HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-17-25 Planning Commision Regular Meeting Agenda PacketThursday, July 17, 2025
7:00 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
Library Parks & Recreation Building, Council Chambers
901 Civic Campus Way, South San Francisco, CA
Planning Commission
SARAH FUNES-OZTURK, Chairperson
AYSHA PAMUKCU, Vice Chairperson
JOHN BAKER, Commissioner
MICHELE EVANS, Commissioner
NORMAN FARIA, Commissioner
SAM SHIHADEH, Commissioner
ALEX TZANG, Commissioner
Regular Meeting Agenda
1
July 17, 2025Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda
How to observe the Meeting (no public comment):
1) Local cable channel: Astound, Channel 26, Comcast, Channel 27, or AT&T, Channel 99
2) https://www.ssf.net/Government/Video-Streaming-City-and-Council-Meetings/Planning-Commission
3) https://www.youtube.com/@CityofSouthSanFrancisco/streams
How to Submit written Public Comment before the meeting: Email: PCcomments@ssf.net
Members of the public are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting. The
email will be monitored during the meeting.The City encourages the submission of comments by 6:00pm on the
date of the Public Hearing to facilitate inclusion in the meeting record. Written comments received prior to
6:00pm on the day of the meeting will be included as part of the meeting record, but will not be read aloud at
the meeting.
How to provide Public Comment during the meeting:
COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER
During a meeting, comments can only be made in person: Complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to
the Council Chambers. Be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public
comment. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for
the Minutes.
American Disability Act:
The City Clerk will provide materials in appropriate alternative formats to comply with the Americanswith
Disabilities Act. Please send a written request to City Clerk Rosa Govea Acosta at 400 Grand Avenue, South
San Francisco, CA 94080, or email at all-cc@ssf.net. Include your name, address, phone number, a brief
description of the requested materials, and preferred alternative format service at least 72-hours before the
meeting.
Accommodations: Individuals who require special assistance of a disability-related modification or
accommodation to participate in the meeting, including Interpretation Services, should contact the Office of the
City Clerk by email at all-cc@ssf.net, 72-hours before the meeting.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025
2
July 17, 2025Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AGENDA REVIEW
ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak on any item not listed on the Agenda, and on any items listed under the
Consent Calendar. Pursuant to the provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is
written on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. Written comments received
prior to 6:00 pm on the day of the meeting will be included as part of the meeting record, but will not be read
aloud.
DISCLOSURE OF EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for Planning Commissioners to disclose any communications,
including site visits, they have had on current agenda items, or any conflict of interest regarding current
agenda items.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Consideration and approval of minutes from the June 5, 2025 Planning Commission
meeting.
1.
06-05-25 PC Draft MinutesAttachments:
Report regarding a resolution making findings and determining that the conveyance of
the remainder of SFPUC Parcel 21, a property composed of portions of Mission Road
and Antoinette Lane not assigned an Assessor’s Parcel Number, from the City and
County of San Francisco to the City of South San Francisco is in conformance with
the South San Francisco adopted General Plan and in accordance with provisions of
State Planning Law (Govt. Code Section 65402) (Jacob Gilchrist, Director of Capital
Projects)
2.
Parcel 21 Site Map 2025-0708Attachments:
Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025
3
July 17, 2025Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda
Resolution making findings and determining that the conveyance of the remainder of
SFPUC Parcel 21, a property composed of portions of Mission Road and Antoinette
Lane not assigned an Assessor’s Parcel Number, from the City and County of San
Francisco to the City of South San Francisco is in conformance with the South San
Francisco adopted General Plan and in accordance with provisions of State Planning
Law. (Govt. Code Section 65402)
2a.
PUBLIC HEARING
Report regarding applications for Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Master
Sign Program to construct a new fast-food restaurant with drive-through at 932 and
972 El Camino Real in the T5 Corridor (T5C) Zoning District in accordance with the
Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC), and determination that
the project qualifies for a categorical exemption, pursuant to California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332. (Stephanie Skangos, Senior Planner)
3.
Attachment 1 - In-N-Out Burger Project Description
Attachment 2 - Design Review Board (DRB) Comment Letter, dated December 2, 2024
Attachment 3 - Community Meeting Summary
Attachments:
Resolution making findings and a determination that the In-N-Out Burger Restaurant
Project located at 932 and 972 El Camino Real qualifies for a categorical exemption,
pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332.
3a.
Exhibit A - In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project Infill Checklist
Ex. A Attachment 1 - Traffic Impact Assessment
Ex. A Attachment 2a - Noise Study
Ex. A Attachment 2b - Supplemental Noise Memorandum
Ex. A Attachment 3a - Air Quality Study
Ex. A Attachment 3b - Supplemental Air Quality Memorandum
Attachments:
Resolution making findings and approving entitlements for Design Review, a
Conditional Use Permit and Master Sign Program for the construction of a new
fast-food restaurant with drive-through located at 932 and 972 El Camino Real in the
T5 Corridor (T5C) Zoning District.
3b.
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B - Project Plan Set
Exhibit C - Master Sign Program Plan Set
Attachments:
Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025
4
July 17, 2025Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda
Report regarding a proposed Development Agreement to extend approved entitlements
to construct a new Office/R&D Campus at 800 Dubuque Avenue in the East of 101
Transit Core (ETC) Zoning District for a period of ten (10) years in exchange for
pre-payment of Community Benefit Program Fee obligations in accordance with Title
19 and 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and a recommendation
determining consistency of the proposed action with the adopted Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act. (Tony Rozzi, AICP, Deputy Economic and Community
Development Director)
4.
Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council approve a
proposed Development Agreement to extend approved entitlements to construct a new
Office/R&D Campus at 800 Dubuque Avenue in the East of 101 Transit Core (ETC)
Zoning District for a period of ten (10) years in exchange for pre-payment of
Community Benefit Program Fee obligations in accordance with Title 19 and 20 of the
South San Francisco Municipal Code and a recommendation determining consistency
of the proposed action with the adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
4a.
Ex. A - 800 Dubuque - Draft Development Agreement for CouncilAttachments:
The Commission has adopted a policy that applicants and their representatives have a maximum time limit
of 20 minutes to make a presentation on their project. Non-applicants may speak a maximum of 3 minutes
on any agenda item. Questions from Commissioners to applicants or non-applicants may be answered by
using additional time.
ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION
ADJOURNMENT
**Any interested party will have 15 calendar days from the date of an action or decision taken by the Planning
Commission to appeal that action or decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk
as provided under Chapter 20.570 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. In the event an appeal period
ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or any other day the City is closed, the appeal period shall end at the close of
business on the next consecutive business day. The cost to appeal for applicants, residents, and all others is as
set forth in the City’s Master Fee Schedule.
Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025
5
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:25-729 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:1.
Consideration and approval of minutes from the June 5, 2025 Planning Commission meeting.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™6
June 5, 2025 Minutes Page 1 of 3
MINUTES
JUNE 5, 2025
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION
CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TIME: 7:00 PM
AGENDA REVIEW
No changes
ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF
Cancelling June 19, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting
Cancelling July 3, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
CONSENT CALENDAR – Voting Key: (yes, no, abstain)
1. Consideration and approval of minutes from the May 15, 2025 Planning Commission
Motion to approve: Commissioner Baker,
Second – Commissioner Evans, approved by roll call (4-0-1)
2. Report regarding a resolution finding that the proposed fiscal year 2025-26 Capital
Improvement Program is consistent with the City’s General Plan in accordance with
Government Code Section 65401. (Eunejune Kim, Public Works Director/City
Engineer and Matthew Ruble, Principal Engineer)
Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2025-06-05 7:00 PM
ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS PRESENT: Chair Funes-Ozturk
Commissioners: Baker, Evans, Faria, Tzang
ABSENT: Vice Chair Pamukcu
Commissioner: Shihadeh
STAFF PRESENT:
Adena Friedman – Chief Planner, Kimia Mahallati – City Attorney,
Cynthia Fregoso – Clerk
7
June 5, 2025 Minutes Page 2 of 3
2a. Resolution finding that the proposed fiscal year 2025-26 Capital Improvement
Program is consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan in accordance with
Government Code Section 65401.
Motion to approve the resolution: Commissioner Baker,
Second – Commissioner Evans, approved by roll call (5-0-0)
Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2025-06-05 7:00 PM
PUBLIC HEARING
3. Report regarding proposed amendments to Title 20 (Zoning) of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code regarding provisions regulating tobacco use to make minor
revisions, corrections, and clarifications to ensure consistency throughout the
Municipal Code, to remove “Hookah Bar/Smoking Lounge” from the Commercial
Use Classifications under Section 20.620.040, and determining that the proposed
Zoning amendments are exempt from CEQA. (Adena Friedman, Chief Planner; Billy
Gross, Principal Planner; Kimia Mahallati, Assistant City Attorney)
3a. Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council adopt an
ordinance amending Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code regarding
provisions regulating tobacco use to make minor revisions, corrections, and
clarifications to ensure consistency throughout the Municipal Code, removing
“Hookah Bar/Smoking Lounge” from the Commercial Use Classifications under
Section 20.620.040, and determining that the proposed Zoning amendments are
exempt from CEQA.
Public Hearing Opened 7:08pm
Public Hearing Closed 7:17pm
First Motion to approve a resolution recommending approval of zoning text
amendments: Commissioner Faria,
Second – Commissioner Baker, approved by roll call (5-0-0)
Second Motion to recommend approval of CEQA Determination: Commissioner Faria,
Second – Chair Funes-Ozturk, approved by roll call (5-0-0)
Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2025-06-05 7:00 PM
8
June 5, 2025 Minutes Page 3 of 3
ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION
None
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Funes-Ozturk adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:18PM.
Adena Friedman, Chief Planner Sarah Funes-Ozturk , Chairperson or
Aysha Pamukcu, Vice Chairperson
Secretary to the Planning Commission Planning Commission
City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco
AF/af
9
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:25-756 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:2.
Report regarding a resolution making findings and determining that the conveyance of the remainder of SFPUC
Parcel 21,a property composed of portions of Mission Road and Antoinette Lane not assigned an Assessor’s
Parcel Number,from the City and County of San Francisco to the City of South San Francisco is in
conformance with the South San Francisco adopted General Plan and in accordance with provisions of State
Planning Law (Govt. Code Section 65402)(Jacob Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects)
MOTION FOR THE COMMISSION TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
1.Move to adopt a resolution making findings that the conveyance of the remainder of SFPUC
Parcel 21 is in conformance with the South San Francisco adopted General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution making findings and determining that the
conveyance of the remainder of SFPUC Parcel 21,a property composed of portions of Mission Road and
Antoinette Lane not assigned an Assessor’s Parcel Number,from the City and County of San Francisco to the
City of South San Francisco is in conformance with the South San Francisco adopted General Plan and in
accordance with provisions of State Planning Law (Govt. Code Section 65402)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In 2022,while assessing and documenting of land ownership in the area of the new Community Civic Campus,
Staff and the City Attorney discovered that a portion of Mission Rd and Antoinette Lane (now Civic Campus
Drive)was owned by the City and County of San Francisco,San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
(SFPUC).This property is surrounded by parcels owned by the City of South San Francisco.Since that time,
staff has worked with the SFPUC to appraise the property and come to an agreement on a purchase price of
$132,000.Following a finding of General Plan consistency,staff will make a recommendation to the City
Council to approve the purchase and sale agreement.
PARCEL INFORMATION
The remainer of SFPUC Parcel 21 is an approximately 46,097-square-foot portion of road and right of way
comprising the western side of Mission Road from Grand Ave to Colma Creek and crossing the creek to
approximately the mid-point of Civic Campus Way.The property's current use is public road and right of way.
No changes to the property's current use are proposed as part of the pending PSA.Attachment 1 to this staff
report illustrates the parcel’s location.
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
In accordance with the provisions of State Planning Law (Govt.Code Section 65402),prior to acquisition or
sale of real property by the City,the Planning Commission,as the planning agency for the City,is required to
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™10
File #:25-756 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:2.
find such acquisition is in conformity with the adopted general plan.
The acquisition of the property includes no proposed change of use to the property and would ensure consistent
property ownership and maintenance across the roadway and adjacent right-of-way.The current use of the
property as a roadway and adjacent right-of-way is consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan.The
existing General Plan designation,Transportation,will remain the same and is consistent with the parcel’s
existing and future use.
The purchase of the property is also consistent with General Plan policy direction, as follows:
GOAL LU-8:A network of attractive,pedestrian-oriented,human-scale and well-landscaped streets and
civic spaces throughout the city for all ages and abilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed conveyance of this property is consistent with the General Plan and does not contemplate
development, therefore, no CEQA action is required by the Planning Commission at this time.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission make findings determining that conveyance of the remainder
of SFPUC Parcel 21,a property composed of portions of Mission Road and Antoinette Lane not assigned an
Assessor’s Parcel Number,from the City and County of San Francisco to the City of South San Francisco is in
conformance with the South San Francisco adopted General Plan and in accordance with provisions of State
Planning Law (Govt. Code Section 65402).
Attachments:
1.Site Map
Associated Files:
1.25-757, General Plan Conformance Resolution
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™11
12
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:25-757 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:2a.
Resolution making findings and determining that the conveyance of the remainder of SFPUC Parcel 21,a
property composed of portions of Mission Road and Antoinette Lane not assigned an Assessor’s Parcel
Number,from the City and County of San Francisco to the City of South San Francisco is in conformance with
the South San Francisco adopted General Plan and in accordance with provisions of State Planning Law.(Govt.
Code Section 65402)
WHEREAS,prior to acquisition of real property by the City,the Planning Commission as the planning agency
for the City is required to find such a conveyance is in conformity with the adopted General Plan in accordance
with Government Code section 65402; and
WHEREAS,in 2019 the City sold land to L37/Kasa Partners for the purpose of building a housing
development on Mission Road; and
WHEREAS,in 2021 the City broke ground on the Library |Parks and Recreation Center on Antoinette Lane
(now known as Civic Campus Drive); and
WHEREAS,this SFPUC Parcel 21 is the public road and right of way for both projects and is necessary for the
function of these projects; and
WHEREAS,the current use of the SFPUC Parcel 21 as a public road and right of way will remain unchanged
through the acquisition of the property; and
WHEREAS,the continued operation of a public roadway and right-of-way on the SFPUC Parcel 21 is
consistent with the Transportation Land Use Designation in the South San Francisco General Plan.
A.General Findings
1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
2.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the
Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA
94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner.
3.The conveyance of the remainder of SFPUC Parcel 21,a property composed of portions of Mission
Road and Antoinette Lane not assigned an Assessor’s Parcel Number,from the City and County of
San Francisco to the City of South San Francisco is consistent with the General Plan Transportation
Designation and policy direction,as it will continue to operate as a public roadway and right-of-
way, and will ensure consistent ownership and maintenance.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in accordance with California Government Code
section 65402,the Planning Commission finds that the location,purpose and extent of the proposed
conveyance of the remainder of SFPUC Parcel 21,a property composed of portions of Mission Road and
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™13
File #:25-757 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:2a.
conveyance of the remainder of SFPUC Parcel 21,a property composed of portions of Mission Road and
Antoinette Lane not assigned an Assessor’s Parcel Number,from the City and County of San Francisco to the
City of South San Francisco is in conformance with the City's adopted General Plan.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™14
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:25-694 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:3.
Report regarding applications for Design Review,Conditional Use Permit and Master Sign Program to
construct a new fast-food restaurant with drive-through at 932 and 972 El Camino Real in the T5 Corridor
(T5C)Zoning District in accordance with the Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC),
and determination that the project qualifies for a categorical exemption,pursuant to California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332.(Stephanie Skangos, Senior Planner)
MOTIONS FOR THE COMMISSION TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
(1)Move to determine the Project is exempt from CEQA.
(2)Move to adopt the Resolution approving the Planning Project entitlements for P23-0135.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and take the following actions:
1.Adopt a Resolution making findings and a determination that the Project is categorically exempt under
the provision of CEQA, Class 32, Section 15332, Infill Development; and
2.Adopt a Resolution making findings and approving the entitlements for Planning Project P23-0135,
including Design Review DR24-0013,Conditional Use Permit UP24-0001,and Master Sign Program
SIGNS24-0012, subject to the Conditions of Approval.
PROJECT OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND
Site Overview
The Project Site is located at 932 and 972 El Camino Real,along the east side of El Camino Real (State Route
82),and is comprised of two parcels,APN 014-011-320 and 014-011-330,totaling 65,493 square feet in size
(approximately 1.5 acres).The northern parcel,APN 014-011-320,is located at 972 El Camino Real and is
developed with a one-story 3,000 square foot Burger King restaurant (now vacant),surface parking lot
consisting of 43 surface paved striped parking spaces with a 320-foot-long protected drive-through lane,and a
240-foot-long overflow vehicle stacked striped area.The southern parcel,APN 014-011-330,is located at 932
El Camino Real and is developed with a 1,224 square foot operating mixed-use building.All existing buildings
on the Project Site will be demolished.
The Project Site is surrounded by existing commercial uses to the west,across El Camino Real,and to the
south.To the north of the site,is a recently developed multifamily residential building with commercial uses on
the ground floor.The Centennial Way Trail runs to the east of the project site,separating the site from existing
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 1 of 9
powered by Legistar™15
File #:25-694 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:3.
multifamily residential buildings.
Project Description
The Project proposes the construction of a new 3,887 square foot In-N-Out Burger Restaurant with a drive-
through as a redevelopment of the existing vacant restaurant building on the Project Site.The restaurant would
provide a seating capacity of 112 people (84 seats indoor and 28 seats outdoor under a covered canopy),a drive
-through with a dedicated queuing lane with a capacity of up to 39 cars,and a surface parking lot with 51
parking stalls.Site improvements would also include a covered trash enclosure,landscaping,outdoor seating
area,pedestrian walkways,including a pedestrian connection to the Centennial Way Trail via a gate at the back
of the Project Site,and vehicular circulation elements.Additionally,as part of the Project,the applicant has
agreed to install a new traffic signal at the intersection of El Camino Real and Southwood Drive / 1st Street.
Architectural Design
The design of the Project is consistent with the distinctive qualities and characteristic style of the In-N-Out
signature and brand.The restaurant building is Mediterranean in style with exterior stucco,elevated entry
towers,and an architectural cornice detail at high and low roof planes.The building construction is a “Bone
China White”smooth stucco finish with red awnings,neon banding,and neon signage for brand awareness.
The maximum height of the building is approximately 23’-6”tall.Tower elements are incorporated into the
building,including at the customer entrances,to provide vertical relief and visually pleasing focal points.
Parapets for areas of flat roof are at an elevation of approximately 19’-10”which provide ample screening of
the rooftop kitchen and mechanical equipment.An attached covered patio incorporates the flat roof and banding
to match the aesthetic of the building.The proposed external trash enclosure is 11’-9”tall with masonry walls,
roof, and doors, and is designed to match the building façade.
Access and Circulation
The Project proposes two vehicular driveways along El Camino Real,one located towards the center of the
Project Site and one located to the south.Both driveways will be right-in /right-out only and will provide
access to and from the parking area.
The drive-through entrance will be located towards the rear of the Project Site with direct access from the
southern driveway.The drive-through will consist of two lanes at the entrance and merge into one lane as it
loops around the rear of the Project Site.Exiting will be located adjacent to the central driveway.The drive-
through will have a dedicated on-site queue of 39 vehicles from its entrance to exit.The parking area can serve
as additional vehicle queuing for the drive-through if needed,and no queuing onto El Camino Real is
anticipated.Queuing onto the public right-of-way is further prevented by In-N-Out Burger’s standard store
operating procedures that outline the various procedures to implement when the drive-through queue reaches
certain thresholds,including deployment of associates outside to take orders and activation of a third burger
grill.The applicant’s operating procedures are discussed in the Project Description,included as Attachment 1 to
this report.
Truck access for deliveries and trash collection will occur at the southern driveway,loop towards the rear of the
parking area,and will exit the site from the central driveway.Truck loading /unloading for deliveries will occur
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 2 of 9
powered by Legistar™16
File #:25-694 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:3.
parking area,and will exit the site from the central driveway.Truck loading /unloading for deliveries will occur
on-site in the drive aisle closest to the building entrance.Deliveries will be scheduled to occur outside of
business hours,typically between 2 a.m.and 9 a.m.,so as not to interfere with on-site circulation and
operations while the restaurant is open to the public.
Pedestrian access to the project site will be provided directly from the existing sidewalk along El Camino Real,
adjacent to the central driveway.Additionally,a pedestrian connection between the El Camino Real sidewalk
and the Centennial Way Trail to the east of the Project Site will be provided via a gate at the back of the site and
dedicated pedestrian pathway through the site.
In addition to the above on-site access and circulation improvements proposed,the Project also includes an off-
site improvement in the form of a new traffic signal at the intersection of El Camino Real and Southwood
Drive /1st Street.The City and applicant plan to enter into a Reimbursement Agreement for this off-site
improvement,under which the applicant will be responsible for the design and construction of the traffic signal
and related improvements,covering the full upfront cost of the signal installation,and be reimbursed by the
City for a portion of the total costs over a specified term.The reimbursement will be funded through annual
Traffic Impact Fee (TIF)collections.The Reimbursement Agreement is not within the Planning Commission’s
purview and will be subject to review and approval by the City Council.Also,because El Camino Real is a
state highway, the traffic signal design will require approval by Caltrans prior to installation.
Landscaping
The Project provides ample landscaping throughout the Project Site for a total of approximately 30%of the site.
A diversity of tree,shrub and groundcover plantings,ranging from low-to medium-water use species,line the
perimeter of the site,providing a natural buffer,as well as complementing the In-N-Out design and brand.
Canopy trees and tall shrubs will be planted along the length of the drive-through at the eastern property
boundary,helping to shield headlight glare from crossing into adjacent properties.Additional trees,including
palms,and flowering shrubs will be planted along the western edge of the drive-through and within a
landscaped median in between the parking lot and drive-through.Throughout the parking lot,smaller
landscaped medians with trees and shrubs will help break up the paved area and provide shading.At the
northern end of the site,a meandering pedestrian walkway surrounded by palms,Brisbane and gingko trees,
and various flowering shrubs will provide a connection between the Project Site and the adjacent Centennial
Way Trail.The pedestrian walkway will culminate at the sidewalk along El Camino Real,adjacent to which
will be planted the signature crossed-palms In-N-Out has become known for.The landscape plans and planting
palettes are included in the Plan Set (Associated Entitlements Resolution, Exhibit B).
Signage
The Project includes a Master Sign Program for the site intended to establish an integrated appearance and
complement the building and site design,while maintaining the characteristic qualities and style of the In-N-
Out brand.The Master Sign Program consists of one monument sign,three wall signs,an LED tube exterior
wall accent,menu board and drive-through directional signs,discussed briefly below,all detailed and included
in the Master Sign Program Plan Set (Associated Entitlements Resolution, Exhibit C).
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 3 of 9
powered by Legistar™17
File #:25-694 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:3.
·Primary Monument Sign.A primary freestanding monument sign with the In-N-Out logo is proposed
adjacent to the southern driveway,serving to identify the site and welcome customers.The monument
sign is a total of approximately 49 square feet (sq.ft.)and is situated on a concrete base surrounded by
landscaping. The sign will be internally illuminated.
·Building /Wall Signs.Three wall signs,each approximately 66 sq.ft.will be attached to the building
to align with and complement the building architecture and design.One wall sign will be located along
the southern façade,facing the parking area,one along the western façade facing El Camino Real,and
one along the north-western façade,facing El Camino Real and visible to traffic traveling south on El
Camino Real. These signs will be single-faced and internally illuminated.
·LED Tube Wall Accent.LED tubing is proposed around the entirety of the building,just below the
architectural cornices. There will be two stripes, or tubes, bordering the building.
·Menu Board.One menu board is proposed at the north-eastern portion of the dedicated drive-through,
adjacent to the outdoor seating area. The menu board will be single-faced and internally illuminated.
·Drive-Through Directional Signs.Two directional signs for the drive-through are proposed,with one
adjacent to the drive-through entrance,and one adjacent to the drive-through exit,that includes
language to advise customers of the directional flow of the drive-through.These signs will be internally
illuminated.
Entitlements Request
The Project is seeking the following entitlements, discussed in detail in this staff report:
·CEQA Determination
·Design Review
·Conditional Use Permit
·Master Sign Program
ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Proposed Use
The Project Site is located within the T5 Corridor (T5C)Zoning District.Per South San Francisco Municipal
Code (SSFMC)Section 20.135.060 (“Use in the Transect Zoning Districts”),a limited-service restaurant is a
permitted land use by-right.Drive-through facilities are allowed subject to the approval of a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP)per SSFMC Section 20.350.016 (“Drive-Through Facilities”).Additionally,the applicant is
requesting CUP approval to allow extended operating hours,as well as parking in excess of the spaces required,
all of which are further discussed below.
The Project is a redevelopment of an existing restaurant building,with a majority of the new building footprint
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 4 of 9
powered by Legistar™18
File #:25-694 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:3.
The Project is a redevelopment of an existing restaurant building,with a majority of the new building footprint
overlapping with the existing building footprint,and,therefore,not subject to the development standards for
new development for the T5C District outlined in SSFMC Section 20.135.020(I)(“T5 Corridor Zoning District
(T5C)”)nor a majority of the Citywide site and building design standards listed in SSFMC Chapter 20.310
(“Site and Building Design Standards”).However,the Project has been designed to comply with as many
development,site and building design standards as possible and as consistent with the In-N-Out signature and
brand.
Drive-Through Requirements
SSFMC Section 20.350.016 (“Drive-Through Facilities”)outlines specific standards and requirements for drive
-throughs,including the requirement for a CUP.The proposed drive-through has been designed to comply with
the development standards,and landscaping and circulation requirements detailed in this section.Moreover,the
required traffic study for a drive-through has been provided by the applicant as part of their Transportation
Impact Analysis (TIA).
The Drive Through Queuing Analysis in the TIA evaluated peak drive-through window queuing demand for the
Project based on historical drive-through queue surveys at seven existing In-N-Out Burger restaurants
throughout Northern California.The analysis concluded that the proposed on-site drive-through queue of 39
vehicles for this Project well exceeds the peak drive-through average of 16 vehicles on weekdays and 24
vehicles on weekends.The TIA is included as Appendix A to the In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project Infill
Checklist (Associated CEQA Resolution, Exhibit B).
Hours of Operation
Per SSFMC Section 20.490.002 (“Use Permit Applicability”),CUP approval is required for any use with hours
of operation between midnight and 6 a.m.,except for properties within the Mixed Industrial Zone District that
do not directly abut another zone district.The applicant is proposing operating hours from 10:30 a.m.to 1 a.m.
Sunday through Thursday and from 10:30 a.m.to 1:30 a.m.on Friday and Saturday.Additionally,designated
delivery hours are proposed daily between the hours of 2 a.m.and 9 a.m.,to ensure that delivery trucks do not
negatively impact vehicle circulation and traffic during operating hours.Staff supports allowing extended
operating hours for the new restaurant and drive-through as the Project Site is located along a commercial
corridor and other similar uses in the City have been allowed to stay open past midnight.
Parking Requirements
Vehicle Parking
The maximum number of allowed parking spaces for different land uses is regulated by SSFMC Section
20.330.004 (“Required On-Site Parking Spaces”).Pursuant to this section,a limited-service restaurant use is
permitted to have up to one parking space per 150 square feet of floor area.Per the requirement and using the
proposed square footage of the Project (3,887 square feet),the Project is permitted to provide a maximum of 26
parking spaces.However,this section also allows for parking in excess of the spaces required subject to a CUP.
Therefore,the applicant is requesting a CUP to allow a total of 51 parking spaces for the Project.Staff supports
the request for 25 additional parking spaces,as In-N-Out Burger is known to have historically higher demand
and patronage than other limited-service restaurants.The additional parking on-site will prevent the need for
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 5 of 9
powered by Legistar™19
File #:25-694 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:3.
and patronage than other limited-service restaurants.The additional parking on-site will prevent the need for
customers to park off-site in the surrounding neighborhood and area.The applicant is also providing bicycle
and pedestrian enhancements and amenities,in addition to vehicle parking,to support alternate modes of
transportation.
Bicycle Parking
SSFMC Section 20.330.007 (“Bicycle Parking”)establishes the requirements for short-term and long-term
bicycle parking.The minimum number of on-site short-term and long-term bicycle parking spaces are based on
the use and number of required automobile parking spaces.The following requirements are applicable to the
Project:
·Short-term Bicycle Parking:Rate of 5%of the number of required automobile parking spaces,with a
minimum of four bicycle parking spaces provided per establishment.
·Long-term Bicycle Parking:Rate of 5%of the number of required or maximum permitted automobile
parking spaces.
Per these requirements,the Project must provide a total of four short-term and three long-term bicycle parking
spaces on site.The Project includes the required short-term bicycle parking spaces provided adjacent to the
secondary building entrance.A total of two long-term bicycle parking spaces are currently shown on the plan
set,adjacent to the trash enclosure with access off the outdoor dining area.A Condition of Approval has been
included to ensure that the third required long-term bicycle parking space be added to the Project during the
building permit process.
Electric Vehicle Charging Station
SSFMC Section 20.330.008 (“Electric Vehicle Charging Station”)establishes the requirements for electric
vehicle (EV)charging stations and EV-capable parking spaces for new buildings based on the total number of
required or maximum permitted automobile parking spaces.For a project with a maximum permitted parking of
51 or more, a minimum of 6% of the total parking spaces must be for EV charging.
Per these requirements,the Project must provide a total of three EV charging stations and EV-capable parking
spaces.The Project exceeds this requirement,providing a total of five EV charging stations and EV-capable
parking spaces in the proposed parking lot.
Master Sign Program
SSFMC Chapter 20.360 (“Signs”)establishes the requirements and procedures for all signs in the City.A
Master Sign Program provides a method for an applicant to integrate the design and placement of signs within a
project with the overall development design to achieve a more unified appearance.The proposed project
signage has been designed to be compatible with the qualities and style of the In-N-Out signature and brand and
complement the overall building and site design.The proposed signage will be visible and legible for both
vehicular and pedestrian traffic and will be in keeping with the aesthetics of the Project.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 6 of 9
powered by Legistar™20
File #:25-694 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:3.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The General Plan Land Use designation for the Project Site is Medium Density Mixed Use,which is intended
for a broad range of commercial,office,and residential uses and public spaces serving both surrounding
neighborhoods and visitors from nearby areas.The Project is consistent with the guiding and implementing
policies in the General Plan as it will redevelop a vacant,underutilized site with a high demand restaurant use
along a commercial and transit priority corridor identified for redevelopment.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
The Design Review Board (DRB)reviewed the proposal on November 19,2024,and recommended approval
of the design with some recommended landscaping changes.The applicant provided a revised landscaping plan
in response to comments in December 2024.The revised landscaping plan was circulated to the DRB via email
and received a positive response,with no further comments.The DRB comment letter is included as
Attachment 2 to this staff report,and the revised landscaping plans are included as part of the Plan Set
(Associated Entitlements Resolution, Exhibit B).
COMMUNITY MEETING
On January 13,2025,the applicant held a community meeting providing an overview of the proposed project,
obtaining feedback,and addressing any questions.Approximately 70 community members attended as well as
some Council Members,City Staff,and members of the Planning Commission and Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Committee.A large portion of the attendees were members of the Maltese American Social Club,a
community organization residing at 924 El Camino Real, directly south of the Project Site.
The main concerns expressed by the community centered around the Project’s impact to traffic in the
surrounding area.Questions were asked about parking lot capacity and drive-through queuing overflow onto El
Camino Real.They discussed their concerns about vehicular and pedestrian safety at the intersection of El
Camino Real and Southwood Drive /1st Street and questioned how the Project would impact already poor
conditions in this area.Members of the Maltese American Social Club were concerned with the Project’s
impact on their building and operations,as well as pedestrian safety at the same intersection.A summary of the
meeting was prepared by the applicant and sent to all meeting attendees,and is included as Attachment 3 to this
staff report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 through 15333 provide a list of categorical exemptions that a project may
qualify for.Categorical exemptions are specific classes of projects which have been determined not to have a
significant effect on the environment and which shall,therefore,be exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 identifies the Class 32 categorical exemption for projects characterized as
infill development. This exemption is intended to promote infill development within urbanized areas.
A project can qualify for the Class 32 Infill Development categorical exemption if the following criteria can be
met:
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 7 of 9
powered by Legistar™21
File #:25-694 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:3.
a)The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan
policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
b)The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c)The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
d)Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic,noise,air quality,or
water quality.
e)The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
The applicant submitted an Infill Checklist and evaluation against the above criteria for City review
(Associated CEQA Resolution, Exhibit B). The Checklist includes the following supporting technical analyses:
·Traffic Impact Assessment
·Noise Study and Supplemental Memorandum
·Air Quality Study and Supplemental Memorandum
Based on the checklist,the Project is categorically exempt under Class 32 as an Infill Development Project
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332.The Project is consistent with the applicable General Plan goals
and policies and Zoning standards and requirements;is located on a site of less than five acres surrounded by
developed urban uses that can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services and that does
not provide sensitive habitat for endangered,rare or threatened species;and will not result in any significant
effects relating to traffic,noise,air quality or water quality.Thus,the Project qualifies as categorically exempt
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Class 32, Infill Development Project.
IMPACT FEES
The Project is subject to the City’s impact and development fees,which are used to offset the impacts of new
development on City services and infrastructure.The Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A to the Entitlements
Resolution) list out the relevant impact fees:
·Parks and Recreation Fee
·Childcare Fee
·Commercial Linkage Fee
·Library Impact Fee
·Public Safety Impact Fee
·Public Art Requirement: On-site, or in-lieu contribution of 0.5% of construction costs
CONCLUSION
The Project Site is located within an existing mixed-use area along a major commercial and transit priority
corridor,where a broad range of commercial,office,and residential uses and public spaces are encouraged.The
Project will redevelop an underused vacant restaurant site with a new In-N-Out Burger Restaurant and drive-
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 8 of 9
powered by Legistar™22
File #:25-694 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:3.
Project will redevelop an underused vacant restaurant site with a new In-N-Out Burger Restaurant and drive-
through and include both on-site and off-site improvements,including a traffic signal that will serve the entire
area.The proposal is consistent with General Plan goals and policies and the Zoning Ordinance requirements
and standards.
For these reasons, staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1.Adopt a Resolution making findings and a determination that the Project is categorically exempt under
the provision of CEQA, Class 32, Section 15332, Infill Development; and
2.Adopt a Resolution making findings and approving the entitlements for Planning Project P23-0135,
including Design Review DR24-0013,Conditional Use Permit UP24-0001,and Master Sign Program
SIGNS24-0012, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
Attachments
1.In-N-Out Burger Project Description
2.Design Review Board (DRB) Comment Letter, dated December 2, 2024
3.Community Meeting Summary
Exhibits to Associated CEQA Resolution (25-695)
A.In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project Infill Checklist
1.Traffic Impact Assessment
2.Noise
a.Noise Study
b.Supplemental Noise Memorandum
3.Air Quality
a.Air Quality Study
b.Supplemental Air Quality Memorandum
Exhibits to Associated Entitlements Resolution (25-696)
A.Conditions of Approval
B.Project Plan Set
C.Master Sign Program Plan Set
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 9 of 9
powered by Legistar™23
13502 Hamburger Lane
Baldwin Park, Ca 91706-5885
626-813-8200
The Best Enterprise
Is A Free EnterpriseTM
“God Bless America” • The Customer Is Everything To Us
Project Narrative
Proposed In-N-Out Burgers Restaurant
972 & 932 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, CA
In-N-Out Burgers proposes to develop a new In-N-Out Burger restaurant with drive-through service and
outdoor patio seating at 932 & 972 El Camino Real in South San Francisco, CA. In-N-Out Burger is a
family-friendly, family-owned company known for fresh ingredients, excellent customer service, and
meticulously clean, well-lit stores.
The proposed site sits across two properties along El Camino Real. The site is located within the T5C
Zoning District where restaurants are principally permitted. Drive-through facilities require a Conditional
Use Permit as well as the request for additional hours of operation between 12:00 am and 6:00 am.
Currently, the site is occupied by a 3,000 square foot Burger King restaurant building with drive-through
lane, a 1,224 square foot commercial and residential building, parking, and leftover site improvements.
These existing buildings will be demolished to make way for the new development. The total site area is
approximately 1.504 acres, or approximately 65,493 square-feet.
The proposed In-N-Out restaurant will consist of a 3,887 square foot building with indoor seating for 84
guests and outdoor seating for 28 guests. Improvements include a covered trash enclosure, a drive-
through with dedicated onsite queuing for 39 cars, onsite parking for 51 cars, and excellent vehicle
circulation with no “dead end” parking aisles and two driveway access points to El Camino Real. The site
will be well landscaped and well lit for customer and neighborhood safety.
Our signature In-N-Out building is a single-story with exterior stucco, elevated entry towers, and an
architectural cornice detail at high and low roof planes. The elevations are a “Bone China White,”
smooth stucco finish with brick wainscot, red awnings, neon banding, and neon signage for brand
awareness. The maximum height of the building is approximately 23’-6” tall. Tower elements are
incorporated into the building, including at the customer entrances, to provide vertical relief and
visually pleasing focal points. Parapets for areas of flat roof are at an elevation of approximately 19’-
10” which provide ample screening of the rooftop kitchen and mechanical equipment. A covered patio
incorporates the flat roof and banding to match the building aesthetic. The trash enclosure is 11’-9”
tall with masonry walls, roof, and doors, and is designed to match the building façade.
The restaurant will operate 7 days a week, from 10:30 AM to 1:00 AM Sunday through Thursday, and
from 10:30 AM to 1:30 AM on Friday and Saturday. Staff will range from 10 to 15 Associates per shift,
with three shifts per day. The restaurant, drive-thru, and parking lot, as with all In-N-Out Burgers
restaurants, will be well-lit and meticulously maintained.
24
13502 Hamburger Lane
Baldwin Park, Ca 91706-5885
626-813-8200
The Best Enterprise
Is A Free EnterpriseTM
“God Bless America” • The Customer Is Everything To Us
There is no delivery dock or designated delivery parking bay proposed on the premises as deliveries are
made only by In-N-Out owned and operated vehicles after the restaurant is closed to the public, between
the hours of 2 AM and 9 AM. Having delivery trucks operate after hours allows the parking and queue
management to be at its most effective throughout the day and helps to ensure that truck traffic is not
on the road during either morning or evening rush hours.
In-N-Out cooks all its burgers and fries to order – nothing is pre-cooked and there are no cooked food
holding bins. This restaurant will be equipped with three burger grills. Two grills will operate at all times;
activation of the third grill will be done in response to high dine-in or, more typically, high drive-through
demand, as activating the third grill significantly increases the speed at which drive-through orders are
delivered to customer vehicles. In addition, standard store operating procedure dictates that as soon as
the drive-through queue reaches the 10th car (where the menu board/order speaker is located) In-N-
Out Associates are deployed outside to take orders using hand-held ordering tablets.
Awareness of the queue reaching the 10th car is enhanced with outdoor cameras and indoor monitors.
There will be between 4 and 6 outdoor cameras on this site, with 3 or 4 of them specifically viewing the
drive-through lane. These exterior cameras display on multiple monitors located inside the restaurant
including at the manager’s office, above the grills, and above both the pay and pickup windows.
Additional measures to speed drive-through orders through the queue and therefore minimize idling
vehicle emissions include taking payment on the hand-held order tablets.
The building utilizes outdoor speakers at the menu-board, canopies, and patio for operational purposes.
The speakers are utilized only for announcing orders that are not picked up by customers waiting inside.
The menu board speaker has automatic background noise sensing and attenuation, which lowers the
volume when background noise is lower, such as in the evening. Additionally, the speakers and menu
board have volume controls and the volume can be adjusted if needed.
No alcoholic beverages will be served.
Construction for the restaurant will be done in a single phase and take approximately 8 months, with a
typical progression of construction activities. These activities, some of which would run concurrently,
include site preparation and limited grading of about 4 to 6 weeks, building construction of about 5
months, paving and striping of about 3 weeks, and landscaping of about 2 weeks.
25
26
27
In-N-Out Burger Community Meeting Summary
January 13, 2025, 6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
In-N-Out Burger hosted a Community Meeting on the evening of January 13, 2025, at the
South San Francisco Library and Parks & Recreation Center to present its proposal to
develop a new restaurant at 932 and 972 El Camino Real. In-N-Out Burger displayed poster
boards with project facts, design details, building elevations, and the current and proposed
site plan, and distributed a factsheet and frequently asked questions document. Attendees
were also invited to complete comment cards.
Approximately 70 community members attended as well as some Council Members, City
Staff, and members of the Planning Commission and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee. At least half of the attendees were members of the Maltese American Social
Club, a community organization residing at 924 El Camino Real, directly south of the project
site. In-N-Out is working with Social Club leadership separately to hear and address their
concerns to the extent feasible.
The project will demolish two dated buildings, replacing them with a beautifully designed
restaurant featuring climate-friendly landscaping, a six-foot barrier wall along the
perimeter of the site, and a 40-foot landscaped buffer zone between the drive-thru lane
and the adjacent multifamily residential building. In-N-Out’s site plan provides ample
parking, designated pedestrian crossings, bike access, five electric vehicle charging stations,
and excellent circulation with two driveways along El Camino Real.
Brigid Williams, Development Manager for In-N-Out Burger, delivered a thorough project
presentation alongside the applicant representative, Emily Mueller of The Kaidence Group.
The presentation detailed the proposed site plan, drive-through queue and parking plan,
community benefits, job creation and economic impact, and the project timeline. Attendees
then had the opportunity to ask questions and provide comments.
Question & Answer Summary:
During the evening, multiple questions were asked regarding the same topic. In the outline
below similar questions are summarized, and different questions with similar responses
are grouped together for clarity.
Site Plan, Parking, and Queuing Questions
● Residents had questions concerning the amount of parking provided, asking if there
is enough parking for both associates and customers onsite. Neighbors were
concerned that if not enough parking was available onsite for patrons that they
would be parking on the neighboring streets, which are already congested.
28
o Response: The City’s parking requirements for the proposed project is 27
parking stalls. The proposed site has 51 parking stalls for both Associates
and customers. The site has been purposely and intentionally designed with
significantly more parking than required by code to reduce any need for
overflow parking in the surrounding residential blocks.
● What happens when the drive-through line blocks the parking spaces along the
southern part of the property next to the drive-through lanes?
o Response: In-N-Out does not designate specific stalls for associate parking
or customer parking only. And the drive-through queue length exceeds the
anticipated number of cars needed in the dedicated queue. However,
Associates will be encouraged to park in those spaces to minimize
disruptions to the drive-through queue if the dedicated queue is exceeded
during peak hours.
● Residents had multiple comments about the drive-through queue length and
expressed concerns that the queue will extend onto El Camino Real.
o Response: In-N-Out’s traffic study reviewed the queues at eight existing In-N-
Out restaurants in Northern California, including the store at 372 Gellert Blvd
in Daly City. Peak times were observed on weekdays from 4:00-6:00 PM and
Saturdays from 12:00 PM-2:00 PM. The observed queue lengths ranged from
13-33 cars, with the maximum observed queue length at 33 cars. The
proposed site’s drive-through queue can support 39 vehicles, well above
what the study concludes is necessary to handle anticipated patronage at
peak hours.
● How does In-N-Out manage the drive-through queue during peak hours?
o Response: In-N-Out has a sophisticated system of drive-through procedures
that it uses to improve the operational efficiency of the store during peak
times. The drive-through lane is monitored by cameras at all times and when
the queue extends beyond the menu board, Associates are deployed outside
with wireless handheld ordering and payment systems to increase the speed
at which orders are taken and reduce time spent at the pay window.
Additionally, a third grill is activated during periods of high volume to
increase the number of orders that can be handled at one time. Finally, the
Associate operating the handheld ordering and payment system will
communicate with management inside the restaurant if additional
Associates are needed in the parking lot to assist with directing traffic and
queue management.
29
● In-N-Out locations in Daly City and Millbrae have terrible traffic and incredibly long
lines. How will this site be different?
o Response: The two In-N-Out locations in Daly City and the store in Millbrae
are older stores on smaller lot sizes, with smaller dedicated drive-through
queue lengths. These stores have queue lengths between 10 and 17 cars,
whereas the proposed site is proposing 39 cars in the dedicated queue. The
new store is thoughtfully designed to be larger and have a larger car queue
than the neighboring stores.
● Will store Associates monitor the lot to prevent overnight parking?
o Response: In-N-Out does not allow overnight parking.
● Did In-N-Out consider a pedestrian access point from Centennial Way to the walking
path in the landscaped buffer zone?
o Response: In-N-Out can explore this as an option.
Traffic Questions
● Residents expressed concerns with the traffic impacts of a new In-N-Out Burger on
El Camino Real. How will the site contribute to existing northbound traffic on El
Camino Real? How will it affect nearby residents who already contend with poor
traffic conditions? o
o Response: Because this is a redevelopment of an existing restaurant with
drive-through use, our study found that this new store will not have a
significant impact on existing traffic flow on El Camino Real. The proposed
site design has almost double the City’s required number of parking stalls
and a long drive-through queue, which allows customers to enter the project
site and pull off El Camino Real quickly and efficiently.
● There was a robust discussion about the intersection at El Camino Real and 1st
Street / Southwood Drive. Multiple residents expressed concerns about the current
conditions and traffic issues at the intersection and the impacts of the In-N-Out
development to pedestrian and vehicle safety. The neighbors discussed the idea of a
traffic signal installation and asked if that would be a part of the In-N-Out project. A
neighbor commented that a signal should be installed regardless of the outcome of
this project.
o Response: In-N-Out completed a Traffic Study as part of the development
process. The City and a third-party consultant have provided feedback on
the study. In-N-Out’s study shows that the intersection at El Camino Real and
1st Street is currently at a failing level of service. The study shows that In-N-
30
Out’s proportional impact on the intersection will add cars to the U-turn
Lane. The intersection currently has no pedestrian access or crosswalks
across El Camino Real. The study proposes some mitigations measures to
address In-N-Out’s impact on the intersection that is under review by the
City. The City and In-N-Out Burger are also in discussions about what
improvements can be made at the intersection including pedestrian
crosswalks and a traffic signal. In-N-Out is willing to partner with the City to
make these improvements to the neighborhood, and the details and timing
of the improvements are still being discussed.
● Does the traffic study consider future developments?
o Response: The traffic study considers the impact of the proposed project
only.
● How will traffic exiting the proposed site interact with the Nine88 Apartments
parking garage?
o Response: Over 175 feet separates the driveways of the two developments,
so exiting cars are not expected to directly affect access to the garage.
● How will In-N-Out prepare for increased traffic during the opening? How long does
the opening period last?
o Response: In-N-Out has specific procedures to handle store opening periods
employing various methods to mitigate queueing. This is a mature market
with many nearby In-N-Out locations; therefore, a long opening period is not
anticipated.
● Will residents have another chance to provide input on proposed traffic mitigations?
o Response: Residents can provide input at the Planning Commission meeting,
the date of which is to be determined. Community members can also contact
the project team anytime with questions or concerns.
Maltese American Social Club
Social Club members expressed myriad concerns about how the proposed project will
impact their building and operations, including pedestrian safety at the intersection of 1st
Street /Southwood Drive and El Camino Real, which was addressed in the above section on
traffic and parking. Questions and comments included:
● Will the new restaurant block access from the rear of the Social Club building?
31
o Response: Before the meeting, In-N-Out met with Social Club leadership to
discuss several topics, including access from the rear exit to A Street, and
discussions are in progress regarding how to address that concern. In-N-Out
believes that a mutually agreeable solution will be found.
● Will the demolition of the building at 932 El Camino Real damage the Social Club
building?
o Response: As discussed with Club leadership, the demolition of the 932 El
Camino Real building is not anticipated to damage the Social Club building as
the buildings are not structurally connected.
● Club members are concerned by traffic generated by the drive-thru queue
interfering with parking and drop-off.
o Response: The project site will not remove the Maltese American Club’s
existing onsite parking spaces or impede their site access. In-N-Out does not
anticipate the drive-through queue extending onto El Camino Real, based on
the drive-through queue analysis and traffic study. In addition to the 39-car
queue, the parking lot can hold roughly ten more cars before reaching El
Camino.
Store Operations
Attendees also levied questions about store operations, including operating hours, noise,
aroma mitigation, and air quality impacts:
● Will the store operate 24 hours a day given the application to operate overnight?
o Response: No. In-N-Out applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow
operations between 12:00 am and 6:00 am. In-N-Out is open to the public
10:30 AM – 1:00 AM Sunday – Thursday, and 10:30 AM – 1:30 AM Friday -
Saturday. Because In-N-Out closes at 1:00 AM Sunday-Thursday and 1:30 AM
Friday and Saturday, the store requires permission to operate past 12 AM. o
● Has In-N-Out completed a noise assessment?
o Response: Yes, In-N-Out completed a noise study which found that the
project is below the City’s noise standards for daytime and nighttime
activities.
● What steps will In-N-Out take to mitigate unpleasant aromas?
o Response: Some aroma is expected from all restaurants, including from the
previous site’s restaurant. In-N-Out restaurants have similar kitchen aroma
levels as other restaurants.
32
● Has In-N-Out completed an air quality study from the impact of queueing cars?
o Response: Yes, an air quality study was conducted, and the study concluded
that site operations will be well within the accepted emissions thresholds.
● Will there be parking spaces dedicated to food delivery drivers like DoorDash?
o Response: No, In-N-Out does not partner with any food delivery services.
Community Benefits & Outreach
Attendees expressed curiosity about In-N-Out’s community outreach and possibilities for
further community involvement and feedback:
● Why did it take so long for In-N-Out to notify neighbors of the project and host a
community meeting? The proposal appears to be a done deal.
o Response: The project team has been conducting community outreach since
November 2024, and this meeting is part of our process for hearing feedback
from the community prior to project review by the Planning Commission.
The project team is available to answer any questions.
● What makes In-N-Out a good neighbor and what kinds of community benefits does
it offer?
o Response: In-N-Out is proud to contribute to the economic vitality of the
communities where we operate. A new location will create numerous local
job opportunities with competitive wages and comprehensive benefits.
Beyond employment, the revenue generated by our business helps support
local public services, infrastructure improvement, and community programs.
Additionally, the company operates two foundations: The In-N-Out
Foundation and the Slave 2 Nothing Foundation. These foundations support
agencies aligned with their missions in areas surrounding our stores. Finally,
In-N-Out provides schools and libraries with awards to recognize deserving
students. As part of our mission statement, we are committed to assist all
communities in our marketplace to become stronger, safer, and better
places to live.
Miscellaneous
● Can the community provide further project input before the Planning Commission
meeting?
33
o Response: Yes. Community members can reach out to the project team at
any time with input.
● Does In-N-Out use union contractors?
o Response: In-N-Out is not signatory with any labor unions. In-N-Out typically
builds very few locations each year, and specifically in California, often acts
as the general contractor.
● When will the store open?
o Response: The store is anticipated to open in 2026.
● Residents on A Street have frequent issues with rats. How will In-N-Out ensure that
construction will not make those problems worse?
o Response: In-N-Out will keep this in mind during construction and will work
to remediate any pest problems if they arise from site construction.
Attendee List:
Betty De Battista Mary Prem Mary Quill
Lina Agius J. Dean Karen Borg
Councilmember Mark
Addiego Michael Yoshida Roxanne Clarke
Sam Chetcuti David Ngo George & Bira Borg
Mary Curatchet Elizabeth V. Ninfa Pace
Brian Malbiran Emma Magarrell Becky Bayarod
Laurie Scribner Mary Smith Sara Camargo
Dana K. J De Battista Tony Carmana
Linda Ryan Michelle Attaro
Councilmember Flor
Nicholas
Brenda Rodriguez Charlie Chetcuti Miguel Baluyat
Evan Rodriguez Helen Cannone Mary Vella Gomez
Diane Portillo Norm F. Brian B.
Dominic Borg Mona Nicholas Remie Reising
Frank Borg Gretchen Suan Charles Catania
Melissa Yoshida Kristin Valente Glenda Nabung
34
Mary Quill
Total: 46 attendees **Many attendees did not sign in**
Please click here for the meeting sign-in sheets.
35
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:25-695 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:3a.
Resolution making findings and a determination that the In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project located at 932 and
972 El Camino Real qualifies for a categorical exemption,pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332.
WHEREAS,the applicant has proposed the construction of a new 3,887 square foot In-N-Out Burger
Restaurant with a drive-through and surface parking lot containing 51 parking stalls,landscaping,and
circulation improvements (“Project”)on the properties located at 932 and 972 El Camino Real (APN 014-011-
320 and 014-011-330) of approximately 1.5 acres (referred to as “Project Site”) in the City; and
WHEREAS,the proposed Project is located within the T5 Corridor (T5C)Zoning District and Medium Density
Mixed Use General Plan Land Use Designation; and
WHEREAS,the applicant seeks entitlement approval of a Planning Project (P23-0135),including Design
Review (DR24-0013),Conditional Use Permit (UP24-0001),and Master Sign Program (SIGNS24-0012)for
the Project; and
WHEREAS,approval of the applicant’s proposal is considered a “project”for purposes of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and
WHEREAS,the City,in conjunction with an environmental consultant,Meridian Consultants,LLC,prepared
an Infill Checklist and technical analyses to provide substantial evidence that the proposed Project qualifies for
a Categorical Exemption under the provision of CEQA,Class 32,Section 15332 as an Infill Development
Project; and
WHEREAS,on July 17,2025,the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the Infill Checklist,attached hereto as Exhibit B,and take public testimony;
and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has exercised its independent judgement and analysis,and considered
all reports, recommendations, and testimony before making a determination on the Project.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes
without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq.
(“CEQA”)and the CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the South San
Francisco 2040 General Plan;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;the 2040 General Plan Program EIR
and Statement of Overriding Considerations;the Project applications;the project plan set consisting of:civil
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™36
File #:25-695 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:3a.
and Statement of Overriding Considerations;the Project applications;the project plan set consisting of:civil
plans prepared by MSL Engineering,Inc.,dated stamp received July 1,2025;landscaping plans prepared by
Brandon Petrunio &Associates,Inc.Landscape Architects,dated stamp received July 1,2025;photometric
plan prepared by RTM Engineering Consultants,dated stamp received November 1,2024;renderings and
elevations prepared by In-N-Out Burger,dated stamp received November 1,2024;and sign program plans
prepared by Signtech,dated stamp received November 1,2024;the In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project Infill
Checklist,including all appendices thereto,prepared by Meridian Consultants,LLC,dated April 2025;all site
plans;all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed
July 17,2025 public hearing;and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e)
and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
SECTION 1 FINDINGS
A. General Findings
1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2.The Exhibits attached to this Resolution,including the In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project Infill
Checklist and its Appendices (Exhibit A),are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this
Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.
3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the
Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA
94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner.
B. CEQA Findings
1.For the reasons stated in this Resolution,the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15332: Class 32 as an Infill Development project because:
a.As described in the record,the Project is designed to be consistent with the City’s General Plan,
all applicable General Plan policies and zoning designations and regulations.
b.The Project will be located within the City’s limits,on a site of less than five acres and will be
surrounded by urban uses in a built-out environment.
c.The Project Site has no value as a habitat for endangered,rare,or threatened species,as it is in a
built-out environment and is currently disturbed as the site of existing buildings and parking lot.
d.As supported by the findings of the Infill Checklist and technical analyses,approval of the
Project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic,noise,air quality,or water
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™37
File #:25-695 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:3a.
quality.
e.The Project can be adequately serviced by all required utilities and public services.
SECTION 2 DETERMINATION
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San
Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution and a determination that the proposed Project
qualifies for a categorical exemption, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
adoption.
* * * * * * *
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™38
CEQA EXEMPTION
IN-N-OUT BURGER RESTAURANT PROJECT
932 & 972 El Camino Real
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Lead Agency:
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development
Planning Division
Prepared by:
860 Hampshire Road, Suite P
Westlake Village, CA 91361
www.meridianconsultantsllc.com
APRIL 2025
39
Meridian Consultants i In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project April 2025 City of South San Francisco
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ i
A. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
B. Project Location ................................................................................................ 1
C. Existing Site Conditions ....................................................................................... 2
D. General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations .......................................................... 2
E. Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................................................ 2
F. Project Description ............................................................................................ 3
G. Requested Approval Actions .................................................................................. 7
H. Categorical Exemptions ....................................................................................... 7
I. Consistency of Project with the Class 32 Exemption Criteria ........................................... 8
J. Exceptions to the Use of Categorical Exemptions ....................................................... 19
List of Figures
Figure Page
1. Project Site Location .......................................................................................... 5
2. Proposed Site Plan ............................................................................................. 6
List of Tables
Table Page
1. Construction Maximum Noise Estimates .................................................................. 13
2. On Site Construction Vibration Impacts - Building Damage ............................................ 13
3. Modeled Exterior Noise Levels from Operational Sources ............................................. 14
4. Modeled Exterior Noise Levels from Truck Deliveries................................................... 15
5. Existing Plus Project Roadway Noise Levels .............................................................. 16
6. Maximum Construction Emissions .......................................................................... 17
7. Maximum Operational Emissions ........................................................................... 17
Appendices
A Traffic Impact Assessment
B Noise
B.1 Noise Study
B.2 Supplemental Noise Memorandum
C Air Quality
C.1 Air Quality Study
C.2 Supplemental Air Quality Memorandum
40
Categorical Exemption Findings
Meridian Consultants 1 In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project April 2025 City of South San Francisco
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FINDINGS
Project Name In-N-Out Burger Restaurant: South San Francisco File Number P23-0135
Site Address 932 & 972 El Camino Real, South
San Francisco, CA 94080 APN 014-011-320, 014-011-330
Applicant In-N-Out Burger Phone (623) 866-8120
Property Owner Jack Lin and GFL Group, Inc. Prev. Cert. EIRs N/A
Project
Description Summary
The Project is a redevelopment of an existing restaurant with a drive-through and the construction of a new 3,887-square foot In-N-Out Burger Restaurant with a drive-through lane.
The restaurant would provide seating capacity of 112 people (84 seats indoor, 28 seats outdoor), a drive-through queuing lane with a capacity of up to 39 cars, landscaping, and
parking spaces for up to 51 vehicles.
Environmental Setting
The Project site consists of two parcels located within the T5 Corridor Zoning District (T5C)
and is predominantly surrounded by commercial uses with mixed use multi-family residential
use located adjacent to the north along El Camino Real, the Deluxe Inn Motel to the south, and
residential uses along 1st Street, A Street, and Antionette Lane.
There is a vacant one-story 3,000 square foot Burger King restaurant, a surface parking lot
consisting of 43 surface paved striped parking spaces with a 320-foot-long protected drive-
through lane and a 240-foot-long overflow vehicle stacked striped area at 972 El Camino Real. Additionally, there is an operating commercial and residential building with no striped parking
spaces but with capacity to park vehicles on pavement and soil at 932 El Camino Real.
Determination
As outlined in this report, the proposed project meets the eligibility requirements for the
Class 32 Categorical Exemption (Infill Exemption) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines.
A. INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the review of projects that involve the exercise
of discretionary powers by a public agency that could result in a physical change in the environment.
Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that once a lead agency has determined that a project is
subject to CEQA, the next step is to determine if the project is exempt from environmental review under
CEQA. This document evaluates the In-N-Out Burger: South San Francisco Project in relation to the
criteria for the Class 32 In-Fill Development Projects Exemption established by CEQA Guidelines Section
15332 and concludes that the Project (1) meets the eligibility criteria for the Class 32 exemption and (2)
none of the exceptions defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.
CEQA provides a categorical exemption from environmental review for operation, repair, maintenance,
or minor alteration of existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails,
and similar facilities pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Section 15301(c).
B. PROJECT LOCATION
The Project Site is located at 932 and 972 El Camino Real (APN 014-011-320 and 014-011-330) within the
City of South San Francisco, as shown in Figure 1: Project Site Location. The 65,493 square foot
(approximately 1.5 acres) Project Site consists of two (2) parcels. The northern parcel is located at 972
El Camino Real, and the southern parcel is located at 932 El Camino Real. The Project Site is located east
41
Categorical Exemption Findings
Meridian Consultants 2 In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project April 2025 City of South San Francisco
of El Camino Real (State Route 82), mid-block between Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue and
Southwood Drive/1st Street. The Project Site is bounded to the west by El Camino Real, adjacent to the
north by commercial and mixed-use multi-family residential use, to the east by Antoinette Lane, and to
the south by a commercial motel use.
C. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The Project Site currently contains a vacant one-story 3,000 square foot Burger King restaurant, surface
parking lot consisting of 43 surface paved striped parking spaces with a 320-foot-long protected drive-
through lane and a 240-foot-long overflow vehicle stacked striped area at 972 El Camino Real.
Additionally, the Project Site contains an operating commercial and residential building with no striped
parking spaces but with capacity to park vehicles on pavement and soil at 932 El Camino Real.
D. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
The Project Site is located within the City of South San Francisco’s (City) El Camino Real sub-area of the
City of South San Francisco’s General Plan (General Plan). Specifically, the Project Site falls within the
boundaries of El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, which emphasizes development along the El
Camino Real corridor between Southwood Drive and just north of Sequoia Avenue.
The Project Site is zoned as T5 Corridor (T5C), a form-based zoning district designed to support mixed-
use developments with a focus on pedestrian-friendly environments and active street frontages. The
General Plan land use designation for the Project Site is Medium Density Mixed Use, which allows for a
range of uses including retail and department stores, eating and drinking establishments, hotels,
commercial recreation, financial institutions, business and personal services, residential, educational,
social services and office uses.
The total lot area of the Project Site is approximately 65,493 square foot (approximately 1.5 acres).
