adj f 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.03 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05~ 1.00 1.05
Final Vol.: 14 609 197 753 1508 12 22 '30 26 281 13 308
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90
Lanes: 1.00 2.27 0.73 2.00 1.98 0.02 0.42 0.58 1.00 1.46 0.04 1.50
Final Sat.: 1805 4135 1337 3610 3770 30 788 1074 1615 2496 72 2571
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.40 0.40 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.11 0.18 0.12
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.07 0.23 0.23 0.33 0.49 0.49 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.22
Volume/Cap: 0.11 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.82 0.82 0.28 0.28 0.16 0.51 0.82 0.54
Uniform Del: 33.1 26.3 26.3 21.7 16.5 16.5 31.7 31.7 31.3 26.1 28.2 26.3
IncremntDel: 0.0' 0.8 0.8 0.8 2.1 2.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.3 5.0 0.4
Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Delay/¥eh: 28.2 23.1 23.1 19.2 16.1 16.1 27.1 27.1 26.6 22.5 28.9 22.8
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t.00
AdjDel/¥eh: 28.2 23.1 23.1 19.2 16.1 16.I 27.1 27.1 26.6 22.5 28.9 22.8
DesignQueue: 1 27 9 30 48 0 1 2 1 13 1 14
Traffix 7.5.1015 (c) 2000 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEh-R & PEERS, S~/g JOSE
I
I
I
I
I
I
MITIG8 - Yr 2010 PM - ModifFri Mar 30, 2001 10:52:36 Page 1-1
Level Of Service Computation Report
1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection ~! E1 Camino Real/McLellan
Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.965
Loss T~me (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 36.2
Optimal Cycle: 151 Level Of Service: D
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L - T - R L T R
Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 7 10 10 .7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 ! 0 0 1 I 0 1! 0 1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 75 1711 170 372 1117 45 35 40 50 400 57 589
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 75 1711 170 372 1117 45 35 40 50 400 57 589
Added ¥o1: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 75 1711 170 372 1117 45 35 40 50 400 57 589
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 75 1711 170 372 1117 45 35 40 50 400 57 589
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0
Reduced ¥o1: 75 1711 170 372 1117 45 35 40 ~ 50 400 57 582
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.03 1.05 1.05 1~.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.05
Final Vol.: 75 1882 187 383 1173 47 35 40 50 420 57 618
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.95 0.99 0.99 0.'95 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90
Lanes: 1.00 2.73 0.27 2.00 1.92 0.08 0.47 0.53 1.00 1.36 0.10 1.54
Final Sat.: 1805 5133 510 3610 3617 145 869 993 1615 2338 170 2632
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.3.7 0.37 0.11 0.32 0.32 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.18 0.34 0.23
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0,07 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.39 0.39 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.32 0.32 0.32
Volume/Cap: 0,59 1..04 1.04 1.04 0.84 0.84 0.40 0.40 0.31 0.55 1.04 0.72
Uniform Del: 34.3 24.6 24.6 34.1 21.2 21,2 32.1 32.1 31.8 21,2 25.7 22.7
IncremntDel: 5.1 25.2 25.2 47.0 3.3 3.3 0.8 0.8 0.4 0,3 31.3 1.2
Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0..85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Delay/Veh: 34.3 46.1 46.1 76.0 21,3 21.3 28.1 28.1 27.4 18.2 53.1 20.5
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Ueh: 34.3 46.1 46.1 76.0 21.3 21.3 28.1 28.1 27.4 18.2 53.1 20.5
DesignQueue: 4 75 7 20 44 2 2 2 3 16 2 25
Traffix 7.5.1015 (c) 2000 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, S~/q JOS~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MITIG8 - Yr 2010 AM-'MQdifiFri Mar 30, 200! 11:17:50 . Pa~e i-1
Level Of Service Computation Report
.1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection ~2 Misson/Hickey Extension
Cycte~ (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.972
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 34.5
Optimal Cycle: 158 Level Of Service: D
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L T R L T R L - T R
Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Permitted
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10, 10 10
Lanes: 1 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 237 352 45 53 394 29 48 540 441 47 294 53
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 237 352 45 53 394 29 48 540 441 47 294 53
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 237 352 45 53 394. 29 48 540 441 47 294 .53
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1~00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 237 352 45 53 394 29 48 540 441 47 '294 53
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 237 352 45 53 394 29 48 540 441 47 294 53
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 ''1.00
MLF Adj: 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05
Final Vol.: 249 352 45 53 394 29 50 567 463 49 309 56
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.99 0f99 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.58 0.58 0.58
Lanes: 1.24 0.67 0.09 1.00 0.93 0.07 0.09 1.05 0.86 0.24 1.49 0.27