Based on the T5C district standards, the proposed building would result in a maximum lot coverage of
0.06, well within the maximum floor area ration (FAR) for non-residential uses of 2.0. Additionally, the
proposed building height of approximately 27 feet would be within the maximum building height of 85
feet for uses within the T5C district.
E. SURROUNDING LAND USES
The Project Site is in an urbanized area and is predominately surrounded by commercial uses with a
mixed-use multi-family residential use located adjacent to the north along El Camino Real, the Deluxe
Inn Motel to the south, and residential uses along 1st Street, A Street, and Antionette Lane. The nearest
major arterial roads are El Camino Real (SR-82), adjacent to the Project Site, and Westborough
Boulevard, approximately 0.07 miles north of the Project Site.
42
Categorical Exemption Findings
Meridian Consultants 3 In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project April 2025 City of South San Francisco
F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project is a redevelopment of an existing vacant restaurant with a drive-through lane and
the construction of a new 3,887-square-foot In-N-Out Burger Restaurant with a drive-through lane. The
restaurant would provide a seating capacity of 112 people (84 seats indoor, 28 seats outdoor), a drive-
through queuing lane with a capacity of up to 39 cars, landscaping and parking spaces for up to 51
vehicles (refer to Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan). The proposed Project would provide improvements to
the Project Site’s two (2) driveways, including installing a westbound cross street stop-control, providing
the westbound approach to consist of one (1) right lane, and providing one (1) eastbound inbound lane.
The Project also includes construction of a new traffic signal within the public right-of-way at the
intersection of El Camino Real, Southwood Drive, and 1st Street.
Site Access and Parking
Vehicular access is proposed via two right-in/right-out only driveways on El Camino Real. The parking lot
has 51 parking spaces accessible from the Project Central Driveway and the Project South Driveway.
Project driveway shall be designed in accordance with the applicable City standards.
While the vast majority of project trips circulating the site will be passenger cars, adequate on-site
circulation will be provided to accommodate delivery and waste collection trucks. Truck ingress would
occur at the Project South Driveway and egress would occur from the Project North Driveway. Truck
loading/unloading would occur on-site in the drive aisle closest to the building entrance. Truck deliveries
are scheduled to occur after store closing and before opening, typically between 2:00 AM and 9:00 AM,
so as not to interfere with on-site circulation and operations while the restaurant is open to the public.
Site
No heritage or protected trees exist onsite. The 15 trees onsite that would be removed are a mix of
imported and native species. These trees are not considered “Protected Trees” as defined by South San
Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) Section 13.30.020. Due to its location in an urbanized area, the site
has no value as natural habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The project site is not
located near any hazard zone or habitat corridor identified in the General Plan’s Community Resilience
Element and Environmental and Cultural Stewardship Element.
When developed, the Project would provide water-efficient landscaping, including low- and moderate-
water use plants on the site.
43
Categorical Exemption Findings
Meridian Consultants 4 In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project April 2025 City of South San Francisco
Grading and Earthwork
Export of any soil is not proposed at this time. If soil is to be excavated from the site, it would be hauled
away and disposed of at an appropriate facility.
Utilities
Utilities and services, including water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, as well as power and electricity,
are all currently available to serve the site. All utilities are available from El Camino Real. The Project is
required to ensure adequate utilities to the site and pay development fees that are used towards
improving the citywide water and sewer system. The Project would be conditioned to underground the
new utilities and provide a sewer capacity report at building permit submittal. Drainage design would be
reviewed for compliance with the City’s Engineering standards.
The Project would comply with the pervious area requirements and would include an underground
infiltration system, Stormwater Management Plan, Best Management Practices, Stormwater Pollution
Prevention, Stormwater Runoff and green infrastructure improvements for bioretention.
44
Project Site Location
FIGURE 1
121-013-24
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2024
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
2501250 500
N
Project Site
45
FIGURE 2
SOURCE: MSL Engineering, Inc. - 2025
Proposed Site Plan
121-017-25
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
50250 100
N
46
Categorical Exemption Findings
Meridian Consultants 7 In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project April 2025 City of South San Francisco
G. REQUESTED APPROVAL ACTIONS
For the proposed Project to be implemented, the City of South San Francisco would need to approve the
following actions:
Design Review Board
The proposed Project would be subject to the City’s Design Review Board’s (DRB) approval of the
proposed new building.
Conditional Use Permit
The proposed drive-through would be subject to the City’s Planning Commission approval for a conditional
use permit (CUP) pursuant to SSFMC Section 20.350.016 (Drive- Through Facilities) and Section
20.330.004 (Required Parking Spaces) for the provision of parking in excess of the amount other
permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, a Use Permit is required for any use with hours of
operation between 12:00 AM and 6:00 AM.
El Camino Real is a state highway and is owned and managed by the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans). As a result, the proposed traffic signal will require permits from Caltrans.
H. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS
Section 21084 of the CEQA statue requires the CEQA Guidelines to include a list of classes of projects
determined not to have a significant effect on the environment that are exempt from environmental
review under CEQA. The list of exemption classes is defined in Section 15300 of the CEQA Guidelines.
The Project is considered to qualify as exempt under Class 32, Infill Development Projects as described
in Section 15322 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the Project meets the following conditions:
a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general
plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
b. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air
quality, or water quality.
e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
47
Categorical Exemption Findings
Meridian Consultants 8 In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project April 2025 City of South San Francisco
The proposed traffic signal is exempt under Class 1, Existing Facilities, as described in Section 15301(c)
of the CEQA Guidelines, because the alterations would improve transit and establish a pedestrian
crossing. Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 states that there are exceptions to the
exemptions:
a. Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be
located—a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a
particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply
all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or
critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by
federal, state, or local agencies.
b. Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of
successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
c. Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a
reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to
unusual circumstances.
d. Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage
to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or
similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not
apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or
certified EIR.
e. Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site
which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
f. Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
I. CONSISTENCY OF PROJECT WITH THE CLASS 32 EXEMPTION
CRITERIA
a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general
plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
The City of South San Francisco General Plan designates the Project Site as Medium Density Mixed Use,
which supports a blend of residential and commercial uses, including restaurant operations with
pedestrian-friendly enhancements. Additionally, the Project Site is zoned as T5C, a form-based zoning
district designed to support mixed-use developments with a focus on pedestrian-friendly environments
and active street frontages. The proposed Project consists of replacing the existing vacant restaurant
with a drive-through lane for a new drive-through restaurant which includes a CUP for the proposed
drive-through. The CUP is a permissible entitlement that aligns with the City’s planning objectives for
activating commercial corridors.
48
Categorical Exemption Findings
Meridian Consultants 9 In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project April 2025 City of South San Francisco
The project aligns with Goal LU-7 which aims to create “a diverse economy and range of businesses by
maintaining, beautifying, and expanding spaces for neighborhood commercial, including retail,
restaurants, and small offices.” The policies for this goal include promoting new commercial uses and
allowing existing strip commercial corridors such as in El Camino Real (Policy LU-7.1 and Policy LU-7.2).1
More specifically, Policy LU-7.1 promotes new commercial uses and revitalizes existing commercial uses
in locations that provide convenient access to a range of goods. The Project would retain a restaurant
use and enhances its functionality with outdoor seating and improving accessibility. Based on these
policies, the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan designation and planning objectives.
The Project Site falls within the boundaries of El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, which
emphasizes development along the El Camino Real corridor between Southwood Drive and just north of
Sequoia Avenue. The Project Site is zoned as T5 Corridor (T5C), a form-based zoning district designed to
support mixed-use developments with a focus on pedestrian-friendly environments and active street
frontages. The T5C zoning district supports vertical mixed-use development with buildings facing the
City’s corridor as well as publicly-accessible open spaces.
For these reasons, the proposed Project is consistent with the applicable development standards for this
area and would meet this criterion of the Class 32 Exemption.
b. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses.
The Project Site is approximately 1.5 acres (65,493 square foot) in size and is located within a developed
area in the City of South San Francisco. The Project Site is surrounded by developed urban areas
consisting of mixed-use multi-family residential and commercial uses. Therefore, the proposed Project
satisfies this criterion of the Class 32 Exemption.
c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
The proposed Project would redevelop an existing commercial site that is primarily surrounded by
residential and commercial uses. No heritage or protected trees exist onsite. The 15 trees onsite that
would be removed are a mix of imported and native species. These trees are not considered “Protected
Trees” as defined by SSFMC 13.30.020. Due to the urban and developed Project area, the existing trees
on site do not provide substantial value as habitat for any endangered, rare, or threatened species, and
the tree removals would not threaten any endangered, rare or threatened species. Further, the tree
removals would not trigger any tree preservation requirements under Chapter 13.30 of the City’s
Municipal Code.2
1 City of South San Francisco. “2040 General Plan.” 2022. (p. 75). Accessed March 2025. https://shapessf.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/SSFGPU_PDFPlan_FinalPlan_Resolution_11082022.pdf.
2 City of South San Francisco. Chapter 13.30. Tree Preservation.
49
Categorical Exemption Findings
Meridian Consultants 10 In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project April 2025 City of South San Francisco
The Project Site is not located within the boundary of any draft or adopted habitat conservation plan,
natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation
plan.3 The Project Site does not contain any critical habitat and is not known to support any species in
local or regional plans, policies or regulations. The Project Site is not located in any hazard zones, habitat
corridors or ecologically sensitive areas as identified in the General Plan’s Community Resilience
Element, or Environmental and Cultural Stewardship Element. There is an existing oak woodland habitat
east of the Project Site. Two (2) aquatic resources, a tidal marsh and Colma Creek are located 0.2 miles
east of the Project Site.4 However, implementation of the proposed Project would not introduce or alter
the Project Site’s land use, disrupt or impact the existing biological resources in proximity to the Project
Site. Moreover, no species identified as candidate, sensitive or special status are known to occur within
the Project Site. Due to the existing developed urban area, developed Project Site, and similar
surrounding uses, the proposed Project would not be a potential habitat for listed plant or wildlife
species. Therefore, the proposed Project satisfies this criterion of the Class 32 Exemption.
d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air
quality, or water quality.
Traffic
The following section summarizes and incorporates by reference information from the Traffic Impact
Assessment (TIA) prepared by Ganddini dated March 7, 2025 on behalf of the Applicant. The report is
included as Appendix A of this Categorical Exemption.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 identifies vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate measure
of transportation impacts. The City’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines (TAG) includes land use VMT
screening thresholds based on guidance from the State’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical
Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Based on these screening thresholds, the
proposed Project is a local serving use that is less than 50,000 square feet. As such, the proposed Project
satisfies the City-established screening threshold for “neighborhood-serving retail project,” and may be
presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact under CEQA.
Safety
The proposed Project would not substantially contribute to a roadway or design hazard, including
restricted lines of sight, or other design related issues. The Project Site contains no existing structures,
objects, or landscaping that would substantially obstruct the line of sight for the Project North Driveway
3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). National Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Plan. Summaries. Accessed March 2025. https://wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/planning/nccp/plans.
4 City of South San Francisco. “2040 General Plan.” 2022. Accessed March 2025. https://shapessf.com/wp-
content/uploads/2022/11/SSFGPU_PDFPlan_FinalPlan_Resolution_11082022.pdf.
50
Categorical Exemption Findings
Meridian Consultants 11 In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project April 2025 City of South San Francisco
and Project South Driveway. The proposed Project would adhere to the California Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) requirements including Section 3B.19, which contain provisions for
unsignalized urban driveways. The proposed Project would contribute to a fair share payment towards
the improvement costs for the future installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of El Camino Real
and Southwood Drive/1st Street. Additionally, the proposed Project shall be conditioned to install “No U-
Turn” signage at the southbound left turn lane on El Camino Real at Southwood Drive/1st Street in the
interim condition until the traffic signal is installed. With implementation of the minimum CA MUTCD
requirements, the recommended prohibition of on-street parking along the entirety of the project
frontage to approximately 98 feet south of the Project South Driveway, and the fair share cost payment
and interim improvement at the El Camino Real and Southwood Drive/1st Street intersection, the
proposed Project would not worsen existing hazards or cause new design-related hazards such as
restricted line of sight.
Emergency Access and Evacuation
Emergency vehicles would be able to access the site similar to the waste collection truck circulation or
may stop adjacent to the site along El Camino Real (SR-82). Further, the Project Site is not located outside
of a high-risk fire zone and would not require evacuation analysis. Based on the above, traffic effects of
the proposed Project would not be significant, and the proposed Project satisfies this criterion of the
Class 32 Exemption.
Noise
The following section summarizes and incorporates by reference information from the Noise Study
prepared by Meridian Consultants dated July 2024 and the Supplemental Noise Memorandum dated March
1, 2025 on behalf of the Applicant. The report is included as Appendix B of this Categorical Exemption.
On-Site Construction Noise
Noise from construction activities would be affected by the amount of construction equipment, the
location of this equipment, the timing and duration of construction activities, and the relative distance
to noise-sensitive receptors. Construction activities that would occur during the construction phases
would generate both steady-state and episodic noise that would be heard both on and off the Project
site. Each construction phase involves the use of different types of construction equipment and,
therefore, has its own distinct noise characteristics. The Project would be constructed using typical
construction techniques; no blasting or impact pile driving would be required.
The construction equipment reference noise levels (refer to Appendix B) are based on measured noise
data compiled by the FHWA and would occur when equipment is operating under full power conditions.
However, equipment used on construction sites typically operate at less than full power. The acoustical
usage factor is the percentage of time that each type of construction equipment is anticipated to be in
full power operation during a typical construction day. These values are estimates and will vary based on
the actual construction process and schedule.
51
Categorical Exemption Findings
Meridian Consultants 12 In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project April 2025 City of South San Francisco
Construction equipment operates at its noisiest levels for certain percentages of time during operation.
As such, equipment would operate at different percentages over the course of an hour.5 During a
construction day, the highest noise levels would be generated when multiple pieces of construction
equipment are operated concurrently.
To characterize construction-period noise levels, the average (hourly Leq) noise level associated with
each construction stage was calculated based on the quantity, type, and usage factors for each type of
equipment that would be used during each construction stage. These noise levels are typically associated
with multiple pieces of equipment operating simultaneously.
The estimated construction noise levels were calculated for the adjacent multi-family residential uses
(refer to Appendix B) during each phase of construction. As mentioned previously, given the physical size
of the Project site and logistical limitations, and with the noise equipment located at the construction
area nearest to the affected receptors to present a conservative impact analysis. This is considered a
worst-case evaluation because construction of the Project would typically use fewer pieces of equipment
simultaneously at any given time as well as operating throughout the construction site (i.e., most of the
time construction equipment would be operating at distances further away from the off-site receptors
than that assumed in the forecasting of Project construction noise levels). As such, Project construction
would often generate lower noise levels than reported herein.
Construction would be allowed during the daytime hours specified on the permit as long as noise from
each individual piece of equipment is limited to 90 dBA at a distance of 25 feet or as long as combined
construction noise at any point outside the property plane of the project does not exceed 90 dBA. Table
1: Construction Maximum Noise Estimates presents the maximum noise impacts that are forecasted to
occur at the adjacent multi-family residential use. As shown, average noise levels at the adjacent multi-
family residential units to the north during construction would not result in construction noise levels
exceeding the 90 dBA threshold.
It is important to note, construction noise levels provided in Table 1 do not include any reduction related
to standard noise control strategies. As mentioned previously, using muffler systems on on-site
construction equipment reduces construction noise levels by 10 dBA or more. Modifications such as
dampening of metal surfaces or the redesign of a particular piece of equipment can achieve a noise
reduction of up 5 dBA. Conservatively, these combined noise control strategies would further reduce
construction noise levels presented in Table 1 by 10 to 15 dBA. Compliance with the above practices
would further ensure construction noise levels would be below the significance threshold; thus,
construction noise levels would not be considered significant.
5 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). “Traffic Noise Model.” 2006.
52
Categorical Exemption Findings
Meridian Consultants 13 In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project April 2025 City of South San Francisco
TABLE 1: CONSTRUCTION MAXIMUM NOISE ESTIMATES
Location
Calculated Noise Level (Leq-1hour) by Construction Phase Significance Threshold Exceeds Threshold? Demolition Grading Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating
Multi-family residential units 76.3 85.3 78.1 82.7 64.6 90.0 No
Source: Refer to Appendix B.1 for Noise Study prepared by Meridian Consultants.
Off-Site Construction Noise
Construction of the Project would require worker, haul, and vendor truck trips to and from the site to
work on the site, export soil, and deliver supplies to the site. Trucks traveling to and from the Project
site would be required to travel along a haul route approved by the City. At the maximum, approximately
7 hauling trips per day would take place during the grading phase based on construction schedule
assumptions. Haul truck traffic would take the most direct route to the freeway ramp along El Camino
Real.
Noise associated with construction truck trips were estimated using the Caltrans FHWA Traffic Noise Model
based on the maximum number of truck trips in a day. Project haul truck trips, which includes medium-
and heavy-duty trucks, would generate noise levels of approximately 40.8 to 45.7 dBA, respectively,
measured at a distance of 25 feet from the adjacent sensitive receptor. As identified in Appendix B,
existing noise levels at the Project site adjacent to El Camino Real was 59.9 dBA (Leq-daytime). The noise
level increases from truck trips would be below the significance threshold of 5 dBA. As such, off-site
construction noise impacts would not be considered significant.
Construction Vibration
The nearest off-site structure include the multi-family residential uses to the north. As shown in Table
2: On-Site Construction Vibration Impacts–Building Damage, the forecasted vibration levels due to on-
site construction activities would not exceed the building damage significance threshold of 0.5 PPV for
reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber building at the adjacent multi-family residential use. Temporary
vibration levels associated with project construction would not be considered significant.
TABLE 2: ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION IMPACTS – BUILDING DAMAGE
Site
Nearest Off-Site
Building Structures
Estimated Vibration Velocity Levels at the Nearest Off-Site
Structures from the Project Construction Equipment Significance
Threshold (PPV ips) Vibratory Roller Loaded Trucks Jackhammer Small bulldozer
1 Multi-family Residential 0.210 0.076 0.035 0.003 0.5
Source: Refer to Appendix B.1 for Noise Study prepared by Meridian Consultants.
53
Categorical Exemption Findings
Meridian Consultants 14 In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project April 2025 City of South San Francisco
Operation
Restaurant Noise
The nearest sensitive uses to the site include the multi-family residential uses to the north. The proposed
Project would include a 6-foot concrete masonry unit (CMU) block screen wall surrounding the property.
The development would also include a landscaped planter approximately 40 feet between the proposed
restaurant building and the residential building.
Source contributed noise levels throughout the daytime and nighttime periods from operation of the
proposed Project are shown in Table 3: Modeled Exterior Noise Levels from Operational Sources. For
illustrative purposes, daytime and nighttime noise levels within the Project vicinity are shown graphically
in Appendix B (refer to Figure 7: Operational Noise Level Contour Map [Daytime] and Figure 8:
Operational Noise Level Contour Map [Nighttime]). Other sensitive receptors shown graphically include
the Deluxe Inn Motel to the south and the residential uses along 1st Street, A Street, and Antionette Lane.
The source noise levels from the Project site include parking activities from mobile vehicles, drive-
through queuing, outdoor seating area and amplified speech from the speaker box.
Table 3 compares the modeled exterior noise levels from the Project-related noise sources that operate
on a daily basis to the exterior noise standards identified in the City’s Municipal Code. As shown in Table
3, daytime exterior noise levels at the adjacent multi-family residential use from operation of the
proposed Project would range from 29.1 dBA during the daytime period and 26.0 dBA during the nighttime
period. Noise levels would not exceed the daytime exterior threshold of 60 dBA and nighttime exterior
threshold of 55 dBA at nearby residential uses. Additionally, noise levels would not result in a 5 dBA
increase above the measured ambient of 59.9 dBA (Leq-daytime) during the daytime and 59.2 dBA (Leq-
nighttime) during the nighttime (refer to Table 1 in Appendix B).
TABLE 3: MODELED EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS FROM OPERATIONAL SOURCES
Monitoring Site Time Period Modeled Noise Levels, Leq dBA Residential Exterior Noise Standard1, dBA Exceeds Standard?
1 Daytime 29.1 60 No
Nighttime 26.0 55 No
Source: Refer to Appendix B.1 for Noise Study prepared by Meridian Consultants.
54
Categorical Exemption Findings
Meridian Consultants 15 In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project April 2025 City of South San Francisco
Truck deliveries would take place no more than once daily between the hours of 2:00 AM to 9:00 AM
lasting less than an hour. Site access for these delivery trucks would be from El Camino Real and would
unload at the service entrance located adjacent to parking stalls #1 through #9, shielded by the CMU
block screen wall surrounding the Project site.
Table 4: Modeled Exterior Noise Levels from Truck Deliveries, provides the exterior noise levels at the
adjacent the multi-family residential uses to the north along El Camino Real. As shown, noise levels from
truck deliveries would not exceed the daytime exterior threshold of 60 dBA and nighttime exterior
threshold of 55 dBA at nearby residential uses.
TABLE 4: MODELED EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS FROM TRUCK DELIVERIES
Monitoring Site Time Period Modeled Noise Levels, Leq dBA Residential Exterior Noise Standard1, dBA Exceeds Standard?
1 Daytime 17.4 60 No
Nighttime 23.6 55 No
Source: Refer to Appendix B.1 for Noise Study prepared by Meridian Consultants.
Roadway Noise
Table 5: Existing plus Project Roadway Noise Levels, illustrates the change in noise levels from traffic
volumes and from traffic generated by the Project. The difference in traffic noise between existing
conditions and existing plus Project conditions represents the increase in noise attributable to Project-
related traffic. As shown in Table 5, the maximum noise level increase along the analyzed roadways is
1.4 dBA CNEL along Southwood Drive/1st Street east of El Camino Real (Intersection 3). Consequently,
Project-related traffic would not cause noise levels along the analyzed roadways to increase by more
than 3.0 dBA. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in a permanent increase in noise levels above
ambient levels in the vicinity of the Project Site. Roadway noise impacts would not be considered
significant.
TABLE 5: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS
Intersection No. Roadway Segment Existing Existing plus Project Difference dBA CNEL
Chestnut Avenue
1 East of Antoinette Lane 67.6 67.6 0.0
1 West of Antoinette Lane 68.1 68.2 +0.1
Antoinette Lane
1 North of Chestnut Avenue 57.5 57.5 0.0
1 South of Chestnut Avenue 60.6 60.6 0.0
Westborough Blvd
2 East of El Camino Real 68.2 68.2 0.0
2 West of El Camino real 68.6 68.7 +0.1
55
Categorical Exemption Findings
Meridian Consultants 16 In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project April 2025 City of South San Francisco
El Camino Real
2 North of Westborough Blvd 70.3 70.3 0.0
2 South of Westborough Blvd 72.0 72.1 +0.1
3 North of 1st Street/Southwood Drive 71.9 72.0 +0.1
3 South of 1st Street/Southwood Drive 71.8 71.8 0.0
4 North of Orange Avenue 71.8 71.8 0.0
4 South of Orange Avenue 71.5 71.5 0.0
5 North of Project North Driveway 71.8 71.9 +0.1
5 South of Project North Driveway 71.8 71.9 +0.1
6 North of Project South Driveway 71.8 71.9 +0.1
6 South of Project South Driveway 71.8 71.9 +0.1
Southwood Drive/1st Street
3 East of El Camino Real 53.0 54.4 +1.4
3 West of El Camino Real 50.6 50.7 +0.1
Orange Avenue
4 East of El Camino Real 61.8 61.9 +0.1
4 West of El Camino Real 57.7 57.7 0.0
Source: Refer to Appendix B.2 for Supplemental Noise Memorandum prepared by Meridian Consultants.
Air Quality
The following section summarizes and incorporates by reference information from the Air Quality Study
prepared by Meridian Consultants dated July 2024 and the Supplemental Air Quality Memorandum dated
March 1, 2025 on behalf of the Applicant. The report is included as Appendix C of this Categorical
Exemption.
Construction Emissions
Estimated construction emissions were quantified based on the type and number of equipment associated
with demolition, grading, construction, paving, and architectural coating. Emissions calculations
assumed (1) all construction activities would be conducted in compliance with the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) Regulation 6 (Particulate Matter) and Regulation 7 (Odorous Substances),
and (2) heavy-duty diesel equipment would meet minimum California Air Resources Board (CARB) off-
road fleet requirements.
Table 6: Maximum Construction Emissions identifies daily emissions that are estimated for peak
construction days for each construction year. Based on the modeling, construction of the Project would
not exceed daily regional concentration thresholds. It is important to note, BAAQMD recommends
construction projects that require less than 1 year to complete to annualize impacts over the scope of
actual days that peak impacts would occur rather than over the full year. As shown below, annualized
emissions would also not exceed annual regional concentration thresholds. As such, construction of the
Project would not generate any significant environmental impacts associated with air quality compliance.
56
Categorical Exemption Findings
Meridian Consultants 17 In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project April 2025 City of South San Francisco
TABLE 6: MAXIMUM CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Source
ROG NOx PM10 exhaust PM2.5 exhaust
Pounds/Day
2025 1.1 10.9 0.5 0.4
2026 9.5 4.3 0.2 0.2
Maximum 9.5 10.9 0.5 0.4
BAAQMD Mass Daily Threshold 54 54 82 54
Threshold exceeded? No No No No
Tons/Year
2025 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1
2026 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Maximum <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1
BAAQMD Mass Daily Threshold 10 10 15 10
Threshold exceeded? No No No No
Source: Refer to Appendix C.1 for Air Quality Study prepared by Meridian Consultants.
Operational Emissions
Operational emissions would result primarily from passenger vehicles traveling to and from the Project
site. As mentioned previously, the vehicle trips associated with the proposed project have been analyzed
by inputting the project-generated trips from the Transportation Impact Analysis (dated March 7, 2025).
The results presented in Table 7: Maximum Operational Emissions are compared to the BAAQMD-
established operational significance thresholds. As shown in Table 7, the operational emissions would not
exceed the regional concentration thresholds. Additionally, the operational emissions provided below
would be further reduced when taking into account trip reductions from these public transit options
located within the Project vicinity and the redevelopment of the existing use. As such, operation of the
Project would not generate any significant environmental impacts associated with air quality compliance.
TABLE 7: MAXIMUM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Pounds/Day
Mobile 9.4 8.0 25.2 6.5
Area 0.1 -- <0.1 <0.1
Energy <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Total 9.4 8.1 25.2 6.5
BAAQMD Mass Daily Threshold 54 54 82 54
Threshold exceeded? No No No No
Tons/Year
Mobile 1.2 0.7 1.9 0.5
Area <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Total 1.2 0.7 1.9 0.5
BAAQMD Mass Daily Threshold 10 10 15 10
Threshold exceeded? No No No No
Source: Refer to Appendix C.2 for Supplemental Air Quality Memorandum prepared by Meridian Consultants.
57
Categorical Exemption Findings
Meridian Consultants 18 In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project April 2025 City of South San Francisco
Water Quality
As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES)
program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the
United States. Point sources are discrete conveyances, such as pipes or man-made ditches. Three general
sources of potential short-term, construction-related stormwater pollution are associated with the
proposed Project: (1) the handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants;
(2) the maintenance and operation of construction equipment; and (3) earthmoving activities that, when
not controlled, may generate soil erosion via storm runoff or mechanical equipment.
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) oversees the implementation of NPDES in California
through the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (GCASWP). Compliance with the
requirements of GCASWP include the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that
includes Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address such things as erosion control, cleanup, and
maintenance of dumpsters.6 The purpose of a SWPPP, prepared in compliance with SWRCB requirements,
is to ensure that construction of the proposed Project would not violate water quality standards and/or
discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
Water is provided by the California Water Service (Cal Water), within the Bayshore District South San
Francisco water system Bay Area Region.7 The proposed Project would be required to adhere to
requirements such as Chapter 14.04, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control of City’s Municipal
Code, regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, including site design measures to
reduce the amount of stormwater runoff and limit pollution in stormwater runoff.
There would be no potential water quality impacts, therefore the Project satisfies this criterion of the
Class 32 Exemption.
e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
Utilities
The Project Site is located in an urban area within the City of South San Francisco that is currently served
by all needed utilities (e.g. water, electricity, sanitary sewer facilities, and storm drain facilities) and all
required public services (e.g. police and fire services, and public schools). There are no special aspects
of the Project that would result in an increase in public service needs different from the existing
restaurant use at the Project Site. The Project would not result in significant effects related to utilities
6 California Green Building Code. 5.106.1 Stormwater Pollution Prevention for Projects That Disturb Less Than One Acre of Land.
7 California Water Service. “Find My District.” Accessed March 2025. https://www.calwater.com/customercare/find-my-
district/.
58
Categorical Exemption Findings
Meridian Consultants 19 In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project April 2025 City of South San Francisco
or public services, and would meet the criteria pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d)(5) for an
Infill Exemption.
J. EXCEPTIONS TO THE USE OF CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS
Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines includes a list of circumstances in which a Categorical Exemption
cannot be used. These include the following:
a. Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where a project is to be located
– a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly
sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are considered to apply in
all instances, except where a project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical
concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal,
state, or local agencies.
b. Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of
successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant
c. Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a
reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to
unusual circumstances.
d. Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage
to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or
similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway.
e. Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site
which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
f. Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
As part of this review for exemption, the proposed Project was evaluated against each of the applicable
exceptions and summarized below. A project that meets the criteria for an exemption can nonetheless
be subject to CEQA if it falls within one of the six exceptions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.
As discussed below, the proposed Project does not meet any of the exceptions.
Exception 1: Location.
a. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a
project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly
sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all
instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or
critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(a) states that Class 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 are qualified by consideration of
where the project is to be located. A project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the
59
Categorical Exemption Findings
Meridian Consultants 20 In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project April 2025 City of South San Francisco
environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. The 15300.2(a) exception does
not apply to Class 32 Categorical Exemptions. Because the proposed Project meets the criteria for a Class
32 Exemption, this exception does not apply.
Exception 2: Cumulative Impact.
b. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive
projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(b) states that a Categorical Exemption is inapplicable when the
cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time, is significant.
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15355, “cumulative impacts refer to two (2) or more individual
effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other
environmental impacts.”8 The proposed Project consists of replacing the existing vacant restaurant with
a drive-through lane for a new drive-through restaurant which includes a CUP for the proposed drive-
through, consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations. As discussed, the Project would not
generate a substantial increase in population that would affect the Project area or community. The
Project would not result in other substantial impacts to agricultural, biological and mineral resources
compared to the existing commercial use of the site as the Project would redevelop previously disturbed
land. Potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials, archaeological and paleontological
resources are generally site specific and would not impact other projects that would in concurrence
produce a cumulative impact.
Future development in the surrounding area that is similar to the proposed Project would not generate
considerable cumulative conditions as they would remain consistent with the General Plan designations
and residential zone policies. As such, the proposed Project would not have a considerable contribution
to cumulative impacts. Thus, this exception does not apply.
Exception 3: Unusual circumstances.
c. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility
that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(c) states that a Categorical Exemption shall not be used for an activity
where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment
due to unusual circumstances. Unusual circumstances could occur if the Project Site featured conditions
or a location substantially different than typically associated with the existing or proposed uses. The
proposed Project is located on a developed parcel in an existing urban commercial area. The proposed
Project would not alter the existing use or change the Project Site’s designation, as the proposed Project
would redevelop the existing commercial restaurant use and develop a new commercial restaurant use.
8 CCR. Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3−Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Article 20,
Definitions. Section 15355−Cumulative Impacts.
60
Categorical Exemption Findings
Meridian Consultants 21 In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project April 2025 City of South San Francisco
Further, the proposed Project would be comparable in size and features to adjacent parcels of similar
zoning and use. The proposed Project proposes an infill development that is consistent with the existing
zoning district, General Plan land use designation, and all provisions and regulations of the General Plan
and the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan. There are no known or identified potentially
significant effects on the environment due to unusual circumstances. Therefore, this exception does not
apply.
Exception 4: Scenic Highways.
d. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic
resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply
to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or
certified EIR.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(d) states that a Categorical Exemption shall not be used for a project
which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings,
rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a State scenic highway.
There are no unique, geologic features or similar resources within the Project Site or State scenic
highway. The nearest officially designated scenic highway is Route 280, approximately 1.25 miles
southwest of the Project Site.9 As such, the proposed Project would not substantially damage scenic
resources and would not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, this exception would
not apply.
Exception 5: Hazardous Waste Sites.
e. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on
any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(e) states that a Categorical Exemption shall not be used for a project
located on a site which is included on a list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government
Code. California Government Code Section 66962.5 requires various State agencies, including but not
limited to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB), to compile lists of hazardous waste disposal facilities, unauthorized releases from
underground storage tanks, contaminated drinking water wells and solid waste facilities where there is
known migration of hazardous waste, and submit such information to the Secretary for Environmental
Protection on at least an annual basis.
9 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). “California State Scenic Highway System Map.” Accessed March 2025.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.
61
Categorical Exemption Findings
Meridian Consultants 22 In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project April 2025 City of South San Francisco
The Project Site is not located on any State hazardous site list and would not pose an environmental
hazard to people on the site or to surrounding sensitive receptors.10 A query of the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) website indicates that the Project Site was previously a Leaking Underground
Storage Tank (LUST) Cleanup Site. However, the case was completed and determined closed as of March
30, 2012, as the contaminant of concern did not pose a significant risk and no remedial actions were
recorded.11 Further, the Project Site is not listed in any State or federal lists of sites requiring cleanup
of hazardous substances; and is not included on any hazardous materials lists pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5.12 For these reasons, there are no known or identified potentially significant
effects on the environment. As such, this exception does not apply.
Exception 6: Historical Resources.
f. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(f) states that a Categorical Exemption shall not be used for a project
which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Section 15064.5
of the CEQA Guidelines defines a historical resource as:
“(1) a resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources
Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) a resource
listed in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in an historical
resource survey meeting certain State guidelines; or (3) any object, building, structure,
site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be significant
in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social,
political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided that the lead agency’s
determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.”13
A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource means demolition, destruction,
relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a
historical resource would be materially impaired.
Further, Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1 defines historically significant resources as:
10 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List.” EnviroStor. Accessed March 2025. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/.
11 State Water Resources Control Board. “GeoTracker.” Accessed March 2025. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
12 CalEPA. Cortese List Data Resources. Accessed March 2025. https://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/.
13 CCR. Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3−Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Article 5, Preliminary Review of Projects and Conduct of Initial Study. Section 15064.5−Determining the Significance of Impacts to
Archaeological and Historical Resources.
62
Categorical Exemption Findings
Meridian Consultants 23 In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project April 2025 City of South San Francisco
“resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources
(CRHR).”14
The Project Site does not contain any features that are listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources. The Project Site is not
identified as a historic resource in the City’s Cultural and Historic Resources Report or other City parcel
reports or references.15 Due to the distance from the Project Site, implementation of the proposed
Project would not alter any of the physical characteristics of nearby historic resources, including through
construction activities, vibration from off-road equipment, and operation of the proposed Project. As
such, the proposed Project would be consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(f), as there would
be no substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Therefore, this exception
does not apply.
14 Public Resources Code. Division 5: Parks and Monuments, Chapter 1. Article 2: Historical Resources. Section 5024.1.
15 City of South San Francisco “Cultural and Historic Resources.” December 2019. Accessed March 2025.
https://shapessf.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Ch9_CulturalResources_final.pdf.
63
Trac Engineering Transportaon Planning Parking Noise & Vibraon
Air Quality Global Climate Change Health Risk Assessment
(FINAL)
IN-N-OUT BURGER (972 EL CAMINO REAL)
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT
City of South San Francisco
April 18, 2025
64
<UNHIDDEN>
prepared by
Tom Huang, TE
Giancarlo Ganddini, TE, PTP
GANDDINI GROUP, INC.
555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225
Santa Ana, California 92705
714.795.3100 | www.ganddini.com Project No. 19710
IN-N-OUT BURGER (972 EL CAMINO REAL)
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT
City of South San Francisco
April 18, 2025
65
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
i 19710
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ IV
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose and Objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Project Description .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Study Area ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Project Driveway Design Features ............................................................................................................................. 2
Analysis Scenarios ........................................................................................................................................................... 2
2. TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 5
Intersection Delay Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 5
Traffic Signal Warrant Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 5
Performance Standards .................................................................................................................................................. 6
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 7
Existing Roadway System .............................................................................................................................................. 7
Pedestrian Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................................................................................................... 8
Transit Facilities ................................................................................................................................................................ 8
Truck Routes ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8
General Plan Context ..................................................................................................................................................... 8
Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................................................ 8
Existing Intersection Levels of Service ....................................................................................................................... 9
Existing Intersection Traffic Control Signal Warrant Analysis ............................................................................. 9
4. TRAVEL DEMAND ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 19
Project Trip Generation .............................................................................................................................................. 19
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment .............................................................................................................. 19
Analysis Volumes .......................................................................................................................................................... 19
5. ANALYSIS AND DEFICIENCY IDENTIFICATION ........................................................................................ 33
Consistency with Plans and Policies ........................................................................................................................ 33
Vehicle Miles Traveled (CEQA) ................................................................................................................................. 33
Safety (CEQA) ................................................................................................................................................................ 34
Emergency Access and Evacuation (CEQA) .......................................................................................................... 35
Evacuation (CEQA) ....................................................................................................................................................... 35
On-Site Circulation ....................................................................................................................................................... 38
Vehicular Access ............................................................................................................................................... 38
Bicycle/Pedestrian Access .............................................................................................................................. 38
Truck Circulation ............................................................................................................................................... 40
Emergency Access ............................................................................................................................................ 40
Pedestrian Facilities ...................................................................................................................................................... 43
El Camino Real at Southwood Drive/1st Street ....................................................................................... 43
Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................................................................................................ 44
Transit .............................................................................................................................................................................. 44
TDM Program Consistency ........................................................................................................................................ 45
Safety Assessment (Non-CEQA) .............................................................................................................................. 45
Trucks .............................................................................................................................................................................. 45
Passenger Loading and Pick-Up/Drop-Off ............................................................................................................ 45
Off-Site Traffic Operations ........................................................................................................................................ 45
Intersection Traffic Control & Off-Site Improvements ....................................................................................... 48
66
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
ii 19710
Intersection Turn Lane Queuing Analysis .............................................................................................................. 50
Drive Through Queuing Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 50
6. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 53
Project Trip Generation .............................................................................................................................................. 53
CEQA Impacts ............................................................................................................................................................... 53
Non-CEQA Impacts ..................................................................................................................................................... 53
Summary of Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 53
APPENDICES
Appendix A Glossary
Appendix B Scoping Agreement
Appendix C Volume Count Data sheets
Appendix D Level of Service Worksheets
Appendix E Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets
Appendix F In-N-Out Trip Generation Data Sheets
Appendix G Employee Trip Generation Assessment
Appendix H In-N-Out Drive Through Queue Survey Data Sheets
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Existing Study Intersection LOS .................................................................................................................... 10
Table 2. Project Trip Generation ................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 3. Existing Plus Project Study Intersection LOS and Deficiency Assessment ....................................... 47
Table 4. Project Fair Share Intersection Traffic Contribution ............................................................................... 49
Table 5. Intersection Turn Lane Queuing Analysis ................................................................................................... 52
67
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
iii 19710
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location Map .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Site Plan .................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 3. Existing Lane Geometry and Intersection Traffic Controls .................................................................... 11
Figure 4. Existing Pedestrian Facilities .......................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 5. City of South San Francisco Active South City Recommended Bikeways ........................................ 13
Figure 6. City of South San Francisco Transit Network ........................................................................................... 14
Figure 7. City of South San Francisco Truck Network and Restrictions .............................................................. 15
Figure 8. City of South San Francisco General Plan Mobility Element Roadway Network ............................ 16
Figure 9. Existing MD Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes .................................................... 17
Figure 10. Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ..................................................... 18
Figure 11. Project Inbound Trip Distribution ................................................................................................................. 21
Figure 12. Project Outbound Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................. 22
Figure 13. Project Total MD Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ........................................... 23
Figure 14. Project Total PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ........................................... 24
Figure 15. Net New Project Trips Only MD Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes .............. 25
Figure 16. Net New Project Trips Only PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............... 26
Figure 17. Pass-By Trip Adjustment MD Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes .................... 27
Figure 18. Pass-By Trip Adjustment PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ..................... 28
Figure 19. Existing Active Use Driveway Adjustments MD Peak Hour Intersection Turning
Movement Volumes ......................................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 20. Existing Active Use Driveway Adjustments PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning
Movement Volumes ......................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 21. Existing Plus Project MD Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............................. 31
Figure 22. Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes.............................. 32
Figure 23. Project North Driveway Sight Distance Analysis ..................................................................................... 36
Figure 24. Project South Driveway Sight Distance Analysis ..................................................................................... 37
Figure 25. Bicycle/Pedestrian Access and On-Site Circulation ................................................................................ 39
Figure 26. Delivery Truck Circulation .............................................................................................................................. 41
Figure 27. Waste Collection Truck Circulation ............................................................................................................. 42
68
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
iv 19710
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 1.5-acre project site is located east of El Camino Real (State Route 82) approximately mid-block between
Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue and Southwood Drive/1st Street in the City of South San
Francisco, California. The overall project site consists of two parcels: The northern parcel has an address of
972 El Camino Real, and the southern parcel has an address of 934 El Camino Real. The northern parcel is
currently a retail use occupied by a 3,000 square foot fast food restaurant with drive-through lane (Burger
King – to be demolished). The southern parcel is currently occupied by a 1,224 square foot commercial office
building (“Psychic Boutique” – to be demolished).
The proposed project involves redevelopment of the project site with a new 3,887 square foot In-N-Out
Burger restaurant with drive through window and associated landscaping and parking lot improvements. The
drive through lane proposes storage capacity for up to 39 vehicles. Vehicular access is proposed via two right-
in/right-out only driveways on El Camino Real. The parking lot has 51 parking spaces accessible via the Project
North Driveway and the Project South Driveway. For analysis purposes, the project is assumed to be
constructed and fully operational by the year 2026.
Project Trip Generation
The proposed project is forecast to result in approximately 642 additional daily trips compared to the existing
development, including 68 additional trips during the mid-day (MD) peak hour and 48 additional trips during
the PM peak hour.
CEQA Impacts
The proposed project would not create conditions that are inconsistent with mobility, safety, or other related
goals, policies, and actions set forth in the General Plan.
The proposed project is a local serving use that is less than 50,000 square feet; therefore, the project satisfies
the City-established screening threshold for “neighborhood-serving retail project” and may be presumed to
result in a less than significant VMT impact under CEQA – no mitigation is required.
With implementation of the minimum CA MUTCD requirements or the recommended prohibition of on-street
parking along the entirety of the project frontage to approximately 98 feet south of the Project South
Driveway, the project would not worsen existing hazards or cause new design-related hazards such as
restricted line of sight.
The project would not substantially contribute to an operational deficiency at the study area facilities and
therefore is not expected to substantially increase response times.
Based on the project’s location outside high-risk fire zones, evacuation analysis is not necessary and the
project would have no impact.
Non-CEQA Impacts
Based on the City-established criteria, the proposed project was found to have no impacts to the following
non-CEQA issues evaluated:
On-site circulation
Pedestrian facilities
Bicycle facilities
Transit
69
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
v 19710
TDM program consistency
Safety assessment
Trucks
Passenger loading and pick-up/drop-off
Off-site traffic operations
Intersection traffic control
Drive through queuing analysis
Summary of Recommendations
1. For improved sight lines between vehicles as well as bicycles and pedestrians, it is recommended that on-
street parking be prohibited on El Camino Real (SR-82) along the entirety of the project frontage to
approximately 98 feet south of the Project South Driveway. (See Section 5. Analysis and Deficiency
Identification, Safety (CEQA))
2. It is recommended that stop controls be installed at the project egress driveways with applicable one-way
signage along the El Camino Real (SR-82) median per CA MUTCD standards. (See Section 5. Analysis and
Deficiency Identification, On-Site Circulation)
3. The project should contribute a fair share payment toward the cost of installing a traffic signal at the
intersection of El Camino Real at Southwood Drive/1st Street. The project trip contribution is estimated
at approximately 3.6% of the overall traffic volume entering the intersection. (See Section 5. Analysis and
Deficiency Identification, Intersection Traffic Control and Off-Site Improvements - Table 4)
4. In addition to a fair share payment toward the future installation a traffic signal control at the intersection
of El Camino Real and Southwood Drive/1st Street, the project shall be conditioned to install “No U-Turn”
signage at the southbound left turn lane on El Camino Real at Southwood Drive/1st Street in the interim
condition until such time that the traffic signal is installed.
70
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
1 19710
1. INTRODUCTION
This section describes the purpose of this analysis, project location, proposed development, and study area.
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this Transportation Impact Assessment is to provide an assessment of potential transportation
impacts resulting from development of the proposed In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)and to identify
measures necessary to maintain roadway performance standards established by the City of South San
Francisco. This analysis also contains an assessment of the project vehicle miles travelled (VMT) impact in
context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Although this is a technical report, effort has been made to write the report clearly and concisely. A glossary
is provided in Appendix A to assist the reader with terms related to transportation engineering.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 1.5-acre project site is located east of El Camino Real (State Route 82) approximately mid-block between
Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue and Southwood Drive/1st Street in the City of South San
Francisco, California. The overall project site consists of two parcels: The northern parcel has an address of
972 El Camino Real, and the southern parcel has an address of 934 El Camino Real. The northern parcel is
currently a retail use occupied by a 3,000 square foot fast food restaurant with drive-through lane (Burger
King – to be demolished). The southern parcel is currently occupied by a 1,224 square foot commercial office
building (“Psychic Boutique” – to be demolished). Figure 1 shows the project location map.
The proposed project involves redevelopment of the project site with a new 3,887 square foot In-N-Out
Burger restaurant with drive through window and associated landscaping and parking lot improvements. The
drive through lane proposes storage capacity for up to 39 vehicles. Vehicular access is proposed via two right-
in/right-out only driveways on El Camino Real. The parking lot has 51 parking spaces accessible via the Project
North Driveway and the Project South Driveway. For analysis purposes, the project is assumed to be
constructed and fully operational by the year 2026. Figure 2 shows the project site plan.
STUDY AREA
Based on the study intersections identified in the transportation study scoping agreement (Appendix B), the
study area consists of the following study intersections within the City of South San Francisco and California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) jurisdictions:
Study Intersections1 Jurisdiction2
1. Antoinette Lane (NS) at Chestnut Avenue (EW) SSF
2. El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue (EW) SSF/Caltrans
3. El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Southwood Drive/1st Street (EW) SSF/Caltrans
4. El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Orange Avenue (EW) SSF/Caltrans
5. El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Project North Driveway (EW) SSF/Caltrans
6. El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Project South Driveway (EW) SSF/Caltrans
Notes:
1. (NS) = North-South roadway; (EW) = East-West roadway
2. SSF= South San Francisco; Caltrans = California Department of Transportation
1
71
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
2 19710
PROJECT DRIVEWAY DESIGN FEATURES
Vehicular access is proposed via two right-in/right-out only driveways on El Camino Real. The parking lot has
51 parking spaces accessible via the Project North Driveway and the Project South Driveway. The proposed
project will provide the following improvements at the two project driveways:
El Camino Real (NS) at Project North Driveway (EW)
Install a westbound cross street stop-control.
Provide the westbound approach to consist of one right lane.
Provide one eastbound inbound lane.
El Camino Real (NS) at Project South Driveway (EW)
Install a westbound cross street stop-control.
Provide the westbound approach to consist of one right lane.
Provide one eastbound inbound lane.
ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
In-N-Out restaurants are not open to the public during the AM peak period of commuter traffic (7-9AM);
therefore, analysis of the AM peak hour is unnecessary as the project impact will be negligible during these
hours. Peak hour trip generation for In-N-Out Burger restaurants typically occurs during the lunch period
between 11:30 AM and 1:30 PM. Accordingly, this study evaluates off-site traffic operations for the mid-day
(MD) peak hour and PM peak hour for the following scenarios:
Existing Conditions
Existing Plus Project Conditions
2
72
Figure 1
Project Location Map
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment19710
N
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
C H E S T N U T A V E
ANTOINETTE LN
SOUTH W O O D D R
1 S T S T
O R A N G E A V E
Site
2
1
3
4
82
W E S T B O R O U G H B L V D
Study Intersection
Legend
#
Project Driveway#
5
6
3
73
Figure 2
Site Plan
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment19710
N
4
74
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
5 19710
2. TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
This section discusses the analysis methodologies used to assess transportation facility performance as
adopted by the respective jurisdictional agencies. This study follows guidelines established by the City’s
Transportation Analysis Guidelines (City of South San Francisco, October 2022) [“TAG”].
INTERSECTION DELAY METHODOLOGY
The methodology used to measure intersection performance is known as the intersection delay method based
on procedures contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 7th Edition). The
methodology considers the traffic volume and distribution of movements, traffic composition, geometric
characteristics, and signalization details to calculate the average control delay per vehicle and corresponding
Level of Service. Control delay is defined as the portion of delay attributed to the intersection traffic control
(such as a traffic signal or stop sign) and includes initial deceleration, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and
final acceleration delay. The intersection control delay is then correlated to Level of Service (LOS) based on
the following thresholds:
Level of Service
Intersection Control Delay (Seconds / Vehicle)
Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection
A ≤ 10.0 ≤ 10.0
B > 10.0 to ≤ 20.0 > 10.0 to ≤ 15.0
C > 20.0 to ≤ 35.0 > 15.0 to ≤ 25.0
D > 35.0 to ≤ 55.0 > 25.0 to ≤ 35.0
E > 55.0 to ≤ 80.0 > 35.0 to ≤ 50.0
F > 80.0 > 50.0
Source: Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (7th Edition).
Level of Service is used to qualitatively describe the performance of a roadway facility, ranging from LOS A
(free-flow conditions) to LOS F (extreme congestion and system failure). At intersections with traffic signal or
all way stop control, Level of Service is determined by the average control delay for the overall intersection.
At intersections with cross street stop control (i.e., one- or two-way stop control), Level of Service is
determined by the average control delay for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single
lane). Intersection Level of Service calculations were performed using the Vistro software.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT METHODOLOGY
The need for installation of a traffic signal at currently unsignalized study intersections is evaluated based on
the methods documented in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Caltrans, 2014) [“CA
MUTCD”]. Section 4C of the CA MUTCD includes nine warrants. As specified in the City’s TAG, evaluation
of the peak hour signal warrant analysis (Warrant 3) is generally required. Since this analysis contains measured
volumes and forecasts for the peak hours, the peak hour volume (Warrant 3) is evaluated first. If the peak
hour volume warrant is satisfied, then further evaluation may be requested based on the project context. As
noted in the CA MUTCD, the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the
installation of a traffic control signal.
5
75
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
6 19710
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The City of South San Francisco has established Level of Service D as the minimum acceptable Level of
Service. As established in the City’s TAG, the project will be considered to cause a substantial operational
deficiency if the addition of project trips causes an intersection to:
1) Operate at LOS F overall or the worst-case movement; or,
2) Increases traffic volumes by 10% at intersections already operating at LOS F under the comparable
“no project” scenario.
6
76
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
7 19710
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section describes the existing transportation setting in the study area.
EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM
Figure 3 identifies the lane geometry and intersection traffic controls for existing conditions based on a field
survey of the study area. Regional access to the project area is provided by U.S. Highway 101 (US-101)
approximately 1.5 miles east of the project site and Interstate 280 (I-280) approximately one mile west of the
project site. The primary roadways providing local circulation are El Camino Real (State Route 82),
Westborough Boulevard, Chestnut Avenue, Antoinette Lane, Southwood Drive, 1st Street, and Orange
Avenue. El Camino Real, Westborough Boulevard, Chestnut Avenue and Orange Avenue are included on the
City’s High Injury Network.
El Camino Real (SR-82) is classified as a six-lane Arterial in the City of South San Francisco General Plan
Mobility Element and generally trends in a north-south direction in the project vicinity. El Camino Real
currently provides three lanes each direction with a raised median and intermittent left turn lanes. The posted
speed limit is 35 miles per hour in the project vicinity. On-street parking is prohibited north of Westborough
Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue and generally permitted on both sides of the roadway south of Westborough
Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. Bicycle lanes are provided north of Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue;
there are no bicycle lanes south of Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. Pedestrian sidewalks are
provided on both sides of the roadway. El Camino Real is included on the City’s High Injury Network.
Westborough Boulevard is classified as a four-lane Arterial in the City of South San Francisco General Plan
Mobility Element and generally trends in an east-west direction in the project vicinity. Westborough Boulevard
currently provides two lanes each direction with a raised median. The posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour
in the project vicinity. On-street parking is prohibited. There are no bicycle lanes within the study area.
Pedestrian sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway. Westborough Boulevard is included on the
City’s High Injury Network.
Chestnut Avenue is classified as a four-lane Collector in the City of South San Francisco General Plan Mobility
Element and generally trends in an east-west direction in the project vicinity. Chestnut Avenue currently
provides two lanes each direction with a raised median. There is no posted speed limit on Chestnut Avenue.
Parking is generally permitted on the south side of the roadway east of Antoinette Lane. There are no bicycle
lanes within the study area. Pedestrian sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway. Chestnut Avenue
is included on the City’s High Injury Network.
Southwood Drive is classified as a Local Street in the City of South San Francisco General Plan Mobility
Element and generally trends in an east-west direction in the project vicinity. Southwood Drive currently
provides one unmarked lane in each direction. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour in the project
vicinity. On-street parking is generally permitted on both sides of the roadway. There are no bicycle lanes
within the study area. Pedestrian sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway.
1st Street is classified as a Local Street in the City of South San Francisco General Plan Mobility Element and
generally trends in an east-west direction in the project vicinity. 1st Street currently provides one unmarked
lane in each direction. There is no posted speed limit in the project vicinity. On-street parking is generally
permitted on both sides of the roadway. There are no bicycle lanes within the study area. Pedestrian sidewalks
are provided on both sides of the roadway.
Orange Avenue is classified as a two-lane Collector east of El Camino Real and as a Local Street west of El
Camino Real in the City of South San Francisco General Plan Mobility Element and generally trends in an east-
west direction in the project vicinity. Orange Avenue currently provides one lane in each direction. There is
7
77
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
8 19710
no posted speed limit in the project vicinity. On-street parking is generally permitted on both sides of the
roadway. There are no bicycle lanes within the study area. Pedestrian sidewalks are provided on both sides of
the roadway. Orange Avenue is included on the City’s High Injury Network.
Antoinette Lane is classified as a Local Street in the City of South San Francisco General Plan Mobility Element
and generally trends in a north-south direction in the project vicinity. Antoinette Lane currently provides one
lane in each direction. There is no posted speed limit in the project vicinity. On-street parking is generally
permitted on both sides of the roadway. There are no bicycle lanes within the study area. Pedestrian sidewalks
are provided on both sides of the roadway.
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Existing pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity are shown on Figure 4. As shown on Figure 4, pedestrian
sidewalks are currently provided along both sides of El Camino Real adjacent to the project site.
BICYCLE FACILITIES
Figure 5 shows the City of South San Francisco Active South City Recommended Bikeways. There are
currently no on-street bicycle lanes on either side of El Camino Real adjacent to the project site; however,
there are on-street bicycle lanes on both sides of El Camino Real north of Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut
Avenue approximately 500 feet north of the project site. The starting point of the Centennial Way Trail is
located approximately 750 feet from the project site at the southwest corner of Antoinette Lane and Chestnut
Avenue. A Class IV Separated Bikeway is proposed along El Camino Real in the City’s General Plan Mobility
Element.
TRANSIT FACILITIES
Figure 6 shows the existing transit network available in the project vicinity. The nearest bus stop is located
approximately 300 feet south of the project site at the northeast corner of El Camino Real and 1st Street. El
Camino Real is currently served by the Free South City Shuttle Blue Line and Orange Line buses as well as
the SamTrans Bus Line 37 and ECR. BART San Bruno Station is located approximately two miles south of the
project site on Huntington Avenue. The project site is within walking distance to a bus line that provides
connection to the nearby BART San Bruno Station.
TRUCK ROUTES
Figure 7 shows the designated truck network and restrictions as identified in the City of South San Francisco
Mobility Element. El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue are designated truck routes on the City’s Mobility
Element.
GENERAL PLAN CONTEXT
Figure 8 shows the City of South San Francisco General Plan Mobility Element roadway classifications map.
This figure shows the nature and extent of arterial and collector highways that are needed to adequately serve
the ultimate development depicted by the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Existing peak hour volumes are based upon MD and PM peak period intersection turning movement counts
obtained in April 2024 during typical weekday conditions while local schools were in session. The MD peak
period was counted between 11:30 AM and 1:30 PM and the PM peak period was counted between 4:00
PM and 6:00 PM. The actual peak hour within the peak period is the four consecutive 15 minute periods with
the highest total volume when all movements are added together. Thus, the weekday PM peak hour at one
8
78
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
9 19710
intersection may be 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM if those four consecutive 15 minute periods have the highest
combined volume. Intersection turning movement count data sheets are provided in Appendix C.
Figure 9 and Figure 10 show the Existing 2024 MD and PM peak hour intersection turning movement
volumes.
EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
The Levels of Service for Existing conditions are shown in Table 1. Detailed intersection Level of Service
worksheets are provided in Appendix D.
As shown in Table 1, the study intersections currently operate within acceptable Levels of Service (D or better)
during the peak hours for Existing conditions, except for the following intersections that currently operate at
LOS F:
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Southwood Drive/1st Street (EW) – #3 (MD and PM)
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Orange Avenue (EW) – #4 (PM only)
EXISTING INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
Existing volumes at the currently unsignalized study intersection of El Camino Real (SR-82) at Southwood
Drive/1st Street [#3] satisfy the peak hour signal warrant based on the CA MUTCD peak hour volume analysis
(Warrant 3) for existing weekday PM peak hour conditions. The warrant analysis was performed using the CA
MUTCD option to consider major street left turn volumes as part of the minor street volume. The City should
consider installing a traffic signal at the intersection of El Camino Real (SR-82) at Southwood Drive/1st Street
[#3]. Traffic signal warrant analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix E.
9
79
Delay2 LOS3
1 Antoinette Ln at Chestnut Ave TS MD 27.2 C n/a
TS PM 30.3 C n/a
2 TS MD 36.5 D n/a
TS PM 41.7 D n/a
3 CSS MD 57.2 F No
CSS PM 158.1 F Yes
4 El Camino Real (SR-82) at Orange Ave TS MD 47.2 D n/a
TS PM 83.9 F n/a
Notes:
Traffic Signal
Warranted?
Existing Study Intersection LOS
Table 1
(3) LOS = Level of Service. For intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control, LOS is based on the overall average control delay. For
intersections with cross street stop control, LOS is based on delay of the worst individual movement.
(1) TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop
(2) Control delay is shown in seconds/vehicle.
ID Study Intersection
Traffic
Control1
Peak
Hour
Existing
El Camino Real (SR-82) at
Southwood Dr/1st St
El Camino Real (SR82) at
Westborough Blvd/Chestnut Ave
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment
1971010
80
Figure 3
Existing Lane Geometry and Intersection Traffic Controls
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment19710
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
C H E S T N U T A V E
ANTOINETTE LN
SOUTH W O O D D R
1 S T S T
O R A N G E A V E
Site
2
1
3
4
82
W E S T B O R O U G H B L V D
5
6
1
Antoinette Ln (NS)/
Chestnut Ave (EW)
2
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Westborough Blvd (EW)
3
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Southwood Dr (EW)
4
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Orange Ave (EW)
5
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project North Dwy (EW)
6
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project South Dwy (EW)
N
d
ST
O
P
ST
O
P
d
d
STOP d
#U
#D
Legend
Project Driveway
De Facto Right Turn Lane
Existing Lane
#-Lane Undivided Roadway
#-Lane Divided Roadway
Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
4D
4D
5D
4D2U
2U
5D
6D
6D
6D
6D
2U
2U
2U
2U
11
81
Figure 4
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment19710
N
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
C H E S T N U T A V E
ANTOINETTE LN
SOUTH W O O D D R
1 S T S T
Site
82
W E S T B O R O U G H B L V D
O R A N G E A V E
Sidewalk
Legend
Cross Walk
Bus StopB
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Multi-Use Path
12
82
Figure 5
City of South San Francisco
Active South City Recommended Bikeways
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment19710
Source: City of South San Francisco
Site
13
83
Figure 6
City of South San Francisco Transit Network
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment19710
Source: City of South San Francisco
Site
14
84
Figure 7
City of South San Francisco Truck Network and Restrictions
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment19710
Source: City of South San Francisco
Site
15
85
Figure 8
City of South San Francisco
General Plan Mobility Element Roadway Network
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment19710
Source: City of South San Francisco
Site
16
86
Figure 9
Existing MD Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment19710
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
C H E S T N U T A V E
ANTOINETTE LN
SOUTH W O O D D R
1 S T S T
O R A N G E A V E
Site
2
1
3
4
82
W E S T B O R O U G H B L V D
Study Intersection
Legend
#
Project Driveway#
5
6
N
1
Antoinette Ln (NS)/
Chestnut Ave (EW)
12
9
821
17377
62562135
6652574
2
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Westborough Blvd (EW)
39
0
54
6
24
3
15
9
56
1
10
6
138381292
208362126
3
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Southwood Dr (EW)
27
11
3
5
15
6498
5
19
5012
306
4
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Orange Ave (EW)
17
93
3
10
1
14
1
83
4
36
684536
11526162
5
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project North Dwy (EW)
11
4
6
10
5
7
6
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project South Dwy (EW)
11
4
6
10
5
7
17
87
Figure 10
Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment19710
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
C H E S T N U T A V E
ANTOINETTE LN
SOUTH W O O D D R
1 S T S T
O R A N G E A V E
Site
2
1
3
4
82
W E S T B O R O U G H B L V D
Study Intersection
Legend
#
Project Driveway#
5
6
N
1
Antoinette Ln (NS)/
Chestnut Ave (EW)
13
51019
50393
98832153
10278052
2
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Westborough Blvd (EW)
55
7
76
8
35
5
17
7
62
5
14
7
149560346
300573137
3
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Southwood Dr (EW)
35
15
7
4
11
8811
8
3
11
5012
1010
4
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Orange Ave (EW)
30
13
1
3
16
2
20
3
94
3
58
805738
14759208
5
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project North Dwy (EW)
15
8
9
12
6
5
6
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project South Dwy (EW)
15
8
9
12
6
5
18
88
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
19 19710
4. TRAVEL DEMAND ANALYSIS
This section describes how project trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment forecasts were
developed. The forecast project volumes are illustrated on figures contained in this section.