Final Sat.: 2283 1244 159 1805 1752 129 144 1632 1332 260 1640 297
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.28 0.28 0.03 0.22 0.22 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.19 0.19 0.19
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36
Volume/Cap: 0.37 0.97 0.97 0.13 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.53 0.53 0.53
Uniform Del: 21.4 26.6 26.6 23.1 29.0 29.0 24.0.24.0 24.0 19.3 19.3 19.3
IncremntDel: 0.1 20.8 20.8 0.0 26.6 26.6 15.3 15.3 15.3 0.5 0.5 0.5
Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0,85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Delay/Veh: 18.3 43.5 43.5 !9.7 51.3 51.3 35.7 35.7 35.7 17.0 17.0 17.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 18.3 43.5 43.5 19.7 51.3 51.3 35.7 35.7 35.7 17.0 17.0 17.0
DesignQueue: 10 15 2 2 18 1 2 22 18 2 11 2
Traffix 7.5.1015 (c) 2000 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEbIR & PEERS, SAN JOSE
MITIG8 - Yr 2010 PM - ModifFri Mar 30, 2001 11:17:36' Page 1-1
Level Of Service Computation Report
1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection ~2 Misson/Hickey Extension
Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.889
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 27.8
Optimal Cycle: 105 Level Of Service: D
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L - T ~ R L T R L - T R
Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Permitted
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10. 10 10 10 10
Lanes: 1 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 306 384 33 43 276 37 28 453 307 45 576 69
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 306 384 33 43 276 37 28 453 307 45 576 69
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fur: 306 384 33 43 276 37 28 453 307 45 576 69
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t.00 1.00 1.00
DHF Adj: 1.00 1~00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
DHF Volume: 306 384 33 43 276 37 28 453 307 45 576 69
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
Reduced Vol: 306 384 33 43 276~ 37 28 453 307 45 576 69
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 t.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.05' 1.05 1.05 1.05
Final Vol.: 321 384 33 43 276 37 29 476 322 47 '605 72
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 '1900 1900 1900, 1900
Adjustment: 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.98 0.98 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.63 0.63 0.63
Lanes: 1.28 0.66 0,06 1.00 0.88 0.12 0.07 1.15 0.78 0.13 1.67 0.20
'Final Sat.: 2356 1226 105 1805 1642 220 98 1604 1085 156 2012 239
Capacity Analysis Module:
,Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.31 0.31 0.02 0.17. 0.17 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34
Volume/Cap: 0.39 0.89 0.89 0.13 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89
Uniform Del: 18.4 23,2 23.2 25.6 30.0 30.0 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.8 23.8 23.8
IncremntDel: 0.1 8.3 8.3 0.0 16.2 16.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 8.4 8.4 8.4
Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Delay/Veh: 15.7 28.0 28.0 21.8 41.7 41.7 26.8 26.8 26.8 28.6 28.6 28.6
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 15.7 28.0 28.0 21.8 41.7 41.7 26.8 26.8 26.8 28.6 28.6 28.6
DesignQueue: 12 15 1 2 13 2 1 19 13 2 23 3
Traffix 7.5.1015 (c) 2000 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEMR & PEERS, SAN JOSE
I
I
I
I
I
MITIG8 - Yr 2010 AM- ModifiFri Mar 30, 2001 11:12:36 Page
Level Of Service Computation Report
1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection #7 Mission/Evergreen (signalized)
Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.389
Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 13.5
Optimal Cycle: 36 Level Of Service: B
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L - T - R L - T - R L T - R
Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 0 10 10 7 10 0 10 10 10 10 0 10
Lanes: 0 0. I ! 0 I 0 i 0 ' 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 524 40 87 340 0 43 5 36 211 0 204
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 524 40 87 340 0 43 5 36 211 0 204
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fur: 0 524 40 87 340 0 43 5 36 211 0 204
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 524 40 87 340 0 43 5 36 211 0 204
Reduct Vol: ,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 524 40 87 340 0 43 5 36 21t 0 204
PCE Adj:' ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 ,1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 0 550 42 87 340 0 43 5 36 211 0 204
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.75 1.00 0.85
Lanes: 0.00 1.86 0~14 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.51 0.06 0.43 1.00 0~00 1.00
Final Sat.: 0 3495 267 1805 1900 0 801 93 670 1425 0 1615
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.05 0.18 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.00 0.13
Crit Moves: **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.12 0.53 0.00 0.38 0.38 0,38 0.38 0.00 0.38
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.34 0.00 0.14 0.14 0,14 0.39 0.00 0.33
Uniform Del: ,0.0 16.0 16.0 30.6 10.3 0.0 15.4 15.4 15.4 17.1 0.0 16.7
IncremntDel: 0.0 0.1 0,1 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.