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Table 2 shows the existing, proposed, and net project trip generation. Trip generation for the existing fast-
food restaurant (Burger King) and the existing commercial office building (Psychic Boutique) is based on
average rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021)
for Land Use Code 934 (Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window) and Land Use Code 712 (Small
Office Building). The proposed project trip generation forecast is based on the average trip generation
observed at existing In-N-Out Burger restaurants throughout California, including the nearest existing location
at 372 Gellert Boulevard in Daly City. Detailed trip generation data is provided in Appendix F.
Land uses such as restaurants will often locate next to busy roadways to attract motorists already on the
street. Since the trip generation rates represent vehicles entering and exiting at the site driveway(s), it is
appropriate to reduce the initial trip generation forecast by the applicable pass-by trip rate when calculating
the net new trips that will be added to the surrounding off-site street system. This analysis applies pass-by
trip adjustments based on rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual for the fast-food restaurant with drive-
through window land use (Land Use Code 934), which indicates an average pass-by rate of 55 percent. To
provide a conservative estimate, this analysis assumes a pass-by rate of 50%. Pass-by trips are included at the
project driveways.
As shown in Table 2, the proposed project is forecast to result in approximately 642 additional daily trips
compared to the existing development, including 68 additional trips during the MD peak hour and 48
additional trips during the PM peak hour.
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
Figure 11 and Figure 12 show the forecast project inbound and outbound directional distribution patterns.
Trip distribution patterns were developed manually using engineering judgment in consultation with City of
South San Francisco staff and are based on review of existing volume data, surrounding land uses, locations
of existing In-N-Out restaurants, and the local and regional roadway facilities in the project vicinity.
Based on the identified project trip generation and distribution patterns, the project total MD and PM peak
hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 13 and Figure 14. The project total volumes
were developed by adding together the three following project-related trip components shown on Figure 15
through Figure 20: net new project only trips, pass-by trip adjustments, and existing use driveway adjustment
volumes. The net new project MD and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on
Figure 15 and Figure 16, respectively. Pass-by intersection turning movement volumes at the applicable
intersections are shown on Figure 17 and Figure 18. To provide a conservative analysis, the project’s gross
pass-by trips were added to applicable intersections rather than the net increase in pass-by trips compared to
the existing use. Existing active use trips were added at the project driveways as shown on Figure 19 and
Figure 20 to accurately reflect the full project driveway trip generation.
ANALYSIS VOLUMES
Existing Plus Project volume forecasts were derived by adding the net project generated trips to Existing
volumes. Existing Plus Project MD and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on
Figure 21 and Figure 22.
19
89
Land Use % In % Out Rate % In % Out Rate
Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window 51%49%44.61 52%48%33.03 467.48
Small Office Building (Psychic Boutique)60%40%2.61 34%66%2.16 14.39
In-N-Out Burger with Drive-Through Window -------
In Out Total In Out Total
Existing Fast Food Restaurant 3.000 TSF 68 66 134 52 48 100 1,402
Pass-By Trips (50%)3 -34 -33 -67 -26 -24 -50 -701
Small Office Building (Psychic Boutique)1.224 TSF 2 1 3 1 2 3 18
Subtotal - Existing Trips 36 34 70 27 26 53 719
In-N-Out Burger With Drive Through Window 3.887 TSF 141 136 277 105 99 204 2,722
Pass-By Trips (50%)3 -71 -68 -139 -53 -50 -103 -1,361
Subtotal - Proposed Trips 70 68 138 52 49 101 1,361
+34 +34 +68 +25 +23 +48 +642
Notes:
1. ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021); ### = Land Use Code.
[a] = Average trips observed at existing In-N-Out Restaurants throughout California.
2. TSF = Thousand Square Feet
3. Data from the ITE Trip Generation Manual indicates an average pass-by rate of 55% during the peak hours for Land Use Code 934 (fast-
food-restaurant with drive through window). To provide a conservative estimate, this analysis assumes a pass-by rate of 50%.
Net New Trips Generated
ITE 934
[a]
Trips Generated
Land Use Quantity Units2
MD Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
ITE 712
Table 2
Project Trip Generation
Trip Generation Rates
Source1
MD Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
Rate
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment
1971020
90
Figure 11
Project Inbound Trip Distribution
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment19710
N
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
C H E S T N U T A V E
ANTOINETTE LN
SOUTH W O O D D R
1 S T S T
O R A N G E A V E
Site
W E S T B O R O U G H B L V D
50%
5%
100%
15%
25%
20%
15%
50%
20%
Percent To Project
Legend
10%
82
50%
50%
21
91
Figure 12
Project Outbound Trip Distribution
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Transportation Impact Assessment19710
N
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
C H E S T N U T A V E
ANTOINETTE LN
SOUTH W O O D D R
1 S T S T
O R A N G E A V E
Site
W E S T B O R O U G H B L V D
45%
5%
100%
15%
25%
20%20%
40%
15%
Percent From Project
Legend
10%
82
50%
50%
22
92
Figure 13
Project Total MD Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) ProjectTransportation Impact Assessment19710
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
CHES
T
NUT
AVE
AN
T
O
I
N
E
T
T
E
L
N
SOU
T
H
WOOD
D
R
1ST ST
ORANG
E
A
V
E
Site
2
1
3
4
82
WEST BORO UGH
BLV
D
Study Intersection
Legend
#
Project Driveway#
5
6
N
1
Antoinette Ln (NS)/
Chestnut Ave (EW)
000
000
070
050
2
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Westborough Blvd (EW)
5577
070
005
500
3
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Southwood Dr (EW)
0180
52132
000
000
4
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Orange Ave (EW)
090
580
200
007
5
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project North Dwy (EW)
-3
670
32
70
6
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project South Dwy (EW)
-3
772
32
71
㈳
93
Figure 14
Net Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) ProjectTransportation Impact Assessment19710
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
CHES
T
NUT
AVE
AN
T
O
I
N
E
T
T
E
L
N
SOU
T
H
WOOD
D
R
1ST ST
ORANG
E
A
V
E
Site
2
1
3
4
82
WEST BORO UGH
BLV
D
Study Intersection
Legend
#
Project Driveway#
5
6
N
1
Antoinette Ln (NS)/
Chestnut Ave (EW)
000
000
050
040
2
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Westborough Blvd (EW)
3955
050
004
400
3
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Southwood Dr (EW)
0120
3991
000
000
4
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Orange Ave (EW)
060
360
100
005
5
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project North Dwy (EW)
-2
852
23
51
6
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project South Dwy (EW)
-2
853
23
52
㈴
94
Figure 15Net New Project Trips Only
MD Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) ProjectTransportation Impact Assessment19710
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
CHES
T
NUT
AVE
AN
T
O
I
N
E
T
T
E
L
N
SOU
T
H
WOOD
D
R
1ST ST
ORANG
E
A
V
E
Site
2
1
3
4
82
WEST BORO UGH
BLV
D
Study Intersection
Legend
#
Project Driveway#
5
6
N
1
Antoinette Ln (NS)/
Chestnut Ave (EW)
000
000
070
050
2
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Westborough Blvd (EW)
2077
070
005
500
3
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Southwood Dr (EW)
0180
17132
000
000
4
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Orange Ave (EW)
090
580
200
007
5
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project North Dwy (EW)
1717
32
17
6
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project South Dwy (EW)
1718
32
17
㈵
95
Figure 16Net New Project Trips Only
PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) ProjectTransportation Impact Assessment19710
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
CHES
T
NUT
AVE
AN
T
O
I
N
E
T
T
E
L
N
SOU
T
H
WOOD
D
R
1ST ST
ORANG
E
A
V
E
Site
2
1
3
4
82
WEST BORO UGH
BLV
D
Study Intersection
Legend
#
Project Driveway#
5
6
N
1
Antoinette Ln (NS)/
Chestnut Ave (EW)
000
000
050
040
2
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Westborough Blvd (EW)
1355
050
004
400
3
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Southwood Dr (EW)
0120
1391
000
000
4
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Orange Ave (EW)
060
360
100
005
5
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project North Dwy (EW)
1113
23
12
6
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project South Dwy (EW)
1312
23
11
㈶
96
Figure 17Pass-By Trip Adjustment
MD Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) ProjectTransportation Impact Assessment19710
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
CHES
T
NUT
AVE
AN
T
O
I
N
E
T
T
E
L
N
SOU
T
H
WOOD
D
R
1ST ST
ORANG
E
A
V
E
Site
2
1
3
4
82
WEST BORO UGH
BLV
D
Study Intersection
Legend
#
Project Driveway#
5
6
N
3
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Southwood Dr (EW)
+3
5
5
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project North Dwy (EW)
-3
5
+3
5
+35
6
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project South Dwy (EW)
-3
6
+3
6
+36
2
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Westborough Blvd (EW)
35
㈷
97
Figure 18Pass-By Trip Adjustment
PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) ProjectTransportation Impact Assessment19710
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
CHES
T
NUT
AVE
AN
T
O
I
N
E
T
T
E
L
N
SOU
T
H
WOOD
D
R
1ST ST
ORANG
E
A
V
E
Site
2
1
3
4
82
WEST BORO UGH
BLV
D
Study Intersection
Legend
#
Project Driveway#
5
6
N
3
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Southwood Dr (EW)
+2
6
5
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project North Dwy (EW)
-2
6
+2
6
+26
6
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project South Dwy (EW)
-2
7
+2
7
+27
2
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Westborough Blvd (EW)
26
㈸
98
Figure 19Existing Active Use Driveway Adjustments
MD Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) ProjectTransportation Impact Assessment19710
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
CHES
T
NUT
AVE
AN
T
O
I
N
E
T
T
E
L
N
SOU
T
H
WOOD
D
R
1ST ST
ORANG
E
A
V
E
Site
2
1
3
4
82
WEST BORO UGH
BLV
D
Study Intersection
Legend
#
Project Driveway#
5
6
N
5
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project North Dwy (EW)
-1
8
+1
8
+18
6
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project South Dwy (EW)
-1
8
+1
8
+18
㈹
99
Figure 20Existing Active Use Driveway Adjustment
PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) ProjectTransportation Impact Assessment19710
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
CHES
T
NUT
AVE
AN
T
O
I
N
E
T
T
E
L
N
SOU
T
H
WOOD
D
R
1ST ST
ORANG
E
A
V
E
Site
2
1
3
4
82
WEST BORO UGH
BLV
D
Study Intersection
Legend
#
Project Driveway#
5
6
N
5
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project North Dwy (EW)
-1
3
+1
3
+13
6
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project South Dwy (EW)
-1
4
+1
4
+14
㌰
100
Figure 21Existing Plus Project
MD Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) ProjectTransportation Impact Assessment19710
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
CHES
T
NUT
AVE
AN
T
O
I
N
E
T
T
E
L
N
SOU
T
H
WOOD
D
R
1ST ST
ORANG
E
A
V
E
Site
2
1
3
4
82
WEST BORO UGH
BLV
D
Study Intersection
Legend
#
Project Driveway#
5
6
N
1
Antoinette Ln (NS)/
Chestnut Ave (EW)
12
9
821
17377
62569135
7453031
2
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Westborough Blvd (EW)
44
5
55
3
25
0
15
9
56
8
10
6
138381297
213362126
3
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Southwood Dr (EW)
27
11
5
3
15
11
6
99
8
21
5012
306
4
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Orange Ave (EW)
17
94
2
10
1
14
6
84
2
36
704536
11526169
5
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project North Dwy (EW)
11
1
0
70
10
8
9
70
6
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project South Dwy (EW)
11
0
9
72
10
8
9
71
㌱
101
Figure 22Existing Plus Project
PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) ProjectTransportation Impact Assessment19710
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
CHES
T
NUT
AVE
AN
T
O
I
N
E
T
T
E
L
N
SOU
T
H
WOOD
D
R
1ST ST
ORANG
E
A
V
E
Site
2
1
3
4
82
WEST BORO UGH
BLV
D
Study Intersection
Legend
#
Project Driveway#
5
6
N
1
Antoinette Ln (NS)/
Chestnut Ave (EW)
13
51019
50393
98837153
10278452
2
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Westborough Blvd (EW)
59
6
77
3
36
0
17
7
63
0
14
7
149560350
304573137
3
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Southwood Dr (EW)
35
15
8
6
11
12
7
11
9
2
12
5012
1010
4
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Orange Ave (EW)
30
13
1
9
16
2
20
6
94
9
58
815738
14759213
5
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project North Dwy (EW)
15
6
1
52
12
8
8
51
6
El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)/
Project South Dwy (EW)
15
6
1
53
12
8
8
52
㌲
102
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
33 19710
5. ANALYSIS AND DEFICIENCY IDENTIFICATION
This section evaluates potential project-related deficiencies in accordance with Tier 2 Analysis Requirements
of the City’s TAG.
CONSISTENCY WITH PLANS AND POLICIES
This section evaluates the project’s consistency with relevant goals, policies, and actions set forth in the City’s
General Plan and any relevant area/specific plans and the Mobility Element.
The project site is currently developed with commercial uses. Since the proposed project involves
redevelopment of the project site with a new 3,887 square foot In-N-Out Burger restaurant with drive
through window, the proposed project will be consistent with the current commercial uses.
The City’s General Plan Land Use map identifies the project site as Medium Density Mixed-Use within the El
Camino Real subarea. Although the proposed project does not have a residential component, the proposed
restaurant will be consistent with the “community commercial” component within the El Camino Real subarea.
The project site is located adjacent and with direct access to El Camino Real (SR-82), which is classified as a
six-lane Arterial in the City’s General Plan Mobility Element. As described in the following “Off-Site Traffic
Operations” section, the project would not substantially contribute to an operational deficiency at the study
area facilities.
In summary, the proposed project would not create conditions that are inconsistent with mobility, safety, or
other related goals, policies, and actions set forth in the General Plan.
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (CEQA)
This section evaluates whether project qualifies for presumption of less than significant impact under CEQA
or is consistent with vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impact and mitigations included in City’s General Plan.
Documentation would describe consistency with proposed zoning, growth forecasts, General Plan policies,
and compliance with TDM ordinance.
The City’s TAG include land use VMT screening thresholds based on guidance from the State of California’s
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA
(December 2018) [“OPR Technical Advisory”]. As documented in the City’s TAG, land use projects that meet
at least one of the following screening thresholds are presumed to not require CEQA VMT analysis:
Transit Priority Areas (TPA): Projects located within ½ mile walk around major transit stops.
Affordable Housing: 50% restricted affordable residential projects in infill locations
Small Projects: Projects defined as generating 100 or fewer average daily vehicle trips, absent substantial
evidence indicating that a project would generate a potentially significant level of VMT.
Locally Serving Public Facility: Locally serving public facilities that encompasses government, civic, cultural,
health, and infrastructure uses and activity which contribute to and support community needs.
Neighborhood-Serving Retail Project: Neighborhood-serving retail projects that are less than 50,000
square feet, which serve the immediate neighborhoods.
Airport / Business Hotels: South San Francisco is very close to the San Francisco International Airport,
and also attracts business travelers due to its concentrated life science office space.
33
103
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
34 19710
Residential and Office Projects in Low VMT Areas: The project is located within a low VMT area for its
land use. Based on information from the South San Francisco model, certain areas of the city have lower
rates of VMT generation than others. In existing locations where VMT per capita is below the thresholds,
projects may be screened from further VMT analysis.
By their nature, fast-food/quick-service restaurants market for convenience and thus tend to serve the local
community and/or existing customers already traveling in the local area. Cursory review indicates at least 10
other fast-food/quick-service restaurants, including one existing In-N-Out, within a three-mile radius of the
project site. Thus, the proposed project is not anticipated to generate new trips from outside the immediate
neighborhood. The proposed project is a local serving use that is less than 50,000 square feet; therefore, the
project satisfies the City-established screening threshold for “neighborhood-serving retail project” and may be
presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact under CEQA – no mitigation is required.
SAFETY (CEQA)
This section evaluates existing hazards within the project vicinity and whether the project would create or
substantially contribute to a roadway or design hazard, including restricted lines of sight or other design-
related issues. Specifically, line of sight for vehicle egress at the project driveways is evaluated based on the
standards established in the Highway Design Manual (California Department of Transportation, 7th Edition).
It is noted that the Highway Design Manual refers to “corner sight distance” and incorporates sight distance
guidelines from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) A Policy
on Geometric Design of Highways and Street (7th Edition, 2018) [“AASHTO Greenbook”]; however, these
standards are not applied at unsignalized urban driveways. As noted in the Highway Design Manual: “Urban
Driveways (Refer to Index 205.3); corner sight distance requirements as described above are not applied to urban
driveways unless signalized. See Index 405.1(2)(b) underlined standard. If parking is allowed on the major road,
parking should be prohibited on both sides of the driveway per the California MUTCD, 3B.19.” To provide a more
conservative assessment and improve sight lines, sight lines at the project driveways were evaluated based
on the following stopping sight distance standards from the Highway Design Manual:
Design Speed
(miles per hour)
Stopping Sight Distance
(feet)
10 50
15 100
20 125
25 150
30 200
35 250
40 300
45 360
50 430
55 500
60 580
65 660
70 750
75 840
80 930
Source: Highway Design Manual (Caltrans, 7th Edition), Table 201.1
34
104
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
35 19710
The design speed along El Camino Real (SR-82) for purposes of this sight distance analysis is based on the
posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour near the proposed project driveway. Therefore, the applicable stopping
sight distance is 250 feet based on the Highway Design Manual standards.
Figure 23 shows the sight distance analysis for the Project North Driveway at El Camino Real. Figure 24 shows
the sight distance analysis for the Project South Driveway at El Camino Real.
As shown on Figure 23 and Figure 24, there are no existing structures, objects, or landscaping that would
substantially obstruct the line of sight for the Project North Driveway and the Project South Driveway. At a
minimum, parking should be prohibited for 20 feet on both sides of the project driveways based on the
Highway Design Manual standards, which defer to CA MUTCD Section 3B.19 for unsignalized urban
driveways. For improved sight lines between vehicles as well as bicycles and pedestrians, it is recommended
that on-street parking be prohibited on El Camino Real (SR-82) along the entirety of the project frontage to
approximately 98 feet south of the Project South Driveway.
With implementation of the minimum CA MUTCD requirements or the recommended prohibition of on-street
parking along the entirety of the project frontage to approximately 98 feet south of the Project South
Driveway, the project would not worsen existing hazards or cause new design-related hazards such as
restricted line of sight.
EMERGENCY ACCESS AND EVACUATION (CEQA)
This section assesses routes to/from key emergency services (such as fire stations and emergency rooms) and
whether the project would increase response times. The project site is located adjacent to El Camino Real
with three direct access points for quick access to a major thoroughfare. The emergency room at Kaiser
Permanente South San Francisco is located within 3,000 feet north of the project site on El Camino Real. The
South San Francisco Fire Station 63 is located within 2,000 feet north of the project on Arroyo Drive. The
proposed project is located within very short distances of these emergency services facilities and would not
impede access to those services to or from the site. As described in the following “Off-Site Traffic Operations”
section, the project would not substantially contribute to an operational deficiency at the study area facilities
and therefore is not expected to substantially increase response times. The project site has adequate
emergency access routes to and from key emergency services required by the City’s Transportation Analysis
Guidelines.
EVACUATION (CEQA)
This section evaluates the project’s effect on evacuation times in event of natural disaster. This element of
the City’s guidelines only applies to High Risk or Very High Risk wildfire zones. Based on the project’s location
outside high-risk fire zones, evacuation analysis is not necessary and the project would have no impact.
35
105
Figure 23
Project North Driveway Sight Distance Analysis
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment19710
Stopping Sight Distance = 250 feet for 35 MPH design speed
Restricted Use Area
Stopping Sight Distance
Legend
Driver's Eye (10 foot setback from curbline
extension and 3 feet right of centerline)
Scale: 1" = 50'
0 25 50
N
250'
36
106
Figure 24
Project South Driveway Sight Distance Analysis
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment19710
Stopping Sight Distance = 250 feet for 35 MPH design speed
Restricted Use Area
Stopping Sight Distance
Legend
Driver's Eye (10 foot setback from curbline
extension and 3 feet right of centerline)
Scale: 1" = 50'
0 25 50
N
250'
98'
Prohibit on-street parking along the
entirety of the project frontage to
approximately 98 feet south of the
Project South Driveway.
37
107
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
38 19710
ON-SITE CIRCULATION
This section evaluates site access locations, loading zones, and trash collection areas with respect to
operations and safety for all modes of transportation. Based on the following assessment, the project
adequately meets applicable design guidelines, incorporates bicycle/pedestrian access to the primary building
entrance, and provides adequate on-site truck circulation.
Vehicular Access
Vehicular access is proposed via two right-in/right-out only driveways on El Camino Real. The parking lot has
51 parking spaces accessible via the Project Central Driveway and the Project South Driveway. Project
driveways shall be designed in accordance with the applicable City standards.
It is assumed the project will adhere to the following conditions in accordance with typical development review
requirements:
All roadway design, traffic signing and striping, and traffic control improvements relating to the proposed
project should be constructed in accordance with applicable engineering standards and to the satisfaction
of the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department.
Site-adjacent roadways should be constructed or repaired at their ultimate half-section width, including
landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development, or as otherwise required by
the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department.
On-site traffic signing and striping plans should be submitted for City of South San Francisco approval in
conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project.
The final grading, landscaping, and street improvement plans should demonstrate that sight distance
standards are met in accordance with applicable City of South San Francisco/California Department of
Transportation sight distance standards.
Additionally, it is recommended that stop controls be installed at the project egress driveways with applicable
one-way signage along the El Camino Real (SR-82) median per CA MUTCD standards.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Access
Figure 25 shows bicycle/pedestrian access and on-site circulation. As shown on Figure 25, the proposed
bicycle racks are located on the east side of the building adjacent to the open outdoor seating area, which can
be accessed via pedestrian walkway along the front (southerly facing side) of the building. The project
adequately incorporates bicycle/pedestrian access to the primary building entrance.
38
108
Figure 25
Bicycle/Pedestrian Access and On-Site Circulation
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment19710
N
Bicycle Parking
(4 short-term bike racks)
Primary
Entrances
Bicycle Parking
(3 long-term bike lockers)
39
10
9
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
40 19710
Truck Circulation
While the vast majority of project trips circulating the project will be passenger cars, on-site circulation will
need to accommodate In-N-Out delivery trucks and waste collection trucks. Based on the evaluation provided
below, adequate circulation would be provided to accommodate delivery and waste collection trucks.
Figure 26 shows delivery truck circulation through the project site. Truck ingress would occur at the Project
South Driveway and egress would occur from the Project North Driveway. Truck loading/unloading would
occur on-site in the drive aisle closest to the building entrance. Truck deliveries are scheduled to occur after
store closing and before opening, typically between 2:00 AM and 9:00 AM, so as not to interfere with on-site
circulation and operations while the restaurant is open to the public.
Figure 27 shows waste collection truck circulation through the project site. The trash enclosure is located at
the end of the Project North Driveway aisle such that waste collection trucks will have quick direct access to
the waste bins after entering through the Project North Driveway with minimal disruption to on-site
circulation. After emptying the trash bins, the garbage collection truck would maneuver through the main
parking lot by turning right along the access aisles on a continuous forward movement to exit the site at the
Project South Driveway.
Emergency Access
Emergency vehicles would be able to access the site similar to the waste collection truck circulation or may
stop adjacent to the site along El Camino Real (SR-82). Implementation of the recommended on-street parking
prohibitions along the project frontage relating to sight distance improvements would further ensure that
emergency vehicles would have a place to park along the project frontage on El Camino Real (SR-82).
40
110
Figure 26
Delivery Truck Circulation
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment19710
N
41
11
1
Figure 27
Waste Collection Truck Circulation
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment19710
N
Trash Enclosure
42
11
2
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
43 19710
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
This section identifies existing/planned pedestrian facilities adjacent to the project, pedestrian routes to the
nearest transit stop and key destinations, and any missing sidewalk links, unmarked crosswalks, or other
potential deficiencies within one-half mile of the project site.
As previously shown on Figure 4, there are existing sidewalks along both sides of El Camino Real (SR-82)
adjacent to the project site. The proposed project will connect a pedestrian walkway along the front (southerly
facing side) of the building to the existing sidewalk on the east side of El Camino Real (SR-82). The nearest
bus stop is located approximately 300 feet south of the project site at the northeast corner of El Camino Real
and 1st Street. El Camino Real is served by the Free South City Shuttle Blue Line and Orange Line buses as
well as the SamTrans bus line 37 and ECR. BART San Bruno Station is located approximately two miles south
of the project site on Huntington Avenue. The project site is within walking distance to a bus line that provides
connection to the nearby BART San Bruno Station.
Other key destinations include:
The Centennial Way Trail located east of the project site where there are playground facilities and a dog
park. The starting point of the Centennial Way Trail is located approximately 750 feet from the project
site at the southwest corner of Antoinette Lane and Chestnut Avenue.
South San Francisco Public Library is located approximately 700 feet north of the project site at the
northeast corner of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue.
Baden High School is located approximately 2,200 feet southwest of the project site at the end of
Southwood Drive.
South San Francisco High School is located approximately 2,000 feet south of the project site on the east
side of El Camino Real.
California Golf Club of San Francisco is located approximately 3,000 feet southwest of the project site
south of Westborough Boulevard and west of Orange Avenue.
Each of these key destinations is accessible via the existing pedestrian network and there does not appear to
be any missing sidewalk links or crosswalks that would inhibit pedestrian access to/from the project site, with
exception of unmarked crosswalks on El Camino Real at the unsignalized intersection with Southwood
Drive/1st Street.
El Camino Real at Southwood Drive/1st Street
The Active South City: South San Francisco’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (City of South San Francisco,
June 2022) [“Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan”] identifies the project site in a Pedestrian Focus Area and
El Camino Real in the City’s High Injury Network.
The intersection of El Camino Real at Southwood Drive/1st Street is located approximately 350 feet south of
the project site and is currently unsignalized with no marked crosswalks on El Camino Real. As previously
noted, El Camino Real is served by the Free South City Shuttle Blue Line and Orange Line buses as well as
the SamTrans bus line 37 and ECR with stops at the northeast and southwest corners of the El Camino Real
at Southwood Drive/1st Street intersection. The existing bus stops on opposite sides of El Camino Real likely
result in pedestrian desire lines since the nearest marked crosswalks are located approximately 880 feet to
the north Westborough Boulevard and 1,080 feet to the south at Orange Avenue.
Collision history at the intersection was reviewed using the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS)
SWITRS GIS Map by SafeTREC/UC Berkeley, which maps California crash data from the Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System (SWITRS). Based on the collision review, there were no pedestrian or bicycle-involved
collisions at the intersection of El Camino Real at Southwood Drive/1st Street for the most recent 5-year
43
113
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
44 19710
period available (June 30, 2018 to 2024); however, there was one pedestrian fatality on El Camino Real
approximately 500 feet south of Westborough Boulevard. The crash report indicates a pedestrian violation
and that it was raining.
Guidance from the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan states that arterial streets with 30-40 mile per
hour speeds and three lanes in one direction are recommended for crosswalks with pedestrian hybrid beacon
or traffic signal control. In consideration that the peak hour traffic signal warrant is currently satisfied for the
PM peak hour and that the intersection currently operates at Level of Service F during the mid-day and PM
peak hours, it is recommended that the marked crosswalks be installed in conjunction with installation of a
traffic signal control at this intersection.
The project alone is not expected to substantially increase pedestrian volumes across El Camino Real. Most
of the key destinations are accessible via the existing pedestrian network. Except for a relatively small number
of single-family residences that are unlikely to visit the project site in substantial volume on a daily basis,
pedestrians originating from the Baden neighborhood can access signalized crossings at Westborough
Boulevard to the north or Orange Avenue to the south without incurring substantially longer walking distance
compared to crossing at the unsignalized, unmarked crossing at Southwood Drive.
Since the project cannot be held solely responsible for rectifying existing deficiencies, the project proposes to
contribute a fair share of the improvement costs for future installation of a traffic signal as discussed further
in the off-site traffic operations section.
BICYCLE FACILITIES
This section evaluates the project’s potential impact on bicycle facilities.
There are no bicycle lanes on El Camino Real (SR-82) adjacent to the project frontage; however, there are on-
street bicycle lanes on both sides of El Camino Real (SR-82) north of Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut
Avenue approximately 500 feet north of the project site. Future Class IV bicycle lanes along El Camino Real
(SR-82) are identified in the City’s General Plan Mobility Element. Additionally, the starting point of the
Centennial Way Trail is located approximately 750 feet from the project site at the southwest corner of
Antoinette Lane and Chestnut Avenue.
The project proposes to provide four (4) short-term bicycle racks on the east side of the building adjacent to
the open outdoor seating area, which can be accessed via pedestrian walkway along the front (southerly facing
side) of the building.
The project does not propose changes to the roadway frontage or project adjacent right-of-way because there
are already two existing driveways.
In summary, the project would provide accessible bicycle connections, high-quality bicycle parking, and would
not disrupt existing or planned bicycle facilities.
TRANSIT
This section identifies existing/planned transit facilities and pedestrian routes to nearest transit stop or station.
The nearest bus stop is located approximately 300 feet south of the project site at the northeast corner of El
Camino Real and 1st Street. El Camino Real is served by the Free South City Shuttle Blue Line and Orange
Line buses as well as the SamTrans bus line 37 and ECR. BART South San Francisco Station is located
approximately one mile north of the project site on Mission Road/McLellan Drive and San Bruno Station is
located approximately two miles south of the project site on Huntington Avenue. The project site is within
44
114
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
45 19710
walking distance with clear and direct paths to bus lines that provide connection to the nearby BART South
San Francisco and San Bruno Stations.
The proposed project would not conflict with existing or planned transit facilities or the City’s adopted plans,
guidelines, policies, or standards regarding transit and transit access.
TDM PROGRAM CONSISTENCY
This section evaluates the project against program requirements, mode split targets, and other elements
outlined in the latest Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program ordinance.
The TDM requirements apply to Tier 2 projects, including hotels, retail, warehouse/distribution, and industrial
uses, anticipated to generate greater than 100 daily trips. Unlike employee-based land uses, such as
warehouse/distribution, office, and industrial uses, the majority of the trips generated by a fast-food
restaurant such as the proposed project are generated by customers, many of which are already traveling in
their travel mode of choice for other purposes and over which the project has little to no influence. Since the
TDM measures primarily influence employee/commuter trips, Tier 2 requirements apply to projects that are
anticipated to generate greater than 100 daily employee trips.
Appendix G contains an employee trip generation assessment memorandum for the proposed project. As
documented in Appendix G, the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 90 employee trips
per day. Therefore, the proposed project is anticipated to generate fewer than 100 daily employee trips and
is exempt from the TDM checklist requirements.
SAFETY ASSESSMENT (NON-CEQA)
This section identifies facilities on the City’s High Injury Network and/or facilities that have safety
enhancement projects identified as part of the General Plan, other safety studies, or by City staff. Evaluate
whether increased walking/biking activity will result in multi-modal conflicts and any safety countermeasures.
El Camino Real, Westborough Boulevard, Chestnut Avenue and Orange Avenue are included on the City’s
High Injury Network. The proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 642 additional net daily trips
compared to the existing development (No Project conditions), including 68 additional net trips during the MD
peak hour and 48 additional net trips during the weekday PM peak hour. Since the project is forecast to add
less than 100 peak hour vehicles to an existing High Injury Network facility, the project is anticipated to have
no significant safety impact to the surrounding roadways.
TRUCKS
Since the project is not a relevant industrial use, the project will not result in any truck impacts and further
analysis is not necessary.
PASSENGER LOADING AND PICK-UP/DROP-OFF
Based on the travel characteristics of the proposed restaurant uses, the project is not expected to have a large
concentration of pick-up/drop-off activity and passenger loading evaluation is not necessary.
OFF-SITE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
The Levels of Service for Existing Plus Project conditions are shown in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, the study
intersections are forecast to operate within acceptable Levels of Service (D or better) during the peak hours
for Existing Plus Project conditions, except for the following intersections that are forecast to continue
operating at LOS F:
45
115
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
46 19710
El Camino Real (NS) at Southwood Drive/1st Street (EW) – #3 (MD and PM)
El Camino Real (NS) at Orange Avenue (EW) – #4 (PM only)
Since the intersection of El Camino Real (SR-82) and Southwood Drive/1st Street [#3] already satisfy the peak
hour traffic signal warrant for Existing conditions, installation of a traffic signal is recommended at this location.
While the intersection of El Camino Real (SR-82) and Southwood drive/1st Street [#3] is already operating at
LOS F for Existing conditions, the project is forecast to increase the intersection volumes by less than 10%;
therefore, the project would not substantially contribute to an operational deficiency at the intersection of El
Camino Real (SR-82) and Southwood Drive/1st Street [#3] based on the City-established criteria.
Nevertheless, the project should contribute its fair share cost toward the installation of a new traffic signal at
the intersection of El Camino Real (SR-82) and Southwood Drive/1st Street [#3]. At the initial occupancy of
the project, the project shall be conditioned to install “No U-Turn” signage at the southbound left turn lane
on El Camino Real at Southwood Drive/1st Street in the interim condition until such time that the traffic signal
is installed.
The intersection of El Camino Real (SR-82) and Orange Avenue [#4] is already operating at LOS F for Existing
conditions and the project is forecast to increase the intersection volumes by less than 10%; therefore, the
project would not substantially contribute to an operational deficiency at the intersection of El Camino Real
(SR-82) and Orange Avenue [#4] based on the City-established criteria. No off-site improvements are
necessary.
Detailed intersection Level of Service calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix D.
46
116
Delay2 LOS3 Delay2 LOS3
1 Antoinette Ln at TS MD 27.2 C 28.0 C n/a 1,644 12 0.7%No
Chestnut Ave PM 30.3 C 30.4 C n/a 2,327 9 0.4%No
2 El Camino Real at TS MD 36.5 D 37.5 D n/a 3,512 86 2.4%No
Westborough Blvd PM 41.7 D 43.7 D n/a 4,694 62 1.3%No
3 El Camino Real at CSS MD 57.2 F 77.0 F Yes 2,271 85 3.7%No
Southwood Dr PM 158.1 F 216.2 F Yes 2,930 61 2.1%No
TS MD 6.0 A Yes 2,271 85 3.7%No
PM 6.5 A Yes 2,930 61 2.1%No
4 El Camino Real at TS MD 47.2 D 48.2 D n/a 2,514 31 1.2%No
Orange Ave PM 83.9 F 91.9 F n/a 3,298 22 0.7%No
5 El Camino Real at CSS MD --16.4 B No 2,203 189 8.6%No
Proj North Dwy A PM --20.8 C No 2,854 137 4.8%No
6 El Camino Real at CSS MD --16.4 C No 2,203 192 8.7%No
Proj Central Dwy B PM --20.9 C No 2,854 141 4.9%No
Notes:
Table 3
Existing Plus Project Study Intersection LOS and Deficiency Assessment
(2) Control delay is shown in seconds/vehicle.
Substantial
Effect?5
Percent
Volume
Increase4
Traffic
Signal
Warranted?
With Traffic Signal
(4) Project-related increase in total intersection volume.
(3) LOS = Level of Service. For intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control, LOS is based on the overall average control delay.
For intersections with cross street stop control, LOS is based on delay of the worst individual movement.
(5) Addition of project traffic causes an intersection to 1) operate at LOS F overall or the worst-case movement, or 2) increases traffic
volumes by 10% at intersections already operating at LOS F under the comparable “no project” scenario.
Peak
Hour
Traffic
Control1Study IntersectionID
Existing
Existing
Plus Project
(1) TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street Stop
Existing
Traffic
Project
Traffic
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment
1971047
117
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
48 19710
INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONTROL & OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
The forecasted Existing Plus Project volumes at the currently unsignalized study intersection of El Camino
Real (SR-82) at Southwood Drive/1st Street [#3] satisfy the peak hour signal warrant based on the CA MUTCD
peak hour volume analysis (Warrant 3). Traffic signal warrant analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix E.
As previously noted, the peak hour volume signal warrant is currently satisfied for existing PM peak hour
conditions. Additionally, the intersection of El Camino Real (SR-82) at Southwood Drive/1st Street [#3]
currently operates at Level of Service F during the mid-day and PM peak hours and present potential
pedestrian crossing hazards as an unsignalized intersection with unmarked crosswalks.
Since the project cannot be held solely responsible for rectifying existing deficiencies, the project proposes to
contribute a fair share of the improvement costs for future installation of a traffic signal. Table 4 shows the
project fair share calculations based on the percentage of net project traffic contributing to the overall traffic
volumes at the intersection. As shown in Table 4, the project contributes approximately 2.0% to 3.6% to the
overall traffic during the peak hours at the intersection of El Camino Real (SR-82) and Southwood Drive/1st
Street [#3].
Since it is anticipated that additional funding needs may delay installation of a traffic signal until after project
opening, the project shall be conditioned to install “No U-Turn” signage at the southbound left turn lane on El
Camino Real at Southwood Drive/1st Street in the interim condition until such time that the traffic signal is
installed.
48
118
ID Study Intersection Existing (2024) Existing Plus Project Project
3 El Camino Real at MD 2,271 2,356 85 3.6%
Southwood Dr PM 2,930 2,991 61 2.0%
Table 4
Project Fair Share Intersection Traffic Contribution
Peak
Hour
Intersection Turning Movement Volumes
Project Percent of
Total Future
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment
1971049
119
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
50 19710
INTERSECTION TURN LANE QUEUING ANALYSIS
Table 5 summarizes intersection turn lane queuing analysis for the southbound left turn lane at the
intersection of El Camino Real (SR-82) and Southwood Drive/1st Street [#3] to determine if there are
adequate storage capacity to accommodate the southbound left turn and U-turn traffic volumes. The
intersection turn lane queuing analysis is based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 95th-percentile back-
of-queue methodology. HCM queue calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix D.
As shown in Table 5, the longest queue length of 91 feet is forecast to occur for Existing Plus Project
conditions with ultimate improvements (i.e., installation of a traffic signal); queue lengths the Existing Plus
Project scenario with existing lane geometry and future improvements are not forecast to exceed 91 feet, or
approximately four vehicles. Therefore, the existing 172-foot southbound left turn lane is anticipated to
provide more than sufficient storage length to accommodate the 95th-percentile queues for Existing Plus
Project conditions with existing or future traffic controls.
Furthermore, the average delays for the southbound left turn movement are projected to be LOS C and LOS
D or during mid-day and PM peak hours, respectively. No queuing issue is anticipated at the southbound left
turn lane at the intersection of El Camino Real (SR-82) and Southwood Drive/1st Street [#3] for Existing Plus
Project with existing or future traffic controls.
DRIVE THROUGH QUEUING ANALYSIS
The evaluation of peak drive through window queuing demand for the proposed project is based on historical
drive through queue surveys at eight (8) existing In-N-Out restaurants throughout Northern California. The
survey data was compiled from various traffic studies prepared for other In-N-Out developments and new
surveys at the nearest existing location at 372 Gellert Boulevard in Daly City. These survey sites are included
in the data set because they represent the typical In-N-Out Burger restaurant with modern kitchen and drive
through configurations. Additionally, the surveys at these locations were conducted for 12 or more hours to
verify that peak queues typically occur during the peak lunch hours from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM and peak
dinner hours from 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM.
To evaluate adequacy of the proposed drive through lane for In-N-Out, this analysis compiled data of actual
vehicular queues observed within the drive through lanes at existing In-N-Out Burger restaurants throughout
Northern California. The survey data was compiled from various traffic studies prepared for other
development proposals and is provided in Appendix H. A summary is provided below:
50
120
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
51 19710
Store Address
Peak Queue Observed During Peak Periods
Weekday PM (4-6PM) Saturday MD (12-2PM)
1364 Holiday Ln,
Fairfield, CA 94534 17 23
1159 N Rengstorff Ave,
Mountain View, CA 94043 13 31
53 W El Camino Real,
Mountain View, CA 94040 17 19
5490 Crossings Dr,
Rocklin, CA 95677 12 14
445 Industrial Rd,
San Carlos, CA 94070 17 n/a
32060 Union Landing Blvd,
Union City, CA 94587 17 25
170 Nut Tree Pkwy,
Vacaville, CA 95687 18 29
372 Gellert Blvd,
Daly City, CA 94015 33 33
Average 18 25
As shown above, the peak drive through queue ranged from 12 to 33 vehicles during the weekday PM peak
period and 14 to 33 vehicles during the Saturday MD peak period. On average, the peak queues observed
equate to 18 vehicles during the weekday PM peak period and 25 vehicles during the Saturday MD peak
period.
Based on the surveyed average peak queue length, a minimum storage capacity of 25 vehicles is
recommended for the proposed project to accommodate the average peak queue lengths during peak lunch
and dinner periods. With the project site plan proposing storage capacity for up to 39 vehicles, the project
site is anticipated to provide more than sufficient drive through storage capacity and would accommodate the
maximum drive through queue observed at any individual survey location (33 vehicles).
51
121
ID Study Intersection Lane1 Available Overall
Storage Length
Peak
Hour
Volume
(Veh/Hr)
Delay
(sec/veh)
Level
of
Service
Peak
Queue
Vehicle2
Peak
Queue
Length3 Adequate
Storage?
3 El Camino Real at
Southwood Dr
MD 116 14.28 B 0.91 25'Yes
PM 127 31.54 D 1.93 48'Yes
MD 116 3.50 A 3.30 83'Yes
PM 127 6.98 A 3.63 91'Yes
Table 5
Intersection Turn Lane Queuing Analysis
Notes:
(1) SB = Southbound; EB = Eastbound; WB = Westbound
(2) 95th-percentile queue shown in vehicles per lane.
(3) Queue length based on 25 feet of queue length per vehicle; rounded up to a minimum of 25 feet.
Existing
(Unsignalized)
SB Left/
U-Turn
172' left turn lane
+ 95' Transition = 267'
With Traffic Signal SB Left/
U-Turn
172' left turn lane
+ 95' Transition = 267'
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment
1971052
122
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
53 19710
6. CONCLUSIONS
This section summarizes key findings from this report.
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
The proposed project is forecast to result in approximately 642 additional daily trips compared to the existing
development, including 68 additional trips during the MD peak hour and 48 additional trips during the PM
peak hour.
CEQA IMPACTS
The proposed project would not create conditions that are inconsistent with mobility, safety, or other related
goals, policies, and actions set forth in the General Plan.
The proposed project is a local serving use that is less than 50,000 square feet; therefore, the project satisfies
the City-established screening threshold for “neighborhood-serving retail project” and may be presumed to
result in a less than significant VMT impact under CEQA – no mitigation is required.
With implementation of the minimum CA MUTCD requirements or the recommended prohibition of on-street
parking along the entirety of the project frontage to approximately 98 feet south of the Project South
Driveway, the project would not worsen existing hazards or cause new design-related hazards such as
restricted line of sight.
The project would not substantially contribute to an operational deficiency at the study area facilities and
therefore is not expected to substantially increase response times.
Based on the project’s location outside high-risk fire zones, evacuation analysis is not necessary and the
project would have no impact.
NON-CEQA IMPACTS
Based on the City-established criteria, the proposed project was found to have no impacts to the following
non-CEQA issues evaluated:
On-site circulation
Pedestrian facilities
Bicycle facilities
Transit
TDM program consistency
Safety assessment
Trucks
Passenger loading and pick-up/drop-off
Off-site traffic operations
Intersection traffic control
Drive through queuing analysis
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1. For improved sight lines between vehicles as well as bicycles and pedestrians, it is recommended that on-
street parking be prohibited on El Camino Real (SR-82) along the entirety of the project frontage to
53
123
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
54 19710
approximately 98 feet south of the Project South Driveway. (See Section 5. Analysis and Deficiency
Identification, Safety (CEQA))
2. It is recommended that stop controls be installed at the project egress driveways with applicable one-way
signage along the El Camino Real (SR-82) median per CA MUTCD standards. (See Section 5. Analysis and
Deficiency Identification, On-Site Circulation)
3. The project should contribute a fair share payment toward the cost of installing a traffic signal at the
intersection of El Camino Real at Southwood Drive/1st Street. The project trip contribution is estimated
at approximately 3.6% of the overall traffic volume entering the intersection. (See Section 5. Analysis and
Deficiency Identification, Intersection Traffic Control and Off-Site Improvements - Table 4)
4. In addition to a fair share payment toward the future installation a traffic signal control at the intersection
of El Camino Real and Southwood Drive/1st Street, the project shall be conditioned to install “No U-Turn”
signage at the southbound left turn lane on El Camino Real at Southwood Drive/1st Street in the interim
condition until such time that the traffic signal is installed.
54
124
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Transportation Impact Assessment
19710
APPENDICES
Appendix A Glossary
Appendix B Scoping Agreement
Appendix C Volume Count Data sheets
Appendix D Level of Service Worksheets
Appendix E Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets
Appendix F In-N-Out Trip Generation Data Sheets
Appendix G Employee Trip Generation Assessment
Appendix H In-N-Out Drive Through Queue Survey Data Sheets
Apx-1 125
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY
Apx-2 126
ACRONYMS
AC Acres
ADT Average Daily Traffic
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
DU Dwelling Unit
ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization
GFA Gross Floor Area
LOS Level of Service
PCE Passenger Car Equivalent
SP Service Population
TSF Thousand Square Feet
V/C Volume/Capacity
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
TERMS
ACTUATED SIGNAL CONTROL: A type of traffic signal control in which display of each phase depends on
whether the corresponding phase detector has registered a service call or the phase is on recall.
ACTUATION: Detection of a roadway user that is forwarded to the signal controller.
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: The average 24-hour volume for a stated period divided by the number of days
in that period. For example, Annual Average Daily Traffic is the total volume during a year divided by 365
days.
BANDWIDTH: The number of seconds of green time available for through traffic in a signal progression.
BOTTLENECK: A point of constriction along a roadway that limits the amount of traffic that can proceed
downstream from its location.
CALL: An indication within a signal controller that a particular phase is waiting for service, either through
actuation from a roadway user or phase recall.
CAPACITY: The maximum number of vehicles that can be reasonably expected to pass through a roadway
facility during a specified period.
CHANNELIZATION: The separation of conflicting traffic movements by use of pavement markings, raised
curbs, or other suitable means to facilitate free flow movement.
CLEARANCE INTERVAL: Equal to the yellow plus all-red time, if any, when a traffic signal changes between
phases (i.e., the amount of time between the end of a green light from one movement to the beginning of a
green light for the next).
COORDINATED SIGNAL CONTROL: A type of traffic signal control in which non-coordinated phases
associated with minor movements are constrained such that the coordinated phases are served at a specific
time during the signal cycle, thus maintaining the efficient progression of traffic flow along the major roadway.
CONTROL DELAY: The portion of delay attributed to the intersection traffic control (such as a traffic signal
or stop sign). It includes initial deceleration, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay.
CORDON: An imaginary boundary line around or across a study area across which vehicles, persons, or other
information can be collected for survey and analytical purposes.
Apx-3 127
CORNER SIGHT DISTANCE: The minimum sight distance required by the driver of a vehicle to cross or enter
the lanes of the major roadway without requiring approaching traffic traveling at a given speed to radically
alter their speed or trajectory.
CYCLE: A complete sequence of signal indications for all phases.
CYCLE LENGTH: The total time for a traffic signal to complete one full cycle.
DAILY CAPACITY: A theoretical value representing the daily traffic volume that will typically result in a peak
hour volume equal to the capacity of the roadway.
DELAY: The total additional travel time experienced by a roadway user (driver, passenger, bicyclist, or
pedestrian) beyond that required to travel at a desired speed.
DENSITY: The number of vehicles occupying in a unit length of the through traffic lanes of a roadway at any
given instant. Usually expressed in vehicles per mile.
DETECTOR: A device used to count or determine the presence of a roadway user.
DESIGN SPEED: A speed used for purposes of designing horizontal and vertical alignments of a highway.
DIRECTIONAL SPLIT: The percent of two-way traffic traveling in a specified direction.
DIVERSION: The rerouting of traffic from a normal path of travel between two points, such as to avoid
congestion or perform a secondary trip.
FREE FLOW: Traffic flow that is unaffected by a traffic control and/or or upstream or downstream conditions.
GAP: Time or distance between two vehicles measured from rear bumper of the front vehicle to front bumper
of the second vehicle.
GAP ACCEPTANCE: The method by which a driver accepts an available gap in traffic to enter or cross the
road.
HEADWAY: Time or distance between two successive vehicles measured from same point on both vehicles
(i.e., front bumper to front bumper).
LEVEL OF SERVICE: A grading scale of quantitative performance measures representing the quality of service
of a transportation facility or service from an average traveler’s perspective.
LOOP DETECTOR: A vehicle detector consisting of a loop of wire embedded in the roadway, energized by
alternating current and producing an output circuit closure when passed over by a vehicle.
MULTI-MODAL: More than one mode, such as automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian.
OFFSET: The time interval between the beginning of a traffic signal cycle at one intersection and the beginning
of signal cycle an adjacent intersection.
PLATOON: A set of vehicles traveling at similar speed and moving as a general group with clear separation
between other vehicles ahead and behind.
PASSENGER CAR EQUIVALENT: A metric used to assess the impact of larger vehicles, such as trucks,
recreational vehicles, and buses, by converting the traffic volume of larger vehicles to an equivalent number
of passenger cars.
Apx-4 128
PEDESTRIAN CLEARANCE INTERVAL: Also known as the “Flashing Don’t Walk” interval, it signals the end
of pedestrian entry into the crosswalk following the “Walk” indication and provides time for pedestrians who
have already entered the crosswalk to finishing crossing.
PEAK HOUR: The hour within a day in which the maximum volume occurs.
PEAK HOUR FACTOR: The peak hour volume divided by the four times the peak 15-minute flow rate.
PHASE: In traffic signals, the green, yellow, and red clearance intervals assigned to a specified traffic
movement.
PRETIMED SIGNAL: A traffic signal operation in which the cycle length, phasing sequence, and phasing times
are predetermined and fixed, regardless of actual demand for any given traffic movement. Also known as a
fixed time signal.
PROGRESSION: The coordinated movement of vehicles through signalized intersections along a corridor.
QUEUE: The number of vehicles waiting at a service area such as a traffic signal, stop sign, or access gate.
QUEUE LENGTH: The length of vehicle queue, typically expressed in feet, waiting at a service area such as a
traffic signal, stop sign, or access gate.
RECALL: A signal phasing operation in which a specified phase places a call to the signal controller each time
a conflicting phase is served, thus ensuring the specified phase will be serviced again.
SEMI-ACTUATED CONTROL: A type of traffic signal control in which only the minor movements are
provided detection.
SIGHT DISTANCE: The continuous length of roadway visible to a driver or roadway user.
STACKING DISTANCE: The length of area available behind a service area, such as a traffic signal or gate, for
vehicle queuing to occur.
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: The minimum distance required by the driver of a vehicle traveling at a given
speed to bring the vehicle to a stop after an object on the road becomes visible, including reaction and
response time.
TRIP OR TRIP END: The one-directional movement of a person or vehicle. Every trip has an origin and a
destination at its respective ends (i.e., trip ends). In terms of site trip generation, the same vehicle entering and
exiting a site generates two trips: one inbound trip and one outbound trip.
TRIP GENERATION RATE: The rate at which a land use generates trips per the specified land use variable,
such per dwelling unit or per thousand square feet.
TRUCK: A heavy motor vehicle generally used for transporting goods.
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED: A measure of the amount and distance of automobile travel essentially
calculated as the sum of each trip times the trip length.
Apx-5 129
APPENDIX B
SCOPING AGREEMENT
Apx-6 130
APPENDIX B
SCOPING AGREEMENT
Apx-7 131
transportation ■ noise ■ air quality | GANDDINI GROUP
(714) 795-3100 | ganddini.com
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
TO: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
FROM: Giancarlo Ganddini | GANDDINI GROUP, INC.
DATE: February 26, 2024
SUBJECT: Transportation Study Scoping Agreement for In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Project No. 19710
The purpose of this scoping document is to outline the fundamental parameters and assumptions of the traffic
analysis to be prepared for the project for review and concurrence by City of South San Francisco staff.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 1.38-acre project site is located east of El Camino Real (State Route 82) approximately mid-block between
Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue and Southwood Drive/1st Street, addressed at 972 El Camino
Real, in the City of South San Francisco, California. The project site is currently developed with an existing
3,000 square foot fast-food restaurant with drive through window (Burger King). Figure 1 shows the project
location map.
The proposed project involves redevelopment of the project site with a new 3,887 square foot In-N-Out
Burger restaurant with drive through window and associated landscaping and parking lot improvements.
Vehicular access is proposed via three driveways on El Camino Real, including one driveway north of the
proposed building that will provide access to five (5) parking spaces for employees only. The proposed site
plan is shown on Figure 2.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Based on review of the project and the City’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines (October 2022), the
assessment shall consist of a Tier 2 level of analysis that evaluates the following issues:
▪ Consistency with Plans and Policies: Document and assess the project’s consistency with relevant goals,
policies, and actions set forth in the City’s General Plan and any relevant area/specific plans and the
Mobility Element.
▪ VMT: Prepare a VMT screening analysis based on City-established screening criteria. The proposed
project satisfies the screening criteria for “neighborhood-serving retail project” (less than 50,000 square
feet); therefore, more detailed VMT modeling/mitigation is not necessary.
▪ Safety (CEQA): Evaluate existing hazards within the project vicinity and assess whether the project
would create or substantially contribute to a roadway or design hazard, including restricted lines of sight
or other design-related issues. Specifically, the project shall evaluate line of sight for vehicle egress at
the project driveways based on the standards established in the Highway Design Manual (California
Department of Transportation, 7th Edition).
Apx-8 132
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
February 26, 2024
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Transportation Study Scoping Agreement
2 19710
▪ Emergency Access: Assess routes to/from key emergency services (such as fire stations and emergency
rooms) and whether the project would increase response times.
▪ Evacuation: This element of the City’s guidelines only applies to High Risk or Very High Risk wildfire
zones. Based on the project’s location outside high-risk fire zones, evacuation analysis is not necessary.
▪ On-Site Circulation: Review and evaluate site access locations, loading zones, and trash collection areas
with respect to operations and safety for all modes of transportation. Identify bicycle parking facilities
and bicycle and pedestrian between roadway and primary building access. Review sight distance,
turning radii, and potential hazards to bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles at the driveways.
▪ Pedestrian Facilities: Identify existing/planned pedestrian facilities adjacent to the project, pedestrian
routes to the nearest transit stop and key destinations, and any missing sidewalk links, unmarked
crosswalks, or other potential deficiencies within one-half mile of the project site. Assess how the
project will affect local pedestrian circulation.
▪ Bicycle Facilities: Identify existing/planned bicycle facilities that may be affected by the project,
compare existing conditions to City’s Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan, note level of traffic stress along
immediate access route to the project, and assess how the project will affect bicycle travel.
▪ Transit: Identify existing/planned transit facilities and pedestrian routes to nearest transit stop or
station. If appropriate document how the project improves access to or utilization of transit.
▪ TDM Program Consistency: Evaluate project against program requirements, mode split targets, and
other elements outlined in the latest TDM Program ordinance. The analysis shall document the Tier 2
TDM programs selected for implementation.
▪ Safety Assessment (non-CEQA): Identify facilities on the City’s High Injury Network and/or facilities
that have safety enhancement projects identified as part of the General Plan, other safety studies, or
by City staff. Evaluate whether increased walking/biking activity will result in multi-modal conflicts and
any safety countermeasures.
▪ Trucks: Since the project is not industrial use, truck analysis is not necessary.
▪ Passenger Loading and Pick-Up/Drop-Off: Based on the travel characteristics of restaurant uses,
passenger loading evaluation is not necessary.
▪ Off-Site Traffic Operations: Analyze study intersection Levels of Service based on the Highway
Capacity Manual (7th Edition) intersection delay methodology and determine the significance of project
impacts in accordance with parameters and guidelines established by the City of South San Francisco.
The “Off-Site Traffic Operations” section below outlines the fundamental assumptions for the
evaluation.
▪ Intersection Traffic Control: Evaluate the need for installation of a traffic control signal at un-signalized
study intersections based on the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD)
peak hour signal warrant.
Apx-9 133
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
February 26, 2024
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Transportation Study Scoping Agreement
3 19710
OFF-SITE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
Project Vehicle Trip Generation
In-N-Out Burger restaurants are not open to the public during the weekday AM peak period of commuter
traffic (7-9AM); therefore, analysis of the AM peak hour is unnecessary as the project trip generation will be
negligible during these hours. Peak hour trip generation for In-N-Out Burger restaurants typically occurs
during the lunch period between 11:30 AM and 1:30 PM; therefore, the analysis will evaluate off-site traffic
operations for the mid-day (MD) peak hour and PM peak hour.
Attachment A contains the trip generation plots and survey data for In-N-Out Burger. Based on the trendlines
shown in the trip generation plots, there appears to be an inverse relationship between the number of trips
generated and the gross floor area. In other words, the trip generation rate per thousand square feet of gross
floor area tends to decrease as the gross floor area increases. Therefore, trip generation for the proposed In-
N-Out Burger is based on the average number of trips observed rather than use of the calculated average trip
rates since this is expected to provide a more accurate approximation of the proposed project’s trip generation.
Table 1 shows the existing, proposed, and net project trip generation. Trip generation for the existing fast-
food restaurant (Burger King) is based on average rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021) for Land Use Code 934 (Fast-Food Restaurant With Drive-
Through Window). The proposed project trip generation forecast is based on the average trip generation
observed at existing In-N-Out Burger restaurants throughout California.
As shown in Table 1, the proposed project is forecast to result in approximately 625 additional daily trips
compared to the existing development, including 71 additional trips during the MD peak hour and 49
additional trips during the PM peak hour.
Project Trip Distribution
Figures 3 and 4 show the forecast directional distribution patterns for the project-generated trips. The trip
distribution patterns were developed using engineering judgement based on review of surrounding land uses
and the local and regional roadway facilities in the project vicinity.
Study Area
The study area shall consist of the following intersections:
1. Antoinette Lane (NS) at Chestnut Avenue (EW) 1
2. El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue (EW)
3. El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Southwood Drive/1st Street (EW)
4. El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Orange Avenue (EW)
5. El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Project Driveway A (EW)
6. El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Project Driveway B (EW)
7. El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Project Driveway C (EW)
1 (NS) = north-south roadway; (EW) = east-west roadway
Apx-10 134
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
February 26, 2024
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Transportation Study Scoping Agreement
4 19710
Analysis Scenarios
The assessment shall evaluate the following analysis scenarios for weekday MD peak hour and PM peak hour
conditions:
▪ Existing
▪ Existing Plus Project
▪ Cumulative Without Project (if necessary)
▪ Cumulative With Project (if necessary)
If cumulative conditions analysis is necessary, Ganddini Group hereby requests the City provide a list of
reasonably foreseeable projects within one-half mile of the project site to be considered in the analysis.
Traffic Counts
New intersection turning movement counts will be collected at the existing study intersections on a typical
weekday (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) during the MD peak period (11:30 AM – 1:30 PM) and the PM
peak period of commuter traffic (4:00 PM – 6:00 PM). Counts shall be conducted while local schools are in
session and shall avoid weeks with a holiday, special events, construction activities, or other conditions which
can alter the counts.
DRIVE THROUGH QUEUING ANALYSIS
An evaluation of peak drive-through window queuing demand for the proposed project shall be provided
based on historical drive-through queue surveys at seven (7) existing In-N-Out restaurants throughout
Northern California. The survey data was compiled from various traffic studies prepared for other
development proposals and is provided in Attachment B. A summary is provided below:
Store Address
Peak Queue Observed During Peak Periods
Weekday PM
(4-6PM)
Weekend MD
(12-2PM)
1364 Holiday Ln,
Fairfield, CA 94534 17 23
1159 N Rengstorff Ave,
Mountain View, CA 94043 13 31
53 W El Camino Real,
Mountain View, CA 94040 17 19
5490 Crossings Dr,
Rocklin, CA 95677 12 14
445 Industrial Rd,
San Carlos, CA 94070 17 n/a
32060 Union Landing Blvd,
Union City, CA 94587 17 25
170 Nut Tree Pkwy,
Vacaville, CA 95687 18 29
Average 16 24
Apx-11 135
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
February 26, 2024
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Transportation Study Scoping Agreement
5 19710
As shown above, the peak drive through queue ranged from 12 to 18 vehicles on weekdays and 14 to 31
vehicles on weekends. The average peak queue observed is equal to 16 vehicles on weekdays and 24 vehicles
on weekends. The traffic analysis shall include a description of standard drive-through operations, the
expected peak demand, and a drive-through traffic management plan.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this memorandum of understanding for your review. Should you
have any questions or comments, please contact me at 714-795-3100 ext. 101.
Apx-12 136
Land Use % In % Out Rate % In % Out Rate
Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window 51%49%44.61 52%48%33.03 467.48
In-N-Out Burger with Drive-Through Window -------
In Out Total In Out Total
Existing Fast Food Restaurant 3.000 TSF 68 66 134 52 48 100 1,402
Pass-By Trips (50%)3 -34 -33 -67 -26 -24 -50 -701
Subtotal - Existing Trips 34 33 67 26 24 50 701
In-N-Out Burger With Drive Through Window 3.887 TSF 140 136 276 103 97 200 2,652
Pass-By Trips (50%)3 -70 -68 -138 -52 -49 -101 -1,326
Subtotal - Proposed Trips 70 68 138 51 48 99 1,326
Net New Trips Generated +36 +35 +71 +25 +24 +49 +625
Notes:
Table 1
Project Trip Generation
2. TSF = Thousand Square Feet
3. Date from the ITE Trip Generation Manual indicates an average pass-by rate of 55% during the peak hours for Land Use Code 934 (fast-
food-restaurant with drive through window). To provide a conservative estimate, this analysis assumes a pass-by rate of 50%.
PM Peak Hour
Daily
MD Peak Hour
Units2
ITE 934
Trips Generated
[a]
1. ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021); ### = Land Use Code.
[a] = Average trips observed at existing In-N-Out Restaurants throughout California; see Attachment A.
Trip Generation Rates
MD Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
RateSource1
QuantityLand Use
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Transportation Impact Assessment
19710
Apx-13 137
Figure 1
Project Location Map
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Transportation Impact Assessment19710
N
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
C H E S T N U T A V E
ANTOINETTE LN
SOUTH W O O D D R
1 S T S T
O R A N G E A V E
Site
Study Intersection
Legend
#
2
1
3
4
82
W E S T B O R O U G H B L V D
Apx-14 138
Figure 2
Site Plan
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Transportation Impact Assessment19710
N
Apx-15
13
9
Figure 3
Project Trip Distribution - Outbound
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Transportation Impact Assessment19710
N
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
C H E S T N U T A V E
ANTOINETTE LN
SOUTH W O O D D R
1 S T S T
O R A N G E A V E
Site82
W E S T B O R O U G H B L V D
45%
5%
100%
15%
25%
20%20%
40%
15%
Percent From Project
Legend
10%
Apx-16 140
Figure 4
Project Trip Distribution - Inbound
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Transportation Impact Assessment19710
N
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
C H E S T N U T A V E
ANTOINETTE LN
SOUTH W O O D D R
1 S T S T
O R A N G E A V E
Site82
W E S T B O R O U G H B L V D
50%
5%
100%
15%
25%
20%
15%
50%
20%
Percent To Project
Legend
10%
Apx-17 141
Attachment A
In-N-Out Trip Generation Data
Apx-18 142
In Out Total
1 Redondo Beach 3801 Inglewood Ave, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 2.800 136 135 271 96.79
2 Long Beach 6391 E Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, CA 90803 3.600 138 135 273 75.83
3 Los Angeles 9149 S Sepulveda Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90045 3.800 196 159 355 93.42
4 Millbrae 11 Rollins Rd, Millbrae, CA 94030 3.750 265 270 535 142.67
5 Redwood City 949 Veterans Blvd, Redwood City, CA 94063 3.750 126 131 257 68.53
6 Rocklin 5490 Crossings Dr, Rocklin, CA 95677 3.750 90 83 173 46.13
7 Vacaville 170 Nut Tree Pkwy, Vacaville, CA 95687 3.750 98 86 184 49.07
8 Fairfield 1364 Holiday Ln, Fairfield, CA 94534 3.750 96 81 177 47.20
9 Mountain View 1159 N Rengstorff Ave, Mountain View, CA 94043 3.100 131 159 290 93.55
10 Mountain View 53 W El Camino Real, Mountain View, CA 94040 2.970 178 157 335 112.79
11 Union City 32060 Union Landing Blvd, Union City, CA 94587 3.160 154 150 304 96.20
12 Rancho San Margarita 30121 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 3.665 131 136 267 72.85
13 San Diego 10880 Carmel Mtn Rd, San Diego, CA 92128 2.912 120 107 227 77.95
14 San Diego 4375 Kearny Mesa Road, San Diego, CA 92111 3.180 127 127 254 79.87
15 Oceanside 936 North Coast Highway, Oceanside, CA 92054 3.665 117 127 244 66.58
51.602 2,103 2,043 4,146 1219.43
3.440 140 136 276 81.30
Total
Average
Weekday, peak hour of adjacent street traffic,
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant (with Drive-Through Window)
One hour between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m.
ID Location Full Address
1,000
SF GFA
Weekday MD Rate
(Trips/TSF)
Ganddini Group, Inc.
February 2024
Apx-19 143
15
3.440
51% entering, 49% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
Data Plot & Equation
Trip generation data for each site is provided on the attached count sheets.
Ganddini Group, Inc. (February 2024)
81.30 46.13 - 142.67 25.1
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies:
1000 Sq. Ft. GFA (Average):
Directional Distribution:
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
One hour between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m.
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant (with Drive-Through Window)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
On a: Weekday, peak hour of adjacent street traffic,
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 1 2 3 4 5
T
=
T
r
i
p
E
n
d
s
X = 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
x Study Site Average Rate
Apx-20 144
In Out Total
1 Redondo Beach 3801 Inglewood Ave, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 2.800 94 89 183 65.36
2 Long Beach 6391 E Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, CA 90803 3.600 69 73 142 39.44
3 Los Angeles 9149 S Sepulveda Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90045 3.800 127 111 238 62.63
4 Millbrae 11 Rollins Rd, Millbrae, CA 94030 3.750 128 107 235 62.67
5 Redwood City 949 Veterans Blvd, Redwood City, CA 94063 3.750 66 75 141 37.60
6 Rocklin 5490 Crossings Dr, Rocklin, CA 95677 3.750 84 75 159 42.40
7 Vacaville 170 Nut Tree Pkwy, Vacaville, CA 95687 3.750 87 65 152 40.53
8 Fairfield 1364 Holiday Ln, Fairfield, CA 94534 3.750 75 57 132 35.20
9 Mountain View 1159 N Rengstorff Ave, Mountain View, CA 94043 3.100 110 113 223 71.94
10 Mountain View 53 W El Camino Real, Mountain View, CA 94040 2.970 141 138 279 93.94
11 Union City 32060 Union Landing Blvd, Union City, CA 94587 3.160 137 133 270 85.44
12 Rancho San Margarita 30121 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 3.665 137 133 270 73.67
13 San Diego 10880 Carmel Mtn Rd, San Diego, CA 92128 2.912 98 92 190 65.25
14 San Diego 4375 Kearny Mesa Road, San Diego, CA 92111 3.180 87 100 187 58.81
15 Oceanside 936 North Coast Highway, Oceanside, CA 92054 3.665 98 100 198 54.02
51.602 1,538 1,461 2,999 888.90
3.440 103 97 200 59.26Average
Total
Weekday, peak hour of adjacent street traffic,
Rate
(Trips/TSF)
Weekday PM
One hour between 4 and 6 p.m.
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant (with Drive-Through Window)
1,000
SF GFAFull AddressLocationID
Ganddini Group, Inc.
February 2024
Apx-21 145
15
3.440
52% entering, 48% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
Data Plot & Equation
Trip generation data for each site is provided on the attached count sheets.
Ganddini Group, Inc. (February 2024)
Weekday, peak hour of adjacent street traffic,
1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant (with Drive-Through Window)
On a:
Vehicle Trip Ends vs:
17.2435.2 - 93.9459.26
General Urban/Suburban
One hour between 4 and 6 p.m.
Setting/Location:
Number of Studies:
1000 Sq. Ft. GFA (Average):
Directional Distribution:
Standard DeviationRange of RatesAverage Rate
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 1 2 3 4 5
T
=
T
r
i
p
E
n
d
s
X = 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
x Study Site Average Rate
Apx-22 146
Total
1 Redondo Beach 3801 Inglewood Ave, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 2.800 --
2 Long Beach 6391 E Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, CA 90803 3.600 --
3 Los Angeles 9149 S Sepulveda Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90045 3.800 --
4 Millbrae 11 Rollins Rd, Millbrae, CA 94030 3.750 5,137 1369.87
5 Redwood City 949 Veterans Blvd, Redwood City, CA 94063 3.750 2,225 593.33
6 Rocklin 5490 Crossings Dr, Rocklin, CA 95677 3.750 1,720 458.67
7 Vacaville 170 Nut Tree Pkwy, Vacaville, CA 95687 3.750 1,879 501.07
8 Fairfield 1364 Holiday Ln, Fairfield, CA 94534 3.750 1,662 443.20
9 Mountain View 1159 N Rengstorff Ave, Mountain View, CA 94043 3.100 2,535 817.74
10 Mountain View 53 W El Camino Real, Mountain View, CA 94040 2.970 2,962 997.31
11 Union City 32060 Union Landing Blvd, Union City, CA 94587 3.160 3,153 997.78
12 Rancho San Margarita 30121 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 3.665 2,864 781.45
13 San Diego 10880 Carmel Mtn Rd, San Diego, CA 92128 2.912 2,376 815.93
14 San Diego 4375 Kearny Mesa Road, San Diego, CA 92111 3.180 2,485 781.45
15 Oceanside 936 North Coast Highway, Oceanside, CA 92054 3.665 2,825 770.80
41.402 31,823 9328.60
3.450 2,652 777.38
Total
Average
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant (with Drive-Through Window)
Weekday
ID Location Full Address
1,000
SF GFA
Weekday Rate
(Trips/TSF)
Ganddini Group, Inc.
February 2024
Apx-23 147
15
3.450
50% entering, 50% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
Data Plot & Equation
Trip generation data for each site is provided on the attached count sheets.
Ganddini Group, Inc. (February 2024)
777.38 443.2 - 1369.87 254.08
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies:
1000 Sq. Ft. GFA (Average):
Directional Distribution:
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant (with Drive-Through Window)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
On a: Weekday
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
0 1 2 3 4 5
T
=
T
r
i
p
E
n
d
s
X = 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
x Study Site Average Rate
Apx-24 148
Redondo Beach
(3801 Inglewood Ave, Redondo Beach, CA 90278)
Apx-25 149
Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Prepared by: Field Data Services of Arizona, Inc.
Wednesday, May16th 2012 CITY: Redondo Beach PROJECT: IN N OUT
AM Period IN OUT MAXIMUM QUEUE PM Period IN OUT
00:00 12:00 32 24 23
00:15 12:15 42 42 26
00:30 12:30 36 29 11
00:45 12:45 27 137 38 133 11
01:00 13:00 31 26 17
01:15 13:15 28 23 16
01:30 13:30 32 31 11
01:45 13:45 X91 X80 9
02:00 14:00 10
02:15 14:15 8
02:30 14:30 15
02:45 14:45 13
03:00 15:00 10
03:15 15:15 12
03:30 15:30 14
03:45 15:45 13
04:00 16:00 17 16 16
04:15 16:15 18 19 19
04:30 16:30 29 24 17
04:45 16:45 18 82 23 82 18
05:00 17:00 28 23 22
05:15 17:15 19 19 24
05:30 17:30 24 21 23
05:45 17:45 28 99 21 84 16
06:00 18:00 13 26 18
06:15 18:15 X X 23
06:30 18:30 X X 25
06:45 18:45 X13 X26 26
07:00 19:00 23
07:15 19:15 27
07:30 19:30 19
07:45 19:45 21
08:00 20:00 23
08:15 20:15 22
08:30 20:30 18
08:45 20:45 28
09:00 21:00 27
09:15 21:15 16
09:30 21:30 17
09:45 21:45 16
10:00 4 22:00 15
10:15 8 22:15 18
10:30 6 22:30 19
10:45 6 22:45 16
11:00 1123:00 15
11:15 2123:15 13
11:30 24 34 23 23:30 12
11:45 25 49 37 71 21 23:45 11
Total Vol.49 71 422 405
471
476
PACIFIC TRAFFIC & TRANSIT DATA SERVICES
Daily Total
IN
OUT
MAXIMUM QUEUE
Apx-26 150
Long Beach
(6391 E Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, CA 90803)
Apx-27 151
Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Prepared by: Field Data Services of Arizona, Inc.
CITY: Long Beach PROJECT:
AM Period IN OUT MAXIMUM QUEUE PM Period IN OUT MAXIMUM QUEUE
00:00 12:00 31 25 15
00:15 12:15 30 15 15
00:30 12:30 52 50 13
00:45 12:45 25 138 29 119 8
01:00 13:00 29 29 12
01:15 13:15 32 27 13
01:30 13:30 18 23 8
01:45 13:45 X 79 X 79 7
02:00 14:00 8
02:15 14:15 7
02:30 14:30 8
02:45 14:45 6
03:00 15:00 6
03:15 15:15 5
03:30 15:30 4
03:45 15:45 5
04:00 16:00 16 19 6
04:15 16:15 12 17 5
04:30 16:30 14 14 3
04:45 16:45 16 58 10 60 6
05:00 17:00 19 14 5
05:15 17:15 20 19 7
05:30 17:30 19 19 7
05:45 17:45 11 69 21 73 5
06:00 18:00 17 20 12
06:15 18:15 X X 7
06:30 18:30 X X 10
06:45 18:45 X 17 X 20 12
07:00 19:00 10
07:15 19:15 11
07:30 19:30 7
07:45 19:45 6
08:00 20:00 8
08:15 20:15 6
08:30 20:30 9
08:45 20:45 10
09:00 21:00 12
09:15 21:15 16
09:30 21:30 14
09:45 21:45 15
10:00 22:00 14
10:15 5 22:15 13
10:30 8 22:30 12
10:45 7 22:45 12
11:00 3 23:00 11
11:15 6 23:15 13
11:30 19 25 7 23:30 9
11:45 21 40 27 52 14 23:45 8
Total Vol.40 52 361 351
401
361
PACIFIC TRAFFIC & TRANSIT DATA SERVICES
OUT
Wednesday, May 16,2012 In N Out Burger
Daily Total
IN
Apx-28 152
Los Angeles
(9149 S Sepulveda Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90045)
Apx-29 153
05.16.2012
CITY: Los Angeles PROJECT:
AM Period IN OUT MAXIMUM QUEUE PM Period IN OUT MAXIMUM QUEUE
00:00 12:00 39 35 20
00:15 12:15 48 36 18
00:30 12:30 52 37 21
00:45 12:45 57 196 41 149 19
01:00 13:00 39 45 22
01:15 13:15 36 46 21
01:30 13:30 35 41 20
01:45 13:45 X 110 X 132 20
02:00 14:00 21
02:15 14:15 21
02:30 14:30 22
02:45 14:45 21
03:00 15:00 18
03:15 15:15 17
03:30 15:30 16
03:45 15:45 18
04:00 16:00 31 24 17
04:15 16:15 18 18 15
04:30 16:30 27 28 12
04:45 16:45 33 109 22 92 10
05:00 17:00 34 30 9
05:15 17:15 25 33 14
05:30 17:30 36 23 17
05:45 17:45 32 127 25 111 19
06:00 18:00 30 36 20
06:15 18:15 19
06:30 18:30 20
06:45 18:45 18
07:00 19:00 17
07:15 19:15 18
07:30 19:30 19
07:45 19:45 20
08:00 20:00 21
08:15 20:15 19
08:30 20:30 19
08:45 20:45 20
09:00 21:00 18
09:15 21:15 19
09:30 21:30 20
09:45 21:45 19
10:00 022:00 21
10:15 222:15 17
10:30 522:30 16
10:45 622:45 14
11:00 623:00 16
11:15 1223:15 17
11:30 28 32 16 23:30 15
11:45 31 59 29 61 120 19 23:45 13
Total Vol.59 61 542 484
IN OUT
601 545
PACIFIC TRAFFIC & TRANSIT DATA SERVICES
Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 In-N-Out Burger
Daily Totals
Page 1
Apx-30 154
Millbrae
(11 Rollins Rd, Millbrae, CA 94030)
Apx-31 155
Apx-32
15
6
Redwood City
(949 Veterans Blvd, Redwood City, CA 94063)
Apx-33 157
Apx-34
15
8
Rocklin
(5490 Crossings Dr, Rocklin, CA 95677)
Apx-35 159
Apx-36
16
0
Vacaville
(170 Nut Tree Pkwy, Vacaville, CA 95687)
Apx-37 161
Apx-38
16
2
Fairfield
(1364 Holiday Ln, Fairfield, CA 94534)
Apx-39 163
Apx-40
16
4
Mountain View & Union City
(1159 N Rengstorff Ave, Mountain View, CA 94043,
(53 W El Camino Real, Mountain View, CA 94040,
(32060 Union Landing Blvd, Union City, CA 94587)
Apx-41 165
Locations: 17‐7657 Day:Thursday
City:Mountain View & Union City,CA Date:9/14/2017
Reg HC Sub Total Reg HC Reserved Sub Total Reg HC Sub Total
Spaces 63 4 67 44 4 4 52 40 2 42 161
4:00 PM 21122261 2293403485
4:30 PM 23225221 3263223485
5:00 PM 22224260 1272312475
5:30 PM 24125280 1292902983
6:00 PM 28129360 2382512693
Site
Time IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT
4:00 PM 4:00 PM 13 15 21 28 27 25
4:15 PM 4:15 PM 19 12 19 20 25 32
4:30 PM 4:30 PM 19 24 23 15 11 22
4:45 PM 4:45 PM 19 19 22 23 23 23
5:00 PM 5:00 PM 14 13 26 19 29 28
5:15 PM 5:15 PM 24 15 28 22 27 21
5:30 PM 5:30 PM 24 21 27 24 23 24
5:45 PM 5:45 PM 23 24 32 24 27 24
6:00 PM Sum 155 143 198 175 192 199
10:30 AM 68 35 78 60 77 68
11:30 AM 154 123 178 157 136 108
12:30 PM 131 159 164 170 154 150
1:30 PM 116 119 113 114 131 132
2:30 PM 67 77 99 112 82 102
3:30 PM 65 67 75 83 118 100
4:30 PM 76 71 99 79 90 94
5:30 PM 109 96 117 114 116 105
6:30 PM 110 113 141 138 137 133
7:30 PM 107 100 108 111 131 130
8:30 PM 76 90 113 125 133 136
9:30 PM 83 81 102 100 110 123
10:30 PM 52 67 59 66 90 102
11:30 PM 35 50 29 35 61 67
12:30 AM 17 21 11 12 11 26
Sum 1266 1269 1486 1476 1577 1576
1 Hour Intervals
Parking Study
Queue Study Driveway In & Outs
123
15 Minute
Intervals Peak
12
17
17
13
2
14
17
16
12
12
617
7
11
13
12
6
7
10
1. 1159 N Rengstorff,Mountain View
Grand TotalTime1. 1159 N Rengstorff,Mountain View 2. 53 El Camino Real, Mountain View 3. 32060 Union Landing, Union City
Time
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
In‐N‐Out Parking & Queues
11
9
3
6
9
8
4
7
Drive‐Thru Max Queue
2. 53 El Camino Real, Mountain View
Drive‐Thru Max Queue
3. 32060 Union Landing, Union City
Drive‐Thru Max Queue
NOTES:
2. 53 El Camino Real,Mountain View
•At 5:30pm an In‐N‐Out employee came out to the drive‐thru to manually take orders ‐didn't appear to have an impact on
the queue wait time or shrinking the line at drive‐thru.
•The drive‐thru can hold 12‐13 cars in queue before extending to the street.
Apx-42
16
6
Rancho Santa Margarita
(30121 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688)
Apx-43 167
CITY: Rancho Santa Margarita PROJECT:
AM Period IN OUT EB WB PM Period IN OUT EB WB
0:00 1 2 0 0 12:00 21 24 0 0
0:15 2 4 0 0 12:15 15 18 0 0
0:30 4 6 0 0 12:30 20 33 0 0
0:45 1 8 4 16 0 0 0 0 24 12:45 24 80 22 97 0 0 0 0 177
1:00 0 1 0 0 13:00 20 25 0 0
1:15 0 0 0 0 13:15 20 29 0 0
1:30 0 1 0 0 13:30 7 21 0 0
1:45 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 4 13:45 17 64 26 101 0 0 0 0 165
2:00 0 0 0 0 14:00 15 15 0 0
2:15 0 0 0 0 14:15 11 20 0 0
2:30 0 0 0 0 14:30 17 21 0 0
2:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:45 12 55 20 76 0 0 0 0 131
3:00 0 0 0 0 15:00 10 18 0 0
3:15 0 0 0 0 15:15 14 16 0 0
3:30 0 0 0 0 15:30 13 30 0 0
3:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:45 11 48 23 87 0 0 0 0 135
4:00 0 0 0 0 16:00 24 16 0 0
4:15 0 0 0 0 16:15 18 14 0 0
4:30 0 0 0 0 16:30 21 11 0 0
4:45 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 16:45 14 77 28 69 0 0 0 0 146
5:00 0 0 0 0 17:00 15 33 0 0
5:15 0 0 0 0 17:15 25 15 0 0
5:30 0 0 0 0 17:30 23 34 0 0
5:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:45 23 86 32 114 0 0 0 0 200
6:00 0 0 0 0 18:00 25 29 0 0
6:15 1 0 0 0 18:15 33 31 0 0
6:30 0 0 0 0 18:30 19 26 0 0
6:45 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 18:45 21 98 30 116 0 0 0 0 214
7:00 0 0 0 0 19:00 23 24 0 0
7:15 0 0 0 0 19:15 19 28 0 0
7:30 2 2 0 0 19:30 21 25 0 0
7:45 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 5 19:45 15 78 14 91 0 0 0 0 169
8:00 0 0 0 0 20:00 18 25 0 0
8:15 0 0 0 0 20:15 12 23 0 0
8:30 2 0 0 0 20:30 9 18 0 0
8:45 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 20:45 9 48 34 100 0 0 0 0 148
9:00 0 0 0 0 21:00 15 21 0 0
9:15 1 0 0 0 21:15 12 14 0 0
9:30 0 0 0 0 21:30 11 23 0 0
9:45 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 21:45 8 46 18 76 0 0 0 0 122
10:00 5 1 0 0 22:00 4 14 0 0
10:15 3 9 0 0 22:15 9 14 0 0
10:30 9 4 0 0 22:30 10 11 0 0
10:45 12 29 7 21 0 0 0 0 50 22:45 6 29 15 54 0 0 0 0 83
11:00 18 12 0 0 23:00 4 12 0 0
11:15 12 20 0 0 23:15 4 11 0 0
11:30 24 27 0 0 23:30 1 6 0 0
11:45 23 77 25 84 0 0 0 0 161 23:45 5 14 10 39 0 0 0 0 53
Total Vol.127 130 257 723 1020 1743
NB SB EB WB Combined
850 1150 2000
Split %49.4% 50.6%12.9%41.5% 58.5%87.2%
Peak Hour 11:30 11:45 11:45 17:30 17:30 17:30
Volume 83 100 179 104 126 230P.H.F.0.86 0.76 0.84 0.96 0.93 0.90
Thursday, May 09, 2019 SC
ADT1 Driveway 1 north of Santa Margarita.Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888
Daily Totals
AM PM
cs@aimtd.com Tell. 714 253 7888
CITY: Rancho Santa Margarita PROJECT:
AM Period IN OUT EB WB PM Period IN OUT EB WB
0:00 7 4 0 0 12:00 16 2 0 0
0:15 5 2 0 0 12:15 15 7 0 0
0:30 1 2 0 0 12:30 8 5 0 0
0:45 1 14 4 12 0 0 0 0 26 12:45 20 59 10 24 0 0 0 0 83
1:00 0 0 0 0 13:00 12 7 0 0
1:15 0 1 0 0 13:15 7 5 0 0
1:30 0 0 0 0 13:30 9 6 0 0
1:45 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 13:45 7 35 2 20 0 0 0 0 55
2:00 0 0 0 0 14:00 8 8 0 0
2:15 0 0 0 0 14:15 12 4 0 0
2:30 0 0 0 0 14:30 9 9 0 0
2:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:45 7 36 6 27 0 0 0 0 63
3:00 0 0 0 0 15:00 23 4 0 0
3:15 0 0 0 0 15:15 18 7 0 0
3:30 0 0 0 0 15:30 12 7 0 0
3:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:45 4 57 5 23 0 0 0 0 80
4:00 0 0 0 0 16:00 13 4 0 0
4:15 0 0 0 0 16:15 8 4 0 0
4:30 0 0 0 0 16:30 16 5 0 0
4:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:45 13 50 4 17 0 0 0 0 67
5:00 0 0 0 0 17:00 20 7 0 0
5:15 0 0 0 0 17:15 7 6 0 0
5:30 0 0 0 0 17:30 11 5 0 0
5:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:45 13 51 1 19 0 0 0 0 70
6:00 0 0 0 0 18:00 12 9 0 0
6:15 0 0 0 0 18:15 15 3 0 0
6:30 0 1 0 0 18:30 5 4 0 0
6:45 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 18:45 15 47 5 21 0 0 0 0 68
7:00 0 0 0 0 19:00 14 7 0 0
7:15 0 0 0 0 19:15 7 1 0 0
7:30 0 0 0 0 19:30 6 3 0 0
7:45 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 19:45 7 34 9 20 0 0 0 0 54
8:00 0 0 0 0 20:00 17 5 0 0
8:15 0 0 0 0 20:15 11 3 0 0
8:30 0 0 0 0 20:30 7 7 0 0
8:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20:45 13 48 4 19 0 0 0 0 67
9:00 0 0 0 0 21:00 36 6 0 0
9:15 0 0 0 0 21:15 10 5 0 0
9:30 0 0 0 0 21:30 4 4 0 0
9:45 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 21:45 11 61 11 26 0 0 0 0 87
10:00 4 1 0 0 22:00 3 4 0 0
10:15 3 1 0 0 22:15 6 9 0 0
10:30 2 2 0 0 22:30 4 3 0 0
10:45 6 15 3 7 0 0 0 0 22 22:45 4 17 0 16 0 0 0 0 33
11:00 6 3 0 0 23:00 10 5 0 0
11:15 12 2 0 0 23:15 5 5 0 0
11:30 8 3 0 0 23:30 1 1 0 0
11:45 14 40 6 14 0 0 0 0 54 23:45 1 17 3 14 0 0 0 0 31
Total Vol.71 35 106 512 246 758
NB SB EB WB Combined
583 281 864
Split %67.0% 33.0%12.3%67.5% 32.5%87.7%
Peak Hour 11:30 11:45 11:45 20:15 12:15 20:30
Volume 53 20 73 67 29 88P.H.F.0.83 0.71 0.83 0.85 0.73 0.52
Thursday, May 09, 2019 SC
ADT2 Driveway 2 north of Santa Margarita.Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888
Daily Totals
AM PM
cs@aimtd.com Tell. 714 253 7888
Apx-44
16
8
San Diego 1
(10880 Carmel Mountain Road, San Diego, CA 92128)
Apx-45 169
City:
Location:
Location:
Date:
Count Type:
Entering Exiting Total
0:00 8 10 18
0:15 13 11 24
0:30 7 9 16
0:45 7 9 16
1:00 0 5 5
1:15 1 2 3
1:30 0 0 0
1:45 0 4 4
2:00 0 1 1
2:15 0 4 4
2:30 0 0 0
2:45 0 0 0
3:00 0 0 0
3:15 1 2 3
3:30 0 1 1
3:45 0 1 1
4:00 0 0 0
4:15 1 0 1
4:30 0 0 0
4:45 1 1 2
5:00 1 1 2
5:15 0 0 0
5:30 1 2 3
5:45 0 0 0
6:00 0 0 0
6:15 0 0 0
6:30 1 0 1
6:45 0 0 0
7:00 0 0 0
7:15 1 0 1
7:30 1 1 2
7:45 5 1 6
8:00 0 0 0
8:15 0 0 0
8:30 1 1 2
8:45 2 3 5
9:00 0 0 0
9:15 1 3 4
9:30 1 0 1
9:45 0 1 1
10:00 11 2 13
10:15 6 9 15
10:30 11 11 22
10:45 8 6 14
11:00 21 7 28
11:15 20 12 32
11:30 25 25 50
11:45 33 25 58
12:00 20 28 48
12:15 25 24 49
12:30 33 27 60
12:45 34 32 66
13:00 28 24 52
San Diego
11880 Carmel Mountain Road
TOTAL
Thursday, May 12, 2022
Driveway
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268Apx-46 170
City:
Location:
Location:
Date:
Count Type:
Entering Exiting Total
San Diego
11880 Carmel Mountain Road
TOTAL
Thursday, May 12, 2022
Driveway
13:15 16 24 40
13:30 27 31 58
13:45 25 21 46
14:00 22 15 37
14:15 17 30 47
14:30 22 22 44
14:45 14 17 31
15:00 15 24 39
15:15 22 22 44
15:30 17 16 33
15:45 19 17 36
16:00 22 17 39
16:15 17 14 31
16:30 26 28 54
16:45 24 23 47
17:00 19 20 39
17:15 29 21 50
17:30 28 20 48
17:45 14 18 32
18:00 22 27 49
18:15 24 18 42
18:30 20 24 44
18:45 25 27 52
19:00 17 21 38
19:15 26 21 47
19:30 23 30 53
19:45 24 25 49
20:00 20 24 44
20:15 23 20 43
20:30 25 24 49
20:45 17 31 48
21:00 19 19 38
21:15 24 17 41
21:30 18 22 40
21:45 21 22 43
22:00 19 22 41
22:15 15 19 34
22:30 10 21 31
22:45 10 11 21
23:00 21 10 31
23:15 11 11 22
23:30 10 16 26
23:45 9 12 21
TOTAL 1177 1199 2376
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268Apx-47 171
San Diego 2
(4375 Kearny Mesa Road, San Diego, CA 92111)
Apx-48 172
City:
Location:
Location:
Date:
Count Type:
Entering Exiting Total
0:00 15 8 23
0:15 10 11 21
0:30 8 13 21
0:45 7 12 19
1:00 1 11 12
1:15 0 1 1
1:30 0 1 1
1:45 0 0 0
2:00 0 1 1
2:15 0 6 6
2:30 0 0 0
2:45 0 0 0
3:00 1 0 1
3:15 0 0 0
3:30 0 0 0
3:45 0 0 0
4:00 0 0 0
4:15 1 0 1
4:30 0 1 1
4:45 1 0 1
5:00 1 0 1
5:15 0 0 0
5:30 0 0 0
5:45 0 0 0
6:00 0 0 0
6:15 0 0 0
6:30 1 0 1
6:45 0 0 0
7:00 0 0 0
7:15 1 0 1
7:30 0 0 0
7:45 2 0 2
8:00 0 1 1
8:15 1 0 1
8:30 2 0 2
8:45 1 2 3
9:00 2 3 5
9:15 1 1 2
9:30 2 1 3
9:45 8 4 12
10:00 9 3 12
10:15 12 7 19
10:30 13 11 24
10:45 24 17 41
11:00 19 14 33
11:15 21 18 39
11:30 19 21 40
11:45 19 29 48
12:00 29 23 52
12:15 31 38 69
12:30 23 24 47
12:45 29 28 57
13:00 38 38 76
San Diego
4375 Kearny Mesa Road
TOTAL
Thursday, May 12, 2022
Driveway
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268Apx-49 173
City:
Location:
Location:
Date:
Count Type:
Entering Exiting Total
San Diego
4375 Kearny Mesa Road
TOTAL
Thursday, May 12, 2022
Driveway
13:15 32 28 60
13:30 28 33 61
13:45 23 25 48
14:00 29 22 51
14:15 18 31 49
14:30 18 23 41
14:45 20 26 46
15:00 23 26 49
15:15 19 21 40
15:30 16 23 39
15:45 20 22 42
16:00 17 26 43
16:15 24 22 46
16:30 23 28 51
16:45 23 24 47
17:00 20 21 41
17:15 18 23 41
17:30 18 26 44
17:45 24 20 44
18:00 20 26 46
18:15 23 23 46
18:30 27 22 49
18:45 27 26 53
19:00 20 29 49
19:15 29 23 52
19:30 17 22 39
19:45 13 24 37
20:00 22 21 43
20:15 26 23 49
20:30 19 18 37
20:45 12 16 28
21:00 21 20 41
21:15 18 14 32
21:30 19 18 37
21:45 18 14 32
22:00 15 18 33
22:15 20 19 39
22:30 15 15 30
22:45 21 17 38
23:00 22 0 22
23:15 26 1 27
23:30 23 0 23
23:45 19 1 20
TOTAL 1257 1228 2485
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268Apx-50 174
Oceanside
(936 North Coast Highway, Oceanside, CA 92054)
Apx-51 175
City:
Location:
Location:
Date:
Count Type:
Entering Exiting Total
0:00 17 15 32
0:15 10 11 21
0:30 7 17 24
0:45 8 8 16
1:00 7 11 18
1:15 4 13 17
1:30 1 5 6
1:45 1 2 3
2:00 0 1 1
2:15 1 0 1
2:30 0 5 5
2:45 0 0 0
3:00 0 0 0
3:15 0 0 0
3:30 0 0 0
3:45 0 0 0
4:00 0 0 0
4:15 0 1 1
4:30 1 0 1
4:45 2 0 2
5:00 2 0 2
5:15 1 0 1
5:30 0 0 0
5:45 0 0 0
6:00 3 2 5
6:15 0 0 0
6:30 0 1 1
6:45 1 0 1
7:00 2 2 4
7:15 1 0 1
7:30 0 0 0
7:45 0 2 2
8:00 3 6 9
8:15 0 2 2
8:30 0 2 2
8:45 0 5 5
9:00 1 0 1
9:15 4 1 5
9:30 1 2 3
9:45 1 5 6
10:00 5 2 7
10:15 8 2 10
10:30 16 3 19
10:45 12 5 17
11:00 18 17 35
11:15 22 15 37
11:30 30 16 46
11:45 34 13 47
12:00 23 19 42
12:15 27 39 66
12:30 24 18 42
12:45 32 32 64
13:00 26 25 51
San Diego
936 N Coast Highway
TOTAL
Thursday, May 12, 2022
Driveway
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268Apx-52 176
City:
Location:
Location:
Date:
Count Type:
Entering Exiting Total
San Diego
936 N Coast Highway
TOTAL
Thursday, May 12, 2022
Driveway
13:15 28 27 55
13:30 31 43 74
13:45 32 27 59
14:00 25 20 45
14:15 22 26 48
14:30 28 22 50
14:45 13 22 35
15:00 26 13 39
15:15 14 17 31
15:30 17 25 42
15:45 21 17 38
16:00 21 28 49
16:15 20 32 52
16:30 28 21 49
16:45 22 24 46
17:00 28 23 51
17:15 18 23 41
17:30 17 20 37
17:45 21 24 45
18:00 23 29 52
18:15 32 30 62
18:30 27 32 59
18:45 23 23 46
19:00 30 31 61
19:15 29 37 66
19:30 33 26 59
19:45 26 30 56
20:00 26 29 55
20:15 25 37 62
20:30 34 23 57
20:45 30 24 54
21:00 19 24 43
21:15 23 25 48
21:30 32 42 74
21:45 31 31 62
22:00 23 30 53
22:15 26 20 46
22:30 38 22 60
22:45 26 25 51
23:00 18 20 38
23:15 21 12 33
23:30 15 16 31
23:45 14 16 30
TOTAL 1412 1413 2825
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268Apx-53 177
Attachment B
In-N-Out Drive Through Queue Data
Apx-54 178
02.04.16 Thursday
Time Vehicles
16:00-16:15 5
16:15-16:30 8
16:30-16:45 9
16:45-17:00 16
17:00-17:15 17
17:15-17:30 16
17:30-17:45 8
17:45-18:00 17
02.06.16 Saturday
Time Vehicles
12:00-12:15 13
12:15-12:30 18
12:30-12:45 17
12:45-13:00 18
13:00-13:15 23
13:15-13:30 17
13:30-13:45 15
13:45-14:00 18
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888
cs@aimtd.com
In-N-Out Fairfield
Drive-Through Lane Queue Study
H:\pdata\151372\Count\Drive_Thru\Queue Study.xlsx
N - 7
Apx-55 179
Locations: 17‐7657 Day:Thursday
City:Mountain View & Union City,CA Date:9/14/2017
Reg HC Sub Total Reg HC Reserved Sub Total Reg HC Sub Total
Spaces 63 4 67 44 4 4 52 40 2 42 161
4:00 PM 21122261 2293403485
4:30 PM 23225221 3263223485
5:00 PM 22224260 1272312475
5:30 PM 24125280 1292902983
6:00 PM 28129360 2382512693
Site
Time IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT
4:00 PM 4:00 PM 13 15 21 28 27 25
4:15 PM 4:15 PM 19 12 19 20 25 32
4:30 PM 4:30 PM 19 24 23 15 11 22
4:45 PM 4:45 PM 19 19 22 23 23 23
5:00 PM 5:00 PM 14 13 26 19 29 28
5:15 PM 5:15 PM 24 15 28 22 27 21
5:30 PM 5:30 PM 24 21 27 24 23 24
5:45 PM 5:45 PM 23 24 32 24 27 24
6:00 PM Sum 155 143 198 175 192 199
10:30 AM 68 35 78 60 77 68
11:30 AM 154 123 178 157 136 108
12:30 PM 131 159 164 170 154 150
1:30 PM 116 119 113 114 131 132
2:30 PM 67 77 99 112 82 102
3:30 PM 65 67 75 83 118 100
4:30 PM 76 71 99 79 90 94
5:30 PM 109 96 117 114 116 105
6:30 PM 110 113 141 138 137 133
7:30 PM 107 100 108 111 131 130
8:30 PM 76 90 113 125 133 136
9:30 PM 83 81 102 100 110 123
10:30 PM 52 67 59 66 90 102
11:30 PM 35 50 29 35 61 67
12:30 AM 17 21 11 12 11 26
Sum 1266 1269 1486 1476 1577 1576
1 Hour Intervals
Parking Study
Queue Study Driveway In & Outs
123
15 Minute
Intervals Peak
12
17
17
13
2
14
17
16
12
12
617
7
11
13
12
6
7
10
1. 1159 N Rengstorff,Mountain View
Grand TotalTime1. 1159 N Rengstorff,Mountain View 2. 53 El Camino Real, Mountain View 3. 32060 Union Landing, Union City
Time
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
In‐N‐Out Parking & Queues
11
9
3
6
9
8
4
7
Drive‐Thru Max Queue
2. 53 El Camino Real, Mountain View
Drive‐Thru Max Queue
3. 32060 Union Landing, Union City
Drive‐Thru Max Queue
NOTES:
2. 53 El Camino Real,Mountain View
•At 5:30pm an In‐N‐Out employee came out to the drive‐thru to manually take orders ‐didn't appear to have an impact on
the queue wait time or shrinking the line at drive‐thru.
•The drive‐thru can hold 12‐13 cars in queue before extending to the street.
Apx-56
18
0
Locations: 17‐7657 Day:Saturday
City:Mountain View & Union City,CA Date:9/16/2017
Reg HC Sub Total Reg HC Reserved NP Sub Total Reg HC Sub Total
Spaces 63 4 67 44 4 4 0 52 40 2 42 161
12:00 PM 44 1 45 39 1 3 0 43 38 2 40 128
12:30 PM 50 2 52 42 0 4 0 46 36 2 38 136
1:00 PM 45 3 48 41 2 3 1 47 39 1 40 135
1:30 PM 63 3 66 39 2 1 0 42 40 2 42 150
2:00 PM 53 1 54 38 1 0 0 39 36 1 37 130
Site
Time IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT
12:00 PM 12:00 PM 38 32 45 47 37 23
12:15 PM 12:15 PM 36 38 41 38 39 43
12:30 PM 12:30 PM 40 27 38 39 34 36
12:45 PM 12:45 PM 39 42 47 45 34 40
1:00 PM 1:00 PM 39 40 35 37 38 27
1:15 PM 1:15 PM 38 29 42 48 44 39
1:30 PM 1:30 PM 41 42 28 27 42 43
1:45 PM 1:45 PM 29 37 43 45 33 37
2:00 PM Sum 300 287 319 326 301 288
Queue Study
123
Driveway In & Outs
Time 1. 1159 N Rengstorff,Mountain View 2. 53 El Camino Real, Mountain View 3. 32060 Union Landing, Union City
Drive‐Thru Max Queue Drive‐Thru Max Queue Drive‐Thru Max Queue
xx14
28 13 20
29 15 25
30 19 11
23 15 14
28 17 17
31 18 12
25 17 13
22 15 14
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
In‐N‐Out Parking & Queues
Time 1. 1159 N Rengstorff,Mountain View 2. 53 El Camino Real, Mountain View 3. 32060 Union Landing, Union City Grand Total
Parking Study
NOTES:
2. 53 El Camino Real,Mountain View
•A In‐N‐Out employee manually taking orders halted the queue several times.
Apx-57
18
1
02.04.16 Thursday
Time Vehicles
16:00-16:15 5
16:15-16:30 8
16:30-16:45 7
16:45-17:00 6
17:00-17:15 8
17:15-17:30 9
17:30-17:45 11
17:45-18:00 12
02.06.16 Saturday
Time Vehicles
12:00-12:15 10
12:15-12:30 13
12:30-12:45 12
12:45-13:00 11
13:00-13:15 12
13:15-13:30 14
13:30-13:45 13
13:45-14:00 12
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888
cs@aimtd.com
In-N-Out Rocklin
Drive-Through Lane Queue Study
H:\pdata\151372\Count\Drive_Thru\Queue Study.xlsx
N - 5
Apx-58 182
Site 4 (Q)
Time Wed 27/May 15 Notes
16:00 17
16:15 16
16:30 16
16:45 16
17:00 16
17:15 16
17:30 17
17:45 17
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 pacific@aimtd.com
In N Out
445 Industrial Road, San Carlos
Queue Study
Apx-59 183
02.04.16 Thursday
Time Vehicles
16:00-16:15 11
16:15-16:30 14
16:30-16:45 16
16:45-17:00 17
17:00-17:15 13
17:15-17:30 11
17:30-17:45 13
17:45-18:00 18
02.06.16 Saturday
Time Vehicles
12:00-12:15 20
12:15-12:30 19
12:30-12:45 15
12:45-13:00 23
13:00-13:15 22
13:15-13:30 28
13:30-13:45 27
13:45-14:00 29
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888
cs@aimtd.com
In-N-Out Vacaville
Drive-Through Lane Queue Study
H:\pdata\151372\Count\Drive_Thru\Queue Study.xlsx
N - 6
Apx-60 184
APPENDIX C
VOLUME COUNT DATA SHEETS
Apx-61 185
APPENDIX C
VOLUME COUNT DATA SHEETS
Apx-62 186
DATE:LOCATION:PROJECT #:SC4541Thu, Apr 11, 24 NORTH & SOUTH:LOCATION #:1 EAST & WEST:CONTROL:SIGNAL
NOTES:AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTALLANES:0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1.5 0.5 1 2.5 0.5
11:30 AM 34 0 4 4 0 8 12 145 34 12 123 3 37911:45 AM 36 4 7 1 1 16 14 132 33 15 146 13 418
12:00 PM 31 1 6 7 2 34 20 140 34 21 113 8 417
12:15 PM 28 3 4 5 0 19 13 145 34 18 143 7 419
12:30 PM 30 3 4 6 5 9 19 142 25 19 97 9 368
12:45 PM 24 0 1 7 3 19 25 131 24 8 148 17 407
1:00 PM 29 0 5 2 4 15 21 122 28 19 124 9 3781:15 PM 29 1 5 2 1 14 19 181 33 12 158 9 464VOLUMES241123634161341431,138 245 124 1,052 75 3,272
APPROACH %83%4%12%18%9%73%9%74%16%10%83%6%
APP/DEPART 289 /230 184 /385 1,534 /1,222 1,265 /1,435 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 129 8 21 17 3 77 59 562 135 66 525 31 1,644
APPROACH %82%5%13%18%3%79%8%74%18%10%83%5%PEAK HR FACTOR 0.840 0.564 0.973 0.885 0.972
APP/DEPART 158 /98 97 /204 759 /608 630 /734 0
4:00 PM 27 3 3 6 1 31 19 204 31 15 190 17 547
4:15 PM 30 2 6 8 1 26 25 184 42 25 159 12 520
4:30 PM 38 0 5 14 5 16 19 195 60 26 173 8 559
4:45 PM 42 1 3 15 0 24 26 200 41 21 188 8 5695:00 PM 38 1 6 13 2 10 20 196 36 20 199 13 554
5:15 PM 23 5 5 10 0 21 31 214 40 20 193 18 580
5:30 PM 32 3 5 12 1 38 19 222 36 23 200 13 604
5:45 PM 28 5 3 10 1 17 20 204 29 13 189 12 531
VOLUMES 258 20 36 88 11 183 179 1,619 315 163 1,491 101 4,491
APPROACH %82%6%11%31%4%65%8%77%15%9%84%6%APP/DEPART 314 /300 282 /489 2,116 /1,767 1,779 /1,935 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 135 10 19 50 3 93 96 832 153 84 780 52 2,327
APPROACH %82%6%12%34%2%64%9%77%14%9%84%6%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.891 0.716 0.950 0.973 0.954
APP/DEPART 164 /158 146 /240 1,083 /919 934 /1,010 0
Antoinette Ln
NORTH LEG
Chestnut Ave WEST LEG EAST LEG Chestnut Ave
SOUTH LEG
Antoinette Ln
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
San Francisco
Antoinette Ln
Chestnut Ave
Antoinette Ln Antoinette Ln Chestnut Ave Chestnut Ave
MD
11:30 AM
PM
4:45 PM
Apx-63 187
DATE:LOCATION:PROJECT #:SC4541Thu, Apr 11, 24 NORTH & SOUTH:LOCATION #:2 EAST & WEST:CONTROL:SIGNAL
NOTES:AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTALLANES:2 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 1
11:30 AM 113 115 70 43 156 26 30 77 58 47 88 29 85211:45 AM 90 111 51 34 105 32 46 94 60 68 104 26 821
12:00 PM 112 134 69 45 122 27 26 86 70 58 90 31 870
12:15 PM 87 116 60 40 138 22 34 91 54 60 92 37 831
12:30 PM 96 180 64 37 157 30 31 87 69 43 65 25 884
12:45 PM 76 110 53 42 135 20 24 84 79 59 91 40 813
1:00 PM 95 139 58 26 140 30 38 87 66 51 90 27 8471:15 PM 83 117 68 42 129 26 34 123 78 51 116 34 901VOLUMES7521,022 493 309 1,082 213 263 729 534 437 736 249 6,963
APPROACH %32%43%21%19%66%13%17%47%34%31%51%17%
APP/DEPART 2,355 /1,559 1,629 /2,141 1,549 /1,539 1,430 /1,724 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 350 546 243 147 561 106 127 381 292 204 362 126 3,512
APPROACH %30%46%21%18%68%13%16%47%36%29%52%18%PEAK HR FACTOR 0.847 0.906 0.855 0.866 0.963
APP/DEPART 1,179 /811 826 /1,097 811 /775 696 /829 0
4:00 PM 93 140 69 50 147 32 38 135 80 77 123 48 1,032
4:15 PM 111 156 79 43 131 45 41 128 95 58 112 41 1,040
4:30 PM 124 147 72 48 179 39 39 154 95 52 146 29 1,124
4:45 PM 130 196 80 34 148 36 32 153 111 73 149 32 1,1745:00 PM 119 199 79 42 159 46 36 128 70 71 148 25 1,122
5:15 PM 133 169 101 43 143 34 41 142 86 69 129 36 1,126
5:30 PM 130 204 95 47 175 31 32 137 79 81 147 44 1,202
5:45 PM 136 190 71 47 127 25 36 135 84 69 145 20 1,085
VOLUMES 976 1,401 646 354 1,209 288 295 1,112 700 550 1,099 275 9,029
APPROACH %31%45%21%19%65%15%14%52%33%28%57%14%APP/DEPART 3,103 /1,990 1,870 /2,539 2,124 /2,120 1,932 /2,380 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 512 768 355 166 625 147 141 560 346 294 573 137 4,694
APPROACH %30%46%21%17%66%15%13%53%33%29%57%14%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.957 0.934 0.891 0.928 0.965
APP/DEPART 1,680 /1,057 949 /1,310 1,055 /1,087 1,010 /1,240 0
El Camino Real
NORTH LEG
Westborough Blvd WEST LEG EAST LEG Chestnut Ave
SOUTH LEG
El Camino Real
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
San Francisco
El Camino Real
Westborough Blvd
El Camino Real El Camino Real Westborough Blvd Chestnut Ave
MD
12:30 PM
PM
4:45 PM
Apx-64 188
DATE:LOCATION:PROJECT #:SC4541Thu, Apr 11, 24 NORTH & SOUTH:LOCATION #:3
EAST & WEST:CONTROL:STOP E/W
NOTES:AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES:1 3 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
11:30 AM 4 272 1 2 243 5 3 0 1 0 0 0 531
11:45 AM 3 254 1 2 220 6 3 0 4 0 0 1 494
12:00 PM 4 277 2 0 220 6 2 0 7 0 0 0 51812:15 PM 2 299 6 0 250 3 2 0 1 1 0 3 567
12:30 PM 1 296 4 0 246 7 1 0 2 1 0 3 561
12:45 PM 0 263 3 0 269 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 541
1:00 PM 1 256 0 1 232 6 3 0 2 0 0 0 501
1:15 PM 5 297 2 0 251 2 0 0 1 1 0 2 561VOLUMES202,214 19 5 1,931 38 14 0 20 4 0 9 4,437
APPROACH %1%97%1%0%92%2%41%0%59%31%0%69%
APP/DEPART 2,292 /2,361 2,098 /1,994 34 /24 13 /58 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 7 1,135 15 0 985 19 5 0 12 3 0 6 2,271APPROACH %1%96%1%0%92%2%29%0%71%33%0%67%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.952 0.930 0.472 0.563 0.972
APP/DEPART 1,177 /1,210 1,068 /1,020 17 /15 9 /26 0
4:00 PM 0 315 1 1 284 7 1 0 3 0 0 5 617
4:15 PM 3 311 0 3 258 6 2 0 3 1 0 3 5904:30 PM 1 359 3 3 313 2 0 0 3 0 0 6 690
4:45 PM 6 392 5 4 301 0 2 0 5 0 0 3 718
5:00 PM 8 397 1 1 288 1 0 0 4 1 0 1 702
5:15 PM 7 394 3 2 277 2 0 0 2 0 0 4 691
5:30 PM 6 391 2 1 317 8 3 0 1 0 0 2 7315:45 PM 7 405 1 2 269 3 1 0 2 0 0 2 692
VOLUMES 38 2,964 16 17 2,307 29 9 0 23 2 0 26 5,576
APPROACH %1%98%1%1%93%1%28%0%72%7%0%93%
APP/DEPART 3,039 /3,123 2,477 /2,353 32 /33 28 /67 0
BEGIN PEAK HRVOLUMES 27 1,574 11 8 1,183 11 5 0 12 1 0 10 2,930
APPROACH %2%97%1%1%92%1%29%0%71%9%0%91%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.990 0.929 0.607 0.688 0.977
APP/DEPART 1,620 /1,669 1,282 /1,204 17 /19 11 /38 0
El Camino Real
NORTH LEG
Southwood Dr WEST LEG EAST LEG 1st St
SOUTH LEG
El Camino Real
12:00 PM
4:45 PM
El Camino Real El Camino Real Southwood Dr 1st St
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
San Francisco
El Camino Real
Southwood Dr
Apx-65 189
DATE:LOCATION:PROJECT #:SC4541Thu, Apr 11, 24 NORTH & SOUTH:LOCATION #:4 EAST & WEST:CONTROL:SIGNAL
NOTES:AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►
OTHER S
OTHER ▼
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTALLANES:1 3 0 1 3 0 0 1 1 0 1 1
11:30 AM 1 214 14 27 209 6 16 5 6 27 9 42 57611:45 AM 2 207 23 16 189 14 18 13 5 22 5 27 541
12:00 PM 0 228 26 22 188 7 16 12 4 34 6 56 599
12:15 PM 2 266 24 24 212 11 15 11 8 18 6 33 630
12:30 PM 2 218 24 35 202 11 24 11 12 34 7 38 618
12:45 PM 1 221 27 30 232 7 13 11 12 29 7 35 625
1:00 PM 1 204 22 24 212 11 19 10 6 33 4 36 5821:15 PM 0 246 28 35 198 13 24 15 3 22 10 29 623VOLUMES91,804 188 213 1,642 80 145 88 56 219 54 296 4,878
APPROACH %0%89%9%11%82%4%50%30%19%38%9%52%
APP/DEPART 2,029 /2,301 1,991 /1,945 289 /489 569 /143 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 5 933 101 111 834 36 68 45 36 115 26 162 2,514
APPROACH %0%89%10%11%82%4%46%30%24%38%9%53%PEAK HR FACTOR 0.888 0.926 0.793 0.789 0.974
APP/DEPART 1,051 /1,193 1,011 /997 149 /257 303 /67 0
4:00 PM 2 267 30 31 238 8 11 10 8 26 8 31 670
4:15 PM 1 263 38 43 210 19 12 13 9 28 9 43 688
4:30 PM 0 269 33 47 238 11 12 11 10 30 13 71 745
4:45 PM 4 324 42 54 250 15 22 12 5 36 16 41 8215:00 PM 4 329 36 53 215 14 22 12 13 39 17 54 808
5:15 PM 3 325 37 37 231 13 16 16 11 32 16 62 799
5:30 PM 2 335 47 48 247 16 20 17 9 40 10 51 842
5:45 PM 5 348 40 50 209 12 8 18 6 39 11 60 806
VOLUMES 21 2,460 303 363 1,838 108 123 109 71 270 100 413 6,239
APPROACH %1%87%11%16%79%5%41%36%23%34%13%53%APP/DEPART 2,823 /3,017 2,330 /2,218 303 /775 783 /229 0
BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 13 1,313 162 192 943 58 80 57 38 147 59 208 3,298
APPROACH %1%87%11%16%78%5%46%33%22%36%14%50%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.967 0.938 0.931 0.941 0.968
APP/DEPART 1,505 /1,612 1,204 /1,145 175 /411 414 /130 0
El Camino Real
NORTH LEG
W Orange Ave WEST LEG EAST LEG W Orange Ave
SOUTH LEG
El Camino Real
MD
12:00 PM
PM
4:45 PM
El Camino Real El Camino Real W Orange Ave W Orange Ave
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
San Francisco
El Camino Real
W Orange Ave
Apx-66 190
APPENDIX D
LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS
Apx-67 191
EXISTING
Apx-68 192
Intersection Analysis Summary
12/12/2024Report File: E:\...\MD E.pdf
Scenario 1 ExistingVistro File: E:\...\MD.vistro
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For
all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
D47.26.593WB LeftHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedEl Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)
at Orange Ave (EW)4
F57.20.042WB LeftHCM 7th
EditionTwo-way stopEl Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)
at Southwood Dr (EW)3
D36.50.494EB LeftHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedEl Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)
at Westborough Blvd (EW)2
C27.20.367WB LeftHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedAntoinette Ln (NS) at
Chestnut Ave (EW)1
LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㘹 193
0.367Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
27.2Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
Intersection 1: Antoinette Ln (NS) at Chestnut Ave (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesYesCrosswalk
NoNoNoNoCurb Present
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft]
00000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
100.0100.0100.0177.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft]
00010001000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Chestnut AveChestnut AveAntoinette LnAntoinette LnName
Intersection Setup
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㜰 194
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi
0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m
0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
00000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
00000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
3254068813957861379317228133Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
81351723514515120145233Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.9720.9720.9721.0000.9720.9720.9721.0000.97200.97200.97200.97200.97200.9720Peak Hour Factor
3152566813556259377317218129Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor
0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
3152566813556259377317218129Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Chestnut AveChestnut AveAntoinette LnAntoinette LnName
Volumes
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㜱 195
0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
NoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall
0.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
NoNoNoNoRest In Walk
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s]
017000190002900290Pedestrian Clearance [s]
05000500050050Walk [s]
0.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s]
0269002811003800380Split [s]
0.01.01.00.00.01.01.00.00.01.00.00.01.00.0All red [s]
0.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s]
03030003030003000300Maximum Green [s]
010500105001000100Minimum Green [s]
--Lead---Lead-------Lead / Lag
Auxiliary Signal Groups
04700830020060Signal Group
PermiPermiProtePermiPermiPermiProtePermiPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissControl Type
Phasing & Timing
2.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference
0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
75Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㜲 196
130.93125.1474.00257.81270.2161.6334.5359.3795th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
5.245.012.9610.3110.812.471.382.3795th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
72.7469.5241.11155.54164.9134.2419.1932.9950th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
2.912.781.646.226.601.370.771.3250th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
NoNoYesYesNoNoNoYesCritical Lane Group
CCDCCDAALane Group LOS
25.0324.6546.1032.4432.0544.938.338.84d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.450.440.760.850.850.710.110.19X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.720.3611.164.964.589.820.230.49d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.110.110.110.110.500.50k, delay calibration
24.3124.2934.9427.4927.4735.118.098.36d1, Uniform Delay [s]
43585310040943890922863c, Capacity [veh/h]
18173560178117461870178115751410s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.110.110.040.200.200.040.060.12(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.240.240.060.230.230.050.550.55g / C, Green / Cycle
18184181844141g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
7575757575757575C, Cycle Length [s]
CCLCCLCCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㜳 197
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]8.84 8.84 8.84 8.33 8.33 8.33 44.93 44.93 32.19 32.44 46.10 46.10 24.77 25.03
Movement LOS A A A A A A D D C C D D C C
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]8.84 8.33 33.28 27.28
Approach LOS A A C C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]27.17
Intersection LOS C
Intersection V/C 0.367
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]29.07 29.07 29.07 29.07
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersectio 1.859 1.789 2.989 2.675
Crosswalk LOS A A C B
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000
c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]906 906 640 586
d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]11.23 11.23 17.36 18.75
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.829 1.723 2.154 1.879
Bicycle LOS A A B A
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------876-Ring 2
------------432-Ring 1
Sequence
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㜴 198
0.494Volume to Capacity (v/c):
DLevel Of Service:
36.5Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
Intersection 2: El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Westborough Blvd (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesYesCrosswalk
NoNoNoNoCurb Present
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0035.0035.00Speed [mph]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft]
0000000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
115.0100.0100.0100.0226.0100.0100.0172.0413.0100.0100.0255.0100.0100.0100.0285.0Entry Pocket Length [ft]
1000100110020002No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Chestnut AveWestborough BlvdEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Intersection Setup
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㜵 199
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi
0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m
0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
0000000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
0000000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
1313762124303396132111105831531225256736342Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
3394531769933328146383631429110Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Other Adjustment Factor
0.9630.9630.9630.9630.9630.9630.9630.9630.9630.9630.9630.9630.9630.9630.9630.963Peak Hour Factor
1263622044292381127111065611471224354635040Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
0000000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
0000000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
0000000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
0000000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
0000000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
0000000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
0000000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Growth Factor
0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
1263622044292381127111065611471224354635040Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Chestnut AveWestborough BlvdEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Volumes
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㜶 200
0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall
0.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
NoNoNoNoRest In Walk
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s]
03200032000290003200Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0500050005000500Walk [s]
0.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s]
041130041130038150041180Split [s]
0.01.01.00.00.01.01.00.00.01.01.00.00.01.01.00.0All red [s]
0.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.0Amber [s]
030300030300030300030300Maximum Green [s]
01050010500105001050Minimum Green [s]
--Lead---Lead---Lead---Lead-Lead / Lag
Auxiliary Signal Groups
0470083002500610Signal Group
PermiPermiProtePermiPermiPermiProtePermiPermiPermiProtePermiPermiPermiProtePermiControl Type
Phasing & Timing
2.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference
0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
110Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㜷 201
138.64199.11138.98339.03207.91219.4480.46144.10105.10178.40193.07246.9195th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
5.557.965.5613.568.328.783.225.764.207.147.729.8895th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
77.02112.2477.21217.97118.61127.0244.7080.0658.3999.11107.90147.3650th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
3.084.493.098.724.745.081.793.202.343.964.325.8950th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
NoNoYesYesNoNoNoYesNoNoNoYesCritical Lane Group
DDDDDEBCDBBELane Group LOS
37.6538.3954.3550.4038.4578.9819.7820.5554.4918.1017.5155.44d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.380.490.780.880.510.970.160.270.720.320.320.92X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.700.494.698.760.5228.590.510.304.131.100.508.00d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.110.140.110.110.500.500.110.500.500.11k, delay calibration
36.9437.9049.6741.6537.9350.3919.2720.2650.3617.0017.0147.44d1, Uniform Delay [s]
34276727834677414768221862307791746442c, Capacity [veh/h]
158935603459158935601781158950943459158935603459s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.080.110.060.190.110.080.070.110.050.160.160.12(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.220.220.080.220.220.080.430.430.070.490.490.13g / C, Green / Cycle
242492424947477545414g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
110110110110110110110110110110110110C, Cycle Length [s]
RCLRCLRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㜸 202
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]55.44 55.44 17.51 18.10 54.49 54.49 20.55 19.78 78.98 78.98 38.45 50.40 54.35 54.35 38.39 37.65
Movement LOS E E B B D D C B E E D D D D D D
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]30.18 26.98 49.64 43.02
Approach LOS C C D D
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]36.47
Intersection LOS D
Intersection V/C 0.494
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]46.39 46.39 46.39 46.39
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersectio 3.067 2.977 2.739 2.817
Crosswalk LOS C C B C
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000
c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]672 618 672 672
d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]24.25 26.28 24.25 24.25
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.535 1.947 2.145 1.981
Bicycle LOS B A B A
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------8765Ring 2
------------4321Ring 1
Sequence
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㜹 203
0.042Volume to Capacity (v/c):
FLevel Of Service:
57.2Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
Intersection 3: El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Southwood Dr (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesNoNoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
25.0025.0035.0035.00Speed [mph]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft]
00000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00130.0100.0100.0172.0100.0100.0100.0122.0Entry Pocket Length [ft]
00000010010001No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
1st StSouthwood DrEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Intersection Setup
0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
6031205201013066151168721Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
2013015253016429225Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Other Adjustment Factor
0.97200.97200.97200.97200.97200.97200.9720.9720.9720.9720.9720.9720.9720.972Peak Hour Factor
603120519985064151135720Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Growth Factor
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
603120519985064151135720Base Volume Input [veh/h]
1st StSouthwood DrEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Volumes
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㠰 204
FIntersection LOS
0.81d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
DDAAApproach LOS
29.5825.410.780.28d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
4.564.564.567.147.147.140.000.0010.9410.940.000.004.254.2595th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
0.180.180.180.290.290.290.000.000.440.440.000.000.170.1795th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
CFFCFFAACBAABBMovement LOS
15.76138.1957.2315.02136.1450.350.000.0017.3113.020.000.0014.9311.44d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.020.000.040.030.000.060.000.010.000.130.000.010.020.04V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
0000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
NoNoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
0000Storage Area [veh]
NoNoFlared Lane
StopStopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㠱 205
6.593Volume to Capacity (v/c):
DLevel Of Service:
47.2Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
Intersection 4: El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Orange Ave (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesYesCrosswalk
NoNoNoNoCurb Present
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
25.0025.0035.0035.00Speed [mph]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft]
00000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
206.00100.00100.0085.00100.00100.00100.0100.0100.0218.0180.0100.0100.0108.0Entry Pocket Length [ft]
10010010011001No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Orange AveOrange AveEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Intersection Setup
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㠲 206
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi
0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m
0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
00000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
00000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
166271183746703785611430104958512Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
427309121792142882623913Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Other Adjustment Factor
0.97400.97400.97400.97400.97400.97400.9740.9740.9741.0000.9740.9740.9741.000Peak Hour Factor
162261153645683683411130101933512Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Growth Factor
0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
162261153645683683411130101933512Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Orange AveOrange AveEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Volumes
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㠳 207
0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
NoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall
0.02.00.00.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.00.00.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
NoNoNoNoRest In Walk
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s]
031003300160001400Pedestrian Clearance [s]
05005005000500Walk [s]
0.03.00.00.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s]
0420042002510002490Split [s]
0.01.00.00.01.00.00.01.01.00.00.01.01.00.0All red [s]
0.03.00.00.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.0Amber [s]
03000300030300030300Maximum Green [s]
010001000105001050Minimum Green [s]
--------Lead---Lead-Lead / Lag
Auxiliary Signal Groups
04008002500610Signal Group
PermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermiPermiProtePermiPermiPermiProtePermiControl Type
Phasing & Timing
2.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference
0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
76Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㠴 208
67.31404.1713.73231.8020.80180.57185.2269.58226.4117.9095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
2.6916.170.559.270.837.227.412.789.060.7295th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
37.40224.547.63129.7311.55100.32102.9038.66132.149.9550th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
1.508.980.315.190.464.014.121.555.290.4050th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
NoYesNoNoNoNoYesNoYesNoCritical Lane Group
BFAFBCFCCDLane Group LOS
10.81298.319.82132.2618.0522.0476.5423.3728.4846.65d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.211.480.051.070.070.521.020.250.710.48X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.13264.650.02105.320.271.1741.541.403.199.79d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.500.110.500.500.500.110.500.500.11k, delay calibration
10.6833.669.7926.9417.7820.8735.0021.9725.2936.86d1, Uniform Delay [s]
792987921095151650141421134935c, Capacity [veh/h]
158924158966158950941781158950941781s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.106.150.021.760.020.170.080.070.190.01(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.500.500.500.500.320.320.080.260.260.02g / C, Green / Cycle
383838382525620202g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.002.000.002.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
76767676767676767676C, Cycle Length [s]
RCRCRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㠵 209
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]46.65 46.65 28.48 23.37 76.54 76.54 22.04 18.05 132.26 132.26 9.82 298.31 298.31 10.81
Movement LOS D D C C E E C B F F A F F B
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]28.27 29.47 102.65 144.85
Approach LOS C C F F
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]47.22
Intersection LOS D
Intersection V/C 6.593
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]29.53 29.53 29.53 29.53
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersectio 3.184 3.135 1.993 2.089
Crosswalk LOS C C A B
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000
c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]526 553 1000 1000
d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]20.63 19.90 9.50 9.50
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.146 2.067 1.812 2.073
Bicycle LOS B B A B
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------8-65Ring 2
------------4-21Ring 1
Sequence
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㠶 210
Intersection Analysis Summary
12/12/2024Report File: E:\...\PM E.pdf
Scenario 1 ExistingVistro File: E:\...\PM.vistro
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For
all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
F83.95.672WB LeftHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedEl Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)
at Orange Ave (EW)4
F158.10.042WB LeftHCM 7th
EditionTwo-way stopEl Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)
at Southwood Dr (EW)3
D41.70.620EB LeftHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedEl Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)
at Westborough Blvd (EW)2
C30.30.481EB LeftHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedAntoinette Ln (NS) at
Chestnut Ave (EW)1
LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID
PM Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㠷 211
0.481Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
30.3Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
Intersection 1: Antoinette Ln (NS) at Chestnut Ave (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesYesCrosswalk
NoNoNoNoCurb Present
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft]
00000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
100.0100.0100.0177.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft]
00010001000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Chestnut AveChestnut AveAntoinette LnAntoinette LnName
Intersection Setup
PM Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㠸 212
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi
0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m
0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
00000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
00000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
5581888181608721012973522010142Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
1420422540218251241135335Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.9540.9540.9541.0000.9540.9540.9541.0000.95400.95400.95400.95400.95400.9540Peak Hour Factor
527808418153832962933501910135Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor
0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
527808418153832962933501910135Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Chestnut AveChestnut AveAntoinette LnAntoinette LnName
Volumes
PM Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㠹 213
0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
NoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall
0.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
NoNoNoNoRest In Walk
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s]
017000190002900290Pedestrian Clearance [s]
05000500050050Walk [s]
0.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s]
02610002812003800380Split [s]
0.01.01.00.00.01.01.00.00.01.00.00.01.00.0All red [s]
0.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s]
03030003030003000300Maximum Green [s]
010500105001000100Minimum Green [s]
--Lead---Lead-------Lead / Lag
Auxiliary Signal Groups
04700830020060Signal Group
PermiPermiProtePermiPermiPermiProtePermiPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissControl Type
Phasing & Timing
2.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference
0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
76Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
PM Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㤰 214
190.72184.59100.25392.78406.6497.5371.3283.2995th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
7.637.384.0115.7116.273.902.853.3395th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
106.21102.5555.70260.45271.5254.1839.6246.2750th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
4.254.102.2310.4210.862.171.581.8550th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
NoNoYesYesNoNoNoYesCritical Lane Group
CCDDDDBBLane Group LOS
22.5722.1643.9040.0839.2743.9612.7313.22d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.530.530.780.930.930.780.200.24X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.780.409.4014.4913.719.390.560.78d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.110.240.240.110.500.50k, delay calibration
21.7821.7734.5025.5825.5734.5712.1712.43d1, Uniform Delay [s]
5571095136541572132779721c, Capacity [veh/h]
18103560178117701870178115531378s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.160.160.060.280.280.060.100.12(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.310.310.080.310.310.070.460.46g / C, Green / Cycle
23236232363535g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
7676767676767676C, Cycle Length [s]
CCLCCLCCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
PM Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㤱 215
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]13.22 13.22 13.22 12.73 12.73 12.73 43.96 43.96 39.59 40.08 43.90 43.90 22.28 22.57
Movement LOS B B B B B B D D D D D D C C
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]13.22 12.73 40.05 24.64
Approach LOS B B D C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]30.27
Intersection LOS C
Intersection V/C 0.481
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]29.54 29.54 29.54 29.54
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersectio 1.880 1.837 3.094 2.832
Crosswalk LOS A A C C
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000
c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]895 895 631 579
d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]11.61 11.61 17.80 19.19
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.843 1.810 2.413 2.050
Bicycle LOS A A B B
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------876-Ring 2
------------432-Ring 1
Sequence
PM Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㤲 216
0.620Volume to Capacity (v/c):
DLevel Of Service:
41.7Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
Intersection 2: El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Westborough Blvd (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesYesCrosswalk
NoNoNoNoCurb Present
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0035.0035.00Speed [mph]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft]
0000000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
115.0100.0100.0100.0226.0100.0100.0172.0413.0100.0100.0255.0100.0100.0100.0285.0Entry Pocket Length [ft]
1000100110020002No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Chestnut AveWestborough BlvdEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Intersection Setup
PM Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㤳 217
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi
0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m
0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
0000000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
0000000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
142594305635958014681526481721136879653147Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
3514876290145372381624339219913312Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Other Adjustment Factor
0.9650.9650.9650.9650.9650.9650.9650.9650.9650.9650.9650.9650.9650.9650.9650.965Peak Hour Factor
137573294634656014181476251661135576851245Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
0000000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
0000000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
0000000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
0000000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
0000000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
0000000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
0000000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Growth Factor
0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
137573294634656014181476251661135576851245Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Chestnut AveWestborough BlvdEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Volumes
PM Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㤴 218
0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall
0.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
NoNoNoNoRest In Walk
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s]
03200032000290003200Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0500050005000500Walk [s]
0.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s]
041160041160038120051250Split [s]
0.01.01.00.00.01.01.00.00.01.01.00.00.01.01.00.0All red [s]
0.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.0Amber [s]
030300030300030300030300Maximum Green [s]
01050010500105001050Minimum Green [s]
--Lead---Lead---Lead---Lead-Lead / Lag
Auxiliary Signal Groups
0470083002500610Signal Group
PermiPermiProtePermiPermiPermiProtePermiPermiPermiProtePermiPermiPermiProtePermiControl Type
Phasing & Timing
2.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference
0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
120Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
PM Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㤵 219
157.77315.50217.01442.94308.10220.72151.68208.99129.77311.31318.88355.2995th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
6.3112.628.6817.7212.328.836.078.365.1912.4512.7614.2195th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
87.65199.64125.24300.74193.91127.9684.27119.3972.09196.40202.26230.7350th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
3.517.995.0112.037.765.123.374.782.887.868.099.2350th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
NoNoYesYesNoNoNoYesNoNoNoYesCritical Lane Group
DDEEDECCECCELane Group LOS
37.5841.3561.0959.6741.1064.0830.2530.6260.5726.5824.7758.10d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.360.670.890.900.650.860.280.370.780.520.500.95X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.540.867.7616.090.8110.951.300.625.492.691.129.07d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.110.270.110.110.500.500.110.500.500.11k, delay calibration
37.0440.4953.3343.5840.3053.1328.9530.0055.0823.8923.6449.03d1, Uniform Delay [s]
39889235039889218054017312357111592607c, Capacity [veh/h]
158935603459158935601781158950943459158935603459s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.090.170.090.230.160.090.100.130.050.230.220.17(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.250.250.100.250.250.100.340.340.070.450.450.18g / C, Green / Cycle
30301230301241418545421g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
120120120120120120120120120120120120C, Cycle Length [s]
RCLRCLRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
PM Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㤶 220
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]58.10 58.10 24.77 26.58 60.57 60.57 30.62 30.25 64.08 64.08 41.10 59.67 61.09 61.09 41.35 37.58
Movement LOS E E C C E E C C E E D E E E D D
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]36.21 36.14 50.44 46.71
Approach LOS D D D D
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]41.65
Intersection LOS D
Intersection V/C 0.620
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]51.37 51.37 51.37 51.37
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersectio 3.175 3.035 2.853 2.911
Crosswalk LOS C C C C
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000
c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]783 566 616 616
d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]22.23 30.85 28.73 28.73
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.958 2.006 2.341 2.172
Bicycle LOS C B B B
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------8765Ring 2
------------4321Ring 1
Sequence
PM Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㤷 221
0.042Volume to Capacity (v/c):
FLevel Of Service:
158.1Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
Intersection 3: El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Southwood Dr (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesNoNoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
25.0025.0035.0035.00Speed [mph]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft]
00000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00130.0100.0100.0172.0100.0100.0100.0122.0Entry Pocket Length [ft]
00000010010001No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
1st StSouthwood DrEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Intersection Setup
0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
10011205111211882111611288Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
3003013303220340372Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Other Adjustment Factor
0.97700.97700.97700.97700.97700.97700.9770.9770.9770.9770.9770.9770.9770.977Peak Hour Factor
10011205111183880111574278Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Growth Factor
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
10011205111183880111574278Base Volume Input [veh/h]
1st StSouthwood DrEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Volumes
PM Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㤸 222
FIntersection LOS
1.24d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
DFAAApproach LOS
32.6951.071.440.37d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
6.256.256.2515.4015.4015.400.000.0028.9128.910.000.008.998.9995th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
0.250.250.250.620.620.620.000.001.161.160.000.000.360.3695th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
CFFCFFAADCAACBMovement LOS
20.16485.66158.0522.65487.62119.280.000.0028.1120.300.000.0018.0913.60d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.040.000.040.030.000.150.000.010.040.250.000.020.090.02V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
0000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
NoNoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
0000Storage Area [veh]
NoNoFlared Lane
StopStopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
PM Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
䅰砭㤹 223
5.672Volume to Capacity (v/c):
FLevel Of Service:
83.9Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
Intersection 4: El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Orange Ave (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesYesCrosswalk
NoNoNoNoCurb Present
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
25.0025.0035.0035.00Speed [mph]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft]
00000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
206.00100.00100.0085.00100.00100.00100.0100.0100.0218.0180.0100.0100.0108.0Entry Pocket Length [ft]
10010010011001No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Orange AveOrange AveEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Intersection Setup
PM Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
224
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi
0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m
0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
00000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
00000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
21561152395983609741981116713561317Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
541538101521152445034233934Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Other Adjustment Factor
0.96800.96800.96800.96800.96800.96800.9680.9680.9681.0000.9680.9680.9681.000Peak Hour Factor
20859147385780589431921116213131317Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Growth Factor
0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
20859147385780589431921116213131317Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Orange AveOrange AveEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Volumes
PM Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
225
0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
NoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall
0.02.00.00.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.00.00.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