Delay Adj: 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.85 0,85 0.85 0.00 0.85
Delay/Veh: 0.0 13.7 13.7 26.6 8.8 0.0 13.1 13.1 13.1 14.8 0.0 14.3
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDe!/Veh: - 0.0 13.7 13.7 26.6 8.8 0.0 13.1 13.1 13.1 14.8 0.0 14.3
DesignQueue: 0 19 1 4 9 0 1 0 1 7 0 7
Traffix 7.5.10!5 (c) 2000 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, SAN JOSE
'MITIG8 - Yr 2010 PM - ModifFri Mar 30, 2001 11:12:47 Page 1-1
Level Of Service Computation Report
1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) .
Intersection $7 Mission/Evergreen (signalized)
Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.339
Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 9.8
Optimal Cycle: 36 Level Of Service: B
Approach: NorthBound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T - R L - T R
Control: Protected Protected Permitted permitted
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 0 10 10 7 10 0 10 10 !0 10 0 10
Lanes: 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 637 40 118 465 0 41 5 39 44 0 88
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 637 40 118 465 0 41 5 39 44 0 88
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fur: 0 637 40 118 465 0 41 5 39 44 0 88
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 637 40 118 465 0 41 · 5 39 44 0 88
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 0 0
Reduced vol: 0 63'7 40 118 465 0 41 5 39 44 0 88
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 0 669 42 118 465 0 41 5 39 44 0 88
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 .1900 i900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.82 -0.81 1.00 0.85
Lanes: 0.00 1.88 '0.12 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.48 0.06 0.46. 1.00 0.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 0 3540 222 1805 1900 0 754 92 718 1539 0 1615
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.24 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.05
Crit Moves: **** **** **~*
Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.19 0.75 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.16
Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.33 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.18 0.00 0.34
Uniform Del: 0.0 9.2 9.2. 26.5 3.2 0.0 28.3 28.3 28.3 27.6 0.0 28.3
IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3
Delay Adj: 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.85
Delay/Veh: 0.0 7.9 7.9 22.8 2.7 0.0 24.4 24.4 24.4 23.5 0.0 24.4
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 7.9 7.9 22.8 2.7 0.0 24.4 24.4 24'.4 23.5 0.0 24.4
· DesignQueue: 0 17 1 5 7 0 2 0 2 2 0 4
Traffix 7.5.1015 (c) 2000 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, SAN JOSE
MITIG8 - Yr 2010 AM- ModifiFri Mar 30, 2001~11:39:31 Page 1-1
Level Of Service Computation Report
1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection #6 Mission/Bart Access (signalized)
Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.517
Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 8.9
Optimal Cycle: 36 Level Of Service: B
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - 'T - R L T R L - T - R
Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 7 10 0 0 10 10 10 0 10 0 0 O
Lanes: 1 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 152 484 0 0 576 10 79 0 47 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 152 484 0 0 576 10 79 0 47 0 0 O
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
Initial Fut: 152 484 0 0 576 10 79 0 47 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0O 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 152 484 0 0 576 10 - 79 0 47 0 0 O
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
Reduced Vol: 152 484 0 0 576 10 79 0 47 0 0 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1'.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 152 484 0 0 576 10 79 0 47 0 0 0
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 !900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 .0.02 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Final Sat.: 1805 1900 0 0 1681 29 1805 0 1615 0 0 0
............ I .... ~ .......... .11-~ ............. II ............... II ...............
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 .0.00.
Cri.t Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
Volume/Cap: 0.53 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.53 0.44 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Del: 29.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 7.1 7.1 32.2 0.0 31.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
IncremntDel: 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 1.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00
Delay/Veh: 26.3 1.6 0.0 0.0 6.4 6.4 28.5 0.0 27.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
USer DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 26.3 1.6 0.0 0.0 6.4 6.4 28.5 0 0 27.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
DesignQueue: 7 5 0 0 12 0 4 0 2 0 0 0
Traffix 7.5.1015 (ci 2000 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEHR & PEERS, SAN JOSE
MITIG8 - Yr 2010 PM - ModifFri Mar 30, 2001 11:39:49 Page 1-1
Level Of Service Computation Report
1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection ~6 Mission/Bart Access (signalized)
Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.455
Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 9.4
Optimal Cycle: 36 Level Of Service: B
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L - T - R L - T ~ R L - T - R
Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 7 10 0 0 10 10 10 0 10 0 0 O
Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 '0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 24 592 0 0 549 0 85 0 181 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.'00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 24 592 0 0 549 0 85 0 181 0 0 .0
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fur: 24 592 0 0 549 0 85 0 181 0 0 0
User Adj: t.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
P~F ~dj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 · 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
P~F Volume: 24 592 0 0 549 0 85 0 181 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 24 592 0 0 549 0 85 0 181 0 0 0
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 24 592 0 0 549 0 85 0 181 0 0 0
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: .0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lanes: 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0..00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Final Sat.: 1805 1900 0 0 1900 0 1805 0 1615 0 0 0
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.11 0.00 0,00 0.00
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.07 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00
Volume/Cap: 0.19 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.20 0.00 '0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00
Uniform Del: 33.3 5.8 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 23.4 0.0 25.1 0..0 0.0 0~0
IncremntDel: 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0,2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00
Delay/Veh: 28.4 5.1 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 19.9 0.0 22.0- 0.0 0.0 0.0
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 28.4 5.1 ' 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 19.9 0.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Des~gnQueue: 1 12 0 0 13 0 4 0 8 0 0 0
Traffix 7.5.1015 (c) 2000 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEh-R & PEERS, Si~N JOSE
MITIG8 - Yr 2010 AM- ModifiFri Mar 30, 2001 11:40:34 .Page 1-1
Level Of Ssrvice Computation Report
!994 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection #5 Mission/Grand
Cycle (sec): 1 'Critical Vol./Cap~ (X): 1.071
Loss Time (secl: 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/¥eh): 11.3
Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: C
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L T r R L - T R
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 410 20 245 491 0 0 0 0 75 0 318
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t.00 1.00 1.00 !.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 410 20 245 491 0 0 0 0 75 0 318
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
Initial Fut: 0 410 20 245 491 0 0 0 0 75 0 318
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.'00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
P~F Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
P~F Volume: 0 410 20 245 491 0 0 0 0 75 0 318
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 410 20 245 491 0 0 0 0 75 0 318
PCE Adj: 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 0 410 20 245 491 0 0 0 0 75 0 318
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 692 692 692 580 580 580 0 0 0 297 297 297
Adjustment: 1.00 1.'00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lanes: 0.00 0.95 0.05 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Final Sat.: .0 660 32 580 580 0 0 0 0 297 0 297