NoNoNoNoRest In Walk
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s]
031003300160001400Pedestrian Clearance [s]
05005005000500Walk [s]
0.03.00.00.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s]
04200420025120025120Split [s]
0.01.00.00.01.00.00.01.01.00.00.01.01.00.0All red [s]
0.03.00.00.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.0Amber [s]
03000300030300030300Maximum Green [s]
010001000105001050Minimum Green [s]
--------Lead---Lead-Lead / Lag
Auxiliary Signal Groups
04008002500610Signal Group
PermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermiPermiProtePermiPermiPermiProtePermiControl Type
Phasing & Timing
2.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference
0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
79Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
PM Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
226
99.91771.6816.02359.1634.86209.79318.54123.28406.1430.6795th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
4.0030.870.6414.371.398.3912.744.9316.251.2395th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
55.50428.718.90199.5419.37119.97189.3768.49271.1217.0450th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
2.2217.150.367.980.774.807.572.7410.840.6850th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
NoYesNoNoNoNoYesNoYesNoCritical Lane Group
BFBFBCFCDDLane Group LOS
12.62593.4311.04227.9718.3522.68120.1226.3251.3746.17d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.282.180.051.330.110.561.160.390.990.55X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.20561.190.03200.180.421.3484.622.6922.558.41d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.500.110.500.500.500.110.500.500.11k, delay calibration
12.4232.2411.0127.7917.9321.3435.5023.6328.8237.76d1, Uniform Delay [s]
761987611075391727180426136754c, Capacity [veh/h]
158941158972158950941781158950941781s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.145.150.021.980.040.190.120.110.270.02(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.480.480.480.480.340.340.100.270.270.03g / C, Green / Cycle
383838382727821212g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.002.000.002.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
79797979797979797979C, Cycle Length [s]
RCRCRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
PM Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
227
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]46.17 46.17 51.37 26.32 120.1 120.1 22.68 18.35 227.97 227.97 11.04 593.43 593.43 12.62
Movement LOS D D D C F F C B F F B F F B
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]48.57 38.85 181.22 301.67
Approach LOS D D F F
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]83.89
Intersection LOS F
Intersection V/C 5.672
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]31.01 31.01 31.01 31.01
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersectio 3.323 3.250 2.021 2.166
Crosswalk LOS C C B B
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000
c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]532 532 962 962
d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]21.29 21.29 10.64 10.64
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.404 2.134 1.858 2.266
Bicycle LOS B B A B
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------8-65Ring 2
------------4-21Ring 1
Sequence
PM Peak HourScenario 1: 1 Existing
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
228
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
Apx-105 229
Intersection Analysis Summary
12/12/2024Report File: E:\...\MD EP.pdf
Scenario 2 Existing Plus ProjectVistro File: E:\...\MD.vistro
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For
all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
C16.40.184WB RightHCM 7th
EditionTwo-way stopEl Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)
at Project South Dwy (EW)6
C16.40.181WB RightHCM 7th
EditionTwo-way stopEl Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)
at Project North Dwy (EW)5
D48.26.613WB LeftHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedEl Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)
at Orange Ave (EW)4
F77.00.058WB LeftHCM 7th
EditionTwo-way stopEl Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)
at Southwood Dr (EW)3
D37.50.516EB LeftHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedEl Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)
at Westborough Blvd (EW)2
C28.00.368WB LeftHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedAntoinette Ln (NS) at
Chestnut Ave (EW)1
LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
230
0.368Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
28.0Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
Intersection 1: Antoinette Ln (NS) at Chestnut Ave (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesYesCrosswalk
NoNoNoNoCurb Present
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft]
00000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
100.0100.0100.0177.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft]
00010001000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Chestnut AveChestnut AveAntoinette LnAntoinette LnName
Intersection Setup
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
231
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi
0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m
0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
00000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
00000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
3254568813958561379317228133Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
81361723514615120145233Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.9720.9720.9721.0000.9720.9720.9721.0000.97200.97200.97200.97200.97200.9720Peak Hour Factor
3153066813556959377317218129Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
05000700000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor
0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
3152566813556259377317218129Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Chestnut AveChestnut AveAntoinette LnAntoinette LnName
Volumes
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
232
0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
NoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall
0.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
NoNoNoNoRest In Walk
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s]
017000190002900290Pedestrian Clearance [s]
05000500050050Walk [s]
0.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s]
0289003112003800380Split [s]
0.01.01.00.00.01.01.00.00.01.00.00.01.00.0All red [s]
0.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s]
03030003030003000300Maximum Green [s]
010500105001000100Minimum Green [s]
--Lead---Lead-------Lead / Lag
Auxiliary Signal Groups
04700830020060Signal Group
PermiPermiProtePermiPermiPermiProtePermiPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissControl Type
Phasing & Timing
2.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference
0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
78Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
233
137.74131.7776.87268.73281.7364.8235.8761.6795th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
5.515.273.0710.7511.272.591.432.4795th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
76.5273.2042.71163.79173.6736.0119.9334.2650th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
3.062.931.716.556.951.440.801.3750th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
NoNoYesYesNoNoNoYesCritical Lane Group
CCDCCDAALane Group LOS
25.8025.4247.5733.3933.0147.328.509.02d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.440.440.760.850.850.730.110.19X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.700.3511.234.914.5410.730.230.48d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.110.110.110.110.500.50k, delay calibration
25.0925.0736.3428.4828.4736.598.278.54d1, Uniform Delay [s]
44186510041344288926865c, Capacity [veh/h]
18183560178117481870178115741409s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.110.110.040.200.200.040.060.12(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.240.240.060.240.240.050.550.55g / C, Green / Cycle
19194181844343g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
7878787878787878C, Cycle Length [s]
CCLCCLCCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
234
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]9.02 9.02 9.02 8.50 8.50 8.50 47.32 47.32 33.15 33.39 47.57 47.57 25.54 25.80
Movement LOS A A A A A A D D C C D D C C
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]9.02 8.50 34.34 28.11
Approach LOS A A C C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]28.03
Intersection LOS C
Intersection V/C 0.368
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]30.54 30.54 30.54 30.54
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersectio 1.861 1.791 2.993 2.679
Crosswalk LOS A A C B
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000
c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]871 871 692 615
d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]12.43 12.43 16.69 18.71
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.829 1.723 2.159 1.881
Bicycle LOS A A B A
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------876-Ring 2
------------432-Ring 1
Sequence
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
235
0.516Volume to Capacity (v/c):
DLevel Of Service:
37.5Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
Intersection 2: El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Westborough Blvd (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesYesCrosswalk
NoNoNoNoCurb Present
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0035.0035.00Speed [mph]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft]
0000000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
115.0100.0100.0100.0226.0100.0100.0172.0413.0100.0100.0255.0100.0100.0100.0285.0Entry Pocket Length [ft]
1000100110020002No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Chestnut AveWestborough BlvdEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Intersection Setup
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
236
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi
0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m
0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
0000000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
0000000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
1313762174308396132111105901531226057436993Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
3394541779933328147383651449223Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Other Adjustment Factor
0.9630.9630.9630.9630.9630.9630.9630.9630.9630.9630.9630.9630.9630.9630.9630.963Peak Hour Factor
1263622094297381127111065681471225055335590Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
0000000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
0000000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
0000000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000035Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
0000000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
00505000070077515Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
0000000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Growth Factor
0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
1263622044292381127111065611471224354635040Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Chestnut AveWestborough BlvdEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Volumes
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
237
0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall
0.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
NoNoNoNoRest In Walk
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s]
03200032000290003200Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0500050005000500Walk [s]
0.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s]
041140041140038120046200Split [s]
0.01.01.00.00.01.01.00.00.01.01.00.00.01.01.00.0All red [s]
0.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.0Amber [s]
030300030300030300030300Maximum Green [s]
01050010500105001050Minimum Green [s]
--Lead---Lead---Lead---Lead-Lead / Lag
Auxiliary Signal Groups
0470083002500610Signal Group
PermiPermiProtePermiPermiPermiProtePermiPermiPermiProtePermiPermiPermiProtePermiControl Type
Phasing & Timing
2.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference
0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
113Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
238
143.51204.59146.32354.28212.29207.0885.50155.37108.74190.15199.72283.2395th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
5.748.185.8514.178.498.283.426.214.357.617.9911.3395th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
79.73116.2081.29229.94121.79118.0047.5086.3260.41105.81112.68174.8250th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
3.194.653.259.204.874.721.903.452.424.234.516.9950th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
NoNoYesYesNoNoNoYesNoNoNoYesCritical Lane Group
DDEDDECCEBBELane Group LOS
38.9739.7455.7152.3639.2367.3421.3222.2056.4218.5917.9057.39d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.390.500.780.880.510.900.170.280.730.330.330.94X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.730.514.769.660.5116.320.540.334.531.140.509.34d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.110.150.110.110.500.500.110.500.500.11k, delay calibration
38.2439.2350.9542.6938.7351.0120.7821.8751.8917.4517.4048.05d1, Uniform Delay [s]
33775628234978315966021152267821752491c, Capacity [veh/h]
158935603459158935601781158950943459158935603459s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.080.110.060.190.110.080.070.120.050.160.160.13(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.210.210.080.220.220.090.420.420.060.490.490.14g / C, Green / Cycle
2424925251047477565616g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
113113113113113113113113113113113113C, Cycle Length [s]
RCLRCLRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
239
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]57.39 57.39 17.90 18.59 56.42 56.42 22.20 21.32 67.34 67.34 39.23 52.36 55.71 55.71 39.74 38.97
Movement LOS E E B B E E C C E E D D E E D D
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]32.12 28.62 48.75 44.45
Approach LOS C C D D
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]37.48
Intersection LOS D
Intersection V/C 0.516
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]47.88 47.88 47.88 47.88
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersectio 3.081 2.980 2.742 2.820
Crosswalk LOS C C B C
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000
c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]743 602 655 655
d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]22.32 27.64 25.58 25.58
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.552 1.951 2.149 1.981
Bicycle LOS B A B A
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------8765Ring 2
------------4321Ring 1
Sequence
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
240
0.058Volume to Capacity (v/c):
FLevel Of Service:
77.0Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
Intersection 3: El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Southwood Dr (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesNoNoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
25.0025.0035.0035.00Speed [mph]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft]
00000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00130.0100.0100.0172.0100.0100.0100.0122.0Entry Pocket Length [ft]
00000010010001No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
1st StSouthwood DrEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Intersection Setup
0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
60312052210270119151186721Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
2013015257030429725Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Other Adjustment Factor
0.97200.97200.97200.97200.97200.97200.9720.9720.9720.9720.9720.9720.9720.972Peak Hour Factor
6031205219980116151153720Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000350000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
00000021301701800Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Growth Factor
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
603120519985064151135720Base Volume Input [veh/h]
1st StSouthwood DrEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Volumes
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
241
FIntersection LOS
1.20d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
EDAAApproach LOS
36.8931.241.460.28d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
5.885.885.889.119.119.110.000.0022.6322.630.000.004.324.3295th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
0.240.240.240.360.360.360.000.000.910.910.000.000.170.1795th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
CFFCFFAACBAACBMovement LOS
16.81192.4477.0416.19189.0267.360.000.0018.6914.280.000.0015.1211.53d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.020.000.060.030.000.080.000.010.000.240.000.010.020.04V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
0000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
NoNoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
0000Storage Area [veh]
NoNoFlared Lane
StopStopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
242
6.613Volume to Capacity (v/c):
DLevel Of Service:
48.2Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
Intersection 4: El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Orange Ave (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesYesCrosswalk
NoNoNoNoCurb Present
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
25.0025.0035.0035.00Speed [mph]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft]
00000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
206.00100.00100.0085.00100.00100.00100.0100.0100.0218.0180.0100.0100.0108.0Entry Pocket Length [ft]
10010010011001No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Orange AveOrange AveEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Intersection Setup
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
243
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi
0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m
0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
00000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
00000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
174271183746723786411930104967512Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
437309121892163082624213Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Other Adjustment Factor
0.97400.97400.97400.97400.97400.97400.9740.9740.9741.0000.9740.9740.9741.000Peak Hour Factor
169261153645703684211630101942512Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
70000208500900Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Growth Factor
0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
162261153645683683411130101933512Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Orange AveOrange AveEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Volumes
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
244
0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
NoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall
0.02.00.00.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.00.00.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
NoNoNoNoRest In Walk
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s]
031003300160001400Pedestrian Clearance [s]
05005005000500Walk [s]
0.03.00.00.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s]
0420042002510002490Split [s]
0.01.00.00.01.00.00.01.01.00.00.01.01.00.0All red [s]
0.03.00.00.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.0Amber [s]
03000300030300030300Maximum Green [s]
010001000105001050Minimum Green [s]
--------Lead---Lead-Lead / Lag
Auxiliary Signal Groups
04008002500610Signal Group
PermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermiPermiProtePermiPermiPermiProtePermiControl Type
Phasing & Timing
2.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference
0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
76Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
245
70.95404.2713.73242.1620.80182.70203.8769.59228.8017.9095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
2.8416.170.559.690.837.318.152.789.150.7295th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
39.42224.597.63134.8811.56101.50113.2638.66133.919.9550th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
1.588.980.315.400.464.064.531.555.360.4050th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
NoYesNoNoNoNoYesNoYesNoCritical Lane Group
BFAFBCFCCDLane Group LOS
10.87298.479.81140.3118.0622.1287.1523.3828.6646.65d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.221.490.051.090.070.521.060.250.720.48X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.14264.810.02113.140.271.1952.151.403.309.79d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.500.110.500.500.500.110.500.500.11k, delay calibration
10.7433.669.7927.1817.7920.9235.0021.9825.3636.86d1, Uniform Delay [s]
792987921085151650141421134935c, Capacity [veh/h]
158924158964158950941781158950941781s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.116.170.021.840.020.170.080.070.190.01(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.500.500.500.500.320.320.080.260.260.02g / C, Green / Cycle
383838382525620202g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.002.000.002.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
76767676767676767676C, Cycle Length [s]
RCRCRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
246
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]46.65 46.65 28.66 23.38 87.15 87.15 22.12 18.06 140.31 140.31 9.81 298.47 298.47 10.87
Movement LOS D D C C F F C B F F A F F B
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]28.43 31.20 109.16 141.60
Approach LOS C C F F
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]48.16
Intersection LOS D
Intersection V/C 6.613
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]29.53 29.53 29.53 29.53
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersectio 3.186 3.143 1.994 2.093
Crosswalk LOS C C A B
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000
c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]526 553 1000 1000
d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]20.63 19.90 9.50 9.50
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.151 2.072 1.815 2.086
Bicycle LOS B B A B
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------8-65Ring 2
------------4-21Ring 1
Sequence
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
247
0.181Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
16.4Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
Intersection 5: El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Project North Dwy (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
NoNoNoCrosswalk
0.000.000.00Grade [%]
25.0035.0035.00Speed [mph]
0.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft]
000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft]
000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightLeftThruLeftRightThruTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Project North DwyEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Intersection Setup
000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
70010890701110Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
180272018278Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Peak Hour Factor
70010890701110Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000Other Volume [veh/h]
1800018-18Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
3500035-35Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
1703201717Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor
2.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
001057001146Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Project North DwyEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Volumes
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
248
CIntersection LOS
0.49d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
CAAApproach LOS
16.370.000.00d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
16.330.000.000.000.000.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
0.650.000.000.000.000.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
CAAAMovement LOS
16.370.000.000.000.000.00d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.180.000.010.000.000.01V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
NoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
000Storage Area [veh]
Flared Lane
StopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
249
0.184Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
16.4Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
Intersection 6: El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Project South Dwy (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
NoNoNoCrosswalk
0.000.000.00Grade [%]
25.0035.0035.00Speed [mph]
0.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft]
000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft]
000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightLeftThruLeftRightThruTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Project South DwyEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Intersection Setup
000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
71010890721109Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
180272018277Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Peak Hour Factor
71010890721109Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000Other Volume [veh/h]
1800018-18Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
3600036-36Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
1703201817Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor
2.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
001057001146Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Project South DwyEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Volumes
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
250
CIntersection LOS
0.50d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
CAAApproach LOS
16.420.000.00d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
16.630.000.000.000.000.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
0.670.000.000.000.000.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
CAAAMovement LOS
16.420.000.000.000.000.00d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.180.000.010.000.000.01V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
NoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
000Storage Area [veh]
Flared Lane
StopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
251
Intersection Analysis Summary
12/12/2024Report File: E:\...\PM EP.pdf
Scenario 2 Existing Plus ProjectVistro File: E:\...\PM.vistro
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For
all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
C20.90.187WB RightHCM 7th
EditionTwo-way stopEl Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)
at Project South Dwy (EW)6
C20.80.183WB RightHCM 7th
EditionTwo-way stopEl Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)
at Project North Dwy (EW)5
F91.95.774WB LeftHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedEl Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)
at Orange Ave (EW)4
F216.20.058WB LeftHCM 7th
EditionTwo-way stopEl Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)
at Southwood Dr (EW)3
D43.70.637EB LeftHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedEl Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)
at Westborough Blvd (EW)2
C30.40.482EB LeftHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedAntoinette Ln (NS) at
Chestnut Ave (EW)1
LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID
PM Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
252
0.482Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
30.4Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
Intersection 1: Antoinette Ln (NS) at Chestnut Ave (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesYesCrosswalk
NoNoNoNoCurb Present
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0025.0025.00Speed [mph]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft]
00000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
100.0100.0100.0177.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft]
00010001000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftRightThruLeftTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Chestnut AveChestnut AveAntoinette LnAntoinette LnName
Intersection Setup
PM Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
253
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi
0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m
0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
00000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
00000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
5582288181608771012973522010142Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
1420522540219251241135335Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
0.9540.9540.9541.0000.9540.9540.9541.0000.95400.95400.95400.95400.95400.9540Peak Hour Factor
527848418153837962933501910135Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
04000500000000Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor
0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
527808418153832962933501910135Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Chestnut AveChestnut AveAntoinette LnAntoinette LnName
Volumes
PM Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
254
0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
NoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall
0.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.00.00.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
NoNoNoNoRest In Walk
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s]
017000190002900290Pedestrian Clearance [s]
05000500050050Walk [s]
0.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s]
02610002812003800380Split [s]
0.01.01.00.00.01.01.00.00.01.00.00.01.00.0All red [s]
0.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.00.00.03.00.0Amber [s]
03030003030003000300Maximum Green [s]
010500105001000100Minimum Green [s]
--Lead---Lead-------Lead / Lag
Auxiliary Signal Groups
04700830020060Signal Group
PermiPermiProtePermiPermiPermiProtePermiPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissControl Type
Phasing & Timing
2.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference
0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
76Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
PM Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
255
191.29185.29100.25395.79409.5697.5371.4783.4595th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
7.657.414.0115.8316.383.902.863.3495th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
106.62102.9455.70262.85273.8654.1839.7146.3650th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
4.264.122.2310.5110.952.171.591.8550th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
NoNoYesYesNoNoNoYesCritical Lane Group
CCDDDDBBLane Group LOS
22.5322.1343.9040.3739.5543.9612.7713.25d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.530.530.780.930.930.780.200.24X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.790.409.4014.8013.999.390.560.78d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.110.250.250.110.500.50k, delay calibration
21.7521.7334.5025.5725.5534.5712.2112.47d1, Uniform Delay [s]
5581098136543573132777720c, Capacity [veh/h]
18113560178117711870178115531378s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.160.160.060.290.280.060.100.12(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.310.310.080.310.310.070.460.46g / C, Green / Cycle
24246232363535g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.002.002.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
7676767676767676C, Cycle Length [s]
CCLCCLCCLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
PM Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
256
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]13.25 13.25 13.25 12.77 12.77 12.77 43.96 43.96 39.87 40.37 43.90 43.90 22.25 22.53
Movement LOS B B B B B B D D D D D D C C
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]13.25 12.77 40.31 24.60
Approach LOS B B D C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]30.39
Intersection LOS C
Intersection V/C 0.482
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]29.54 29.54 29.54 29.54
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersectio 1.880 1.837 3.096 2.834
Crosswalk LOS A A C C
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000
c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]895 895 631 579
d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]11.61 11.61 17.80 19.19
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.843 1.810 2.417 2.052
Bicycle LOS A A B B
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------876-Ring 2
------------432-Ring 1
Sequence
PM Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
257
0.637Volume to Capacity (v/c):
DLevel Of Service:
43.7Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
Intersection 2: El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Westborough Blvd (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesYesCrosswalk
NoNoNoNoCurb Present
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
30.0030.0035.0035.00Speed [mph]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft]
0000000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
115.0100.0100.0100.0226.0100.0100.0172.0413.0100.0100.0255.0100.0100.0100.0285.0Entry Pocket Length [ft]
1000100110020002No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Chestnut AveWestborough BlvdEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Intersection Setup
PM Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
258
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi
0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m
0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
0000000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
0000000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
142594309636358014681526531721137380153484Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
3514877291145372381634339320013321Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Other Adjustment Factor
0.9650.9650.9650.9650.9650.9650.9650.9650.9650.9650.9650.9650.9650.9650.9650.965Peak Hour Factor
137573298635056014181476301661136077351581Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
0000000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
0000000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
0000000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000026Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
0000000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
00404000050055310Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
0000000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Growth Factor
0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
137573294634656014181476251661135576851245Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Chestnut AveWestborough BlvdEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Volumes
PM Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
259
0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall
0.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
NoNoNoNoRest In Walk
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s]
03200032000290003200Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0500050005000500Walk [s]
0.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s]
041150041150038110052250Split [s]
0.01.01.00.00.01.01.00.00.01.01.00.00.01.01.00.0All red [s]
0.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.0Amber [s]
030300030300030300030300Maximum Green [s]
01050010500105001050Minimum Green [s]
--Lead---Lead---Lead---Lead-Lead / Lag
Auxiliary Signal Groups
0470083002500610Signal Group
PermiPermiProtePermiPermiPermiProtePermiPermiPermiProtePermiPermiPermiProtePermiControl Type
Phasing & Timing
2.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference
0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
119Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
PM Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
260
155.67312.03233.45444.10304.72231.10149.63208.18136.24306.64311.68401.0895th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
6.2312.489.3417.7612.199.245.998.335.4512.2712.4716.0495th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
86.49196.95137.35301.67191.31135.6183.13118.8075.69192.79196.68265.4250th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
3.467.885.4912.077.655.423.334.753.037.717.8710.6250th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
NoNoYesYesNoNoNoYesNoNoNoYesCritical Lane Group
DDEEDECCECCFLane Group LOS
37.0240.7271.5459.2540.4872.0129.7830.1866.7025.3523.5668.51d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.350.660.970.900.640.920.280.370.880.510.491.01X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.530.8317.7016.180.7818.441.280.6211.162.551.0619.48d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.110.270.110.110.500.500.110.500.500.11k, delay calibration
36.5039.8953.8443.0739.7053.5728.5029.5655.5422.7922.5149.03d1, Uniform Delay [s]
40290132440290116754417432087291634612c, Capacity [veh/h]
158935603459158935601781158950943459158935603459s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.090.170.090.230.160.090.100.130.050.230.220.18(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.250.250.090.250.250.090.340.340.060.460.460.18g / C, Green / Cycle
30301130301141417555521g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
119119119119119119119119119119119119C, Cycle Length [s]
RCLRCLRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
PM Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
261
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]68.51 68.51 23.56 25.35 66.70 66.70 30.18 29.78 72.01 72.01 40.48 59.25 71.54 71.54 40.72 37.02
Movement LOS E E C C E E C C E E D E E E D D
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]39.44 36.88 51.12 49.46
Approach LOS D D D D
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]43.66
Intersection LOS D
Intersection V/C 0.637
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]50.87 50.87 50.87 50.87
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersectio 3.184 3.036 2.854 2.912
Crosswalk LOS C C C C
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000
c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]806 571 622 622
d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]21.21 30.39 28.28 28.28
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.969 2.008 2.344 2.172
Bicycle LOS C B B B
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------8765Ring 2
------------4321Ring 1
Sequence
PM Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
262
0.058Volume to Capacity (v/c):
FLevel Of Service:
216.2Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
Intersection 3: El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Southwood Dr (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesNoNoCrosswalk
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
25.0025.0035.0035.00Speed [mph]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft]
00000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00130.0100.0100.0172.0100.0100.0100.0122.0Entry Pocket Length [ft]
00000010010001No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
1st StSouthwood DrEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Intersection Setup
0000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
100112051212208122111623288Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
3003013305230340672Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Other Adjustment Factor
0.97700.97700.97700.97700.97700.97700.9770.9770.9770.9770.9770.9770.9770.977Peak Hour Factor
100112051211928119111586278Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000260000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
0000001901301200Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Growth Factor
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
10011205111183880111574278Base Volume Input [veh/h]
1st StSouthwood DrEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Volumes
PM Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
263
FIntersection LOS
1.75d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
EFAAApproach LOS
39.0369.242.300.37d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
7.637.637.6320.5420.5420.540.000.0048.2948.290.000.009.099.0995th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
0.310.310.310.820.820.820.000.001.931.930.000.000.360.3695th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
CFFDFFAADCAACBMovement LOS
21.31678.73216.2229.19683.47165.350.000.0031.5423.600.000.0018.2513.69d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.040.000.060.030.000.200.000.010.040.370.000.020.090.02V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
0000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
NoNoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
0000Storage Area [veh]
NoNoFlared Lane
StopStopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
PM Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
264
5.774Volume to Capacity (v/c):
FLevel Of Service:
91.9Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
Intersection 4: El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Orange Ave (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesYesYesCrosswalk
NoNoNoNoCurb Present
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
25.0025.0035.0035.00Speed [mph]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft]
00000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
206.00100.00100.0085.00100.00100.00100.0100.0100.0218.0180.0100.0100.0108.0Entry Pocket Length [ft]
10010010011001No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Orange AveOrange AveEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Intersection Setup
PM Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
265
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi
0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m
0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
00000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
00000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
22061152395984609802011116713631317Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
551538101521152455034234134Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Other Adjustment Factor
0.96800.96800.96800.96800.96800.96800.9680.9680.9681.0000.9680.9680.9681.000Peak Hour Factor
21359147385781589491951116213191317Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
50000106300600Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Growth Factor
0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
20859147385780589431921116213131317Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Orange AveOrange AveEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Volumes
PM Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
266
0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
NoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall
0.02.00.00.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.00.00.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
NoNoNoNoRest In Walk
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s]
031003300160001400Pedestrian Clearance [s]
05005005000500Walk [s]
0.03.00.00.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s]
0420042002510002490Split [s]
0.01.00.00.01.00.00.01.01.00.00.01.01.00.0All red [s]
0.03.00.00.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.0Amber [s]
03000300030300030300Maximum Green [s]
010001000105001050Minimum Green [s]
--------Lead---Lead-Lead / Lag
Auxiliary Signal Groups
04008002500610Signal Group
PermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermiPermiProtePermiPermiPermiProtePermiControl Type
Phasing & Timing
2.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference
0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
76Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
PM Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
267
92.81752.1014.49346.7935.11212.57488.15119.02413.1929.4395th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
3.7130.080.5813.871.408.5019.534.7616.531.1895th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
51.56417.838.05192.6619.50122.00293.1366.12274.7516.3550th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
2.0616.710.327.710.784.8811.732.6410.990.6550th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
NoYesNoNoNoNoYesNoYesNoCritical Lane Group
BFAFBCFCFDLane Group LOS
11.29557.389.83211.6119.1424.01271.3125.7455.1044.45d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.282.100.051.300.120.621.510.401.010.55X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.19526.680.03185.260.501.79236.312.7927.168.15d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.500.110.500.500.500.110.500.500.11k, delay calibration
11.1030.719.8026.3418.6522.2235.0022.9527.9436.30d1, Uniform Delay [s]
7921017921104971593141421134955c, Capacity [veh/h]
158941158970158950941781158950941781s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.145.240.022.030.040.190.120.110.270.02(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.500.500.500.500.310.310.080.260.260.03g / C, Green / Cycle
383838382424620202g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.002.000.002.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
76767676767676767676C, Cycle Length [s]
RCRCRCLRCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
PM Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
268
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]44.45 44.45 55.10 25.74 271.3 271.3 24.01 19.14 211.61 211.61 9.83 557.38 557.38 11.29
Movement LOS D D F C F F C B F F A F F B
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]51.75 65.65 168.37 279.92
Approach LOS D E F F
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]91.85
Intersection LOS F
Intersection V/C 5.774
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]29.53 29.53 29.53 29.53
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersectio 3.323 3.253 2.019 2.166
Crosswalk LOS C C B B
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000
c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]526 553 1000 1000
d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]20.63 19.90 9.50 9.50
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.408 2.138 1.860 2.274
Bicycle LOS B B A B
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------8-65Ring 2
------------4-21Ring 1
Sequence
PM Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
269
0.183Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
20.8Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
Intersection 5: El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Project North Dwy (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
NoNoNoCrosswalk
0.000.000.00Grade [%]
25.0035.0035.00Speed [mph]
0.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft]
000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft]
000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightLeftThruLeftRightThruTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Project North DwyEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Intersection Setup
000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
51012880521561Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
130322013390Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Peak Hour Factor
51012880521561Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000Other Volume [veh/h]
1300013-13Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
2600026-26Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
1202301311Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor
2.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
001265001589Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Project North DwyEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Volumes
PM Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
270
CIntersection LOS
0.36d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
CAAApproach LOS
20.790.000.00d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
16.420.000.000.000.000.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
0.660.000.000.000.000.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
CAAAMovement LOS
20.790.000.000.000.000.00d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.180.000.010.000.000.02V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
NoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
000Storage Area [veh]
Flared Lane
StopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
PM Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
271
0.187Volume to Capacity (v/c):
CLevel Of Service:
20.9Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:
Two-way stopControl Type:
Intersection 6: El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Project South Dwy (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
NoNoNoCrosswalk
0.000.000.00Grade [%]
25.0035.0035.00Speed [mph]
0.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft]
000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00Entry Pocket Length [ft]
000000No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightLeftThruLeftRightThruTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
Project South DwyEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Intersection Setup
000Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
52012880531561Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
130322013390Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Other Adjustment Factor
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Peak Hour Factor
52012880531561Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
000000Other Volume [veh/h]
1400014-14Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
2700027-27Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
1102301213Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Growth Factor
2.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
001265001589Base Volume Input [veh/h]
Project South DwyEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Volumes
PM Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
272
CIntersection LOS
0.37d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]
CAAApproach LOS
20.870.000.00d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]
16.820.000.000.000.000.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
0.670.000.000.000.000.0095th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
CAAAMovement LOS
20.870.000.000.000.000.00d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]
0.190.000.010.000.000.02V/C, Movement V/C Ratio
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
000Number of Storage Spaces in Median
NoTwo-Stage Gap Acceptance
000Storage Area [veh]
Flared Lane
StopFreeFreePriority Scheme
Intersection Settings
PM Peak HourScenario 2: 2 Existing Plus Project
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
273
Intersection Analysis Summary
12/12/2024Report File: E:\...\MD EP - Ultimate.pdf
Scenario 4 Existing Plus Project - Ultimate ImprovementsVistro File: E:\...\MD.vistro
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For
all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
A6.00.308NB U-THCM 7th
EditionSignalizedEl Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)
at Southwood Dr (EW)3
LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Project - Ultimate Improvements
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
274
0.308Volume to Capacity (v/c):
ALevel Of Service:
6.0Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
Intersection 3: El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Southwood Dr (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesNoNoCrosswalk
NoNoNoNoCurb Present
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
25.0025.0035.0035.00Speed [mph]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft]
00000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00130.0100.0100.0172.0100.0100.0100.0122.0Entry Pocket Length [ft]
00000010010001No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
1st StSouthwood DrEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Intersection Setup
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Project - Ultimate Improvements
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
275
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi
0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m
0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
00000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
00000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
60312052210270119151186721Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
2013015257030429725Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Other Adjustment Factor
0.97200.97200.97200.97200.97200.97200.9720.9720.9720.9720.9720.9720.9720.972Peak Hour Factor
6031205219980116151153720Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000350000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
00000021301701800Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Growth Factor
0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
603120519985064151135720Base Volume Input [veh/h]
1st StSouthwood DrEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Volumes
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Project - Ultimate Improvements
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
276
0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
NoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall
0.02.00.00.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.00.00.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
NoNoNoNoRest In Walk
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s]
010001000140001000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
05005005000500Walk [s]
0.03.00.00.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s]
01400140030270019160Split [s]
0.01.00.00.01.00.00.01.01.00.00.01.01.00.0All red [s]
0.03.00.00.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.0Amber [s]
03000300030300030300Maximum Green [s]
010001000105001050Minimum Green [s]
--------Lead---Lead-Lead / Lag
Auxiliary Signal Groups
04008002500610Signal Group
PermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermiPermiProtePermiPermiPermiProtePermiControl Type
Phasing & Timing
2.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference
0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
60Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Project - Ultimate Improvements
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
277
5.7210.901.9131.2082.6168.7060.6920.9595th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
0.230.440.081.253.302.752.430.8495th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
3.186.051.0617.3345.8938.1633.7211.6450th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
0.130.240.040.691.841.531.350.4750th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
NoYesNoNoYesYesNoNoCritical Lane Group
CCAACAACLane Group LOS
27.8228.112.363.0633.285.014.6634.30d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.060.110.020.280.740.330.330.47X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.150.310.030.196.590.720.385.74d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.500.500.110.500.500.11k, delay calibration
27.6727.792.332.8726.694.294.2928.56d1, Uniform Delay [s]
157154115036871601239237559c, Capacity [veh/h]
17731757158950941781185835601781s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.010.010.010.200.070.220.220.02(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.040.040.730.730.090.670.670.03g / C, Green / Cycle
334444540402g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
2.002.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
6060606060606060C, Cycle Length [s]
CCRCLCCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Project - Ultimate Improvements
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
278
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]34.30 34.30 4.78 5.01 33.28 33.28 3.06 2.36 28.11 28.11 28.11 27.82 27.82 27.82
Movement LOS C C A A C C A A C C C C C C
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]5.45 6.13 28.11 27.82
Approach LOS A A C C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]6.02
Intersection LOS A
Intersection V/C 0.308
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]0.0 0.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]0.00 0.00 21.72 21.72
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersectio 0.000 0.000 2.121 1.927
Crosswalk LOS F F B A
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000
c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]499 865 333 333
d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]16.91 9.67 20.87 20.87
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.224 2.202 1.588 1.574
Bicycle LOS B B A A
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------8-65Ring 2
------------4-21Ring 1
Sequence
Mid-Day Peak HourScenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Project - Ultimate Improvements
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
279
Intersection Analysis Summary
12/12/2024Report File: E:\...\PM EP - Ultimate.pdf
Scenario 4 Existing Plus Project - Ultimate ImprovementsVistro File: E:\...\PM.vistro
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. For
all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection.
A6.50.397NB LeftHCM 7th
EditionSignalizedEl Camino Real (SR-82) (NS)
at Southwood Dr (EW)3
LOSDelay (s/veh)V/CWorst MvmtMethodControl TypeIntersection NameID
PM Peak HourScenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Project - Ultimate Improvements
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
280
0.397Volume to Capacity (v/c):
ALevel Of Service:
6.5Delay (sec / veh):
15 minutesAnalysis Period:
HCM 7th EditionAnalysis Method:
SignalizedControl Type:
Intersection 3: El Camino Real (SR-82) (NS) at Southwood Dr (EW)
Intersection Level Of Service Report
YesYesNoNoCrosswalk
NoNoNoNoCurb Present
0.000.000.000.00Grade [%]
25.0025.0035.0035.00Speed [mph]
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Exit Pocket Length [ft]
00000000000000No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket
100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00100.00130.0100.0100.0172.0100.0100.0100.0122.0Entry Pocket Length [ft]
00000010010001No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket
12.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.0012.00Lane Width [ft]
RightThruLeftRightThruLeftRightThruLeftU-tuRightThruLeftU-tuTurning Movement
Lane Configuration
WestboundEastboundSouthboundNorthboundApproach
1st StSouthwood DrEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Intersection Setup
PM Peak HourScenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Project - Ultimate Improvements
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
281
0000Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h]
0000v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h]
0000v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi
0000v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
0000v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m
0000v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing
00000000000000Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h]
00000000000000On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h]
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoPresence of On-Street Parking
100112051212208122111623288Total Analysis Volume [veh/h]
3003013305230340672Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Other Adjustment Factor
0.97700.97700.97700.97700.97700.97700.9770.9770.9770.9770.9770.9770.9770.977Peak Hour Factor
100112051211928119111586278Total Hourly Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Other Volume [veh/h]
00000000000000Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h]
000000000260000Pass-by Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000Diverted Trips [veh/h]
0000001901301200Site-Generated Trips [veh/h]
00000000000000In-Process Volume [veh/h]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Growth Factor
0.00Proportion of CAVs [%]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%]
1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000Base Volume Adjustment Factor
10011205111183880111574278Base Volume Input [veh/h]
1st StSouthwood DrEl Camino Real (SR-82)El Camino Real (SR-82)Name
Volumes
PM Peak HourScenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Project - Ultimate Improvements
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
282
0Pedestrian Clearance [s]
0Pedestrian Walk [s]
0Pedestrian Signal Group
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Length [ft]
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Detector Location [ft]
NoNoNoNoNoNoPedestrian Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMaximum Recall
NoNoNoNoNoNoMinimum Recall
0.02.00.00.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.0l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
0.02.00.00.02.00.00.02.02.00.00.02.02.00.0l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s]
NoNoNoNoRest In Walk
0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Delayed Vehicle Green [s]
010001000140001000Pedestrian Clearance [s]
05005005000500Walk [s]
0.03.00.00.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.0Vehicle Extension [s]
01400140036110035100Split [s]
0.01.00.00.01.00.00.01.01.00.00.01.01.00.0All red [s]
0.03.00.00.03.00.00.03.03.00.00.03.03.00.0Amber [s]
03000300030300030300Maximum Green [s]
010001000105001050Minimum Green [s]
--------Lead---Lead-Lead / Lag
Auxiliary Signal Groups
04008002500610Signal Group
PermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermissPermiPermiProtePermiPermiPermiProtePermiControl Type
Phasing & Timing
2.00Lost time [s]
SingleBandPermissive Mode
Lead Green - Beginning of First GreenOffset Reference
0.0Offset [s]
Fully actuatedActuation Type
Time of Day Pattern IsolatedCoordination Type
60Cycle Length [s]
-Signal Coordination Group
NoLocated in CBD
Intersection Settings
PM Peak HourScenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Project - Ultimate Improvements
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
283
7.0510.891.1041.6890.77109.1195.7326.2895th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
0.280.440.041.673.634.363.831.0595th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
3.916.050.6123.1550.4360.6153.1814.6050th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln]
0.160.240.020.932.022.422.130.5850th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln]
NoYesNoNoYesYesNoNoCritical Lane Group
CCAACAACLane Group LOS
27.9428.112.443.4133.656.135.5633.83d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh]
0.080.110.010.330.770.460.460.51X, volume / capacity
Lane Group Results
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00PF, progression factor
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00Rp, platoon ratio
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00d3, Initial Queue Delay [s]
0.230.310.020.257.081.210.645.52d2, Incremental Delay [s]
1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00I, Upstream Filtering Factor
0.110.110.500.500.110.500.500.11k, delay calibration
27.7127.792.423.1626.574.924.9228.31d1, Uniform Delay [s]
143154114036541691234235771c, Capacity [veh/h]
17911766158950941781186435601781s, saturation flow rate [veh/h]
0.010.010.010.240.070.300.300.02(v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate
0.040.040.720.720.090.660.660.04g / C, Green / Cycle
334343640402g_i, Effective Green Time [s]
2.002.002.002.002.002.002.002.00l2, Clearance Lost Time [s]
2.002.000.000.000.000.000.000.00l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s]
4.004.004.004.004.004.004.004.00L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s]
6060606060606060C, Cycle Length [s]
CCRCLCCLLane Group
Lane Group Calculations
PM Peak HourScenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Project - Ultimate Improvements
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
284
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh]33.83 33.83 5.75 6.13 33.65 33.65 3.41 2.44 28.11 28.11 28.11 27.94 27.94 27.94
Movement LOS C C A A C C A A C C C C C C
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh]6.36 6.29 28.11 27.94
Approach LOS A A C C
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh]6.53
Intersection LOS A
Intersection V/C 0.397
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s]0.0 0.0 9.0 9.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped]0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s]0.00 0.00 21.72 21.72
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersectio 0.000 0.000 2.123 1.929
Crosswalk LOS F F B A
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000
c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h]1032 1065 333 333
d_b, Bicycle Delay [s]7.04 6.56 20.87 20.87
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.474 2.304 1.588 1.578
Bicycle LOS B B A A
----------------Ring 4
----------------Ring 3
------------8-65Ring 2
------------4-21Ring 1
Sequence
PM Peak HourScenario 4: 4 Existing Plus Project - Ultimate Improvements
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real)
Version 2022 (SP 0-12)
Generated with
285
APPENDIX E
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
Apx-162 286
California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devlces
WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR
(Urban Areas)
Traffic Conditions =Existing Weekday PM
Major Street Name =El Camino Real Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =2894
Number of Approach Lanes on Major Street =2
Minor Street Name =Southwood Drive High Volume Approach (VPH) =17
Number of Approach Lanes On Minor Street =1
SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street
approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.
Mi
n
o
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
-
H
i
g
h
e
r
-
V
o
l
u
m
e
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
-
V
P
H
18
0
0
170
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicles Per Hour (VPH)
1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)
2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
Major Street Approaches
Minor Street Approaches
*150
*100
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment
19710
287
California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devlces
WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR
(Urban Areas)
Traffic Conditions =Existing Weekday Mid-Day
Major Street Name =El Camino Real Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =2225
Number of Approach Lanes on Major Street =2
Minor Street Name =Southwood Drive High Volume Approach (VPH) =17
Number of Approach Lanes On Minor Street =1
SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street
approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.
Mi
n
o
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
-
H
i
g
h
e
r
-
V
o
l
u
m
e
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
-
V
P
H
18
0
0
170
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicles Per Hour (VPH)
1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)
2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
Major Street Approaches
Minor Street Approaches
*150
*100
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment
19710
288
California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devlces
WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR
(Urban Areas)
Traffic Conditions =Existing Plus Project Weekday PM
Major Street Name =El Camino Real Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =2929
Number of Approach Lanes on Major Street =2
Minor Street Name =Southwood Drive High Volume Approach (VPH) =17
Number of Approach Lanes On Minor Street =1
SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street
approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.
Mi
n
o
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
-
H
i
g
h
e
r
-
V
o
l
u
m
e
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
-
V
P
H
18
0
0
170
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicles Per Hour (VPH)
1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)
2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
Major Street Approaches
Minor Street Approaches
*150
*100
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment
19710
289
California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devlces
WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR
(Urban Areas)
Traffic Conditions =Existing Plus Project Weekday Mid-Day
Major Street Name =El Camino Real Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =2275
Number of Approach Lanes on Major Street =2
Minor Street Name =Southwood Drive High Volume Approach (VPH) =17
Number of Approach Lanes On Minor Street =1
SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street
approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.
Mi
n
o
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
-
H
i
g
h
e
r
-
V
o
l
u
m
e
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
-
V
P
H
18
0
0
170
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - Vehicles Per Hour (VPH)
1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)
2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
Major Street Approaches
Minor Street Approaches
*150
*100
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project
Transportation Impact Assessment
19710
290
APPENDIX F
IN-N-OUT TRIP GENERATION DATA SHEETS
Apx-167 291
In Out Total
1 Redondo Beach 3801 Inglewood Ave, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 2.800 136 135 271 96.79
2 Long Beach 6391 E Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, CA 90803 3.600 138 135 273 75.83
3 Los Angeles 9149 S Sepulveda Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90045 3.800 196 159 355 93.42
4 Millbrae 11 Rollins Rd, Millbrae, CA 94030 3.750 265 270 535 142.67
5 Redwood City 949 Veterans Blvd, Redwood City, CA 94063 3.750 126 131 257 68.53
6 Rocklin 5490 Crossings Dr, Rocklin, CA 95677 3.750 90 83 173 46.13
7 Vacaville 170 Nut Tree Pkwy, Vacaville, CA 95687 3.750 98 86 184 49.07
8 Fairfield 1364 Holiday Ln, Fairfield, CA 94534 3.750 96 81 177 47.20
9 Mountain View 1159 N Rengstorff Ave, Mountain View, CA 94043 3.100 131 159 290 93.55
10 Mountain View 53 W El Camino Real, Mountain View, CA 94040 2.970 178 157 335 112.79
11 Union City 32060 Union Landing Blvd, Union City, CA 94587 3.160 154 150 304 96.20
12 Rancho San Margarita 30121 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 3.665 131 136 267 72.85
13 San Diego 10880 Carmel Mtn Rd, San Diego, CA 92128 2.912 120 107 227 77.95
14 San Diego 4375 Kearny Mesa Road, San Diego, CA 92111 3.180 127 127 254 79.87
15 Oceanside 936 North Coast Highway, Oceanside, CA 92054 3.665 117 127 244 66.58
51.602 2,103 2,043 4,146 1219.43
3.440 140 136 276 81.30
Total
Average
Weekday, peak hour of adjacent street traffic,
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant (with Drive-Through Window)
One hour between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m.
ID Location Full Address
1,000
SF GFA
Weekday MD Rate
(Trips/TSF)
Ganddini Group, Inc.
February 2024
Apx-168 292
15
3.440
51% entering, 49% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
Data Plot & Equation
Trip generation data for each site is provided on the attached count sheets.
Ganddini Group, Inc. (February 2024)
81.30 46.13 - 142.67 25.1
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies:
1000 Sq. Ft. GFA (Average):
Directional Distribution:
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
One hour between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m.
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant (with Drive-Through Window)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
On a: Weekday, peak hour of adjacent street traffic,
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 1 2 3 4 5
T
=
T
r
i
p
E
n
d
s
X = 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
x Study Site Average Rate
Apx-169 293
In Out Total
1 Redondo Beach 3801 Inglewood Ave, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 2.800 94 89 183 65.36
2 Long Beach 6391 E Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, CA 90803 3.600 69 73 142 39.44
3 Los Angeles 9149 S Sepulveda Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90045 3.800 127 111 238 62.63
4 Millbrae 11 Rollins Rd, Millbrae, CA 94030 3.750 128 107 235 62.67
5 Redwood City 949 Veterans Blvd, Redwood City, CA 94063 3.750 66 75 141 37.60
6 Rocklin 5490 Crossings Dr, Rocklin, CA 95677 3.750 84 75 159 42.40
7 Vacaville 170 Nut Tree Pkwy, Vacaville, CA 95687 3.750 87 65 152 40.53
8 Fairfield 1364 Holiday Ln, Fairfield, CA 94534 3.750 75 57 132 35.20
9 Mountain View 1159 N Rengstorff Ave, Mountain View, CA 94043 3.100 110 113 223 71.94
10 Mountain View 53 W El Camino Real, Mountain View, CA 94040 2.970 141 138 279 93.94
11 Union City 32060 Union Landing Blvd, Union City, CA 94587 3.160 137 133 270 85.44
12 Rancho San Margarita 30121 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 3.665 137 133 270 73.67
13 San Diego 10880 Carmel Mtn Rd, San Diego, CA 92128 2.912 98 92 190 65.25
14 San Diego 4375 Kearny Mesa Road, San Diego, CA 92111 3.180 87 100 187 58.81
15 Oceanside 936 North Coast Highway, Oceanside, CA 92054 3.665 98 100 198 54.02
51.602 1,538 1,461 2,999 888.90
3.440 103 97 200 59.26Average
Total
Weekday, peak hour of adjacent street traffic,
Rate
(Trips/TSF)
Weekday PM
One hour between 4 and 6 p.m.
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant (with Drive-Through Window)
1,000
SF GFAFull AddressLocationID
Ganddini Group, Inc.
February 2024
Apx-170 294
15
3.440
52% entering, 48% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
Data Plot & Equation
Trip generation data for each site is provided on the attached count sheets.
Ganddini Group, Inc. (February 2024)
Weekday, peak hour of adjacent street traffic,
1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant (with Drive-Through Window)
On a:
Vehicle Trip Ends vs:
17.2435.2 - 93.9459.26
General Urban/Suburban
One hour between 4 and 6 p.m.