Capacity Analysis'Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.42 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 1.07
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
0.62 0.63 xxxxx 0.66
0.0 10.6 10.6 5.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 58.5
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
ApproachV/S:
Delay/Veh:
Delay Adj:
AdjDel/Veh:
LOS by Move:
ApproachDel:
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDel:
LOS by Appr:
0.0 10.6 10.6 5.0 25.0
* C C A D
10.6 11.1
1.00 1.00
10.6 11.1
C C
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
xx~ocx
F
2.6 0.0 58.5
A * F
12.4
1.00
12.4
C
Traffix 7.5.1015 (c) 2000 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to FEFIR & PEERS, S~ JOSE
MITIG8 - Yr 2010 PM - ModifFri Mar 30, 2001 11:41:22. Page
Level Of Service Computation Report
1994 HCM 4-way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection #5 Mission/Grand
Cycle (sec): 1 critical Vol./cap. (x): 1.426
Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 15.4
Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: C
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L - T R L - T R L T - R
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 362 55 380 493 0 0 0 0 50 0 422
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1~00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 362 55 380 493 0 0 0 0 50 0 422
Added v01: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fur: 0 362 55 380 493 0 0 0 0 50 0 422
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 362 55 380 493 0 0 0 0 50 0 422
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 0 362 55 -380 493 0 0 0 0 50 0 422
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 ,1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 0 362 55 380 493 0 0 0 0 50 0 422
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lanei 689 689 689 612 612 612 0 0 0 296 296 296
Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lanes: 0.00 0.87 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 0 598 91 612 612 0 0 0 0 296 0 296
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.62 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 1.43
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
· ApproachV/S: 0.61 0.71 xxxxx 0.80
Delay/Veh: 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.6 21.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0' 1.9 0.0 225.3
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.6 21.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 225.3
LOS by Move: * B B C D * * * * A * F
ApproachDel: 10.0 15.0 xx~_xxx 20.7
Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 xxxxx 1.00
ApprAdjDel: 10.0 15.0 xxxxxx 20.7
LOS by Appr: B C F D
Traffix 7.5.1015 (c) 2000 Dow!in9 Assoc. Licensed to FEFIR & PEERS, SA/g JOSE
Examples of Pavement Patterns
And
Traffic Calming Devices
Untitled Document Page 1 of 1
photo gallery
click on
thumbnail to
enlarge
http ://www.streetprint.corrdgallery/comm 1 .htm 5/4/01
Untitled Document Page 1 of 1
Click on swatches to
preview colors and
patterns
patterns
colors
http://www.streetprint.com/pandc.htm
5/4/01
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
Traffic Calming .Org - Textured Pavements
Gainesville, FL
Winter Park, FL
http://www.trafficcalming.org/TEXTPAVEM.html
Page 1 of 2
Textured Pavements'
Textured Pavements, such as brick or st,
drivers to have a slightly bumpy ride ove~
distance, while improving the aesthetic q
environment.
Seattle, WA
Montgomery County, M
5/4/01
Traffic Calming .Org- Neckdowns Page 1 of 2
Neckdowns
a.k.a, nubs,/:)u/bouts, knuckles, intersection
narrowings, corner bulges, safe crosses
Neckdowns are curb extensions at interSections tha
reduce roadway width curb-to-curb.
Eugene, OR
Cambridge, MA
Jacksonville, FL
Sarasota, FL
http ://www.trafficcalming. org/NECKDOWN S .html 5/4/01
Traffic Calming .Org - Traffic Circles Page 1 of 2
Traffic Circles
a.k.a, rotaries, intersection islands
Traffic circles are islands, placed in intersections, around
traffic circulates.
Boulder, CO
Portland, OR
Eugene, OR
http://www.trafficcalming.org/TRAFFICCIRCLE.html 5/4/01
Traffic Calming .Org - Chokers Page 1 of 2
Chokers
a.k.a, pinch points, midblock narrowings,
midblock yield points, constrictions
Chokers are curb extensions or islands on one
or both sides of the street that narrow the street
at that location.
Winter Park, FL
Montgomery County, M
Howard County, MD
Sarasota, FL
http://www.trafficcalming.org/CHOKERS.html 5/4/01
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX D
SSF BART Station Transit Oriented District
Maps of:
Land Use, Height Zones, Required Setbacks, Parking Configuration,
& Principal Streets
38
!
/
/
/
/
/
I
I
I
!
!
ii
~o~
-/
,/
!
!
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
o ~ -~
I...
!
!
!
/
,/
I
I
I