Setting/Location:
Number of Studies:
1000 Sq. Ft. GFA (Average):
Directional Distribution:
Standard DeviationRange of RatesAverage Rate
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 1 2 3 4 5
T
=
T
r
i
p
E
n
d
s
X = 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
x Study Site Average Rate
Apx-171 295
Total
1 Redondo Beach 3801 Inglewood Ave, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 2.800 --
2 Long Beach 6391 E Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, CA 90803 3.600 --
3 Los Angeles 9149 S Sepulveda Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90045 3.800 --
4 Millbrae 11 Rollins Rd, Millbrae, CA 94030 3.750 5,137 1369.87
5 Redwood City 949 Veterans Blvd, Redwood City, CA 94063 3.750 2,225 593.33
6 Rocklin 5490 Crossings Dr, Rocklin, CA 95677 3.750 1,720 458.67
7 Vacaville 170 Nut Tree Pkwy, Vacaville, CA 95687 3.750 1,879 501.07
8 Fairfield 1364 Holiday Ln, Fairfield, CA 94534 3.750 1,662 443.20
9 Mountain View 1159 N Rengstorff Ave, Mountain View, CA 94043 3.100 2,535 817.74
10 Mountain View 53 W El Camino Real, Mountain View, CA 94040 2.970 2,962 997.31
11 Union City 32060 Union Landing Blvd, Union City, CA 94587 3.160 3,153 997.78
12 Rancho San Margarita 30121 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 3.665 2,864 781.45
13 San Diego 10880 Carmel Mtn Rd, San Diego, CA 92128 2.912 2,376 815.93
14 San Diego 4375 Kearny Mesa Road, San Diego, CA 92111 3.180 2,485 781.45
15 Oceanside 936 North Coast Highway, Oceanside, CA 92054 3.665 2,825 770.80
41.402 31,823 9328.60
3.450 2,652 777.38
Total
Average
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant (with Drive-Through Window)
Weekday
ID Location Full Address
1,000
SF GFA
Weekday Rate
(Trips/TSF)
Ganddini Group, Inc.
February 2024
Apx-172 296
15
3.450
50% entering, 50% exiting
Vehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
Data Plot & Equation
Trip generation data for each site is provided on the attached count sheets.
Ganddini Group, Inc. (February 2024)
777.38 443.2 - 1369.87 254.08
Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban
Number of Studies:
1000 Sq. Ft. GFA (Average):
Directional Distribution:
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant (with Drive-Through Window)
Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
On a: Weekday
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
0 1 2 3 4 5
T
=
T
r
i
p
E
n
d
s
X = 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
x Study Site Average Rate
Apx-173 297
Redondo Beach
(3801 Inglewood Ave, Redondo Beach, CA 90278)
Apx-174 298
Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Prepared by: Field Data Services of Arizona, Inc.
Wednesday, May16th 2012 CITY: Redondo Beach PROJECT: IN N OUT
AM Period IN OUT MAXIMUM QUEUE PM Period IN OUT
00:00 12:00 32 24 23
00:15 12:15 42 42 26
00:30 12:30 36 29 11
00:45 12:45 27 137 38 133 11
01:00 13:00 31 26 17
01:15 13:15 28 23 16
01:30 13:30 32 31 11
01:45 13:45 X91 X80 9
02:00 14:00 10
02:15 14:15 8
02:30 14:30 15
02:45 14:45 13
03:00 15:00 10
03:15 15:15 12
03:30 15:30 14
03:45 15:45 13
04:00 16:00 17 16 16
04:15 16:15 18 19 19
04:30 16:30 29 24 17
04:45 16:45 18 82 23 82 18
05:00 17:00 28 23 22
05:15 17:15 19 19 24
05:30 17:30 24 21 23
05:45 17:45 28 99 21 84 16
06:00 18:00 13 26 18
06:15 18:15 X X 23
06:30 18:30 X X 25
06:45 18:45 X13 X26 26
07:00 19:00 23
07:15 19:15 27
07:30 19:30 19
07:45 19:45 21
08:00 20:00 23
08:15 20:15 22
08:30 20:30 18
08:45 20:45 28
09:00 21:00 27
09:15 21:15 16
09:30 21:30 17
09:45 21:45 16
10:00 4 22:00 15
10:15 8 22:15 18
10:30 6 22:30 19
10:45 6 22:45 16
11:00 1123:00 15
11:15 2123:15 13
11:30 24 34 23 23:30 12
11:45 25 49 37 71 21 23:45 11
Total Vol.49 71 422 405
471
476
PACIFIC TRAFFIC & TRANSIT DATA SERVICES
Daily Total
IN
OUT
MAXIMUM QUEUE
Apx-175 299
Long Beach
(6391 E Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, CA 90803)
Apx-176 300
Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Prepared by: Field Data Services of Arizona, Inc.
CITY: Long Beach PROJECT:
AM Period IN OUT MAXIMUM QUEUE PM Period IN OUT MAXIMUM QUEUE
00:00 12:00 31 25 15
00:15 12:15 30 15 15
00:30 12:30 52 50 13
00:45 12:45 25 138 29 119 8
01:00 13:00 29 29 12
01:15 13:15 32 27 13
01:30 13:30 18 23 8
01:45 13:45 X 79 X 79 7
02:00 14:00 8
02:15 14:15 7
02:30 14:30 8
02:45 14:45 6
03:00 15:00 6
03:15 15:15 5
03:30 15:30 4
03:45 15:45 5
04:00 16:00 16 19 6
04:15 16:15 12 17 5
04:30 16:30 14 14 3
04:45 16:45 16 58 10 60 6
05:00 17:00 19 14 5
05:15 17:15 20 19 7
05:30 17:30 19 19 7
05:45 17:45 11 69 21 73 5
06:00 18:00 17 20 12
06:15 18:15 X X 7
06:30 18:30 X X 10
06:45 18:45 X 17 X 20 12
07:00 19:00 10
07:15 19:15 11
07:30 19:30 7
07:45 19:45 6
08:00 20:00 8
08:15 20:15 6
08:30 20:30 9
08:45 20:45 10
09:00 21:00 12
09:15 21:15 16
09:30 21:30 14
09:45 21:45 15
10:00 22:00 14
10:15 5 22:15 13
10:30 8 22:30 12
10:45 7 22:45 12
11:00 3 23:00 11
11:15 6 23:15 13
11:30 19 25 7 23:30 9
11:45 21 40 27 52 14 23:45 8
Total Vol.40 52 361 351
401
361
PACIFIC TRAFFIC & TRANSIT DATA SERVICES
OUT
Wednesday, May 16,2012 In N Out Burger
Daily Total
IN
Apx-177 301
Los Angeles
(9149 S Sepulveda Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90045)
Apx-178 302
05.16.2012
CITY: Los Angeles PROJECT:
AM Period IN OUT MAXIMUM QUEUE PM Period IN OUT MAXIMUM QUEUE
00:00 12:00 39 35 20
00:15 12:15 48 36 18
00:30 12:30 52 37 21
00:45 12:45 57 196 41 149 19
01:00 13:00 39 45 22
01:15 13:15 36 46 21
01:30 13:30 35 41 20
01:45 13:45 X 110 X 132 20
02:00 14:00 21
02:15 14:15 21
02:30 14:30 22
02:45 14:45 21
03:00 15:00 18
03:15 15:15 17
03:30 15:30 16
03:45 15:45 18
04:00 16:00 31 24 17
04:15 16:15 18 18 15
04:30 16:30 27 28 12
04:45 16:45 33 109 22 92 10
05:00 17:00 34 30 9
05:15 17:15 25 33 14
05:30 17:30 36 23 17
05:45 17:45 32 127 25 111 19
06:00 18:00 30 36 20
06:15 18:15 19
06:30 18:30 20
06:45 18:45 18
07:00 19:00 17
07:15 19:15 18
07:30 19:30 19
07:45 19:45 20
08:00 20:00 21
08:15 20:15 19
08:30 20:30 19
08:45 20:45 20
09:00 21:00 18
09:15 21:15 19
09:30 21:30 20
09:45 21:45 19
10:00 022:00 21
10:15 222:15 17
10:30 522:30 16
10:45 622:45 14
11:00 623:00 16
11:15 1223:15 17
11:30 28 32 16 23:30 15
11:45 31 59 29 61 120 19 23:45 13
Total Vol.59 61 542 484
IN OUT
601 545
PACIFIC TRAFFIC & TRANSIT DATA SERVICES
Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 In-N-Out Burger
Daily Totals
Page 1
Apx-179 303
Millbrae
(11 Rollins Rd, Millbrae, CA 94030)
Apx-180 304
Apx-181
30
5
Redwood City
(949 Veterans Blvd, Redwood City, CA 94063)
Apx-182 306
Apx-183
30
7
Rocklin
(5490 Crossings Dr, Rocklin, CA 95677)
Apx-184 308
Apx-185
30
9
Vacaville
(170 Nut Tree Pkwy, Vacaville, CA 95687)
Apx-186 310
Apx-187
31
1
Fairfield
(1364 Holiday Ln, Fairfield, CA 94534)
Apx-188 312
Apx-189
31
3
Mountain View & Union City
(1159 N Rengstorff Ave, Mountain View, CA 94043,
(53 W El Camino Real, Mountain View, CA 94040,
(32060 Union Landing Blvd, Union City, CA 94587)
Apx-190 314
Locations: 17‐7657 Day:Thursday
City:Mountain View & Union City,CA Date:9/14/2017
Reg HC Sub Total Reg HC Reserved Sub Total Reg HC Sub Total
Spaces 63 4 67 44 4 4 52 40 2 42 161
4:00 PM 21122261 2293403485
4:30 PM 23225221 3263223485
5:00 PM 22224260 1272312475
5:30 PM 24125280 1292902983
6:00 PM 28129360 2382512693
Site
Time IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT
4:00 PM 4:00 PM 13 15 21 28 27 25
4:15 PM 4:15 PM 19 12 19 20 25 32
4:30 PM 4:30 PM 19 24 23 15 11 22
4:45 PM 4:45 PM 19 19 22 23 23 23
5:00 PM 5:00 PM 14 13 26 19 29 28
5:15 PM 5:15 PM 24 15 28 22 27 21
5:30 PM 5:30 PM 24 21 27 24 23 24
5:45 PM 5:45 PM 23 24 32 24 27 24
6:00 PM Sum 155 143 198 175 192 199
10:30 AM 68 35 78 60 77 68
11:30 AM 154 123 178 157 136 108
12:30 PM 131 159 164 170 154 150
1:30 PM 116 119 113 114 131 132
2:30 PM 67 77 99 112 82 102
3:30 PM 65 67 75 83 118 100
4:30 PM 76 71 99 79 90 94
5:30 PM 109 96 117 114 116 105
6:30 PM 110 113 141 138 137 133
7:30 PM 107 100 108 111 131 130
8:30 PM 76 90 113 125 133 136
9:30 PM 83 81 102 100 110 123
10:30 PM 52 67 59 66 90 102
11:30 PM 35 50 29 35 61 67
12:30 AM 17 21 11 12 11 26
Sum 1266 1269 1486 1476 1577 1576
1 Hour Intervals
Parking Study
Queue Study Driveway In & Outs
123
15 Minute
Intervals Peak
12
17
17
13
2
14
17
16
12
12
617
7
11
13
12
6
7
10
1. 1159 N Rengstorff,Mountain View
Grand TotalTime1. 1159 N Rengstorff,Mountain View 2. 53 El Camino Real, Mountain View 3. 32060 Union Landing, Union City
Time
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
In‐N‐Out Parking & Queues
11
9
3
6
9
8
4
7
Drive‐Thru Max Queue
2. 53 El Camino Real, Mountain View
Drive‐Thru Max Queue
3. 32060 Union Landing, Union City
Drive‐Thru Max Queue
NOTES:
2. 53 El Camino Real,Mountain View
•At 5:30pm an In‐N‐Out employee came out to the drive‐thru to manually take orders ‐didn't appear to have an impact on
the queue wait time or shrinking the line at drive‐thru.
•The drive‐thru can hold 12‐13 cars in queue before extending to the street.
Apx-191
31
5
Rancho Santa Margarita
(30121 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688)
Apx-192 316
CITY: Rancho Santa Margarita PROJECT:
AM Period IN OUT EB WB PM Period IN OUT EB WB
0:00 1 2 0 0 12:00 21 24 0 0
0:15 2 4 0 0 12:15 15 18 0 0
0:30 4 6 0 0 12:30 20 33 0 0
0:45 1 8 4 16 0 0 0 0 24 12:45 24 80 22 97 0 0 0 0 177
1:00 0 1 0 0 13:00 20 25 0 0
1:15 0 0 0 0 13:15 20 29 0 0
1:30 0 1 0 0 13:30 7 21 0 0
1:45 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 4 13:45 17 64 26 101 0 0 0 0 165
2:00 0 0 0 0 14:00 15 15 0 0
2:15 0 0 0 0 14:15 11 20 0 0
2:30 0 0 0 0 14:30 17 21 0 0
2:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:45 12 55 20 76 0 0 0 0 131
3:00 0 0 0 0 15:00 10 18 0 0
3:15 0 0 0 0 15:15 14 16 0 0
3:30 0 0 0 0 15:30 13 30 0 0
3:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:45 11 48 23 87 0 0 0 0 135
4:00 0 0 0 0 16:00 24 16 0 0
4:15 0 0 0 0 16:15 18 14 0 0
4:30 0 0 0 0 16:30 21 11 0 0
4:45 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 16:45 14 77 28 69 0 0 0 0 146
5:00 0 0 0 0 17:00 15 33 0 0
5:15 0 0 0 0 17:15 25 15 0 0
5:30 0 0 0 0 17:30 23 34 0 0
5:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:45 23 86 32 114 0 0 0 0 200
6:00 0 0 0 0 18:00 25 29 0 0
6:15 1 0 0 0 18:15 33 31 0 0
6:30 0 0 0 0 18:30 19 26 0 0
6:45 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 18:45 21 98 30 116 0 0 0 0 214
7:00 0 0 0 0 19:00 23 24 0 0
7:15 0 0 0 0 19:15 19 28 0 0
7:30 2 2 0 0 19:30 21 25 0 0
7:45 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 5 19:45 15 78 14 91 0 0 0 0 169
8:00 0 0 0 0 20:00 18 25 0 0
8:15 0 0 0 0 20:15 12 23 0 0
8:30 2 0 0 0 20:30 9 18 0 0
8:45 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 20:45 9 48 34 100 0 0 0 0 148
9:00 0 0 0 0 21:00 15 21 0 0
9:15 1 0 0 0 21:15 12 14 0 0
9:30 0 0 0 0 21:30 11 23 0 0
9:45 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 21:45 8 46 18 76 0 0 0 0 122
10:00 5 1 0 0 22:00 4 14 0 0
10:15 3 9 0 0 22:15 9 14 0 0
10:30 9 4 0 0 22:30 10 11 0 0
10:45 12 29 7 21 0 0 0 0 50 22:45 6 29 15 54 0 0 0 0 83
11:00 18 12 0 0 23:00 4 12 0 0
11:15 12 20 0 0 23:15 4 11 0 0
11:30 24 27 0 0 23:30 1 6 0 0
11:45 23 77 25 84 0 0 0 0 161 23:45 5 14 10 39 0 0 0 0 53
Total Vol.127 130 257 723 1020 1743
NB SB EB WB Combined
850 1150 2000
Split %49.4% 50.6%12.9%41.5% 58.5%87.2%
Peak Hour 11:30 11:45 11:45 17:30 17:30 17:30
Volume 83 100 179 104 126 230P.H.F.0.86 0.76 0.84 0.96 0.93 0.90
Thursday, May 09, 2019 SC
ADT1 Driveway 1 north of Santa Margarita.Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888
Daily Totals
AM PM
cs@aimtd.com Tell. 714 253 7888
CITY: Rancho Santa Margarita PROJECT:
AM Period IN OUT EB WB PM Period IN OUT EB WB
0:00 7 4 0 0 12:00 16 2 0 0
0:15 5 2 0 0 12:15 15 7 0 0
0:30 1 2 0 0 12:30 8 5 0 0
0:45 1 14 4 12 0 0 0 0 26 12:45 20 59 10 24 0 0 0 0 83
1:00 0 0 0 0 13:00 12 7 0 0
1:15 0 1 0 0 13:15 7 5 0 0
1:30 0 0 0 0 13:30 9 6 0 0
1:45 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 13:45 7 35 2 20 0 0 0 0 55
2:00 0 0 0 0 14:00 8 8 0 0
2:15 0 0 0 0 14:15 12 4 0 0
2:30 0 0 0 0 14:30 9 9 0 0
2:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:45 7 36 6 27 0 0 0 0 63
3:00 0 0 0 0 15:00 23 4 0 0
3:15 0 0 0 0 15:15 18 7 0 0
3:30 0 0 0 0 15:30 12 7 0 0
3:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:45 4 57 5 23 0 0 0 0 80
4:00 0 0 0 0 16:00 13 4 0 0
4:15 0 0 0 0 16:15 8 4 0 0
4:30 0 0 0 0 16:30 16 5 0 0
4:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:45 13 50 4 17 0 0 0 0 67
5:00 0 0 0 0 17:00 20 7 0 0
5:15 0 0 0 0 17:15 7 6 0 0
5:30 0 0 0 0 17:30 11 5 0 0
5:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:45 13 51 1 19 0 0 0 0 70
6:00 0 0 0 0 18:00 12 9 0 0
6:15 0 0 0 0 18:15 15 3 0 0
6:30 0 1 0 0 18:30 5 4 0 0
6:45 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 18:45 15 47 5 21 0 0 0 0 68
7:00 0 0 0 0 19:00 14 7 0 0
7:15 0 0 0 0 19:15 7 1 0 0
7:30 0 0 0 0 19:30 6 3 0 0
7:45 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 19:45 7 34 9 20 0 0 0 0 54
8:00 0 0 0 0 20:00 17 5 0 0
8:15 0 0 0 0 20:15 11 3 0 0
8:30 0 0 0 0 20:30 7 7 0 0
8:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20:45 13 48 4 19 0 0 0 0 67
9:00 0 0 0 0 21:00 36 6 0 0
9:15 0 0 0 0 21:15 10 5 0 0
9:30 0 0 0 0 21:30 4 4 0 0
9:45 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 21:45 11 61 11 26 0 0 0 0 87
10:00 4 1 0 0 22:00 3 4 0 0
10:15 3 1 0 0 22:15 6 9 0 0
10:30 2 2 0 0 22:30 4 3 0 0
10:45 6 15 3 7 0 0 0 0 22 22:45 4 17 0 16 0 0 0 0 33
11:00 6 3 0 0 23:00 10 5 0 0
11:15 12 2 0 0 23:15 5 5 0 0
11:30 8 3 0 0 23:30 1 1 0 0
11:45 14 40 6 14 0 0 0 0 54 23:45 1 17 3 14 0 0 0 0 31
Total Vol.71 35 106 512 246 758
NB SB EB WB Combined
583 281 864
Split %67.0% 33.0%12.3%67.5% 32.5%87.7%
Peak Hour 11:30 11:45 11:45 20:15 12:15 20:30
Volume 53 20 73 67 29 88P.H.F.0.83 0.71 0.83 0.85 0.73 0.52
Thursday, May 09, 2019 SC
ADT2 Driveway 2 north of Santa Margarita.Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888
Daily Totals
AM PM
cs@aimtd.com Tell. 714 253 7888
Apx-193
31
7
San Diego 1
(10880 Carmel Mountain Road, San Diego, CA 92128)
Apx-194 318
City:
Location:
Location:
Date:
Count Type:
Entering Exiting Total
0:00 8 10 18
0:15 13 11 24
0:30 7 9 16
0:45 7 9 16
1:00 0 5 5
1:15 1 2 3
1:30 0 0 0
1:45 0 4 4
2:00 0 1 1
2:15 0 4 4
2:30 0 0 0
2:45 0 0 0
3:00 0 0 0
3:15 1 2 3
3:30 0 1 1
3:45 0 1 1
4:00 0 0 0
4:15 1 0 1
4:30 0 0 0
4:45 1 1 2
5:00 1 1 2
5:15 0 0 0
5:30 1 2 3
5:45 0 0 0
6:00 0 0 0
6:15 0 0 0
6:30 1 0 1
6:45 0 0 0
7:00 0 0 0
7:15 1 0 1
7:30 1 1 2
7:45 5 1 6
8:00 0 0 0
8:15 0 0 0
8:30 1 1 2
8:45 2 3 5
9:00 0 0 0
9:15 1 3 4
9:30 1 0 1
9:45 0 1 1
10:00 11 2 13
10:15 6 9 15
10:30 11 11 22
10:45 8 6 14
11:00 21 7 28
11:15 20 12 32
11:30 25 25 50
11:45 33 25 58
12:00 20 28 48
12:15 25 24 49
12:30 33 27 60
12:45 34 32 66
13:00 28 24 52
San Diego
11880 Carmel Mountain Road
TOTAL
Thursday, May 12, 2022
Driveway
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268Apx-195 319
City:
Location:
Location:
Date:
Count Type:
Entering Exiting Total
San Diego
11880 Carmel Mountain Road
TOTAL
Thursday, May 12, 2022
Driveway
13:15 16 24 40
13:30 27 31 58
13:45 25 21 46
14:00 22 15 37
14:15 17 30 47
14:30 22 22 44
14:45 14 17 31
15:00 15 24 39
15:15 22 22 44
15:30 17 16 33
15:45 19 17 36
16:00 22 17 39
16:15 17 14 31
16:30 26 28 54
16:45 24 23 47
17:00 19 20 39
17:15 29 21 50
17:30 28 20 48
17:45 14 18 32
18:00 22 27 49
18:15 24 18 42
18:30 20 24 44
18:45 25 27 52
19:00 17 21 38
19:15 26 21 47
19:30 23 30 53
19:45 24 25 49
20:00 20 24 44
20:15 23 20 43
20:30 25 24 49
20:45 17 31 48
21:00 19 19 38
21:15 24 17 41
21:30 18 22 40
21:45 21 22 43
22:00 19 22 41
22:15 15 19 34
22:30 10 21 31
22:45 10 11 21
23:00 21 10 31
23:15 11 11 22
23:30 10 16 26
23:45 9 12 21
TOTAL 1177 1199 2376
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268Apx-196 320
San Diego 2
(4375 Kearny Mesa Road, San Diego, CA 92111)
Apx-197 321
City:
Location:
Location:
Date:
Count Type:
Entering Exiting Total
0:00 15 8 23
0:15 10 11 21
0:30 8 13 21
0:45 7 12 19
1:00 1 11 12
1:15 0 1 1
1:30 0 1 1
1:45 0 0 0
2:00 0 1 1
2:15 0 6 6
2:30 0 0 0
2:45 0 0 0
3:00 1 0 1
3:15 0 0 0
3:30 0 0 0
3:45 0 0 0
4:00 0 0 0
4:15 1 0 1
4:30 0 1 1
4:45 1 0 1
5:00 1 0 1
5:15 0 0 0
5:30 0 0 0
5:45 0 0 0
6:00 0 0 0
6:15 0 0 0
6:30 1 0 1
6:45 0 0 0
7:00 0 0 0
7:15 1 0 1
7:30 0 0 0
7:45 2 0 2
8:00 0 1 1
8:15 1 0 1
8:30 2 0 2
8:45 1 2 3
9:00 2 3 5
9:15 1 1 2
9:30 2 1 3
9:45 8 4 12
10:00 9 3 12
10:15 12 7 19
10:30 13 11 24
10:45 24 17 41
11:00 19 14 33
11:15 21 18 39
11:30 19 21 40
11:45 19 29 48
12:00 29 23 52
12:15 31 38 69
12:30 23 24 47
12:45 29 28 57
13:00 38 38 76
San Diego
4375 Kearny Mesa Road
TOTAL
Thursday, May 12, 2022
Driveway
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268Apx-198 322
City:
Location:
Location:
Date:
Count Type:
Entering Exiting Total
San Diego
4375 Kearny Mesa Road
TOTAL
Thursday, May 12, 2022
Driveway
13:15 32 28 60
13:30 28 33 61
13:45 23 25 48
14:00 29 22 51
14:15 18 31 49
14:30 18 23 41
14:45 20 26 46
15:00 23 26 49
15:15 19 21 40
15:30 16 23 39
15:45 20 22 42
16:00 17 26 43
16:15 24 22 46
16:30 23 28 51
16:45 23 24 47
17:00 20 21 41
17:15 18 23 41
17:30 18 26 44
17:45 24 20 44
18:00 20 26 46
18:15 23 23 46
18:30 27 22 49
18:45 27 26 53
19:00 20 29 49
19:15 29 23 52
19:30 17 22 39
19:45 13 24 37
20:00 22 21 43
20:15 26 23 49
20:30 19 18 37
20:45 12 16 28
21:00 21 20 41
21:15 18 14 32
21:30 19 18 37
21:45 18 14 32
22:00 15 18 33
22:15 20 19 39
22:30 15 15 30
22:45 21 17 38
23:00 22 0 22
23:15 26 1 27
23:30 23 0 23
23:45 19 1 20
TOTAL 1257 1228 2485
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268Apx-199 323
Oceanside
(936 North Coast Highway, Oceanside, CA 92054)
Apx-200 324
City:
Location:
Location:
Date:
Count Type:
Entering Exiting Total
0:00 17 15 32
0:15 10 11 21
0:30 7 17 24
0:45 8 8 16
1:00 7 11 18
1:15 4 13 17
1:30 1 5 6
1:45 1 2 3
2:00 0 1 1
2:15 1 0 1
2:30 0 5 5
2:45 0 0 0
3:00 0 0 0
3:15 0 0 0
3:30 0 0 0
3:45 0 0 0
4:00 0 0 0
4:15 0 1 1
4:30 1 0 1
4:45 2 0 2
5:00 2 0 2
5:15 1 0 1
5:30 0 0 0
5:45 0 0 0
6:00 3 2 5
6:15 0 0 0
6:30 0 1 1
6:45 1 0 1
7:00 2 2 4
7:15 1 0 1
7:30 0 0 0
7:45 0 2 2
8:00 3 6 9
8:15 0 2 2
8:30 0 2 2
8:45 0 5 5
9:00 1 0 1
9:15 4 1 5
9:30 1 2 3
9:45 1 5 6
10:00 5 2 7
10:15 8 2 10
10:30 16 3 19
10:45 12 5 17
11:00 18 17 35
11:15 22 15 37
11:30 30 16 46
11:45 34 13 47
12:00 23 19 42
12:15 27 39 66
12:30 24 18 42
12:45 32 32 64
13:00 26 25 51
San Diego
936 N Coast Highway
TOTAL
Thursday, May 12, 2022
Driveway
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268Apx-201 325
City:
Location:
Location:
Date:
Count Type:
Entering Exiting Total
San Diego
936 N Coast Highway
TOTAL
Thursday, May 12, 2022
Driveway
13:15 28 27 55
13:30 31 43 74
13:45 32 27 59
14:00 25 20 45
14:15 22 26 48
14:30 28 22 50
14:45 13 22 35
15:00 26 13 39
15:15 14 17 31
15:30 17 25 42
15:45 21 17 38
16:00 21 28 49
16:15 20 32 52
16:30 28 21 49
16:45 22 24 46
17:00 28 23 51
17:15 18 23 41
17:30 17 20 37
17:45 21 24 45
18:00 23 29 52
18:15 32 30 62
18:30 27 32 59
18:45 23 23 46
19:00 30 31 61
19:15 29 37 66
19:30 33 26 59
19:45 26 30 56
20:00 26 29 55
20:15 25 37 62
20:30 34 23 57
20:45 30 24 54
21:00 19 24 43
21:15 23 25 48
21:30 32 42 74
21:45 31 31 62
22:00 23 30 53
22:15 26 20 46
22:30 38 22 60
22:45 26 25 51
23:00 18 20 38
23:15 21 12 33
23:30 15 16 31
23:45 14 16 30
TOTAL 1412 1413 2825
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268Apx-202 326
APPENDIX G
EMPLOYEE TRIP GENERATION ASSESSMENT
Apx-203 327
transportation ■ noise ■ air quality | GANDDINI GROUP
555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225, Santa Ana, California 92705
(714) 795-3100 | ganddini.com
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Brigid Williams | IN-N-OUT BURGERS, INC.
FROM: Tom Huang, Senior Traffic Engineer | GANDDINI GROUP, INC.
DATE: July 3, 2024
SUBJECT: In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project Employee Trip Generation Assessment
(GGI Project No. 19710)
The purpose of this trip generation assessment is to estimate the daily employee trip generation for the
proposed In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project in the City of South San Francisco.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 1.5-acre project site is located east of El Camino Real (State Route 82) approximately mid-block between
Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue and Southwood Drive/1st Street in the City of South San
Francisco, California. The overall project site consists of two parcels: The northern parcel has an address of
972 El Camino Real, and the southern parcel has an address of 934 El Camino Real. The northern parcel is
currently a retail use occupied by a 3,000 square foot fast food restaurant with drive-through lane (Burger
King – to be demolished). The southern parcel is currently occupied by a 1,224 square foot commercial office
building (“Psychic Boutique” – to be demolished).
The proposed project involves redevelopment of the project site with a new 3,887 square foot In-N-Out
Burger restaurant with drive through window and associated landscaping and parking lot improvements. The
drive through lane proposes storage capacity for up to 39 vehicles. Vehicular access is proposed via two right-
in/right-out only driveways on El Camino Real. The parking lot has 51 parking spaces accessible via the Project
North Driveway and the Project South Driveway.
EMPLOYEE TRIP GENERATION
Typical In-N-Out Burger restaurants, as proposed for this project, operate with approximately 15 store
associates per shift with three overlapping shifts per day. Lunch and dinner peak hours are accommodated by
the overlap of shifts. Conservatively assuming each store associate drives to the site individually (i.e., no
carpool or bike/transit commuters), the number of trips estimated to be generated by these store associates
is shown below:
Shift
Number of
Store Associates Inbound Trips Outbound Trips
Total Associate
Trips Per Day
1 15 15 15 30
2 15 15 15 30
3 15 15 15 30
Total 45 45 45 90
Based on the operational information provided by In-N-Out, the proposed project is estimated to generate
approximately 90 store associate trips per day.
Apx-204 328
Brigid Williams
IN-N-OUT BURGERS, INC.
July 3, 2024
In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project Employee Trip Generation Assessment
2 19710
CONCLUSIONS
The project is estimated to generate fewer than 100 daily store associate trips.
Should you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us at
(714) 795-3100 x 102.
Apx-205 329
APPENDIX H
IN-N-OUT DRIVE THROUGH QUEUE SURVEY DATA SHEETS
Apx-206 330
02.04.16 Thursday
Time Vehicles
16:00-16:15 5
16:15-16:30 8
16:30-16:45 9
16:45-17:00 16
17:00-17:15 17
17:15-17:30 16
17:30-17:45 8
17:45-18:00 17
02.06.16 Saturday
Time Vehicles
12:00-12:15 13
12:15-12:30 18
12:30-12:45 17
12:45-13:00 18
13:00-13:15 23
13:15-13:30 17
13:30-13:45 15
13:45-14:00 18
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888
cs@aimtd.com
In-N-Out Fairfield
Drive-Through Lane Queue Study
H:\pdata\151372\Count\Drive_Thru\Queue Study.xlsx
N - 7
Apx-207 331
Locations: 17‐7657 Day:Thursday
City:Mountain View & Union City,CA Date:9/14/2017
Reg HC Sub Total Reg HC Reserved Sub Total Reg HC Sub Total
Spaces 63 4 67 44 4 4 52 40 2 42 161
4:00 PM 21122261 2293403485
4:30 PM 23225221 3263223485
5:00 PM 22224260 1272312475
5:30 PM 24125280 1292902983
6:00 PM 28129360 2382512693
Site
Time IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT
4:00 PM 4:00 PM 13 15 21 28 27 25
4:15 PM 4:15 PM 19 12 19 20 25 32
4:30 PM 4:30 PM 19 24 23 15 11 22
4:45 PM 4:45 PM 19 19 22 23 23 23
5:00 PM 5:00 PM 14 13 26 19 29 28
5:15 PM 5:15 PM 24 15 28 22 27 21
5:30 PM 5:30 PM 24 21 27 24 23 24
5:45 PM 5:45 PM 23 24 32 24 27 24
6:00 PM Sum 155 143 198 175 192 199
10:30 AM 68 35 78 60 77 68
11:30 AM 154 123 178 157 136 108
12:30 PM 131 159 164 170 154 150
1:30 PM 116 119 113 114 131 132
2:30 PM 67 77 99 112 82 102
3:30 PM 65 67 75 83 118 100
4:30 PM 76 71 99 79 90 94
5:30 PM 109 96 117 114 116 105
6:30 PM 110 113 141 138 137 133
7:30 PM 107 100 108 111 131 130
8:30 PM 76 90 113 125 133 136
9:30 PM 83 81 102 100 110 123
10:30 PM 52 67 59 66 90 102
11:30 PM 35 50 29 35 61 67
12:30 AM 17 21 11 12 11 26
Sum 1266 1269 1486 1476 1577 1576
1 Hour Intervals
Parking Study
Queue Study Driveway In & Outs
123
15 Minute
Intervals Peak
12
17
17
13
2
14
17
16
12
12
617
7
11
13
12
6
7
10
1. 1159 N Rengstorff,Mountain View
Grand TotalTime1. 1159 N Rengstorff,Mountain View 2. 53 El Camino Real, Mountain View 3. 32060 Union Landing, Union City
Time
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
In‐N‐Out Parking & Queues
11
9
3
6
9
8
4
7
Drive‐Thru Max Queue
2. 53 El Camino Real, Mountain View
Drive‐Thru Max Queue
3. 32060 Union Landing, Union City
Drive‐Thru Max Queue
NOTES:
2. 53 El Camino Real,Mountain View
•At 5:30pm an In‐N‐Out employee came out to the drive‐thru to manually take orders ‐didn't appear to have an impact on
the queue wait time or shrinking the line at drive‐thru.
•The drive‐thru can hold 12‐13 cars in queue before extending to the street.
Apx-208
33
2
Locations: 17‐7657 Day:Saturday
City:Mountain View & Union City,CA Date:9/16/2017
Reg HC Sub Total Reg HC Reserved NP Sub Total Reg HC Sub Total
Spaces 63 4 67 44 4 4 0 52 40 2 42 161
12:00 PM 44 1 45 39 1 3 0 43 38 2 40 128
12:30 PM 50 2 52 42 0 4 0 46 36 2 38 136
1:00 PM 45 3 48 41 2 3 1 47 39 1 40 135
1:30 PM 63 3 66 39 2 1 0 42 40 2 42 150
2:00 PM 53 1 54 38 1 0 0 39 36 1 37 130
Site
Time IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT
12:00 PM 12:00 PM 38 32 45 47 37 23
12:15 PM 12:15 PM 36 38 41 38 39 43
12:30 PM 12:30 PM 40 27 38 39 34 36
12:45 PM 12:45 PM 39 42 47 45 34 40
1:00 PM 1:00 PM 39 40 35 37 38 27
1:15 PM 1:15 PM 38 29 42 48 44 39
1:30 PM 1:30 PM 41 42 28 27 42 43
1:45 PM 1:45 PM 29 37 43 45 33 37
2:00 PM Sum 300 287 319 326 301 288
Queue Study
123
Driveway In & Outs
Time 1. 1159 N Rengstorff,Mountain View 2. 53 El Camino Real, Mountain View 3. 32060 Union Landing, Union City
Drive‐Thru Max Queue Drive‐Thru Max Queue Drive‐Thru Max Queue
xx14
28 13 20
29 15 25
30 19 11
23 15 14
28 17 17
31 18 12
25 17 13
22 15 14
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
In‐N‐Out Parking & Queues
Time 1. 1159 N Rengstorff,Mountain View 2. 53 El Camino Real, Mountain View 3. 32060 Union Landing, Union City Grand Total
Parking Study
NOTES:
2. 53 El Camino Real,Mountain View
•A In‐N‐Out employee manually taking orders halted the queue several times.
Apx-209
33
3
02.04.16 Thursday
Time Vehicles
16:00-16:15 5
16:15-16:30 8
16:30-16:45 7
16:45-17:00 6
17:00-17:15 8
17:15-17:30 9
17:30-17:45 11
17:45-18:00 12
02.06.16 Saturday
Time Vehicles
12:00-12:15 10
12:15-12:30 13
12:30-12:45 12
12:45-13:00 11
13:00-13:15 12
13:15-13:30 14
13:30-13:45 13
13:45-14:00 12
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888
cs@aimtd.com
In-N-Out Rocklin
Drive-Through Lane Queue Study
H:\pdata\151372\Count\Drive_Thru\Queue Study.xlsx
N - 5
Apx-210 334
Site 4 (Q)
Time Wed 27/May 15 Notes
16:00 17
16:15 16
16:30 16
16:45 16
17:00 16
17:15 16
17:30 17
17:45 17
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 pacific@aimtd.com
In N Out
445 Industrial Road, San Carlos
Queue Study
Apx-211 335
02.04.16 Thursday
Time Vehicles
16:00-16:15 11
16:15-16:30 14
16:30-16:45 16
16:45-17:00 17
17:00-17:15 13
17:15-17:30 11
17:30-17:45 13
17:45-18:00 18
02.06.16 Saturday
Time Vehicles
12:00-12:15 20
12:15-12:30 19
12:30-12:45 15
12:45-13:00 23
13:00-13:15 22
13:15-13:30 28
13:30-13:45 27
13:45-14:00 29
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888
cs@aimtd.com
In-N-Out Vacaville
Drive-Through Lane Queue Study
H:\pdata\151372\Count\Drive_Thru\Queue Study.xlsx
N - 6
Apx-212 336
GANDDINI GROUP INC.
714.795.3100 | ganddini.com
337
NOISE STUDY
IN-N-OUT BURGER RESTAURANT PROJECT
972 El Camino Real
South San Francisco, CA 94080
PREPARED FOR:
In-N-Out Burger
13502 Hamburger Lane
Baldwin Park, CA 91706
PREPARED BY:
Westlake Village Office
860 Hampshire Road, Suite P
Westlake Village, CA 91361
JULY 2024
338
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project i City of South San Francisco
Noise Study July 2024
Table of Contents
Section Page
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1
Project Description ...................................................................................................... 3
Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 6
Methodology ............................................................................................................ 10
Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................................ 15
Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................... 19
Certification ............................................................................................................ 27
Appendix
A Noise Monitoring Data Sheets
B Construction Noise Worksheet
C Construction Vibration Worksheet
D SoundPLAN Output Sheets (Operational)
339
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project ii City of South San Francisco
Noise Study July 2024
Figures
Figure Page
1 Project Site Location .......................................................................................... 4
2 Site Plan ......................................................................................................... 5
3 Noise Monitoring Location .................................................................................... 8
4 Sensitive Receptor Map ........................................................................................ 9
5 Operational Noise Level Contour Map (Daytime) ........................................................ 24
6 Operational Noise Level Contour Map (Nighttime) ...................................................... 25
Tables
Table Page
1 Ambient Noise Measurements ................................................................................ 6
2 Construction Equipment by Phase ......................................................................... 11
3 Land Use/Noise Compatibility Guidelines ................................................................ 16
4 Maximum Permissible Sound Levels ....................................................................... 17
5 Construction Maximum Noise Estimates .................................................................. 20
6 On-Site Construction Vibration Impacts – Building Damage ........................................... 21
7 Modeled Exterior Noise Levels from Operational Sources ............................................. 22
8 Modeled Exterior Noise Levels from Truck Deliveries .................................................. 23
340
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 1 City of South San Francisco
Noise Study July 2024
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this noise analysis is to provide an assessment of the impacts resulting from the In-N-Out
Burger Restaurant (Project) and to identify any measures that may be necessary to reduce potentially
significant impacts.
On-Site Construction Noise
Construction noise levels would be reduced via standard noise control strategies, which are existing
requirements and reasonably anticipated standard conditions based on local, State, or federal regulations
and laws that are frequently required independently of CEQA review and serve to offset or prevent
specific impacts. These strategies are not included as mitigation measures in the environmental
clearance document because the Project is required to comply with these control strategies through
State and local regulations.
Construction noise sources are regulated within the City’s Municipal Code Section 8.32.050, which
prohibits construction between the hours of 8:00 PM and 8:00 AM Monday through Friday, 8:00 PM and
9:00 AM on Saturday and 6:00 PM to 10:00 AM on Sundays and holidays. Modeled construction noise levels
with standard noise control strategies would further reduce noise levels to within acceptable limits.
Noise reduction measures include but are not limited to optimal muffler systems, dampening materials,
sound aprons and limiting simultaneous operations.
Off-Site Construction Noise
Construction of the Project would require worker, haul, and vendor truck trips to and from the site to
work on the site, export soil, and deliver supplies to the site. Trucks traveling to and from the Project
site would be required to travel along a haul route approved by the City. At the maximum, approximately
8 hauling trips per day would take place during the demolition phase based on construction schedule
assumptions. Haul truck traffic would take the most direct route to the freeway ramp El Camino Real.
The noise level increases from truck trips would be below the significance threshold of 5 dBA above
ambient. As such, off-site construction noise impacts would not be considered significant.
341
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 2 City of South San Francisco
Noise Study July 2024
Operational Noise
The nearest sensitive uses to the site include the multi-family residential uses to the north along El
Camino Real, the Deluxe Inn Motel to the south and the residential uses along 1st Street, A Street, and
Antionette Lane. The source noise levels from the Project site include parking activities from mobile
vehicles, drive-through queuing, outdoor patio area and amplified speech from the speaker box.
Additionally, truck deliveries would occur anytime between the hours of 2:00 AM and 9:00 AM. The
proposed project would adhere to Section 8.32.030 of the City’s Municipal Code and would not exceed
the daytime exterior threshold of 60 dBA and nighttime exterior threshold of 55 dBA at nearby residential
uses. Additionally, noise levels would not result in a 5 dBA increase above the measured ambient noise
levels during both the daytime and nighttime period.
Construction Vibration
The forecasted vibration levels due to on-site construction activities would not exceed the building
damage significance threshold of 0.5 PPV for reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber building at the
adjacent residential uses.
342
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 3 City of South San Francisco
Noise Study July 2024
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 65,493 square foot (1.504 acre) Project site is located at 972 and 934 El Camino Real in the City of
South San Francisco (refer to Figure 1: Project Site Location). The Project site currently contains an
operating one-story 3,000 square foot Burger King restaurant, consisting of 43 surface paved striped
parking spaces with a 320-foot-long protected drive-thru lane and a 240-foot-long overflow vehicle
stacked striped area. Additionally, the Project site contains an operating psychic boutique building with
no striped parking spaces but with capacity to park vehicles on pavement and soil.
The Project would include removal of the existing uses for construction of a new 3,887-square foot In-N-
Out Burger Restaurant with a drive-through lane. The restaurant would provide seating capacity of 112
people (84 seats indoor, 28 seats outdoor), a drive-through queuing lane with a capacity of up to 39
cars, landscaping, and parking spaces for up to 51 vehicles (refer to Figure 2: Site Plan).
This restaurant will be equipped with three burger grills. Two grills will operate at all times, and
activation of the third grill will be done in response to high dine-in or, more typically, high drive-through
demand as activating the third grill significantly increases the speed at which drive-through orders are
delivered to customer vehicles. Standard store operating procedure requires that as soon as the drive-
through queue reaches the 8th or 9th car (where the menu board/order speaker is located), In-N-Out
associates are deployed outside to take orders using hand-held ordering tablets. The use of these tablets
allows orders to funnel into the kitchen faster than ordering at the menu board resulting in the shortest
possible drive-through vehicle queues. Awareness of the queue reaching the menu board (and
deployment of associates with hand-held tablets) is enhanced with outdoor cameras and indoor monitors.
There will be between 4 and 6 outdoor cameras on this site, with 3 or 4 of them specifically viewing the
drive-through lane. These cameras display on multiple monitors located inside the restaurant including
at the manager’s office, above the grills, and at both the pay and pickup windows.
There is no delivery dock or designated delivery parking bay required on the premises as deliveries are
made only by In-N-Out owned operated vehicles, after the restaurant is closed to the public between the
hours of 2:00 AM and 9:00 AM. Delivery trucks operate after hours to allow the parking and queue
management to be at its most effective throughout the day. Allowing trucks to deliver after-hours ensures
that truck traffic is not on the road during either morning or evening peak hours. Site access for these
delivery trucks would be from El Camino Real and would unload at the service entrance located adjacent
to parking stalls #1 through #9.
The restaurant would operate seven days a week, from 10:00 AM to 1:00 AM Sunday through Thursday,
and from 10:00 AM to 1:30 AM on Friday and Saturday. The restaurant, drive-through, and parking lot, as
with all In-N-Out Burgers restaurants, would be well-lit and meticulously maintained. The restaurant
would be staffed by approximately 10 to 12 associates per shift, with 3 shifts per day.
343
Project Site Location
FIGURE 1
121-013-24
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2024
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
2501250 500
N
Project Site
344
FIGURE 2
SOURCE: MSL Engineering, Inc. - 6-27-2024
Site Plan
121-013-24
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
50250 100
N
345
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 6 City of South San Francisco
Noise Study July 2024
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Ambient Noise Levels
As a center of industrial and commercial activity, the City of South San Francisco is surrounded by major
street and highways including U.S. Highway 101, Interstate 280, State Route 82, State Route 35, and
Interstate 380. The proximity of these local and regional arteries, and the large amount of truck traffic
serving industrial, warehousing, and freight forwarding uses make the City of South San Francisco
susceptible to traffic noise and vibration. Other primary sources of noise and vibration around the city
include the San Francisco International (SFO) Airport and rail lines (BART and Caltrain).
Long-term (24-hour) sound monitoring was conducted at the Project site adjacent to the multi-family
residential units to the north. Measurements were taken between March 19 – March 20, 2024 and provided
in Table 1: Ambient Noise Measurements. Figures 3: Noise Monitoring Location depicts locations
where ambient noise measurements were conducted. As shown in Table 1, noise levels ranged from 59.9
dBA (Leq-daytime) during the daytime period and 59.2 dBA (Leq-nighttime) during the nighttime period.
Additionally, 24-hour noise levels were 66.0 dBA CNEL
TABLE 1: AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS
Location Location Description Daytime1 Nighttime2 CNEL3
1 972 El Camino Real 59.9 59.2 66.0
Source: Refer to Appendix A for noise monitoring data sheets.
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = average equivalent sound level.
1 Daytime = 7:00 AM – 10:00 PM.
2 Nighttime = 10:00 PM – 7:00 AM.
3 5 dB adjustment between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM and 10 dB adjustment between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
346
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 7 City of South San Francisco
Noise Study July 2024
Sensitive Uses
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to intrusive noise than others based on the types of
activities typically involved at the receptor location. Land uses considered to be noise sensitive include
residences, schools, hospitals, libraries, and parks. Residential land uses are considered especially noise
sensitive because (1) considerable time is spent by individuals at home, (2) significant activities occur
outdoors, and (3) sleep disturbance is most likely to occur in a residential area. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) considers uses where people normally sleep, such as residences, hotels, and
motels, noise-sensitive land uses.1
The City currently has numerous sensitive land uses, in particular residences, schools, health care
facilities, and playgrounds. These sensitive land uses will continue to exist, and new sensitive land uses
will be established pursuant to General Plan policies. The Project site is within the Transect Zoning
District (TSC) and is predominantly surrounded by commercial uses with multi-family residential uses
located adjacent to the north along El Camino Real, the Deluxe Inn Motel to the south and the residential
uses along 1st Street, A Street, and Antionette Lane (refer to Figure 4: Sensitive Receptor Map).
Vibration Conditions
Based on field observations, the primary source of existing ground-borne vibration in the vicinity of the
Project site is vehicle traffic on local roadways. According to the Federal Transit Administration,2 typical
road traffic–induced vibration levels are unlikely to be perceptible by people. Trucks and buses typically
generate ground-borne vibration velocity levels of approximately 63 VdB (at a 50-foot distance), and
these levels could reach 72 VdB when trucks and buses pass over bumps in the road. A vibration level of
72 VdB is above the 60 VdB level of perceptibility.
1 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, p. 23,
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-
assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed March 2024.
2 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA report no. 0123 (September 2018),
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-
assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed March 2024.
347
Noise Monitoring Location
FIGURE 3
121-013-24
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2024
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
50250 100
N
Project Site
Noise Site
Legend
MonitoringSite
348
Sensitive Receptor Map
FIGURE 4
121-013-24
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2024
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
100500 200
N
Multi-Family Residential
Deluxe Inn Motel
Single Family Residential
Legend
349
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 10 City of South San Francisco
Noise Study July 2024
METHODOLOGY
Ambient Noise Measurements
Noise-level monitoring was conducted by Meridian Consultants between March 19 – March 20, 2024, at
the Project site adjacent to the multi-family residential uses to the north, as shown in Figure 3. Noise-
level monitoring was conducted 24-hours using a Larson Davis Model 831 sound-level meter. This meter
satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard for general environmental noise
measurement instrumentation. The ANSI specifies several types of sound-level meters according to their
precision. Types 1, 2, and 3 are referred to as “precision,” “general-purpose,” and “survey” meters,
respectively. Most measurements carefully taken with a Type 1 sound-level meter will have a margin of
error not exceeding 1 dB.
The Larson Davis Model 831 is a Type 1 precision sound-level meter. This meter meets all requirements
of ANSI S1.4-1983 and ANSI1.43-1997 Type 1 standards, as well as International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC) IEC61672-1 Ed. 1.0, IEC60651 Ed 1.2, and IEC60804 Type 1, Group X standards. The
sound-level meter was located approximately 5 feet above ground and was covered with a Larson Davis
windscreen. The sound-level meter was field calibrated with an external calibrator prior to operation.
Construction
Future dates represent approximations based on the general Project timeline and are subject to change
pending unpredictable circumstances that may arise. As such, for purposes of this analysis, project
construction is assumed to begin August 2025 and is expected to last until March 2026. Construction
would occur over the following phases: (1) demolition; (2) grading, (3) building construction, (4) paving,
and (5) architectural coating.
Each phase of construction would result in varying levels of intensity and a number of construction
personnel. The construction workforce would consist of approximately 10 worker trips per day and
approximately 2 hauling trips per day during demolition; approximately 8 worker trips per day and
approximately 7 hauling trips per day during grading; approximately 2 worker trips per day and
approximately 1 vendor trips per day during building construction; approximately 18 worker trips per day
during paving; and approximately 1 worker trips per day during architectural coating.
On-Site Construction Equipment
Construction activities typically generate noise from the operation of equipment within the Project Site
that is required for the construction of various facilities. Noise impacts from on-site construction
equipment as well as the on-site staging of construction trucks were evaluated by determining the noise
levels generated by different types of construction activity and calculating the construction-related noise
level at nearby noise-sensitive receptor locations. Actual construction noise levels would vary, depending
upon the equipment type, model, the type of work activity being performed, and the condition of the
equipment.
350
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 11 City of South San Francisco
Noise Study July 2024
In order to calculate construction noise levels, hourly activity or utilization factors (i.e., the percentage
of normal construction activity that would occur, or construction equipment that would be active, during
each hour of the day) are estimated based on the temporal characteristics of other previous and current
construction projects. The hourly activity factors express the percentage of time that construction
activities would emit average noise levels. Typical noise levels for each type of construction equipment
were obtained from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model.3
An inventory of construction equipment, including the number and types of equipment, which would be
operating simultaneously within the Project Site was identified for each phase/component of
construction and shown in Table 2: Construction Equipment by Phase. It is highly unlikely that all pieces
of construction equipment identified in Table 2 would operate simultaneously in any specific location
during construction because equipment is generally operated only when needed and space constraints
limit the equipment that can be used at any one time in a specific location. Therefore, this modeling is
considered a conservative approach to calculate the maximum noise levels that would be generated.
TABLE 2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT BY PHASE
Construction Phase Equipment Type Quantity
Usage Hours (per day)
Noise Level at 25 feet (dBA Leq-1hour)
Calculated Average Noise Level (dBA Leq-1hour)
Demolition
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6 89.1
92.5 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1 83.7
Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 88.6
Grading
Graders 1 6 87.0
90.6 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 6 83.7
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7 86.0
Building Construction
Forklifts 2 6 91.0 93.2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 89.1
Paving
Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6 86.9
90.3 Pavers 1 7 80.2
Rollers 1 7 79.0
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7 86.0
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 79.7 79.7
Source: FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) version 1.1
Refer to Appendix B for construction noise worksheets.
3 U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model Final Report, January 2006, accessed March
2024, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf
351
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 12 City of South San Francisco
Noise Study July 2024
The calculated average noise levels provided in Table 2 were inputted into the noise model SoundPLAN,4
which generates computer simulations of noise propagation from sources such as construction noise.
SoundPLAN forecasts noise levels at specific receptors using sound power data and three-dimensional
topographical data.
Construction noise levels have been calculated at each of the analyzed sensitive receptors as follows:
(1) construction noise levels generated during each of the three construction phases; and (2) construction
noise levels during those periods when the three construction phases could potentially occur
concurrently.
Noise levels generated by on-site construction equipment can be reduced via Regulatory Compliance
Measures (RCMs), which are existing requirements and reasonably anticipated standard conditions based
on local, State, or federal regulations and laws that are frequently required independently of CEQA
review and serve to offset or prevent specific impacts. RCMs are not included as mitigation measures in
the environmental clearance document because the Project is required to comply with RCMs through
State and local regulations.
RCMs are specific noise control measures which include the following: (1) muffler requirements; (2)
equipment modifications that reduce noise levels; and (3) maintenance and operational requirements.
These noise control measures can be used separately or in combination in order to reduce the noise levels
generated by on-site construction equipment.
Most on-site construction-related noise originates from equipment powered by either gasoline or diesel
engines. A large part of the noise emitted is due to the intake and exhaust portions of the engine cycle.
Reducing noise from this source can be achieved via muffler systems. This noise control strategy would
include the replacement of worn mufflers and retrofitting on-site construction equipment where mufflers
are not in use. Using muffler systems on on-site construction equipment reduces construction noise levels
by 10 dBA or more.5
Another effective method of diminishing noise levels associated with individual pieces of construction
equipment is by modifying the equipment. Modifications such as the dampening of metal surfaces is
effective in reducing on-site construction equipment noise levels. These modifications are typically done
by the manufacturer or with factory assistance. Noise reductions of up to 5 dBA are achieved using
dampening materials.6
4 SoundPLAN model is in compliance with ISO 9613-2 standards for assessing attenuation of sound propagating outdoors and
general calculation method.
5 FHWA, Special Report—Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation, updated June 2017, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/special_report/hcn04.cfm, Accessed March 2024.
6 FHWA, Special Report—Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation, updated June 2017, accessed March 2024,
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/special_report/hcn04.cfm.
352
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 13 City of South San Francisco
Noise Study July 2024
Additionally, faulty or damaged mufflers, loose engine parts, rattling screws, bolts, or metal plates all
contribute to increasing the noise level of on-site construction equipment. Regularly inspecting on-site
construction equipment for these conditions and making adjustments to the equipment as necessary can
also reduce noise levels generated by on-site construction equipment.
Construction Traffic Noise
The analysis of off-site construction traffic noise impacts focuses on: (1) identifying major roadways that
may be used for construction worker commute routes or truck haul routes; (2) identifying the nature and
location of noise-sensitive receptors along those routes; and (3) evaluating the traffic characteristics
along those routes, specifically as related to existing traffic volumes.
Construction Equipment Vibration
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and
methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through
the ground and diminish in strength with distance. While ground vibrations from construction activities
do not often reach the levels that can damage structures, fragile buildings must receive special
consideration.
Impacts due to construction activities were evaluated by identifying vibration sources (i.e., construction
equipment), measuring the distance between vibration sources and surrounding structure locations, and
making a significance determination.
For quantitative construction vibration assessments related to building damage and human annoyance,
vibration source levels for construction equipment are taken from the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration
Impact Assessment Manual.7 Building damage would be assessed for each piece of equipment individually
and assessed in terms of peak particle velocity.
The vibration source levels for various types of equipment are based on data provided by the FTA.
Operational Noise
Operational noise levels related to the drive-through, parking, amplified speech emanating from the
speaker were calculated with the noise model SoundPLAN, a commercially available software that
produces computer simulations of noise propagation from sources. The SoundPLAN modeling software
accounts for large differences in topography, and the presence of intervening structures or landscaping
that would block a direct line of sight between operation activities from the proposed Project Site and
nearby sensitive receptors. The operational noise levels were calculated for sensitive-receptor locations
using SoundPLAN. It was assumed operating hours would take place between 10:00 AM and 1:30 AM. The
7 FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, accessed March 2024,
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-
assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf
353
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 14 City of South San Francisco
Noise Study July 2024
SoundPLAN model includes real-world noise levels and contains noise data in a reference library. To
quantify events related to the noise sources generated by the proposed use, the following assumptions
were used:
• Cars entering and exiting the parking lot and queuing at the drive through, a line source was
modeled with a sound power level8 (LwA) of 47 dB/m, m2, as referenced in the SoundPLAN noise
library for cars driving on asphalt at less than 30 kilometers per hour (18.6 miles per hour);
• The menu board and speaker, a point source was modeled with a LwA of 65 dB, as referenced in
the SoundPLAN noise library for speaking, normal voice; and
• The outdoor seating area, an area source was modeled with a LwA of 65 dB, as referenced in the
SoundPLAN noise library for speaking, normal voice.
• Truck deliveries at any point between the hours of 2:00 AM and 9:00 AM, a line source was
modeled with a LwA of 80 dB, as referenced in the SoundPLAN noise library for truck loading
general cargo
It is important to note the trash compactor would be positioned behind a wall enclosure. Because of its
placement, noise generated by the trash compactor will be attenuated by the wall.
Operational Vibration
The majority of the Project’s operational-related vibration sources, such as mechanical and electrical
equipment, would incorporate vibration attenuation mounts, as required by the particular equipment
specifications. Therefore, operation of the Project would not increase the existing vibration levels in the
immediate vicinity of the Project and, as such, vibration impacts associated with the Project would be
minimal. Therefore, the ground borne vibration analysis is limited to Project-related construction
activities.
8 The Sound Power Level represents the total sound energy produced by the source under the specified operating conditions.
Sound Power Levels cannot be measured directly; instead they are computed from reference sound pressure level
measurements
354
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 15 City of South San Francisco
Noise Study July 2024
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a potentially
significant impact related to noise and groundborne vibration if it would result in:
• Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
• Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines also includes:
• For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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?
The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not located within two miles of
public airport or public use airport, nor is it within the vicinity of private airstrips. As such, the Project
would result in no impacts to this screening criteria and no further analyses of this topic is necessary.
Construction Noise
As mentioned previously, Section 8.32.050 of the City’s Municipal Code regulates construction noise and
restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on
Saturdays 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Sundays and holidays. Additionally, Section 8.32.050 restricts individual
equipment to not exceed 90 dBA at a distance of 25 feet.
355
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 16 City of South San Francisco
Noise Study July 2024
Operational Noise
Operational noise impacts are evaluated for on-site source noise from activities and equipment at the
Project site. According to Policy NOI-1.1 of the City of South San Francisco General Plan Noise Element,
all new development within the city shall comply with the Land Use/Noise Compatibility guidelines shown
in Table 3: Land Use/Noise Compatibility guidelines.
TABLE 3: LAND USE/NOISE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES
Categories Compatible Uses CNEL
Residential Single-Family, Duplex, Multiple Family, Mobile Homes,
Residence Care
451 652
Commercial
Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging 453 65
Commercial, Retail, Bank, Restaurant, Health Clubs 55 --
Office Buildings, Research and Development, Professional Office 50 --
Amphitheater, Concert Hall, Auditorium, Meeting Hall, Movie
Theater
50 --
Manufacturing, Warehousing, Wholesale, Utilities 65 --
Open Space Parks, Neighborhood Parks, Playgrounds -- 65
Institutional/Public Facility Hospital, Schools, Classrooms 45 65
Churches, Libraries 45 --
Note:
1 Interior environment excludes bathrooms, toilets, closets, and corridors.
2 Outdoor environment limited to private yard of single-family residential; multifamily residential and mobile home park
outdoor common space area; hospital patio; park picnic area; school playground; and hotel and motel recreation area.
3 Noise level requirement with closed windows. Mechanical ventilating system or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided pursuant to UBC requirements.
4 Multifamily developments with private balconies that would not meet the 65 dB CNEL standard are required to provide
occupancy disclosure notices to all future tenants regarding potential noise impacts.
356
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 17 City of South San Francisco
Noise Study July 2024
Table 4: Maximum Permissible Sound Levels specifies the maximum permissible sound levels to be
generated by any property within the City, according to Section 8.32.030 of the City’s Noise Ordinance.
If any measured ambient level for any area is higher than the standard set in the South San Francisco
Municipal code for a particular use, then the applicable threshold for that use is 5 dB above the measured
ambient level. Not that, although these exact zoning district designations are no longer in effect, the
City applies these guidelines generally to the corresponding current zoning districts.
TABLE 4: MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SOUND LEVELS
Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level
(dB)a
R-E, R-1, and R-2 zones or any single-family or duplex residence in a specific plan
district
10:00 PM –
7:00 AM
50
7:00 AM – 10:00 PM 60
R-3 and D-C zones or any multi-family residence or mixed residential/commercial
use in any specific plan district
10:00 PM –
7:00 AM
55
7:00 AM –
10:00 PM
60
C-1, P-C, Gateway, and Oyster Point Marina specific plan districts or any commercial use in any specific plan district 10:00 PM – 7:00 AM 60
7:00 AM –
10:00 PM
65
M-1, P-1 Anytime 70
Source: Table 8.32.030 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.
a The noise level standard for each land use for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes
in any hour (L50). Standards increase for durations of less than 15 minutes per hour.
357
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 18 City of South San Francisco
Noise Study July 2024
Groundborne Vibration
There are no adopted City standards or thresholds of significance for vibration. The evaluation of
potential building damage impacts related to construction vibration levels is based on the published data
in the FTA guidance.9 While ground vibrations from construction activities do not often reach the levels
that can damage structures, fragile buildings must receive special consideration. As such, the vibration
damage criteria adopted by the FTA and applied in this analysis are listed below. Vibration impacts could
be potentially significant if the vibration velocity exceeds the following:
• Reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) would exceed 0.5 PPV (inches per second);10
• Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) would exceed 0.3 PPV;
• Nonengineered timber and masonry buildings would exceed 0.2 PPV
• Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage would exceed 0.12 PPV.
9 FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact
assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed March 2024.
10 When assessing vibration source levels from construction equipment, vibration is generally assessed in terms of PPV. PPV is
defined as the peak signal value of an oscillating vibration velocity waveform, expressed in inches per second.
358
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 19 City of South San Francisco
Noise Study July 2024
IMPACT ANALYSIS
Construction
On-Site Construction Noise
Noise from construction activities would be affected by the amount of construction equipment, the
location of this equipment, the timing and duration of construction activities, and the relative distance
to noise-sensitive receptors. Construction activities that would occur during the construction phases
would generate both steady-state and episodic noise that would be heard both on and off the Project
site. Each construction phase involves the use of different types of construction equipment and,
therefore, has its own distinct noise characteristics. The Project would be constructed using typical
construction techniques; no blasting or impact pile driving would be required.
The construction equipment reference noise levels provided in Table 2 above, are based on measured
noise data compiled by the FHWA and would occur when equipment is operating under full power
conditions. However, equipment used on construction sites typically operate at less than full power. The
acoustical usage factor is the percentage of time that each type of construction equipment is anticipated
to be in full power operation during a typical construction day. These values are estimates and will vary
based on the actual construction process and schedule.
Construction equipment operates at its noisiest levels for certain percentages of time during operation.
As such, equipment would operate at different percentages over the course of an hour.11 During a
construction day, the highest noise levels would be generated when multiple pieces of construction
equipment are operated concurrently.
To characterize construction-period noise levels, the average (hourly Leq) noise level associated with
each construction stage was calculated based on the quantity, type, and usage factors for each type of
equipment that would be used during each construction stage. These noise levels are typically associated
with multiple pieces of equipment operating simultaneously.
The estimated construction noise levels were calculated for each of the analyzed receptors (refer to
Figure 6) during each of the construction phases. As mentioned previously, given the physical size of the
Project site and logistical limitations, and with the noise equipment located at the construction area
nearest to the affected receptors to present a conservative impact analysis. This is considered a worst-
case evaluation because construction of the Project would typically use fewer pieces of equipment
simultaneously at any given time as well as operating throughout the construction site (i.e., most of the
time construction equipment would be operating at distances further away from the off-site receptors
11 Federal Highway Administration, Traffic Noise Model (2006).
359
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 20 City of South San Francisco
Noise Study July 2024
than that assumed in the forecasting of Project construction noise levels). As such, Project construction
would often generate lower noise levels than reported herein.
As mentioned previously, construction would be allowed during the daytime hours specified on the permit
as long as noise from each individual piece of equipment is limited to 90 dBA at a distance of 25 feet or
as long as combined construction noise at any point outside the property plane of the project does not
exceed 90 dBA. Table 5: Construction Maximum Noise Estimates presents the maximum noise impacts
that are forecasted to occur at the adjacent multi-family residential use. As shown, average noise levels
at the adjacent multi-family residential units to the north during construction would not result in
construction noise levels exceeding the 90 dBA threshold.
It is important to note, construction noise levels provided in Table 5 do not include any reduction related
to standard noise control strategies. As mentioned previously, using muffler systems on on-site
construction equipment reduces construction noise levels by 10 dBA or more. Modifications such as
dampening of metal surfaces or the redesign of a particular piece of equipment can achieve a noise
reduction of up 5 dBA. Conservatively, these combined noise control strategies would further reduce
construction noise levels presented in Table 5 by 10 to 15 dBA. Compliance with the above practices
would further ensure construction noise levels would be below the significance threshold; thus,
construction noise levels would not be considered significant.
Table 5: CONSTRUCTION MAXIMUM NOISE ESTIMATES
Location
Calculated Noise Level (Leq-1hour) by Construction Phase Significance Threshold Exceeds Threshold? Demolition
Grading Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating
Multi-family residential units 76.3 85.3 78.1 82.7 64.6 90.0 NO
Refer to Appendix B for Construction Noise Worksheets.
360
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 21 City of South San Francisco
Noise Study July 2024
Off-Site Construction Noise
Construction of the Project would require worker, haul, and vendor truck trips to and from the site to
work on the site, export soil, and deliver supplies to the site. Trucks traveling to and from the Project
site would be required to travel along a haul route approved by the City. At the maximum, approximately
7 hauling trips per day would take place during the grading phase based on construction schedule
assumptions. Haul truck traffic would take the most direct route to the freeway ramp along El Camino
Real.
Noise associated with construction truck trips were estimated using the Caltrans FHWA Traffic Noise
Model based on the maximum number of truck trips in a day. Project haul truck trips, which includes
medium- and heavy-duty trucks, would generate noise levels of approximately 40.8 to 45.7 dBA,
respectively, measured at a distance of 25 feet from the adjacent sensitive receptor. As shown in Table
1, existing noise levels at the Project site adjacent to El Camino Real was 59.9 dBA (Leq-daytime). The
noise level increases from truck trips would be below the significance threshold of 5 dBA. As such, off-
site construction noise impacts would not be considered significant.
Construction Vibration
As mentioned previously, the nearest off-site structure include the multi-family residential uses to the
north. As shown in Table 6: On-Site Construction Vibration Impacts–Building Damage, the forecasted
vibration levels due to on-site construction activities would not exceed the building damage significance
threshold of 0.5 PPV for reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber building at the adjacent multi-family
residential use. Temporary vibration levels associated with project construction would not be considered
significant.
TABLE 6: ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION IMPACTS – BUILDING DAMAGE
Site
Nearest Off-Site
Building Structures
Estimated Vibration Velocity Levels at the Nearest Off-Site
Structures from the Project Construction Equipment Significance
Threshold (PPV ips) Vibratory Roller Loaded Trucks Jackhammer Small bulldozer
1 Multi-family
Residential 0.210 0.076 0.035 0.003 0.5
Source: US Department of Transportation, Federal Transportation Authority, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
Refer to Appendix C for construction vibration worksheets.
361
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 22 City of South San Francisco
Noise Study July 2024
Operation
The nearest sensitive uses to the site include the multi-family residential uses to the north. The proposed
project would include a CMU block screen wall surrounding the property. The development would also
include a landscaped planter approximately 6 feet wide.
Source contributed noise levels throughout the daytime and nighttime periods from operation of the
proposed project are shown in Table 7: Modeled Exterior Noise Levels from Operational Sources. For
illustrative purposes, daytime and nighttime noise levels within the Project vicinity are shown graphically
in Figure 7: Operational Noise Level Contour Map (Daytime) and Figure 8: Operational Noise Level
Contour Map (Nighttime). Other sensitive receptors shown graphically include the Deluxe Inn Motel to
the south and the residential uses along 1st Street, A Street, and Antionette Lane. The source noise levels
from the Project site include parking activities from mobile vehicles, drive-through queuing, outdoor
seating area and amplified speech from the speaker box.
Table 7 compares the modeled exterior noise levels from the Project-related noise sources that operate
on a daily basis to the exterior noise standards identified in the City’s Municipal Code. As shown in Table
7, daytime exterior noise levels at the adjacent multi-family residential use from operation of the
proposed project would range from 29.1 dBA during the daytime period and 26.0 dBA during the nighttime
period. Noise levels would not exceed the daytime exterior threshold of 60 dBA and nighttime exterior
threshold of 55 dBA at nearby residential uses. Additionally, noise levels would not result in a 5 dBA
increase above the measured ambient of 59.9 dBA (Leq-daytime) during the daytime and 59.2 dBA (Leq-
nighttime) during the nighttime (refer to Table 1).
TABLE 7: MODELED EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS FROM OPERATIONAL SOURCES
Monitoring Site Time Period Modeled Noise Levels, Leq dBA Residential Exterior Noise Standard1, dBA Exceeds Standard?
1 Daytime 29.1 60 No
Nighttime 26.0 55 No
Note:
1 Section 8.32.050 Maximum Permissible Sound Levels. Daytime = 60 dBA between 7:00 AM - 10:00 PM; Nighttime = 55 dBA between 10:00 PM - 7:00 AM.
Source: Refer to Appendix D for SoundPLAN Output Sheets.
362
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 23 City of South San Francisco
Noise Study July 2024
Truck deliveries
As mentioned previously, truck deliveries would take place no more than once daily between the hours
of 2:00 AM to 9:00 AM lasting less than an hour. Site access for these delivery trucks would be from El
Camino Real and would unload at the service entrance located adjacent to parking stalls #1 through #9,
shielded by the CMU block screen wall surrounding the Project site.
Table 8: Modeled Exterior Noise Levels from Truck Deliveries, provides the exterior noise levels at the
adjacent the multi-family residential uses to the north along El Camino Real. As shown, noise levels from
truck deliveries would not exceed the daytime exterior threshold of 60 dBA and nighttime exterior
threshold of 55 dBA at nearby residential uses.
TABLE 8: MODELED EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS FROM TRUCK DELIVERIES
Monitoring Site Time Period Modeled Noise Levels, Leq dBA Residential Exterior Noise Standard1, dBA Exceeds Standard?
1 Daytime 17.4 60 No
Nighttime 23.6 55 No
Note:
1 Section 8.32.050 Maximum Permissible Sound Levels. Daytime = 60 dBA between 7:00 AM - 10:00 PM; Nighttime = 55 dBA between 10:00 PM - 7:00 AM.
Source: Refer to Appendix D for SoundPLAN Output Sheets.
363
Operational Noise Level Contour Map (Daytime)
FIGURE 5
121-013-24
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2024
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN METERS
60300 120
N
Napa Creek Dr
Levels Leq,d
in dB(A)
<20
20 -25
25 -30
30 -35
35 -4040-45
45 -50
50 -5555-6060-6565-7070-7575-80>=80
35-40 30-35
45-50
25-30 20-25
40-45
35-40
30-3525-3020-25
40-45
364
Operational Noise Level Contour Map (Nighttime)
FIGURE 6
121-013-24
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2024
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN METERS
60300 120
N
Napa Creek Dr
Levels Leq,d
in dB(A)
<20
20 -25
25 -30
30 -35
35 -4040-45
45 -50
50 -5555-6060-6565-7070-7575-80>=80
35-40 30-35 25-30 20-25
40-45
35-4030-3525-3020-25
365
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 26 City of South San Francisco
Noise Study July 2024
Cumulative
For purposes of this analysis, development of the related projects will be considered to contribute to
cumulative noise impacts. Noise, by definition, is a localized phenomenon and drastically reduces as
distance from the source increases. As a result, only related projects and growth in the general area of
the Project site (within 500 feet) would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. Cumulative construction-
noise impacts have the potential to occur when multiple construction projects in the local area generate
noise within the same time frame and contribute to the local ambient noise environment. It is expected
that, as with the Project, related projects would implement noise reduction techniques such as mufflers,
shields, sound barriers, which would minimize any noise-related nuisances during construction. In
addition, distance attenuation and intervening structures would further reduce construction noise levels
and not result in noticeable increases. Therefore, the combined construction-noise impacts of related
projects within 500 feet and the Project’s contribution would not cause a significant cumulative impact.
With regard to stationary sources, cumulative significant noise impacts may result from cumulative
development. Stationary sources of noise that could be introduced in the area by cumulative projects
could include mechanical equipment, loading docks, and parking lots. Given that these projects would
be required to adhere to the City’s noise standards, all stationary sources would be required to have
shielding or other noise-abatement measures so as not to cause a substantial increase in ambient noise
levels. Moreover, due to distance, it is unlikely that noise from multiple cumulative projects would
interact to create a significant combined noise impact. As such, it is not anticipated that a significant
cumulative increase in permanent ambient noise levels would occur.
366
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 27 City of South San Francisco
Noise Study July 2024
CERTIFICATION
The contents of this noise study represent an accurate depiction of the noise environment and impacts
associated with the proposed In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project. The information contained in this noise
study is based on the best available information at the time of preparation. If you have any questions,
please contact me directly at (818) 415-7274.
Sincerely,
Christ Kirikian, INCE Principal | Director of Air Quality & Acoustics
ckirikian@meridianconsultantsllc.com
367
APPENDIX A
Noise Monitoring Data Spreadsheets
368
Monitored Logarithmic
Leq Equivalent 10 dB 5 dB
0 / 24 63.4 2187762 21877616 6918310
am 1:00 100 62.3 1698244 16982437 5370318 57 dBA
2:00 200 55.8 380189 3801894 1202264
3:00 300 56.1 407380 4073803 1288250
4:00 400 50.6 114815 1148154 363078 59 dBA
5:00 500 58.1 645654 6456542 2041738
6:00 600 54.5 281838 2818383 891251
7:00 700 56.5 446684 4466836 1412538 59.2 dBA
8:00 800 56.6 457088 4570882 1445440
9:00 900 57.2 524807 5248075 1659587
10:00 1000 60.5 1122018 11220185 3548134 59.9 dBA
11:00 1100 59.5 891251 8912509 2818383
12:00 1200 63.5 2238721 22387211 7079458
pm 1:00 1300 60.8 1202264 12022644 3801894 60 dBA
2:00 1400 58.1 645654 6456542 2041738
3:00 1500 61.4 1380384 13803843 4365158
4:00 1600 59.1 812831 8128305 2570396 66 dBA
5:00 1700 60.3 1071519 10715193 3388442
6:00 1800 60.7 1174898 11748976 3715352
7:00 1900 56.8 478630 4786301 1513561 66.0 dBA adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m.
8:00 2000 61.6 1445440 14454398 4570882
9:00 2100 58.5 707946 7079458 2238721
10:00 2200 59 794328 7943282 2511886 Difference between CNEL and Ldn
pm 11:00 2300 60.2 1047129 10471285 3311311 CNEL - Ldn 0.26579549
Monitoring Adjustments
Period
Midnight
Monitoring Location: Site 1
Date: March 20 - 21, 2024 Time: Start 12:00 PM
Evening/Night
Leq 24-Hour
Ldn: 10 dB adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m.
CNEL: 5 dB adjustment between 7:00p.m. & 10:00 p.m., & 10 dB
Leq Morning Peak Hour 7:00-10:00 a.m.
Leq Evening Peak Hour 4:00-8:00 p.m.
Leq Nighttime 10:00 pm-7:00 a.m. (not adjusted)
Leq Daytime 7:00 am-10:00 p.m.
369
APPENDIX B
Construction Noise Data Spreadsheets
370
INOB SF
Mean propagation Leq - Demolition
10
Source type Time
slice
Li
dB(A)
R'w
dB
L'w
dB(A)
Lw
dB(A)
l or A
m,m²
KI
dB
KT
dB
DO
dB
S
m
Adiv
dB
Agr
dB
Abar
dB
Aatm
dB
Amisc
dB
ADI
dB
dLrefl
dB(A)
Ls
dB(A)
Cmet
dB
dLw
dB
ZR
dB
Lr
dB(A)
Receiver Deluxe Inn Motel Fl G Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 53.7 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 92.5 117.4 307.5 0.0 0.0 3 98.59 -50.9 -4.5 -13.1 -0.2 0.0 1.9 53.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 53.7
Receiver Fairway Apartments Fl G Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 53.2 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 92.5 117.4 307.5 0.0 0.0 3 152.60 -54.7 -4.4 -8.4 -0.3 0.0 0.6 53.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 53.2
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl G Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 73.8 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 92.5 117.4 307.5 0.0 0.0 3 43.52 -43.8 -3.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.2 73.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.8
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F2 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 75.3 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 92.5 117.4 307.5 0.0 0.0 3 43.79 -43.8 -1.3 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.1 75.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.3
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F3 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 76.1 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 92.5 117.4 307.5 0.0 0.0 3 44.24 -43.9 -0.3 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 76.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.1
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F4 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 76.3 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 92.5 117.4 307.5 0.0 0.0 3 44.88 -44.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 76.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.3
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F5 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 76.1 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 92.5 117.4 307.5 0.0 0.0 3 45.69 -44.2 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 76.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.1
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F6 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 75.9 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 92.5 117.4 307.5 0.0 0.0 3 46.67 -44.4 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 75.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.9
Receiver Peninsula Pines Apartments Fl G Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 62.2 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 92.5 117.4 307.5 0.0 0.0 3 134.30 -53.6 -4.4 0.0 -0.3 0.0 0.0 62.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.2
SoundPLAN 9.0
Meridian Consultants LLC 1
371
INOB SF
Mean propagation Leq - Grading
10
Source type Time
slice
Li
dB(A)
R'w
dB
L'w
dB(A)
Lw
dB(A)
l or A
m,m²
KI
dB
KT
dB
DO
dB
S
m
Adiv
dB
Agr
dB
Abar
dB
Aatm
dB
Amisc
dB
ADI
dB
dLrefl
dB(A)
Ls
dB(A)
Cmet
dB
dLw
dB
ZR
dB
Lr
dB(A)
Receiver Deluxe Inn Motel Fl G Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 65.9 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.6 128.1 5617.2 0.0 0.0 3 68.14 -47.7 -4.0 -15.4 -0.1 0.0 1.9 65.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.9
Receiver Fairway Apartments Fl G Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 65.7 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.6 128.1 5617.2 0.0 0.0 3 167.11 -55.5 -4.4 -7.0 -0.3 0.0 1.8 65.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.7
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl G Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 84.0 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.6 128.1 5617.2 0.0 0.0 3 48.97 -44.8 -2.1 -0.4 -0.1 0.0 0.3 84.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.0
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F2 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 85.0 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.6 128.1 5617.2 0.0 0.0 3 49.60 -44.9 -1.0 -0.4 -0.1 0.0 0.3 85.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.0
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F3 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 85.3 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.6 128.1 5617.2 0.0 0.0 3 50.58 -45.1 -0.6 -0.3 -0.1 0.0 0.2 85.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.3
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F4 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 85.2 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.6 128.1 5617.2 0.0 0.0 3 51.85 -45.3 -0.4 -0.3 -0.1 0.0 0.1 85.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.2
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F5 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 85.2 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.6 128.1 5617.2 0.0 0.0 3 53.33 -45.5 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 85.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.2
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F6 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 85.1 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.6 128.1 5617.2 0.0 0.0 3 54.98 -45.8 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.1 85.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.1
Receiver Peninsula Pines Apartments Fl G Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 74.7 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.6 128.1 5617.2 0.0 0.0 3 116.40 -52.3 -4.2 0.0 -0.2 0.0 0.4 74.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.7
SoundPLAN 9.0
Meridian Consultants LLC 1
372
INOB SF
Mean propagation Leq - Building Construction
10
Source type Time
slice
Li
dB(A)
R'w
dB
L'w
dB(A)
Lw
dB(A)
l or A
m,m²
KI
dB
KT
dB
DO
dB
S
m
Adiv
dB
Agr
dB
Abar
dB
Aatm
dB
Amisc
dB
ADI
dB
dLrefl
dB(A)
Ls
dB(A)
Cmet
dB
dLw
dB
ZR
dB
Lr
dB(A)
Receiver Deluxe Inn Motel Fl G Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 54.5 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 93.2 118.4 332.6 0.0 0.0 3 103.92 -51.3 -4.5 -12.8 -0.2 0.0 1.9 54.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.5
Receiver Fairway Apartments Fl G Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 56.1 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 93.2 118.4 332.6 0.0 0.0 3 152.34 -54.6 -4.4 -7.2 -0.3 0.0 1.2 56.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.1
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl G Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 75.9 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 93.2 118.4 332.6 0.0 0.0 3 39.62 -43.0 -2.8 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.3 75.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.9
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F2 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 77.5 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 93.2 118.4 332.6 0.0 0.0 3 39.92 -43.0 -1.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.2 77.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.5
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F3 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 78.1 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 93.2 118.4 332.6 0.0 0.0 3 40.41 -43.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 78.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 78.1
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F4 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 78.1 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 93.2 118.4 332.6 0.0 0.0 3 41.10 -43.3 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 78.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 78.1
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F5 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 77.9 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 93.2 118.4 332.6 0.0 0.0 3 41.96 -43.4 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 77.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.9
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F6 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 77.7 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 93.2 118.4 332.6 0.0 0.0 3 43.00 -43.7 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 77.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.7
Receiver Peninsula Pines Apartments Fl G Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 63.4 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 93.2 118.4 332.6 0.0 0.0 3 134.73 -53.6 -4.4 0.0 -0.3 0.0 0.2 63.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.4
SoundPLAN 9.0
Meridian Consultants LLC 1
373
INOB SF
Mean propagation Leq - Paving
10
Source type Time
slice
Li
dB(A)
R'w
dB
L'w
dB(A)
Lw
dB(A)
l or A
m,m²
KI
dB
KT
dB
DO
dB
S
m
Adiv
dB
Agr
dB
Abar
dB
Aatm
dB
Amisc
dB
ADI
dB
dLrefl
dB(A)
Ls
dB(A)
Cmet
dB
dLw
dB
ZR
dB
Lr
dB(A)
Receiver Deluxe Inn Motel Fl G Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 64.0 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.3 125.5 3278.7 0.0 0.0 3 65.55 -47.3 -4.1 -15.5 -0.1 0.0 2.5 63.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.9
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.3 115.8 353.3 0.0 0.0 3 123.37 -52.8 -4.6 -15.6 -0.2 0.0 1.9 47.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.5
Receiver Fairway Apartments Fl G Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 63.6 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.3 125.5 3278.7 0.0 0.0 3 168.82 -55.5 -4.4 -10.2 -0.3 0.0 3.1 61.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.0
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.3 115.8 353.3 0.0 0.0 3 151.92 -54.6 -4.4 -0.1 -0.3 0.0 0.7 60.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.1
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl G Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 81.3 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.3 125.5 3278.7 0.0 0.0 3 66.86 -47.5 -3.4 -3.1 -0.1 0.0 1.0 75.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.3
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.3 115.8 353.3 0.0 0.0 3 23.20 -38.3 -0.8 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.0
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F2 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 82.2 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.3 125.5 3278.7 0.0 0.0 3 67.16 -47.5 -2.2 -2.7 -0.1 0.0 1.0 77.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.0
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.3 115.8 353.3 0.0 0.0 3 23.77 -38.5 0.0 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 80.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.7
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F3 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 82.4 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.3 125.5 3278.7 0.0 0.0 3 67.66 -47.6 -1.5 -2.3 -0.1 0.0 1.0 77.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.9
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.3 115.8 353.3 0.0 0.0 3 24.66 -38.8 0.0 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 80.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.6
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F4 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 82.2 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.3 125.5 3278.7 0.0 0.0 3 68.32 -47.7 -0.9 -2.2 -0.1 0.0 0.8 78.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 78.3
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.3 115.8 353.3 0.0 0.0 3 25.84 -39.2 0.0 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.0
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F5 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 82.2 dB(A)
SoundPLAN 9.0
Meridian Consultants LLC 1
374
INOB SF
Mean propagation Leq - Architectural Coating
10
Source type Time
slice
Li
dB(A)
R'w
dB
L'w
dB(A)
Lw
dB(A)
l or A
m,m²
KI
dB
KT
dB
DO
dB
S
m
Adiv
dB
Agr
dB
Abar
dB
Aatm
dB
Amisc
dB
ADI
dB
dLrefl
dB(A)
Ls
dB(A)
Cmet
dB
dLw
dB
ZR
dB
Lr
dB(A)
Receiver Deluxe Inn Motel Fl G Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 41.0 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 79.7 104.9 332.6 0.0 0.0 3 103.92 -51.3 -4.5 -12.8 -0.2 0.0 1.9 41.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.0
Receiver Fairway Apartments Fl G Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 42.6 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 79.7 104.9 332.6 0.0 0.0 3 152.34 -54.6 -4.4 -7.2 -0.3 0.0 1.2 42.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.6
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl G Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 62.4 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 79.7 104.9 332.6 0.0 0.0 3 39.62 -43.0 -2.8 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.3 62.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.4
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F2 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 64.0 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 79.7 104.9 332.6 0.0 0.0 3 39.92 -43.0 -1.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.2 64.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.0
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F3 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 64.6 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 79.7 104.9 332.6 0.0 0.0 3 40.41 -43.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 64.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.6
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F4 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 64.6 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 79.7 104.9 332.6 0.0 0.0 3 41.10 -43.3 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 64.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.6
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F5 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 64.4 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 79.7 104.9 332.6 0.0 0.0 3 41.96 -43.4 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 64.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.4
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F6 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 64.2 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 79.7 104.9 332.6 0.0 0.0 3 43.00 -43.7 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 64.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.2
Receiver Peninsula Pines Apartments Fl G Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 49.9 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 79.7 104.9 332.6 0.0 0.0 3 134.73 -53.6 -4.4 0.0 -0.3 0.0 0.2 49.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.9
SoundPLAN 9.0
Meridian Consultants LLC 1
375
INOB SF
Mean propagation Leq - Paving
10
Source type Time
slice
Li
dB(A)
R'w
dB
L'w
dB(A)
Lw
dB(A)
l or A
m,m²
KI
dB
KT
dB
DO
dB
S
m
Adiv
dB
Agr
dB
Abar
dB
Aatm
dB
Amisc
dB
ADI
dB
dLrefl
dB(A)
Ls
dB(A)
Cmet
dB
dLw
dB
ZR
dB
Lr
dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.3 125.5 3278.7 0.0 0.0 3 69.16 -47.8 -0.5 -2.0 -0.1 0.0 0.8 78.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 78.9
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.3 115.8 353.3 0.0 0.0 3 27.27 -39.7 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.7 79.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.5
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F6 Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 82.2 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.3 125.5 3278.7 0.0 0.0 3 70.13 -47.9 -0.3 -1.6 -0.1 0.0 0.8 79.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.3
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.3 115.8 353.3 0.0 0.0 3 28.89 -40.2 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.7 79.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.1
Receiver Peninsula Pines Apartments Fl G Leq-1hour dB(A) Leq-1hour 72.2 dB(A)
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.3 125.5 3278.7 0.0 0.0 3 114.85 -52.2 -4.2 -0.1 -0.2 0.0 0.2 71.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.9
Area Leq-1ho
ur 90.3 115.8 353.3 0.0 0.0 3 140.32 -53.9 -4.4 -0.1 -0.3 0.0 0.6 60.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.7
SoundPLAN 9.0
Meridian Consultants LLC 2
376
APPENDIX C
Construction Vibration Data Spreadsheets
377
Meridian Consultants LLC INOB: South San Francisco
Construction Vibration Model
(Site 1)
Equipment Pieces of
Equipment
PPV at 25 feet
(in/sec)
Distance from
Equipment
PPV at
adjusted
distance
RMS velocity
amplitude in
in/sec at
adjusted
distancea
RMS
Vibration
level in
VdB at
adjusted
distanceCaisson drilling 1 0.089 25 0.089 0.022 87
Jackhammer 1 0.035 25 0.035 0.009 79
Large bulldozer 1 0.089 25 0.089 0.022 87
Loaded trucks 1 0.076 25 0.076 0.019 86
Pile Drive (impact)1 0.644 25 0.644 0.161 104
Vibratory Roller 1 0.210 25 0.210 0.053 94
Small bulldozer 1 0.003 25 0.003 0.001 58
* Suggested Vibration Thresholds per the Federal Transit Administration, United
States Department of Transportation, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
378
APPENDIX D
SoundPLAN Output Sheets (Operational)
379
INOB SF
Mean propagation Leq - Operational 10
Source type Time
slice
Li
dB(A)
R'w
dB
L'w
dB(A)
Lw
dB(A)
l or A
m,m²
KI
dB
KT
dB
DO
dB
S
m
Adiv
dB
Agr
dB
Abar
dB
Aatm
dB
Amisc
dB
ADI
dB
dLrefl
dB(A)
Ls
dB(A)
Cmet
dB
dLw
dB
ZR
dB
Lr
dB(A)
Receiver Deluxe Inn Motel Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 11.8 dB(A) Leq,n 8.7 dB(A)
Line Leq,d 51.0 73.3 167.6 0.0 0.0 0 71.85 -48.1 -2.5 -15.9 -0.2 0.0 1.5 8.1 0.0 -1.0 0.0 7.1
Line Leq,n 51.0 73.3 167.6 0.0 0.0 0 71.85 -48.1 -2.5 -15.9 -0.2 0.0 1.5 8.1 0.0 -4.1 0.0 4.0
Line Leq,d 51.0 69.1 64.9 0.0 0.0 0 61.53 -46.8 -2.5 -15.4 -0.1 0.0 1.7 6.1 0.0 -1.0 0.0 5.1
Line Leq,n 51.0 69.1 64.9 0.0 0.0 0 61.53 -46.8 -2.5 -15.4 -0.1 0.0 1.7 6.1 0.0 -4.1 0.0 2.0
Point Leq,d 65.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 3 109.77 -51.8 -4.5 -12.6 -0.2 0.0 2.3 1.3 0.0 -1.0 0.0 0.3
Point Leq,n 65.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 3 109.77 -51.8 -4.5 -12.6 -0.2 0.0 2.3 1.3 0.0 -4.1 0.0 -2.8
Line Leq,d 47.0 66.9 96.9 0.0 0.0 0 64.36 -47.2 -2.5 -17.0 -0.2 0.0 4.4 4.5 0.0 -1.0 0.0 3.5
Line Leq,n 47.0 66.9 96.9 0.0 0.0 0 64.36 -47.2 -2.5 -17.0 -0.2 0.0 4.4 4.5 0.0 -4.1 0.0 0.4
Line Leq,d 47.0 67.6 114.0 0.0 0.0 0 63.54 -47.1 -2.5 -17.2 -0.2 0.0 3.9 4.6 0.0 -1.0 0.0 3.6
Line Leq,n 47.0 67.6 114.0 0.0 0.0 0 63.54 -47.1 -2.5 -17.2 -0.2 0.0 3.9 4.6 0.0 -4.1 0.0 0.5
Area Leq,d 47.6 65.0 55.5 0.0 0.0 3 102.17 -51.2 -4.5 -12.9 -0.2 0.0 2.2 1.5 0.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5
Area Leq,n 47.6 65.0 55.5 0.0 0.0 3 102.17 -51.2 -4.5 -12.9 -0.2 0.0 2.2 1.5 0.0 -4.1 0.0 -2.6
Receiver Fairway Apartments Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 7.9 dB(A) Leq,n 4.7 dB(A)
Line Leq,d 51.0 73.3 167.6 0.0 0.0 0 176.86 -55.9 -2.9 -8.8 -0.9 0.0 2.4 7.1 0.0 -1.0 0.0 6.2
Line Leq,n 51.0 73.3 167.6 0.0 0.0 0 176.86 -55.9 -2.9 -8.8 -0.9 0.0 2.4 7.1 0.0 -4.1 0.0 3.0
Line Leq,d 51.0 69.1 64.9 0.0 0.0 0 196.05 -56.8 -2.9 -12.6 -0.4 0.0 1.7 -1.8 0.0 -1.0 0.0 -2.8
Line Leq,n 51.0 69.1 64.9 0.0 0.0 0 196.05 -56.8 -2.9 -12.6 -0.4 0.0 1.7 -1.8 0.0 -4.1 0.0 -5.9
Point Leq,d 65.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 3 175.71 -55.9 -4.5 -15.1 -0.3 0.0 1.2 -6.6 0.0 -1.0 0.0 -7.6
Point Leq,n 65.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 3 175.71 -55.9 -4.5 -15.1 -0.3 0.0 1.2 -6.6 0.0 -4.1 0.0 -10.7
Line Leq,d 47.0 66.9 96.9 0.0 0.0 0 164.68 -55.3 -2.9 -12.0 -0.3 0.0 2.2 -1.5 0.0 -1.0 0.0 -2.4
Line Leq,n 47.0 66.9 96.9 0.0 0.0 0 164.68 -55.3 -2.9 -12.0 -0.3 0.0 2.2 -1.5 0.0 -4.1 0.0 -5.6
Line Leq,d 47.0 67.6 114.0 0.0 0.0 0 166.31 -55.4 -2.9 -12.0 -0.3 0.0 2.3 -0.7 0.0 -1.0 0.0 -1.7
Line Leq,n 47.0 67.6 114.0 0.0 0.0 0 166.31 -55.4 -2.9 -12.0 -0.3 0.0 2.3 -0.7 0.0 -4.1 0.0 -4.8
Area Leq,d 47.6 65.0 55.5 0.0 0.0 3 170.20 -55.6 -4.5 -19.5 -0.3 0.0 0.0 -11.9 0.0 -1.0 0.0 -12.8
Area Leq,n 47.6 65.0 55.5 0.0 0.0 3 170.20 -55.6 -4.5 -19.5 -0.3 0.0 0.0 -11.9 0.0 -4.1 0.0 -16.0
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 27.6 dB(A) Leq,n 24.5 dB(A)
Line Leq,d 51.0 73.3 167.6 0.0 0.0 0 49.10 -44.8 -2.1 -1.5 -0.4 0.0 1.4 25.9 0.0 -1.0 0.0 24.9
Line Leq,n 51.0 73.3 167.6 0.0 0.0 0 49.10 -44.8 -2.1 -1.5 -0.4 0.0 1.4 25.9 0.0 -4.1 0.0 21.8
Line Leq,d 51.0 69.1 64.9 0.0 0.0 0 90.69 -50.1 -2.7 -0.4 -1.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 -1.0 0.0 14.0
Line Leq,n 51.0 69.1 64.9 0.0 0.0 0 90.69 -50.1 -2.7 -0.4 -1.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 -4.1 0.0 10.9
Point Leq,d 65.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 3 39.34 -42.9 -2.8 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 22.3 0.0 -1.0 0.0 21.3
SoundPLAN 9.0
Meridian Consultants LLC 1
380
INOB SF
Mean propagation Leq - Truck Deliveries
10
Source type Time
slice
Li
dB(A)
R'w
dB
L'w
dB(A)
Lw
dB(A)
l or A
m,m²
KI
dB
KT
dB
DO
dB
S
m
Adiv
dB
Agr
dB
Abar
dB
Aatm
dB
Amisc
dB
ADI
dB
dLrefl
dB(A)
Ls
dB(A)
Cmet
dB
dLw
dB
ZR
dB
Lr
dB(A)
Receiver Deluxe Inn Motel Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 2.9 dB(A) Leq,n 9.1 dB(A)
Line Leq,d 65.6 80.0 27.9 0.0 0.0 0 89.62 -50.0 -1.2 -20.2 -0.9 0.0 4.0 11.7 0.0 -8.8 0.0 2.9
Line Leq,n 65.6 80.0 27.9 0.0 0.0 0 89.62 -50.0 -1.2 -20.2 -0.9 0.0 4.0 11.7 0.0 -2.6 0.0 9.1
Receiver Fairway Apartments Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d -2.7 dB(A) Leq,n 3.5 dB(A)
Line Leq,d 65.6 80.0 27.9 0.0 0.0 0 160.42 -55.1 -1.3 -17.0 -1.2 0.0 0.7 6.1 0.0 -8.8 0.0 -2.7
Line Leq,n 65.6 80.0 27.9 0.0 0.0 0 160.42 -55.1 -1.3 -17.0 -1.2 0.0 0.7 6.1 0.0 -2.6 0.0 3.5
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 15.0 dB(A) Leq,n 21.2 dB(A)
Line Leq,d 65.6 80.0 27.9 0.0 0.0 0 54.76 -45.8 -1.1 -8.0 -1.6 0.0 0.1 23.7 0.0 -8.8 0.0 15.0
Line Leq,n 65.6 80.0 27.9 0.0 0.0 0 54.76 -45.8 -1.1 -8.0 -1.6 0.0 0.1 23.7 0.0 -2.6 0.0 21.2
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F2 Lr,lim dB(A) Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 15.2 dB(A) Leq,n 21.4 dB(A)
Line Leq,d 65.6 80.0 27.9 0.0 0.0 0 54.95 -45.8 -1.1 -7.9 -1.5 0.0 0.3 23.9 0.0 -8.8 0.0 15.2
Line Leq,n 65.6 80.0 27.9 0.0 0.0 0 54.95 -45.8 -1.1 -7.9 -1.5 0.0 0.3 23.9 0.0 -2.6 0.0 21.4
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F3 Lr,lim dB(A) Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 16.2 dB(A) Leq,n 22.4 dB(A)
Line Leq,d 65.6 80.0 27.9 0.0 0.0 0 55.29 -45.8 -1.1 -7.7 -1.5 0.0 1.0 25.0 0.0 -8.8 0.0 16.2
Line Leq,n 65.6 80.0 27.9 0.0 0.0 0 55.29 -45.8 -1.1 -7.7 -1.5 0.0 1.0 25.0 0.0 -2.6 0.0 22.4
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F4 Lr,lim dB(A) Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 16.9 dB(A) Leq,n 23.1 dB(A)
Line Leq,d 65.6 80.0 27.9 0.0 0.0 0 55.76 -45.9 -1.1 -7.6 -1.5 0.0 1.6 25.6 0.0 -8.8 0.0 16.9
Line Leq,n 65.6 80.0 27.9 0.0 0.0 0 55.76 -45.9 -1.1 -7.6 -1.5 0.0 1.6 25.6 0.0 -2.6 0.0 23.1
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F5 Lr,lim dB(A) Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 17.4 dB(A) Leq,n 23.6 dB(A)
Line Leq,d 65.6 80.0 27.9 0.0 0.0 0 56.37 -46.0 -1.1 -7.3 -1.5 0.0 1.9 26.1 0.0 -8.8 0.0 17.4
Line Leq,n 65.6 80.0 27.9 0.0 0.0 0 56.37 -46.0 -1.1 -7.3 -1.5 0.0 1.9 26.1 0.0 -2.6 0.0 23.6
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F6 Lr,lim dB(A) Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 17.3 dB(A) Leq,n 23.5 dB(A)
Line Leq,d 65.6 80.0 27.9 0.0 0.0 0 57.10 -46.1 -1.1 -6.6 -1.5 0.0 1.2 26.0 0.0 -8.8 0.0 17.3
Line Leq,n 65.6 80.0 27.9 0.0 0.0 0 57.10 -46.1 -1.1 -6.6 -1.5 0.0 1.2 26.0 0.0 -2.6 0.0 23.5
Receiver Peninsula Pines Apartments Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 14.8 dB(A) Leq,n 21.0 dB(A)
Line Leq,d 65.6 80.0 27.9 0.0 0.0 0 123.96 -52.9 -1.3 0.0 -3.1 0.0 0.8 23.6 0.0 -8.8 0.0 14.8
Line Leq,n 65.6 80.0 27.9 0.0 0.0 0 123.96 -52.9 -1.3 0.0 -3.1 0.0 0.8 23.6 0.0 -2.6 0.0 21.0
SoundPLAN 9.0
Meridian Consultants LLC 1
381
INOB SF
Mean propagation Leq - Operational 10
Source type Time
slice
Li
dB(A)
R'w
dB
L'w
dB(A)
Lw
dB(A)
l or A
m,m²
KI
dB
KT
dB
DO
dB
S
m
Adiv
dB
Agr
dB
Abar
dB
Aatm
dB
Amisc
dB
ADI
dB
dLrefl
dB(A)
Ls
dB(A)
Cmet
dB
dLw
dB
ZR
dB
Lr
dB(A)
Point Leq,n 65.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 3 39.34 -42.9 -2.8 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 22.3 0.0 -4.1 0.0 18.2
Line Leq,d 47.0 66.9 96.9 0.0 0.0 0 73.87 -48.4 -2.6 -10.2 -0.4 0.0 0.4 5.7 0.0 -1.0 0.0 4.7
Line Leq,n 47.0 66.9 96.9 0.0 0.0 0 73.87 -48.4 -2.6 -10.2 -0.4 0.0 0.4 5.7 0.0 -4.1 0.0 1.6
Line Leq,d 47.0 67.6 114.0 0.0 0.0 0 72.78 -48.2 -2.6 -5.2 -0.7 0.0 0.1 11.0 0.0 -1.0 0.0 10.1
Line Leq,n 47.0 67.6 114.0 0.0 0.0 0 72.78 -48.2 -2.6 -5.2 -0.7 0.0 0.1 11.0 0.0 -4.1 0.0 6.9
Area Leq,d 47.6 65.0 55.5 0.0 0.0 3 43.40 -43.7 -3.1 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.0 20.9 0.0 -1.0 0.0 19.9
Area Leq,n 47.6 65.0 55.5 0.0 0.0 3 43.40 -43.7 -3.1 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.0 20.9 0.0 -4.1 0.0 16.8
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F2 Lr,lim dB(A) Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 28.4 dB(A) Leq,n 25.3 dB(A)
Line Leq,d 51.0 73.3 167.6 0.0 0.0 0 49.53 -44.9 -2.0 -1.4 -0.4 0.0 1.4 25.9 0.0 -1.0 0.0 24.9
Line Leq,n 51.0 73.3 167.6 0.0 0.0 0 49.53 -44.9 -2.0 -1.4 -0.4 0.0 1.4 25.9 0.0 -4.1 0.0 21.8
Line Leq,d 51.0 69.1 64.9 0.0 0.0 0 90.85 -50.2 -2.7 -0.3 -1.0 0.0 0.1 15.1 0.0 -1.0 0.0 14.1
Line Leq,n 51.0 69.1 64.9 0.0 0.0 0 90.85 -50.2 -2.7 -0.3 -1.0 0.0 0.1 15.1 0.0 -4.1 0.0 11.0
Point Leq,d 65.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 3 39.64 -43.0 -1.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 23.9 0.0 -1.0 0.0 23.0
Point Leq,n 65.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 3 39.64 -43.0 -1.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 23.9 0.0 -4.1 0.0 19.8
Line Leq,d 47.0 66.9 96.9 0.0 0.0 0 74.02 -48.4 -2.6 -9.2 -0.3 0.0 1.0 7.3 0.0 -1.0 0.0 6.3
Line Leq,n 47.0 66.9 96.9 0.0 0.0 0 74.02 -48.4 -2.6 -9.2 -0.3 0.0 1.0 7.3 0.0 -4.1 0.0 3.2
Line Leq,d 47.0 67.6 114.0 0.0 0.0 0 72.94 -48.3 -2.5 -4.7 -0.7 0.0 0.4 11.8 0.0 -1.0 0.0 10.8
Line Leq,n 47.0 67.6 114.0 0.0 0.0 0 72.94 -48.3 -2.5 -4.7 -0.7 0.0 0.4 11.8 0.0 -4.1 0.0 7.7
Area Leq,d 47.6 65.0 55.5 0.0 0.0 3 43.64 -43.8 -1.6 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.0 22.4 0.0 -1.0 0.0 21.4
Area Leq,n 47.6 65.0 55.5 0.0 0.0 3 43.64 -43.8 -1.6 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.0 22.4 0.0 -4.1 0.0 18.3
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F3 Lr,lim dB(A) Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 29.1 dB(A) Leq,n 25.9 dB(A)
Line Leq,d 51.0 73.3 167.6 0.0 0.0 0 50.24 -45.0 -2.0 -1.1 -0.4 0.0 1.2 26.0 0.0 -1.0 0.0 25.0
Line Leq,n 51.0 73.3 167.6 0.0 0.0 0 50.24 -45.0 -2.0 -1.1 -0.4 0.0 1.2 26.0 0.0 -4.1 0.0 21.9
Line Leq,d 51.0 69.1 64.9 0.0 0.0 0 91.10 -50.2 -2.6 -0.2 -0.9 0.0 0.4 15.6 0.0 -1.0 0.0 14.6
Line Leq,n 51.0 69.1 64.9 0.0 0.0 0 91.10 -50.2 -2.6 -0.2 -0.9 0.0 0.4 15.6 0.0 -4.1 0.0 11.5
Point Leq,d 65.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 3 40.13 -43.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 24.8 0.0 -1.0 0.0 23.9
Point Leq,n 65.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 3 40.13 -43.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 24.8 0.0 -4.1 0.0 20.7
Line Leq,d 47.0 66.9 96.9 0.0 0.0 0 74.29 -48.4 -2.5 -6.7 -0.4 0.0 1.8 10.6 0.0 -1.0 0.0 9.6
Line Leq,n 47.0 66.9 96.9 0.0 0.0 0 74.29 -48.4 -2.5 -6.7 -0.4 0.0 1.8 10.6 0.0 -4.1 0.0 6.5
Line Leq,d 47.0 67.6 114.0 0.0 0.0 0 73.23 -48.3 -2.5 -4.0 -0.6 0.0 1.0 13.1 0.0 -1.0 0.0 12.1
Line Leq,n 47.0 67.6 114.0 0.0 0.0 0 73.23 -48.3 -2.5 -4.0 -0.6 0.0 1.0 13.1 0.0 -4.1 0.0 9.0
Area Leq,d 47.6 65.0 55.5 0.0 0.0 3 44.13 -43.9 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.0 23.7 0.0 -1.0 0.0 22.7
SoundPLAN 9.0
Meridian Consultants LLC 2
382
INOB SF
Mean propagation Leq - Operational 10
Source type Time
slice
Li
dB(A)
R'w
dB
L'w
dB(A)
Lw
dB(A)
l or A
m,m²
KI
dB
KT
dB
DO
dB
S
m
Adiv
dB
Agr
dB
Abar
dB
Aatm
dB
Amisc
dB
ADI
dB
dLrefl
dB(A)
Ls
dB(A)
Cmet
dB
dLw
dB
ZR
dB
Lr
dB(A)
Area Leq,n 47.6 65.0 55.5 0.0 0.0 3 44.13 -43.9 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.0 23.7 0.0 -4.1 0.0 19.6
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F4 Lr,lim dB(A) Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 29.1 dB(A) Leq,n 26.0 dB(A)
Line Leq,d 51.0 73.3 167.6 0.0 0.0 0 51.20 -45.2 -2.0 -0.6 -0.5 0.0 1.1 26.1 0.0 -1.0 0.0 25.2
Line Leq,n 51.0 73.3 167.6 0.0 0.0 0 51.20 -45.2 -2.0 -0.6 -0.5 0.0 1.1 26.1 0.0 -4.1 0.0 22.0
Line Leq,d 51.0 69.1 64.9 0.0 0.0 0 91.44 -50.2 -2.6 -0.2 -0.9 0.0 0.5 15.7 0.0 -1.0 0.0 14.8
Line Leq,n 51.0 69.1 64.9 0.0 0.0 0 91.44 -50.2 -2.6 -0.2 -0.9 0.0 0.5 15.7 0.0 -4.1 0.0 11.6
Point Leq,d 65.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 3 40.81 -43.2 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 24.7 0.0 -1.0 0.0 23.7
Point Leq,n 65.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 3 40.81 -43.2 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 24.7 0.0 -4.1 0.0 20.6
Line Leq,d 47.0 66.9 96.9 0.0 0.0 0 74.67 -48.5 -2.5 -4.9 -0.5 0.0 1.8 12.3 0.0 -1.0 0.0 11.4
Line Leq,n 47.0 66.9 96.9 0.0 0.0 0 74.67 -48.5 -2.5 -4.9 -0.5 0.0 1.8 12.3 0.0 -4.1 0.0 8.2
Line Leq,d 47.0 67.6 114.0 0.0 0.0 0 73.64 -48.3 -2.4 -3.4 -0.7 0.0 1.2 14.0 0.0 -1.0 0.0 13.0
Line Leq,n 47.0 67.6 114.0 0.0 0.0 0 73.64 -48.3 -2.4 -3.4 -0.7 0.0 1.2 14.0 0.0 -4.1 0.0 9.8
Area Leq,d 47.6 65.0 55.5 0.0 0.0 3 44.75 -44.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.0 23.7 0.0 -1.0 0.0 22.8
Area Leq,n 47.6 65.0 55.5 0.0 0.0 3 44.75 -44.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.0 23.7 0.0 -4.1 0.0 19.6
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F5 Lr,lim dB(A) Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 29.1 dB(A) Leq,n 26.0 dB(A)
Line Leq,d 51.0 73.3 167.6 0.0 0.0 0 52.39 -45.4 -2.0 -0.3 -0.5 0.0 1.0 26.2 0.0 -1.0 0.0 25.2
Line Leq,n 51.0 73.3 167.6 0.0 0.0 0 52.39 -45.4 -2.0 -0.3 -0.5 0.0 1.0 26.2 0.0 -4.1 0.0 22.1
Line Leq,d 51.0 69.1 64.9 0.0 0.0 0 91.88 -50.3 -2.6 0.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 15.8 0.0 -1.0 0.0 14.9
Line Leq,n 51.0 69.1 64.9 0.0 0.0 0 91.88 -50.3 -2.6 0.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 15.8 0.0 -4.1 0.0 11.7
Point Leq,d 65.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 3 41.66 -43.4 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 24.5 0.0 -1.0 0.0 23.5
Point Leq,n 65.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 3 41.66 -43.4 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 24.5 0.0 -4.1 0.0 20.4
Line Leq,d 47.0 66.9 96.9 0.0 0.0 0 75.17 -48.5 -2.5 -3.5 -0.7 0.0 1.7 13.4 0.0 -1.0 0.0 12.4
Line Leq,n 47.0 66.9 96.9 0.0 0.0 0 75.17 -48.5 -2.5 -3.5 -0.7 0.0 1.7 13.4 0.0 -4.1 0.0 9.3
Line Leq,d 47.0 67.6 114.0 0.0 0.0 0 74.17 -48.4 -2.4 -2.8 -0.8 0.0 1.3 14.5 0.0 -1.0 0.0 13.5
Line Leq,n 47.0 67.6 114.0 0.0 0.0 0 74.17 -48.4 -2.4 -2.8 -0.8 0.0 1.3 14.5 0.0 -4.1 0.0 10.4
Area Leq,d 47.6 65.0 55.5 0.0 0.0 3 45.55 -44.2 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.0 23.6 0.0 -1.0 0.0 22.6
Area Leq,n 47.6 65.0 55.5 0.0 0.0 3 45.55 -44.2 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.0 23.6 0.0 -4.1 0.0 19.5
Receiver Multi-family Residential to the North - NEW SSF Condos Fl F6 Lr,lim dB(A) Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 28.9 dB(A) Leq,n 25.8 dB(A)
Line Leq,d 51.0 73.3 167.6 0.0 0.0 0 53.78 -45.6 -2.0 -0.2 -0.5 0.0 1.0 25.9 0.0 -1.0 0.0 25.0
Line Leq,n 51.0 73.3 167.6 0.0 0.0 0 53.78 -45.6 -2.0 -0.2 -0.5 0.0 1.0 25.9 0.0 -4.1 0.0 21.8
Line Leq,d 51.0 69.1 64.9 0.0 0.0 0 92.40 -50.3 -2.6 0.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 15.8 0.0 -1.0 0.0 14.8
Line Leq,n 51.0 69.1 64.9 0.0 0.0 0 92.40 -50.3 -2.6 0.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 15.8 0.0 -4.1 0.0 11.6
SoundPLAN 9.0
Meridian Consultants LLC 3
383
INOB SF
Mean propagation Leq - Operational 10
Source type Time
slice
Li
dB(A)
R'w
dB
L'w
dB(A)
Lw
dB(A)
l or A
m,m²
KI
dB
KT
dB
DO
dB
S
m
Adiv
dB
Agr
dB
Abar
dB
Aatm
dB
Amisc
dB
ADI
dB
dLrefl
dB(A)
Ls
dB(A)
Cmet
dB
dLw
dB
ZR
dB
Lr
dB(A)
Point Leq,d 65.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 3 42.68 -43.6 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 24.3 0.0 -1.0 0.0 23.3
Point Leq,n 65.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 3 42.68 -43.6 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 24.3 0.0 -4.1 0.0 20.2
Line Leq,d 47.0 66.9 96.9 0.0 0.0 0 75.77 -48.6 -2.5 -2.1 -0.8 0.0 1.2 14.1 0.0 -1.0 0.0 13.1
Line Leq,n 47.0 66.9 96.9 0.0 0.0 0 75.77 -48.6 -2.5 -2.1 -0.8 0.0 1.2 14.1 0.0 -4.1 0.0 10.0
Line Leq,d 47.0 67.6 114.0 0.0 0.0 0 74.80 -48.5 -2.4 -2.2 -0.8 0.0 1.1 14.8 0.0 -1.0 0.0 13.8
Line Leq,n 47.0 67.6 114.0 0.0 0.0 0 74.80 -48.5 -2.4 -2.2 -0.8 0.0 1.1 14.8 0.0 -4.1 0.0 10.7
Area Leq,d 47.6 65.0 55.5 0.0 0.0 3 46.50 -44.3 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.0 23.4 0.0 -1.0 0.0 22.4
Area Leq,n 47.6 65.0 55.5 0.0 0.0 3 46.50 -44.3 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.0 23.4 0.0 -4.1 0.0 19.3
Receiver Peninsula Pines Apartments Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 20.9 dB(A) Leq,n 17.8 dB(A)
Line Leq,d 51.0 73.3 167.6 0.0 0.0 0 104.89 -51.4 -2.8 -0.6 -1.0 0.0 0.3 17.7 0.0 -1.0 0.0 16.7
Line Leq,n 51.0 73.3 167.6 0.0 0.0 0 104.89 -51.4 -2.8 -0.6 -1.0 0.0 0.3 17.7 0.0 -4.1 0.0 13.6
Line Leq,d 51.0 69.1 64.9 0.0 0.0 0 95.35 -50.6 -2.8 0.0 -1.0 0.0 0.2 15.0 0.0 -1.0 0.0 14.0
Line Leq,n 51.0 69.1 64.9 0.0 0.0 0 95.35 -50.6 -2.8 0.0 -1.0 0.0 0.2 15.0 0.0 -4.1 0.0 10.9
Point Leq,d 65.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 3 114.06 -52.1 -4.2 0.0 -0.2 0.0 1.6 13.0 0.0 -1.0 0.0 12.1
Point Leq,n 65.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 3 114.06 -52.1 -4.2 0.0 -0.2 0.0 1.6 13.0 0.0 -4.1 0.0 8.9
Line Leq,d 47.0 66.9 96.9 0.0 0.0 0 122.17 -52.7 -2.8 -0.2 -1.2 0.0 0.9 10.7 0.0 -1.0 0.0 9.7
Line Leq,n 47.0 66.9 96.9 0.0 0.0 0 122.17 -52.7 -2.8 -0.2 -1.2 0.0 0.9 10.7 0.0 -4.1 0.0 6.6
Line Leq,d 47.0 67.6 114.0 0.0 0.0 0 120.40 -52.6 -2.8 -0.2 -1.2 0.0 0.9 11.6 0.0 -1.0 0.0 10.6
Line Leq,n 47.0 67.6 114.0 0.0 0.0 0 120.40 -52.6 -2.8 -0.2 -1.2 0.0 0.9 11.6 0.0 -4.1 0.0 7.5
Area Leq,d 47.6 65.0 55.5 0.0 0.0 3 117.54 -52.4 -4.3 0.0 -0.2 0.0 1.5 12.7 0.0 -1.0 0.0 11.7
Area Leq,n 47.6 65.0 55.5 0.0 0.0 3 117.54 -52.4 -4.3 0.0 -0.2 0.0 1.5 12.7 0.0 -4.1 0.0 8.6
SoundPLAN 9.0
Meridian Consultants LLC 4
384
860 Hampshire Road, Suite P Westlake Village, CA 91361 Date: March 1, 2025
To: In-N-Out Burger
13502 Hamburger Lane
Baldwin Park, CA 91706
From: Christ Kirikian
Partner | Director of Air Quality & Acoustics
Subject: In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project Noise Supplemental Memorandum
972 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, CA 94080
This memorandum is being provided regarding the Noise Study (dated July 2024) for the In-N-Out Burger
Restaurant project located at 972 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, CA 94080. Meridian Consultants
(Meridian) prepared the Noise and Vibration study utilizing the information provided in the Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) prepared by Ganddini dated February 26, 2024 for the Transportation Study
Scoping Agreement.
Turning movement counts were conducted in April 2024 and provided in the Transportation Impact
Assessment (TIA) prepared by Ganddini dated December 12, 2024. As a result, this memorandum
evaluates potential roadway noise impacts based on the recent TIA.
All other aspects of the July 2024 Noise Study remain unchanged.
Methodology
Traffic noise levels were modeled using the FHWA TNM. The FHWA TNM calculates noise associated with
a specific line source and the results characterize noise generated by motor vehicle travel along a specific
roadway segment. The traffic noise impact analysis is based on the 24-hour CNEL noise descriptor and
incorporates traffic volumes, vehicle mix, posted speed limits, roadway geometry, and site conditions.
Noise levels were evaluated with respect to the following traffic scenarios:
•Existing (2024) Peak Hour Conditions; and
•Existing (2024) plus Project Peak Hour Conditions
Noise impacts due to off-site motor vehicle travel were analyzed by comparing the projected increase in
traffic noise levels from without Project conditions to plus proposed Project to the applicable significance
criteria.
385
Threshold of Significance
The City has not adopted thresholds of significance for analysis of impacts from operational noise. For
purposes of this analysis, the criteria for noise-compatible land use from the Noise Element Guidelines
of the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is utilized.1 Normally acceptable noise ranges for residential
uses range between 50 to 60 dBA CNEL and conditionally acceptable within 55 to 70 dBA CNEL.
Additionally, to evaluate whether the proposed Project will generate a substantial periodic increase in
long-term noise levels at off-site sensitive receptor locations, Project-related operational (i.e., roadway)
noise levels that would cause any ambient noise levels to increase by 5 dBA CNEL or more and the
resulting noise falls on a noise-sensitive land use within an area categorized as either “clearly
incompatible” or “normally incompatible;” or cause ambient noise levels to increase by 3 dBA CNEL or
more and the resulting noise falls on a noise-sensitive land use within an area categorized as either
“clearly incompatible” or “normally incompatible” would be considered significant.
Additionally, Project-related operational (i.e., nonroadway) noise sources such as outdoor activities,
building mechanical/electrical equipment, etc., increase ambient noise level by 5 dBA, would also be
considered significant.
Roadway Noise
Table 1: Existing plus Project Roadway Noise Levels, illustrates the change in noise levels from traffic
volumes and from traffic generated by the Project. The difference in traffic noise between existing
conditions and existing plus Project conditions represents the increase in noise attributable to Project-
related traffic. As shown in Table 1, the maximum noise level increase along the analyzed roadways is
1.4 dBA CNEL along Southwood Drive/1st Street east of El Camino Real (Intersection 3). Consequently,
Project-related traffic would not cause noise levels along the analyzed roadways to increase by more
than 3.0 dBA. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in a permanent increase in noise levels above
ambient levels in the vicinity of the Project Site. Roadway noise impacts would not be considered
significant.
1 Office of Planning and Research, Appendix D: Noise Element Guidelines,
https://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_Appendix_D_final.pdf, accessed February 2025.
386
TABLE 1: EXISTING PLUS PROJECT ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS
Intersection No. Roadway Segment Existing Existing plus Project Difference dBA CNEL
Chestnut Avenue
1 East of Antoinette Lane 67.6 67.6 0.0
1 West of Antoinette Lane 68.1 68.2 +0.1
Antoinette Lane
1 North of Chestnut Avenue 57.5 57.5 0.0
1 South of Chestnut Avenue 60.6 60.6 0.0
Westborough Blvd
2 East of El Camino Real 68.2 68.2 0.0
2 West of El Camino real 68.6 68.7 +0.1
El Camino Real
2 North of Westborough Blvd 70.3 70.3 0.0
2 South of Westborough Blvd 72.0 72.1 +0.1
3 North of 1st Street/Southwood Drive 71.9 72.0 +0.1
3 South of 1st Street/Southwood Drive 71.8 71.8 0.0
4 North of Orange Avenue 71.8 71.8 0.0
4 South of Orange Avenue 71.5 71.5 0.0
5 North of Project North Driveway 71.8 71.9 +0.1
5 South of Project North Driveway 71.8 71.9 +0.1
6 North of Project South Driveway 71.8 71.9 +0.1
6 South of Project South Driveway 71.8 71.9 +0.1
Southwood Drive/1st Street
3 East of El Camino Real 53.0 54.4 +1.4
3 West of El Camino Real 50.6 50.7 +0.1
Orange Avenue
4 East of El Camino Real 61.8 61.9 +0.1
4 West of El Camino Real 57.7 57.7 0.0
Source: Refer to Appendix 1.0 for roadway noise worksheets.
387
CERTIFICATION
The contents of this Memorandum represent an accurate depiction of the roadway noise environment
and impacts associated with the proposed In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project. The information contained
in this study is based on the best available information at the time of preparation. If you have any
questions, please contact me directly at (818) 415-7274.
Christ Kirikian
Partner | Director of Air Quality & Acoustics
ckirikian@meridianconsultantsllc.com
388
APPENDIX 1.0
Roadway Noise Worksheets
389
Project Name rev. (Date)
Weekday Peak Hour Volumes
Intersection:1
Antoinette Ln & Chestnut Ave
ADT
Road
Southbound Leg North of South of East of West of
right through left Cross Street
Existing (M 77 3 17 Existing (MD) Pea 1,928.0 2,896.0 10,120.0 11,920.0
Existing (PM 93 3 50 Existing (PM) 2,448.0 3,376.0 14,680.0 16,728.0
Existing plu 77 3 17 Existing plus Proj 1,584.0 2,960.0 9,936.0 12,016.0
Existing plu 93 3 50 Existing plus Proj 2,448.0 3,376.0 14,752.0 16,800.0
Eastbound Westbound
left through right right through left
Existing (MD) Pe 62 562 135 Existing (MD) Pe 74 525 66
Existing (PM) 98 832 153 Existing (PM) 52 780 102
Existing plus Pro 62 569 135 N Existing plus Pro 31 530 74
Existing plus Pro 98 837 153 W E Existing plus Pro 52 784 102
S
Northbound
left through right
Existing (M 129 8 21
Existing (PM 135 10 19
Existing plu 129 8 21
Existing plu 135 10 19
Chestnut Ave Antoinette Ln
Ch
e
s
t
n
u
t
A
v
e
Antoinette Ln Chestnut AveAntoinette Ln
Copy of Completed_ApxB_RoadwayNoiseWorksheets
390
2
NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS - Existing Plus Project Weekday Off-Site ADT Volumes
Traffic Volumes Ref. Energy Levels Dist Ld Le Ln
Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix
ROADWAY NAME Median ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn.Medium Heavy dB(A)Day Eve Night MTd HTd MTe HTe MTn HTn A MT HT Adj A MT HT Total A MT HT Total A MT HT Total
Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume (mph)ReceptorFactor (1)dB(A)Trucks Trucks CNEL
Antionette Ln n/o Chestnut Ave
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 1 0 1,928 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%56.4 1,498 245 185 30 12 2 0 3 1 59.4 71.1 78.7 2.9 53.9 48.8 52.4 57.0 50.9 41.2 42.2 51.9 37.8 39.3 43.2 45.5
Existing (PM) 1 0 2,448 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%57.5 1,902 311 235 39 15 2 0 3 1 59.4 71.1 78.7 2.9 55.0 49.8 53.4 58.0 52.0 42.2 43.3 52.9 38.8 40.3 44.2 46.5
Existing plus Project (MD)1 0 1,584 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%55.6 1,231 201 152 25 10 1 0 2 1 59.4 71.1 78.7 2.9 53.1 47.9 51.5 56.1 50.1 40.3 41.4 51.0 36.9 38.5 42.3 44.6
Existing plus Project (PM)1 0 2,448 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%57.5 1,902 311 235 39 15 2 0 3 1 59.4 71.1 78.7 2.9 55.0 49.8 53.4 58.0 52.0 42.2 43.3 52.9 38.8 40.3 44.2 46.5
Antionette Ln s/o Chestnut Ave
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 2 0 2,896 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%59.9 2,250 368 278 46 18 3 1 4 2 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.1 58.1 51.9 55.0 60.5 55.1 44.3 44.9 55.8 41.9 42.4 45.8 48.5
Existing (PM) 2 0 3,376 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%60.6 2,623 429 324 53 21 3 1 5 2 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.1 58.8 52.6 55.7 61.2 55.8 45.0 45.5 56.5 42.6 43.1 46.5 49.2
Existing plus Project (MD)2 0 2,960 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%60.0 2,300 376 284 47 18 3 1 4 2 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.1 58.2 52.0 55.1 60.6 55.2 44.4 45.0 55.9 42.0 42.5 45.9 48.6
Existing plus Project (PM)2 0 3,376 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%60.6 2,623 429 324 53 21 3 1 5 2 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.1 58.8 52.6 55.7 61.2 55.8 45.0 45.5 56.5 42.6 43.1 46.5 49.2
Chestnut Ave e/o Antionette Ln
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 2 15 10,120 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%66.0 7,863 1,285 972 159 63 9 2 14 6 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.7 64.2 58.0 61.1 66.5 61.2 50.4 50.9 61.9 48.0 48.5 51.8 54.6
Existing (PM) 2 15 14,680 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%67.6 ####1,864 1,409 231 92 13 3 20 8 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.7 65.8 59.6 62.7 68.2 62.8 52.0 52.5 63.5 49.6 50.1 53.5 56.2
Existing plus Project (MD)2 15 9,936 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%65.9 7,720 1,262 954 156 62 9 2 13 6 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.7 64.1 57.9 61.0 66.5 61.1 50.3 50.8 61.8 47.9 48.4 51.8 54.5
Existing plus Project (PM)2 15 14,752 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%67.6 ####1,874 1,416 232 92 13 3 20 8 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.7 65.8 59.6 62.7 68.2 62.8 52.0 52.5 63.5 49.6 50.1 53.5 56.2
Chestnut Ave w/o Antionette Ln
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 2 15 11,920 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%66.7 9,262 1,514 1,144 188 74 11 2 16 7 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.7 64.9 58.7 61.8 67.3 61.9 51.1 51.6 62.6 48.7 49.2 52.6 55.3
Existing (PM) 2 15 16,728 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%68.1 ####2,124 1,606 263 104 15 3 23 9 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.7 66.3 60.1 63.3 68.7 63.4 52.5 53.1 64.1 50.2 50.7 54.0 56.8
Existing plus Project (MD)2 15 12,016 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%66.7 9,336 1,526 1,154 189 75 11 2 16 7 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.7 64.9 58.7 61.8 67.3 61.9 51.1 51.7 62.6 48.7 49.2 52.6 55.3
Existing plus Project (PM)2 15 16,800 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%68.2 ####2,134 1,613 264 105 15 3 23 9 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.7 66.4 60.2 63.3 68.7 63.4 52.6 53.1 64.1 50.2 50.7 54.0 56.8
Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution:Day Evening Night
Total ADT Volumes 77.70%12.70%9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43%5.05%7.52%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10%2.84%8.06%
(1)Alpha Factor:Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface.An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site isan acoustically "hard"site such
as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such as vegetative ground cover.
391
Project Name rev. (Date)
Weekday Peak Hour Volumes
Intersection:2
El Camino Real & Westborough Blvd
ADT
Road
Southbound Leg North of South of East of West of
right through left Cross Street
Existing (MD 106 561 159 Existing (MD) Pea 13,088.0 17,920.0 11,832.0 13,352.0
Existing (PM 147 625 177 Existing (PM) 16,024.0 23,608.0 16,816.0 18,656.0
Existing plus 106 568 159 Existing plus Proj 13,200.0 18,608.0 11,928.0 13,832.0
Existing plus 147 630 177 Existing plus Proj 16,104.0 24,104.0 16,888.0 19,000.0
Eastbound Westbound
left through right right through left
Existing (MD) Pe 138 381 292 Existing (MD) Pe 126 362 208
Existing (PM) 149 560 346 Existing (PM) 137 573 300
Existing plus Pro 138 381 297 N Existing plus Pro 126 362 213
Existing plus Pro 149 560 350 W E Existing plus Pro 137 573 304
S
Northbound
left through right
Existing (MD 390 546 243
Existing (PM 557 768 355
Existing plus 445 553 250
Existing plus 596 773 360
El Camino Real El Camino Real Westborough Blvd
Westborough Blvd El Camino Real
We
s
t
b
o
r
o
u
g
h
B
l
v
d
392
2
NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS - Existing Plus Project Weekday Off-Site ADT Volumes
Traffic Volumes Ref. Energy Levels Dist Ld Le Ln
Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix
ROADWAY NAME Median ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn.Medium Heavy dB(A)Day Eve Night MTd HTd MTe HTe MTn HTn A MT HT Adj A MT HT Total A MT HT Total A MT HT Total
Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume (mph)ReceptorFactor (1)dB(A)Trucks Trucks CNEL
El Camino Real n/o Westborough Blvd
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 3 15 13,088 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%69.4 ############206 82 12 3 18 7 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 68.5 61.4 62.6 70.1 65.5 53.8 52.4 66.0 52.3 51.9 53.4 57.4
Existing (PM) 3 15 16,024 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%70.3 ############252 100 15 3 22 9 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 69.4 62.3 63.5 71.0 66.4 54.7 53.3 66.9 53.2 52.8 54.2 58.2
Existing plus Project (MD)3 15 13,200 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%69.5 ############208 82 12 3 18 7 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 68.5 61.4 62.6 70.2 65.6 53.9 52.5 66.0 52.4 52.0 53.4 57.4
Existing plus Project (PM)3 15 16,104 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%70.3 ############253 100 15 3 22 9 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 69.4 62.3 63.5 71.0 66.4 54.7 53.3 66.9 53.2 52.8 54.3 58.3
El Camino Real s/o Westborough Blvd
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 3 15 17,920 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%70.8 ############282 112 16 4 24 10 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 69.9 62.8 64.0 71.5 66.9 55.2 53.8 67.4 53.7 53.3 54.7 58.7
Existing (PM) 3 15 23,608 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%72.0 ############372 147 21 5 32 13 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 71.1 64.0 65.2 72.7 68.1 56.4 55.0 68.6 54.9 54.5 55.9 59.9
Existing plus Project (MD)3 15 18,608 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%70.9 ############293 116 17 4 25 10 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 70.0 62.9 64.1 71.6 67.0 55.3 54.0 67.5 53.8 53.5 54.9 58.9
Existing plus Project (PM)3 15 24,104 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%72.1 ############379 150 22 5 33 14 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 71.1 64.1 65.3 72.8 68.2 56.5 55.1 68.6 55.0 54.6 56.0 60.0
Westborough Blvd e/o El Camino Real
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 2 15 11,832 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%66.6 ############186 74 11 2 16 7 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.7 64.8 58.6 61.8 67.2 61.9 51.0 51.6 62.6 48.7 49.2 52.5 55.2
Existing (PM) 2 15 16,816 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%68.2 ############265 105 15 3 23 9 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.7 66.4 60.2 63.3 68.7 63.4 52.6 53.1 64.1 50.2 50.7 54.0 56.8
Existing plus Project (MD)2 15 11,928 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%66.7 ############188 74 11 2 16 7 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.7 64.9 58.7 61.8 67.3 61.9 51.1 51.6 62.6 48.7 49.2 52.6 55.3
Existing plus Project (PM)2 15 16,888 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%68.2 ############266 105 15 3 23 10 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.7 66.4 60.2 63.3 68.8 63.4 52.6 53.1 64.1 50.2 50.7 54.1 56.8
Westborough Blvd w/o El Camino Real
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 2 15 13,352 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%67.2 ############210 83 12 3 18 8 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.7 65.4 59.2 62.3 67.7 62.4 51.6 52.1 63.1 49.2 49.7 53.0 55.8
Existing (PM) 2 15 18,656 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%68.6 ############294 116 17 4 25 11 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.7 66.8 60.6 63.7 69.2 63.8 53.0 53.6 64.5 50.6 51.2 54.5 57.2
Existing plus Project (MD)2 15 13,832 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%67.3 ############218 86 13 3 19 8 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.7 65.5 59.3 62.4 67.9 62.5 51.7 52.3 63.2 49.3 49.9 53.2 55.9
Existing plus Project (PM)2 15 19,000 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%68.7 ############299 119 17 4 26 11 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.7 66.9 60.7 63.8 69.3 63.9 53.1 53.6 64.6 50.7 51.2 54.6 57.3
Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution:Day Evening Night
Total ADT Volumes 77.70%12.70%9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43%5.05%7.52%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10%2.84%8.06%
(1)Alpha Factor:Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface.An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard"site such as
aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such as vegetative ground cover.
393
Project Name rev. (Date)
Weekday Peak Hour Volumes
Intersection:3
El Camino Real & Southwood Dr
ADT
Road
Southbound Leg North of South of East of West of
right through left Cross Street
Existing (MD 19 985 64 Existing (MD) Pea 17,712.0 17,416.0 704.0 504.0
Existing (PM) 11 1,183 88 Existing (PM) 22,968.0 22,528.0 880.0 504.0
Existing plus 21 998 116 Existing plus Proj 18,392.0 17,664.0 1,120.0 520.0
Existing plus 12 1,192 127 Existing plus Proj 23,456.0 22,696.0 1,192.0 512.0
Eastbound Westbound
left through right right through left
Existing (MD) Pe 5 0 12 Existing (MD) Pe 6 0 3
Existing (PM) 5 0 12 Existing (PM) 10 0 1
Existing plus Pro 5 0 12 N Existing plus Pro 6 0 3
Existing plus Pro 5 0 12 W E Existing plus Pro 10 0 1
S
Northbound
left through right
Existing (MD 27 1,135 15
Existing (PM) 35 1,574 11
Existing plus 27 1,153 15
Existing plus 35 1,586 11
El Camino Real El Camino Real Southwood Dr
Southwood Dr El Camino Real
So
u
t
h
w
o
o
d
D
r
394
2
NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS - Existing Plus Project Weekday Off-Site ADT Volumes
Traffic Volumes Ref. Energy Levels Dist Ld Le Ln
Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix
ROADWAY NAME Median ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn.Medium Heavy dB(A)Day Eve Night MTd HTd MTe HTe MTn HTn A MT HT Adj A MT HT Total A MT HT Total A MT HT Total
Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume (mph)ReceptorFactor (1)dB(A)Trucks Trucks CNEL
El Camino Real n/o Southwood Dr
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 3 15 17,712 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%70.7 ####2,249 1,700 279 110 16 4 24 10 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 69.8 62.7 63.9 71.4 66.8 55.1 53.7 67.3 53.6 53.3 54.7 58.7
Existing (PM) 3 15 22,968 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%71.9 ####2,917 2,205 361 143 21 5 31 13 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 70.9 63.8 65.0 72.6 68.0 56.3 54.9 68.4 54.8 54.4 55.8 59.8
Existing plus Project (MD)3 15 18,392 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%70.9 ####2,336 1,766 289 115 17 4 25 10 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 70.0 62.9 64.1 71.6 67.0 55.3 53.9 67.5 53.8 53.4 54.8 58.8
Existing plus Project (PM)3 15 23,456 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%72.0 ####2,979 2,252 369 146 21 5 32 13 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 71.0 63.9 65.1 72.6 68.0 56.4 55.0 68.5 54.9 54.5 55.9 59.9
El Camino Real s/o Southwood Dr
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 3 15 17,416 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%70.7 ####2,212 1,672 274 109 16 3 24 10 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 69.7 62.6 63.8 71.4 66.8 55.1 53.7 67.2 53.6 53.2 54.6 58.6
Existing (PM) 3 15 22,528 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%71.8 ####2,861 2,163 355 141 20 4 30 13 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 70.9 63.8 65.0 72.5 67.9 56.2 54.8 68.4 54.7 54.3 55.7 59.7
Existing plus Project (MD)3 15 17,664 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%70.7 ####2,243 1,696 278 110 16 4 24 10 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 69.8 62.7 63.9 71.4 66.8 55.1 53.7 67.3 53.6 53.2 54.7 58.7
Existing plus Project (PM)3 15 22,696 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%71.8 ####2,882 2,179 357 142 21 5 31 13 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 70.9 63.8 65.0 72.5 67.9 56.2 54.8 68.4 54.7 54.3 55.8 59.7
Southwood Dr e/o El Camino Real
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 1 0 704 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%52.1 547 89 68 11 4 1 0 1 0 59.4 71.1 78.7 2.9 49.6 44.4 48.0 52.6 46.6 36.8 37.9 47.5 33.4 34.9 38.8 41.1
Existing (PM) 1 0 880 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%53.0 684 112 84 14 5 1 0 1 0 59.4 71.1 78.7 2.9 50.5 45.4 49.0 53.5 47.5 37.8 38.8 48.5 34.3 35.9 39.8 42.1
Existing plus Project (MD)1 0 1,120 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%54.1 870 142 108 18 7 1 0 2 1 59.4 71.1 78.7 2.9 51.6 46.4 50.0 54.6 48.6 38.8 39.9 49.5 35.4 37.0 40.8 43.1
Existing plus Project (PM)1 0 1,192 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%54.4 926 151 114 19 7 1 0 2 1 59.4 71.1 78.7 2.9 51.8 46.7 50.3 54.9 48.9 39.1 40.1 49.8 35.7 37.2 41.1 43.4
Southwood Dr w/o El Camino Real
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 1 0 504 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%50.6 392 64 48 8 3 0 0 1 0 59.4 71.1 78.7 2.9 48.1 42.9 46.6 51.1 45.1 35.4 36.4 46.1 31.9 33.5 37.3 39.6
Existing (PM) 1 0 504 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%50.6 392 64 48 8 3 0 0 1 0 59.4 71.1 78.7 2.9 48.1 42.9 46.6 51.1 45.1 35.4 36.4 46.1 31.9 33.5 37.3 39.6
Existing plus Project (MD)1 0 520 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%50.8 404 66 50 8 3 0 0 1 0 59.4 71.1 78.7 2.9 48.2 43.1 46.7 51.3 45.3 35.5 36.5 46.2 32.1 33.6 37.5 39.8
Existing plus Project (PM)1 0 512 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%50.7 398 65 49 8 3 0 0 1 0 59.4 71.1 78.7 2.9 48.2 43.0 46.6 51.2 45.2 35.4 36.5 46.1 32.0 33.6 37.4 39.7
Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution:Day Evening Night
Total ADT Volumes 77.70%12.70%9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43%5.05%7.52%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10%2.84%8.06%
(1)Alpha Factor:Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface.An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard"site such
as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such as vegetative ground cover.
395
Project Name rev. (Date)
Weekday Peak Hour Volumes
Intersection:4
El Camino Real & Orange Ave
ADT
Road
Southbound Leg North of South of East of West of
right through left Cross Street
Existing (MD) Pe 36 834 141 Existing (MD) Pea 17,392.0 16,288.0 4,720.0 1,824.0
Existing (PM) 58 943 203 Existing (PM) 22,440.0 21,064.0 6,688.0 2,576.0
Existing plus Proj 36 842 146 Existing plus Proje 17,640.0 16,424.0 4,816.0 1,840.0
Existing plus Proj 58 949 206 Existing plus Proje 22,608.0 21,160.0 6,752.0 2,584.0
Eastbound Westbound
left through right right through left
Existing (MD) Pe 68 45 36 Existing (MD) Pe 162 26 115
Existing (PM) 80 57 38 Existing (PM) 208 59 147
Existing plus Proj 70 45 36 N Existing plus Proj 169 26 115
Existing plus Proj 81 57 38 W E Existing plus Proj 213 59 147
S
Northbound
left through right
Existing (MD) Pe 17 933 101
Existing (PM) 30 1,313 162
Existing plus Proj 17 942 101
Existing plus Proj 30 1,319 162
El Camino Real El Camino Real Orange Ave
Orange Ave El Camino Real
Or
a
n
g
e
A
v
e
396
2
NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS - Existing Plus Project Weekday Off-Site ADT Volumes
Traffic Volumes Ref. Energy Levels Dist Ld Le Ln
Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix
ROADWAY NAME Median ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn.Medium Heavy dB(A)Day Eve Night MTd HTd MTe HTe MTn HTn A MT HT Adj A MT HT Total A MT HT Total A MT HT Total
Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume (mph)ReceptorFactor (1)dB(A)Trucks Trucks CNEL
El Camino Real n/o Orange Ave
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 3 15 17,392 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%70.7 ############274 108 16 3 24 10 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 69.7 62.6 63.8 71.3 66.7 55.1 53.7 67.2 53.6 53.2 54.6 58.6
Existing (PM) 3 15 22,440 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%71.8 ############353 140 20 4 30 13 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 70.8 63.7 64.9 72.5 67.9 56.2 54.8 68.3 54.7 54.3 55.7 59.7
Existing plus Project (MD)3 15 17,640 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%70.7 ############278 110 16 4 24 10 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 69.8 62.7 63.9 71.4 66.8 55.1 53.7 67.3 53.6 53.2 54.7 58.7
Existing plus Project (PM)3 15 22,608 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%71.8 ############356 141 21 4 31 13 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 70.9 63.8 65.0 72.5 67.9 56.2 54.8 68.4 54.7 54.3 55.7 59.7
El Camino Real s/o Orange Ave
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 3 15 16,288 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%70.4 ############256 102 15 3 22 9 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 69.4 62.4 63.5 71.1 66.5 54.8 53.4 66.9 53.3 52.9 54.3 58.3
Existing (PM) 3 15 21,064 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%71.5 ############331 131 19 4 29 12 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 70.6 63.5 64.7 72.2 67.6 55.9 54.5 68.1 54.4 54.0 55.4 59.4
Existing plus Project (MD)3 15 16,424 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%70.4 ############258 102 15 3 22 9 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 69.5 62.4 63.6 71.1 66.5 54.8 53.4 67.0 53.3 52.9 54.3 58.3
Existing plus Project (PM)3 15 21,160 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%71.5 ############333 132 19 4 29 12 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 70.6 63.5 64.7 72.2 67.6 55.9 54.5 68.1 54.4 54.0 55.5 59.4
Orange Ave e/o El Camino Real
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 1 0 4,720 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%60.3 ####599 453 74 29 4 1 6 3 59.4 71.1 78.7 2.9 57.8 52.7 56.3 60.8 54.8 45.1 46.1 55.8 41.6 43.2 47.1 49.4
Existing (PM) 1 0 6,688 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%61.8 ####849 642 105 42 6 1 9 4 59.4 71.1 78.7 2.9 59.3 54.2 57.8 62.4 56.4 46.6 47.6 57.3 43.2 44.7 48.6 50.9
Existing plus Project (MD)1 0 4,816 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%60.4 ####612 462 76 30 4 1 7 3 59.4 71.1 78.7 2.9 57.9 52.7 56.4 60.9 54.9 45.2 46.2 55.9 41.7 43.3 47.1 49.4
Existing plus Project (PM)1 0 6,752 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%61.9 ####858 648 106 42 6 1 9 4 59.4 71.1 78.7 2.9 59.4 54.2 57.8 62.4 56.4 46.6 47.7 57.3 43.2 44.8 48.6 50.9
Orange Ave w/o El Camino Real
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 1 0 1,824 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%56.2 ####232 175 29 11 2 0 2 1 59.4 71.1 78.7 2.9 53.7 48.5 52.2 56.7 50.7 40.9 42.0 51.6 37.5 39.1 42.9 45.2
Existing (PM) 1 0 2,576 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%57.7 ####327 247 41 16 2 1 3 1 59.4 71.1 78.7 2.9 55.2 50.0 53.7 58.2 52.2 42.4 43.5 53.1 39.0 40.6 44.4 46.7
Existing plus Project (MD)1 0 1,840 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%56.2 ####234 177 29 11 2 0 2 1 59.4 71.1 78.7 2.9 53.7 48.6 52.2 56.8 50.7 41.0 42.0 51.7 37.6 39.1 43.0 45.3
Existing plus Project (PM)1 0 2,584 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%57.7 ####328 248 41 16 2 1 3 1 59.4 71.1 78.7 2.9 55.2 50.0 53.7 58.2 52.2 42.5 43.5 53.2 39.0 40.6 44.4 46.7
Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution:Day Evening Night
Total ADT Volumes 77.70%12.70%9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43%5.05%7.52%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10%2.84%8.06%
(1)Alpha Factor:Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface.An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard"site such as
aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such as vegetative ground cover.
397
Project Name rev. (Date)
Weekday Peak Hour Volumes
Intersection:5
El Camino Real & Project North Driveway
ADT
Road
Southbound Leg North of South of East of West of
right through left Cross Street
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 1,057 Existing (MD) Pea 17,624.0 17,624.0 0.0 0.0
Existing (PM) 1,265 Existing (PM) 22,832.0 22,832.0 0.0 0.0
Existing plus Project (MD)1,089 Existing plus Proje 18,152.0 18,152.0 1,120.0 0.0
Existing plus Project (PM)1,288 Existing plus Proje 23,200.0 23,208.0 824.0 0.0
Eastbound Westbound
left through right right through left
Existing (MD) Peak Hour Existing (MD) Peak Hour
Existing (PM) Existing (PM)
Existing plus Project (MD)N Existing plus Proj 70
Existing plus Project (PM)W E Existing plus Proj 51
S
Northbound
left through right
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 1,146
Existing (PM) 1,589
Existing plus Project (MD)1,110 70
Existing plus Project (PM)1,561 52
El Camino Real El Camino Real Project North Driveway
Project North Driveway El Camino Real
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
r
t
h
D
r
i
v
e
w
398
2
NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS - Existing Plus Project Weekday Off-Site ADT Volumes
Traffic Volumes Ref. Energy Levels Dist Ld Le Ln
Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix
ROADWAY NAME Median ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn.Medium Heavy dB(A)Day Eve Night MTd HTd MTe HTe MTn HTn A MT HT Adj A MT HT Total A MT HT Total A MT HT Total
Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume (mph)ReceptorFactor (1)dB(A)Trucks Trucks CNEL
El Camino Real n/o Project North Driveway
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 3 15 17,624 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%70.7 ############277 110 16 4 24 10 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 69.8 62.7 63.9 71.4 66.8 55.1 53.7 67.3 53.6 53.2 54.7 58.6
Existing (PM) 3 15 22,832 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%71.8 ############359 142 21 5 31 13 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 70.9 63.8 65.0 72.5 67.9 56.2 54.9 68.4 54.7 54.4 55.8 59.8
Existing plus Project (MD)3 15 18,152 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%70.8 ############286 113 17 4 25 10 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 69.9 62.8 64.0 71.5 66.9 55.2 53.9 67.4 53.7 53.4 54.8 58.8
Existing plus Project (PM)3 15 23,200 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%71.9 ############365 145 21 5 31 13 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 71.0 63.9 65.1 72.6 68.0 56.3 54.9 68.5 54.8 54.4 55.8 59.8
El Camino Real s/o Project North Driveway
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 3 15 17,624 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%70.7 ############277 110 16 4 24 10 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 69.8 62.7 63.9 71.4 66.8 55.1 53.7 67.3 53.6 53.2 54.7 58.6
Existing (PM) 3 15 22,832 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%71.8 ############359 142 21 5 31 13 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 70.9 63.8 65.0 72.5 67.9 56.2 54.9 68.4 54.7 54.4 55.8 59.8
Existing plus Project (MD)3 15 18,152 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%70.8 ############286 113 17 4 25 10 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 69.9 62.8 64.0 71.5 66.9 55.2 53.9 67.4 53.7 53.4 54.8 58.8
Existing plus Project (PM)3 15 23,208 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%71.9 ############365 145 21 5 31 13 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 71.0 63.9 65.1 72.6 68.0 56.3 54.9 68.5 54.8 54.4 55.9 59.8
Project North Driveway e/o El Camino Real
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 2 0 0 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%#NUM!0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.1 ################################################
Existing (PM) 2 0 0 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%#NUM!0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.1 ################################################
Existing plus Project (MD)2 0 1,120 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%55.8 870 142 108 18 7 1 0 2 1 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.1 54.0 47.8 50.9 56.4 51.0 40.2 40.7 51.7 37.8 38.3 41.7 44.4
Existing plus Project (PM)2 0 824 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%54.4 640 105 79 13 5 1 0 1 0 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.1 52.6 46.4 49.6 55.0 49.7 38.9 39.4 50.4 36.5 37.0 40.3 43.1
Project North Driveway w/o El Camino Real
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 2 0 0 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%#NUM!0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.1 ################################################
Existing (PM) 2 0 0 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%#NUM!0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.1 ################################################
Existing plus Project (MD)2 0 0 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%#NUM!0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.1 ################################################
Existing plus Project (PM)2 0 0 30 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%#NUM!0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62.5 73.1 80.3 3.1 ################################################
Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution:Day Evening Night
Total ADT Volumes 77.70%12.70%9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43%5.05%7.52%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10%2.84%8.06%
(1)Alpha Factor:Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface.An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard"site such as
aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such as vegetative ground cover.
399
Project Name rev. (Date)
Weekday Peak Hour Volumes
Intersection:6
El Camino Real & Project South Dwy
ADT
Road
Southbound Leg North of South of East of West of
right through left Cross Street
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 1,057 Existing (MD) Pea 17,624.0 17,624.0 0.0 0.0
Existing (PM) 1,265 Existing (PM) 22,832.0 22,832.0 0.0 0.0
Existing plus Project (MD)1,089 Existing plus Proje 18,152.0 18,160.0 1,144.0 0.0
Existing plus Project (PM)1,288 Existing plus Proje 23,208.0 23,216.0 840.0 0.0
Eastbound Westbound
left through right right through left
Existing (MD) Peak Hour Existing (MD) Peak Hour
Existing (PM) Existing (PM)
Existing plus Project (MD)N Existing plus Proj 71
Existing plus Project (PM)W E Existing plus Proj 52
S
Northbound
left through right
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 1,146
Existing (PM) 1,589
Existing plus Project (MD)1,109 72
Existing plus Project (PM)1,561 53
El Camino Real El Camino Real Project South Dwy
Project South Dwy El Camino Real
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
o
u
t
h
D
w
y
400
2
NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS - Existing Plus Project Weekday Off-Site ADT Volumes
Traffic Volumes Ref. Energy Levels Dist Ld Le Ln
Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix
ROADWAY NAME Median ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn.Medium Heavy dB(A)Day Eve Night MTd HTd MTe HTe MTn HTn A MT HT Adj A MT HT Total A MT HT Total A MT HT Total
Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume (mph)ReceptorFactor (1)dB(A)Trucks Trucks CNEL
El Camino Real n/o Project South Driveway
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 3 15 17,624 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%70.7 ####2,238 1,692 277 110 16 4 24 10 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 69.8 62.7 63.9 71.4 66.8 55.1 53.7 67.3 53.6 53.2 54.7 58.6
Existing (PM) 3 15 22,832 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%71.8 ####2,900 2,192 359 142 21 5 31 13 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 70.9 63.8 65.0 72.5 67.9 56.2 54.9 68.4 54.7 54.4 55.8 59.8
Existing plus Project (MD)3 15 18,152 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%70.8 ####2,305 1,743 286 113 17 4 25 10 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 69.9 62.8 64.0 71.5 66.9 55.2 53.9 67.4 53.7 53.4 54.8 58.8
Existing plus Project (PM)3 15 23,208 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%71.9 ####2,947 2,228 365 145 21 5 31 13 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 71.0 63.9 65.1 72.6 68.0 56.3 54.9 68.5 54.8 54.4 55.9 59.8
El Camino Real s/o Project South Driveway
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 3 15 17,624 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%70.7 ####2,238 1,692 277 110 16 4 24 10 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 69.8 62.7 63.9 71.4 66.8 55.1 53.7 67.3 53.6 53.2 54.7 58.6
Existing (PM) 3 15 22,832 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%71.8 ####2,900 2,192 359 142 21 5 31 13 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 70.9 63.8 65.0 72.5 67.9 56.2 54.9 68.4 54.7 54.4 55.8 59.8
Existing plus Project (MD)3 15 18,160 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%70.8 ####2,306 1,743 286 113 17 4 25 10 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 69.9 62.8 64.0 71.5 66.9 55.2 53.9 67.4 53.7 53.4 54.8 58.8
Existing plus Project (PM)3 15 23,216 35 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%71.9 ####2,948 2,229 365 145 21 5 31 13 65.1 74.8 80.0 5.0 71.0 63.9 65.1 72.6 68.0 56.3 54.9 68.5 54.8 54.4 55.9 59.8
Project South Driveway e/o El Camino Real
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 2 0 0 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%#NUM!0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59.4 71.1 78.7 3.1 ################################################
Existing (PM) 2 0 0 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%#NUM!0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59.4 71.1 78.7 3.1 ################################################
Existing plus Project (MD)2 0 1,144 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%54.3 889 145 110 18 7 1 0 2 1 59.4 71.1 78.7 3.1 51.8 46.6 50.3 54.8 48.8 39.0 40.1 49.7 35.6 37.2 41.0 43.3
Existing plus Project (PM)2 0 840 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%53.0 653 107 81 13 5 1 0 1 0 59.4 71.1 78.7 3.1 50.4 45.3 48.9 53.5 47.5 37.7 38.8 48.4 34.3 35.8 39.7 42.0
Project South Driveway w/o El Camino Real
Existing (MD) Peak Hour 2 0 0 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%#NUM!0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59.4 71.1 78.7 3.1 ################################################
Existing (PM) 2 0 0 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%#NUM!0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59.4 71.1 78.7 3.1 ################################################
Existing plus Project (MD)2 0 0 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%#NUM!0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59.4 71.1 78.7 3.1 ################################################
Existing plus Project (PM)2 0 0 25 25 0 0 1.8%0.7%#NUM!0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59.4 71.1 78.7 3.1 ################################################
Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution:Day Evening Night
Total ADT Volumes 77.70%12.70%9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43%5.05%7.52%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10%2.84%8.06%
(1)Alpha Factor:Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface.An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard"site such as
aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such as vegetative ground cover.
401
AIR QUALITY STUDY
IN-N-OUT BURGER RESTAURANT PROJECT
972 El Camino Real
South San Francisco, CA 94080
PREPARED FOR:
In-N-Out Burger
13502 Hamburger Lane
Baldwin Park, CA 91706
PREPARED BY:
Westlake Village Office
860 Hampshire Road, Suite P
Westlake Village, CA 91361
JULY 2024
402
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project i City of South San Francisco
Air Quality Study July 2024
Table of Contents
Section Page
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1
Project Description ...................................................................................................... 2
Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................... 4
Environmental Setting ................................................................................................... 6
Methodology ............................................................................................................ 10
BAAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds ...................................................................... 12
Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................... 14
Certification ............................................................................................................ 20
Appendix
A CalEEMod Air Quality Emission Output Files
A.1 Existing
A.2 Proposed
403
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project ii City of South San Francisco
Air Quality Study July 2024
Figures
Figure Page
1 Project Site Location .......................................................................................... 3
2 Sensitive Receptor Map ........................................................................................ 9
Tables
Table Page
1 Air Quality Monitoring Summary ............................................................................. 6
2 San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Attainment Status ..................................................... 7
3 Existing Operational Air Quality Emissions ................................................................. 8
4 Construction Thresholds ..................................................................................... 12
5 Operational Thresholds ...................................................................................... 13
6 Project Construction Schedule ............................................................................. 14
7 Project Construction Diesel Equipment Inventory ...................................................... 15
8 Maximum Construction Emissions .......................................................................... 16
9 Maximum Operational Emissions ........................................................................... 17
404
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 1 City of South San Francisco
Air Quality Study July 2024
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this air quality analysis is to provide an assessment of the impacts resulting from the In-
N-Out Burger Restaurant Project (Project) and to identify any measures that may be necessary to reduce
potentially significant impacts.
Standard Air Quality, Energy and GHG Regulatory Conditions
The proposed project would be required to comply with the following regulatory conditions from the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and State of California (State):
Bay Area Air Quality Management District Rules
The following lists the BAAQMD rules that are applicable, but not limited to, the proposed project:
• Regulation 6, (Particulate Matter): Sets standards and requirements for controlling and
mitigating fugitive dust emissions at dust generating facilities.
• Regulation 7 (Odorous Substances): Places general limitation on odorous substances and
specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds;
State of California Rules
The following lists the State of California Code of Regulations (CCR) air quality emission rules that are
applicable, but not limited to, the proposed project.
• CCR Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449: In use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles
• CCR Title 13, Section 2025: On-Road Diesel Truck Fleets;
• CCR Title 24 Part 6: California Building Energy Standards; and
• CCR Title 24 Part 11: California Green Building Standards.
Construction Source Emissions
Construction emissions would not contribute to short- or long-term emissions that would increase the
carcinogenic effects on sensitive receptors. Construction-source odor emissions would be temporary,
short-term, and intermittent in nature and would not result in persistent impacts that would affect
substantial numbers of people. Potential construction-source odor impacts are therefore not considered
significant.
Operational Source Emissions
Operational emissions would not contribute to short- or long-term emissions that would increase the
carcinogenic effects on sensitive receptors. Emissions associated with operation would not exceed the
BAAQMD-recommended thresholds. Thus, the Project would not result in a regional violation of applicable
air quality standards or jeopardize the timely attainment of such standards in the Basin.
405
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 2 City of South San Francisco
Air Quality Study July 2024
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 65,493 square foot (1.504 acre) Project site is located at 972 and 934 El Camino Real in the City of
South San Francisco (refer to Figure 1: Project Site Location). The Project site currently contains an
operating one-story 3,000 square foot Burger King restaurant, consisting of 43 surface paved striped
parking spaces with a 320-foot-long protected drive-thru lane and a 240-foot-long overflow vehicle
stacked striped area. Additionally, the Project site contains an operating psychic boutique building with
no striped parking spaces but with capacity to park vehicles on pavement and soil.
The Project would include removal of the existing uses for construction of a new 3,887-square foot In-N-
Out Burger Restaurant with a drive-through lane. The restaurant would provide seating capacity of 112
people (84 seats indoor, 28 seats outdoor), a drive-through queuing lane with a capacity of up to 39
cars, landscaping, and parking spaces for up to 51 vehicles.
This restaurant will be equipped with three burger grills. Two grills will operate at all times, and
activation of the third grill will be done in response to high dine-in or, more typically, high drive-through
demand as activating the third grill significantly increases the speed at which drive-through orders are
delivered to customer vehicles. Standard store operating procedure requires that as soon as the drive-
through queue reaches the 8th or 9th car (where the menu board/order speaker is located), In-N-Out
Associates are deployed outside to take orders using hand-held ordering tablets. The use of these tablets
allows orders to funnel into the kitchen faster than ordering at the menu board resulting in the shortest
possible drive-through vehicle queues. Awareness of the queue reaching the menu board (and
deployment of associates with hand-held tablets) is enhanced with outdoor cameras and indoor monitors.
There will be between 4 and 6 outdoor cameras on this site, with 3 or 4 of them specifically viewing the
drive-through lane. These cameras display on multiple monitors located inside the restaurant including
at the manager’s office, above the grills, and at both the pay and pickup windows.
There is no delivery dock or designated delivery parking bay required on the premises as deliveries are
made only by In-N-Out owned operated vehicles, after the restaurant is closed to the public between the
hours of 2:00 AM and 9:00 AM. Delivery trucks operate after hours to allow the parking and queue
management to be at its most effective throughout the day. Allowing trucks to deliver after-hours ensures
that truck traffic is not on the road during either morning or evening peak hours. Site access for these
delivery trucks would be from El Camino Real and would unload at the service entrance located adjacent
to parking stalls #1 through #9.
The restaurant would operate seven days a week, from 10:00 AM to 1:00 AM Sunday through Thursday,
and from 10:00 AM to 1:30 AM on Friday and Saturday. The restaurant, drive-through, and parking lot, as
with all In-N-Out Burgers restaurants, would be well-lit and meticulously maintained. The restaurant
would be staffed by approximately 10 to 12 associates per shift, with 3 shifts per day.
406
Project Site Location
FIGURE 1
121-013-24
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2024
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
2501250 500
N
Project Site
407
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 4 City of South San Francisco
Air Quality Study July 2024
REGULATORY SETTING
In California, jurisdiction over air quality management, enforcement, and planning is divided among 35
geographic regions. Within each region, a local air district is responsible for oversight of air quality
monitoring, modeling, permitting, and enforcement to ensure that regulatory violations are avoided
wherever possible.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is responsible for establishing and managing air
quality standards in the Air Basin, as well as maintaining compliance with federal and State air quality
standards. For air basins not in compliance with the federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air
Act, management districts are required to develop plans to improve air quality and comply with federal
and State standards. BAAQMD’s 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan was adopted in April 2017 and provides a
regional strategy to improve air quality and reduce GHG emissions, consistent with State policy, to 40
percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.1 BAAQMD’s 2022 CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines2 (2022 Guidelines) provide guidance to lead agencies in reviewing projects for
construction and operational activity emissions that may have an adverse impact on air quality in the
region.
The thresholds referenced in the 2022 Guidelines were designed to establish the level at which BAAQMD
believed GHG emissions would result in a considerable contribution to climate change and could conflict
with the State’s overall efforts to meet GHG reduction targets by 2020. Considering recent passage of SB
32, which sets into law the mandated reduction target in GHG emissions as written into Executive Order
B-30-15 (i.e., 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030), the current guidance and thresholds of significance
that only considered 2020-year emissions targets are in need of an update. Currently, BAAQMD is in the
process of updating its CEQA Guidelines, which will include thresholds of significance that land use
development projects would be able to use to determine significance with respect to 2030 Statewide
GHG emissions targets. However, at this time no updated guidelines have been adopted.
Rules and Regulations
Regulation 6, Particulate Matter
BAAQMD’s Regulation 6, Particulate Matter, places limits the quantity of particulate matter in the
atmosphere through the establishment of limitations on emission rates, concentration, visible emissions
and opacity.
1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, adopted April 19, 2017.
2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines Update, https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-
climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed March 2024
408
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 5 City of South San Francisco
Air Quality Study July 2024
Regulation 7, Odorous Substances
BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, places general limitations on odorous substances and
specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds. The limitations of this Regulation shall not
be applicable until the Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) receives odor complains from ten or more
complainants within a 90-day period, alleging that a person has caused odors perceived at or beyond the
property line of such person and deemed to be objectionable by the complainants in the normal course
of their work, travel or residences.
Odors are also regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, Public Nuisance, which states that “no
person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material
which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the
public; or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or
which causes, or has a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.” It should
be noted that while restaurants can generate odors, these sources are not identified by BAAQMD as
nuisance odors since they typically do not generate significant odors that affect a substantial number of
people.
Under BAAQMD’s Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, a facility that receives three or more violation notices within
a 30-day period can be declared a public nuisance.
409
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 6 City of South San Francisco
Air Quality Study July 2024
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regional Air Quality
USEPA is the federal agency responsible for overseeing the country’s air quality and setting the NAAQS
for the CAPs. The NAAQS were devised based on extensive modeling and monitoring of air pollution across
the country; they are designed to protect public health and prevent the formation of atmospheric ozone.
Air quality of a region is considered to be in attainment of the NAAQS if the measured ambient air
pollutant levels do not exceed the applicable concentration threshold.
As noted previously, CARB is the State agency responsible for setting the CAAQS. Air quality of a region
is considered to be in attainment of the CAAQS if the measured ambient air pollutant levels for O3, CO,
NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb are not exceeded, and all other standards are not equaled or exceeded
at any time in any consecutive 3-year period.
The nearest air monitoring station BAAQMD operates is the San Francisco-Arkansas station located at 10
Arkansas Street in the City of San Francisco. This station monitors O3, NO2 and PM10 and PM2.5. Table 1:
Air Quality Monitoring Summary summarizes published monitoring data from 2020 through 2022, the
most recent 3-year period available. The data shows that during the past few years, the region has not
exceeded state and federal standards.
TABLE 1: AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY
Air Pollutant Average Time (Units) 2020 2021 2022
Ozone (O3)
State Max 1 hour (ppm) 0.088 0.074 0.070
Days > CAAQS threshold (0.09 ppm) 0 0 0
National Max 8 hour (ppm) 0.055 0.054 0.060
Days > NAAQS threshold (0.075 ppm) 0 0 0
State Max 8 hour (ppm) 0.056 0.055 0.061
Days > CAAQS threshold (0.07 ppm) 0 0 0
Carbon monoxide (CO) — — —
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
National Max 1 hour (ppm) 0.48 0.50 0.46
Days > NAAQS threshold (0.100 ppm) 0 0 0
State Max 1 hour (ppm) 0.47 0.49 0.46
Days > CAAQS threshold (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Respirable particulate matter (PM10)
National Max (µg/m3) 102.3 32.2 342.2
National Annual Average (µg/m3) 12.0 8.2 7.7
Days > NAAQS threshold (35 µg/m3) 0 0 0
State Max (µg/m3) 105.0 33.0 36.0
State Annual Average (µg/m3) 23.3 16.1 —
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
National Max (µg/m3) 102.3 32.2 34.2
National Annual Average (µg/m3) 12.0 8.2 7.7
Days > NAAQS threshold (35 µg/m3) 0 0 0
410
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 7 City of South San Francisco
Air Quality Study July 2024
TABLE 1: AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY
Air Pollutant Average Time (Units) 2020 2021 2022
State Max (µg/m3) 105.0 33.0 36.0
State Annual Average (µg/m3) 23.3 16.1 —
Source: CARB, iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics.
Note: (—) = Data not available.
USEPA and the CARB designate air basins where AAQS are exceeded as “nonattainment” areas. If
standards are met, the area is designated as an “attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive
data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered “unclassified.” Federal
nonattainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a
function of deviation from standards. The current attainment designations for the Basin are shown in
Table 2: San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Attainment Status. The Basin is currently designated as being
in nonattainment at the federal level for O3 and PM2.5; and at the State level for O3, PM10, and PM2.5.
TABLE 2: SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutant State Status National Status
Ozone (O3) Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon monoxide (CO) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) Nonattainment Unclassified
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment Nonattainment
Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB) Area Designation Maps / State and National, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations. Accessed March 2024.
Existing Operational Emission
As mentioned previously, the Project site is currently developed with an operating one-story 3,000 square
foot Burger King restaurant and a psychic boutique building. Table 3: Existing Operational Air Quality
Emissions identifies the emissions from the existing uses. Operational emissions currently result primarily
from passenger vehicles traveling to and from the Project site. As identified in the transportation study
scoping agreement3, the existing uses currently generate 1,402 daily trips including 134 mid-day peak
hour trips and 100 PM peak hour trips (without incorporation of 50 percent pass-by reduction). The most
current CARB-approved, BAAQMD-recommended air quality modeling software, the California Emissions
Estimator Model (CalEEMod), was used to estimate existing air quality operational emissions.
3 Ganddini Group, Inc, Transportation Study Scoping Agreement for In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project, dated February
26, 2024.
411
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 8 City of South San Francisco
Air Quality Study July 2024
TABLE 3: EXISTING OPERATIONAL AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS
Source
ROG NOx
PM10 PM2.5
pounds/day
Mobile 5.5 5.2 13.0 3.3
Area 0.1 -- <0.1 <0.1
Energy <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Total 5.6 5.3 13 3.3
BAAQMD Mass Daily Threshold 54 54 82 54
Threshold exceeded? No No No No
tons/year
Mobile 0.7 0.5 1.0 0.3
Area <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Total 0.7 0.5 1.0 0.3
BAAQMD Mass Daily Threshold 10 10 15 10
Threshold exceeded? No No No No
Notes: Totals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding in the computer model calculations.
Refer to Appendix A.2: CalEEMod Air Quality Emission Output Files (Proposed).
Sensitive Receptors
BAAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a person in the population who is particularly susceptible
to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant. Sensitive receptors are identified as facilities
that house or attract children, the elderly, people with illnesses or others who are especially sensitive
to the effects of air pollutants. Hospitals, schools, convalescent facilities, and residential areas are
examples of sensitive receptors.
The City currently has numerous sensitive land uses, in particular residences, schools, health care
facilities, and playgrounds. These sensitive land uses will continue to exist and new sensitive land uses
will be established pursuant to General Plan policies. The Project site is within the Transect Zoning
District (TSC) and is predominantly surrounded by commercial uses with multi-family residential uses
located to adjacent to the north along El Camino Real, the Deluxe Inn Motel to the south and the
residential uses along 1st Street, A Street, and Antionette Lane (refer to Figure 2: Sensitive Receptor
Map).
412
Sensitive Receptor Map
FIGURE 2
121-013-24
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2024
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
100500 200
N
Multi-Family Residential
Deluxe Inn Motel
Single Family Residential
Legend
413
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 10 City of South San Francisco
Air Quality Study July 2024
METHODOLOGY
Construction
Emissions are estimated using the latest CalEEMod software, which is a statewide land use emissions
computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners,
and environmental professionals to quantity potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions from a variety
of land use projects. Detailed construction equipment lists, construction scheduling, and emissions
calculations are provided in Appendix A.
Construction of the Project has the potential to generate temporary criteria pollutant emissions through
the use of heavy-duty construction equipment and through vehicle trips generated from workers and haul
trucks traveling to and from the Project site. Mobile-source emissions, primarily NOx, would result from
the use of construction equipment. Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day,
depending on the level of activity, the specific type of construction activity, and prevailing weather
conditions. The assessment of construction air quality impacts considers each of these potential sources.
Daily regional emissions during construction are forecasted by assuming a conservative estimate of
construction activities (i.e., all construction occurs at the earliest feasible date) and applying the mobile
source and fugitive dust emissions factors. The input values used in this analysis were adjusted to be
project-specific for the equipment and construction schedule. The CalEEMod program uses the CARB on-
road vehicle emissions model (EMFAC2021) to calculate the emission rates specific for the County for
construction-related employee vehicle trips and the CARB off-road emissions model (OFFROAD2011) to
calculate emission rates for heavy truck operations. Emission rates are reported by the program in grams
per trip and grams per mile or grams per running hour. Daily truck trips and CalEEMod default trip length
data were used to assess roadway emissions from truck exhaust. The maximum daily emissions are
estimated values for the worst-case day and do not represent the emissions that would occur for every
day of project construction. The maximum daily emissions are compared to the SDAPCD screening
numeric indicators.
Fugitive dust emissions vary greatly during construction and are dependent on the amount and type of
activity, silt content of the soil, and the weather. Vehicles moving over paved and unpaved surfaces,
demolition, excavation, earth movement, grading, and wind erosion from exposed surfaces can all be
sources of fugitive dust. The Project would be required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 6, which sets
standards and requirements for controlling and mitigating fugitive dust emissions at dust generating
facilities.
Operation
The operations-related criteria air quality impacts created by the proposed project have been analyzed
through the use of the CalEEMod model. The operating emissions were based on the year 2026, which is
the first year following construction when the project is fully operational. The operations emissions
414
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 11 City of South San Francisco
Air Quality Study July 2024
printouts from the CalEEMod model are provided in Appendix A. The CalEEMod analyzes operational
emissions from area sources, energy usage, and mobile sources, which are discussed below.
Mobile
Operation of the Project has the potential to generate criteria pollutant emissions through vehicle trips
traveling to and from the Project site. The weekday daily trips of 2,652 (without incorporation of 50
percent pass-by reduction) forecasted in the Memorandum of Understanding4 were based on surveys at
local In-N-Out Burger restaurants. The Saturday and Sunday trip rates were assumed to be the weekday
rate adjusted by multiplying the ratio of the CalEEMod default rates for those days. In calculating mobile-
source emissions, trip-length values were based on the distances provided in CalEEMod.
Area
In addition, emissions would result from area sources on site, such as natural gas combustion, landscaping
equipment, and use of consumer products. Area-source emissions are based on natural gas (building
heating and water heaters), landscaping equipment, and consumer product (including paint) usage rates
provided in CalEEMod. As specifics were not known about the landscaping equipment fleet, CalEEMod
defaults were used to estimate emissions from landscaping equipment. Natural gas usage factors in
CalEEMod are based on the California Energy Commission’s California Commercial End Use Survey data
set, which provides energy demand by building type and climate zone. No other changes were made to
the default area source parameters.
Energy
Energy usage includes emissions from the generation of electricity and natural gas used on-site. No
changes were made to the default energy usage parameters.
4 Ganddini, Transportation Study Scoping Agreement for In-N-Out Burger (972 El Camino Real) Project, dated February 26,
2024
415
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 12 City of South San Francisco
Air Quality Study July 2024
BAAQMD AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Significance Criteria
The determination of a project’s significance on air quality shall be made considering the factors
provided in the BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines Update. The City has not adopted specific
Citywide significance thresholds for air quality impacts; rather, the thresholds and methodologies
contained in the BAAQMD 2022 CEQA Guidelines for both construction and operational emissions are
utilized for evaluating projects in the City. These thresholds are described below.
Construction Emission Thresholds
The Project will have a significant impact if it exceeds the construction thresholds listed in
Table 4: Construction Thresholds.
TABLE 4: CONSTRUCTION THRESHOLDS
Pollutant Construction Emissions1 (pounds/day)
Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) 54
Nitrogen oxide (NOx) 54
Respirable particulate matter (PM10 exhaust) 82
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5 exhaust) 54
PM10/PM2.5 (fugitive dust) Best Management Practices2
Source: BAAQMD 2022 CEQA Guidelines, Table 3-1 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance (Project Level).
Note:
1 The Air District recommends for construction projects that require less than 1 year to complete, lead agencies should annualize impacts over the scope of actual days that peak impacts would occur rather than over the full year. Additionally, for phased projects that results in concurrent construction and operational emissions.
2 PM10/PM2.5 (fugitive dust) is also recognized to impact local communities. The Air District strongly recommends implementing all feasible fugitive dust management practices especially when construction projects are located near sensitive communities, including schools, residential areas, or other sensitive land uses. These measures are detailed in Chapter 5, Section 5.2.2 Construction-Related
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions.
416
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 13 City of South San Francisco
Air Quality Study July 2024
Based on the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, thresholds for each criteria pollutant for the operations of the
Project are provided in Table 5: Operational Thresholds.
TABLE 5: OPERATIONAL THRESHOLDS
Pollutant
Operational
Average Daily Emissions (lb/day) Maximum Annual Emissions (tpy)
Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) 54 10
Nitrogen oxide (NOx) 54 10
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) 82 15
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 54 10
Source: BAAQMD 2022 CEQA Guidelines, Table 3-1 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance (Project Level).
Carbon Monoxide Hotspot
The main air quality concern associated with drive-through facilities is the potential to create carbon
monoxide (CO) hotspots where a large number of vehicles idle. The screening criteria for CO hotspots
indicate that a project would have a less than significant impact if (1) it is consistent with the Congestion
Management Program (CMP); (2) the Project would not increase traffic volumes at any intersection to
greater than 44,000 vehicles per hour; and (3) the Project would not increase traffic volumes at any
intersection to greater than 24,000 vehicles per hour where atmospheric mixing is limited (e.g., tunnel,
parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).
Cumulative Threshold
BAAQMD recommends that a project be considered to result in a cumulatively considerable impact to air
quality if any construction-related emissions and operational emissions from individual development
projects exceed the mass daily emissions thresholds for individual projects. The BAAQMD neither
recommends quantified analyses of the emissions generated by a set of cumulative development projects
nor provides thresholds of significance to be used to assess the impacts associated with these emissions.
A project is also considered to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant impacts
if the population and employment projections for the project exceed the rate of growth defined in
BAAQMD’s AQMP.
417
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 14 City of South San Francisco
Air Quality Study July 2024
IMPACT ANALYSIS
Emissions of air pollutants were estimated for construction and operation of the Project. In California,
the California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association recommends the use CalEEMod to calculate and
organize emissions data for new development projects. CalEEMod is a program that relies on project-
specific information pertaining to geographic setting, utility service provision, construction scheduling
and equipment inventory, and operational design features to generate estimates of air pollutant and
GHG emissions.
Table 6: Project Construction Schedule provides the dates and durations of each of the activities that
will take place during construction, as well as a brief description of the scope of work. Future dates
represent approximations based on the general Project timeline and are subject to change pending
unpredictable circumstances that may arise. It is important to note project delays that affect the
corresponding time period in which construction activities would occur compared to the analysis time
period would result in lower emissions due to newer equipment, regulatory requirements, and greater
engine efficiencies. Therefore, the reported construction emissions are overstated compared to the
emissions associated with a delayed construction schedule.
TABLE 6: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Construction Activity Approximate Start Date Approximate End Date Duration (Days) Description
Demolition 8/1/2025 9/11/2025 30 Demolition of existing 3,000 square foot single story retail building
Grading 9/12/2025 10/23/2025 30 Export of approximately 1,600 cubic yards
Building Construction 10/24/2025 3/12/2026 100 Construction of Proposed Project
Paving 3/13/2026 3/19/2026 5 Paving of asphalt surfaces
Architectural Coating 3/20/2026 3/26/2026 5 Application of architectural coatings to building materials
Note: Refer to Appendix A: CalEEMod Air Quality Emission Output Files.
418
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 15 City of South San Francisco
Air Quality Study July 2024
Construction
An assessment of air pollutant emissions was prepared utilizing the construction schedule in Table 6.
Table 7: Project Construction Diesel Equipment Inventory displays the construction equipment
required for each activity described in Table 7. Under regulatory compliance measures in CalEEMod, it
was assumed that all construction activities would adhere to BAAQMD Regulation 6 (Particulate Matter)
and Regulation 7 (Odorous Substances).
TABLE 7: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION DIESEL EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Phase Off-Road Equipment Type Amount Daily Hours Horsepower [HP] (Load Factor)
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 33 (0.73)
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1 367 (0.40)
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6 84 (0.37)
Grading
Graders 1 6 148 (0.41)
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 6 367 (0.40)
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7 84 (0.37)
Building Construction Forklifts 2 6 82 (0.20)
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 84 (0.37)
Paving
Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6 10 (0.56)
Pavers 1 7 81 (0.42)
Rollers 1 7 36 (0.38)
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7 84 (0.37)
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 37 (0.48)
Refer to Appendix A.2: CalEEMod Air Quality Emission Output Files (Proposed).
Maximum daily emissions of air pollutants during construction of the Project were calculated using
CalEEMod. Table 8: Maximum Construction Emissions identifies daily emissions that are estimated for
peak construction days for each construction year. Based on the modeling, construction of the Project
would not exceed daily regional concentration thresholds. It is important to note, BAAQMD recommends
for construction projects that require less than 1 year to complete to annualize impacts over the scope
of actual days that peak impacts would occur rather than over the full year. As shown below, annualized
emissions would also not exceed annual regional concentration thresholds. As such, construction of the
Project would not generate any significant environmental impacts associated with air quality compliance.
419
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 16 City of South San Francisco
Air Quality Study July 2024
TABLE 8: MAXIMUM CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Source
ROG NOx
PM10 exhaust PM2.5 exhaust
pounds/day
2025 1.1 10.9 0.5 0.4
2026 9.5 4.3 0.2 0.2
Maximum 9.5 10.9 0.5 0.4
BAAQMD Mass Daily Threshold 54 54 82 54
Threshold exceeded? No No No No
tons/year
2025 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1
2026 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Maximum <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1
BAAQMD Mass Daily Threshold 10 10 15 10
Threshold exceeded? No No No No
Notes: Totals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding in the computer model calculations.
Refer to Appendix A.2: CalEEMod Air Quality Emission Output Files (Proposed).
Operation
Operational emissions would result primarily from passenger vehicles traveling to and from the Project
site. As mentioned previously, the vehicle trips associated with the proposed project have been analyzed
by inputting the project-generated trips from the Transportation Impact Analysis (dated February 26,
2024). The results presented in Table 9: Maximum Operational Emissions are compared to the BAAQMD-
established operational significance thresholds. As shown in Table 9, the operational emissions would
not exceed the regional concentration thresholds. Additionally, the operational emissions provided below
would be further reduced when taking into account trip reductions from these public transit options
located within the Project vicinity and removal of the existing use. As such, operation of the Project
would not generate any significant environmental impacts associated with air quality compliance.
420
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 17 City of South San Francisco
Air Quality Study July 2024
TABLE 9: MAXIMUM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source
ROG NOx
PM10 PM2.5
pounds/day
Mobile 9.2 7.8 24.6 6.3
Area 0.1 -- <0.1 <0.1
Energy <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Total 9.3 7.9 24.6 6.3
BAAQMD Mass Daily Threshold 54 54 82 54
Threshold exceeded? No No No No
tons/year
Mobile 1.2 0.7 1.9 0.5
Area <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Total 1.2 0.7 1.9 0.5
BAAQMD Mass Daily Threshold 10 10 15 10
Threshold exceeded? No No No No
Notes: Totals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding in the computer model calculations.
Refer to Appendix A.2: CalEEMod Air Quality Emission Output Files (Proposed).
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Hotspot
The main air quality concern associated with drive-through facilities is the potential to create carbon
monoxide (CO) hotspots where a large number of vehicles idle. No exceedances of CO have been recorded
at monitoring stations in the Air Basin for some time, and the Air Basin is currently designated as a CO
attainment area for both CAAQS and NAAQS. Thus, it is not reasonable to expect that CO levels at Project-
impacted intersections would rise to the level of an exceedance of these standards.
Furthermore, the screening criteria for CO hotspots indicate that a project would have a less than
significant impact if (1) it is consistent with the Congestion Management Program (CMP); (2) the Project
would not increase traffic volumes at any intersection to greater than 44,000 vehicles per hour; and (3)
the Project would not increase traffic volumes at any intersection to greater than 24,000 vehicles per
hour where atmospheric mixing is limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or
urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). According to the MOU, the proposed project would result
in 2,652 daily trips (276 mid-day peak hour trips and 200 PM peak hour trips). It is important to note,
totals do not include a pass-by reduction of 50 percent during the mid-day and PM periods. As such the
Project would not increase traffic volumes at any intersection greater than 44,000 vehicles per hour, and
24,000 vehicles per hour where atmospheric mixing is limited. The proposed Project would not produce
the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot in the context of the screening criteria above.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Project construction would result in short-term emissions of diesel particulate matter, which is a TAC.
Off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would emit diesel particulate matter over the course of the
construction period. As mentioned previously, commercial and residential uses are located adjacent to
421
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 18 City of South San Francisco
Air Quality Study July 2024
the site. Localized diesel particulate emissions (strongly correlated with PM2.5 emissions) would be
minimal and would be substantially below regional thresholds, as shown in Table 9. Project compliance
with the CARB anti-idling measure, which limits idling to no more than 5 minutes at any location for
diesel-fueled commercial vehicles, would further minimize diesel particulate matter emissions in the
Project area.
Project operations would generate only minor amounts of diesel emissions from delivery trucks and
incidental maintenance activities. Trucks would comply with the applicable provisions of the CARB Truck
and Bus regulation to minimize and reduce emission from existing diesel trucks. In addition, Project
operations would only result in minimal emissions of air toxics from maintenance or other ongoing
activities, such as from the use of architectural coatings or household cleaning products. As a result,
toxic or carcinogenic air pollutants are not expected to occur in any meaningful amounts in conjunction
with operation of the proposed uses within the Project site. Based on the uses expected on the Project
site, potential long-term operational impacts associated with the release of TACs would be minimal and
would not be expected to exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance.
Odors
Restaurants, especially fast food restaurants, can generate substantial sources of odors as a result of
cooking processes and waste disposal. Char broilers, deep-fryers, and ovens tend to produce food odors
that can be considered offensive to some people. The food waste produced by restaurants can putrefy if
not properly managed, which can also produce objectionable odors. Odor impacts can be minimized,
contained, or prevented by implementing technologies and design measures at the source, or through
planning-based measures. These technologies include:
• Integrate grease filtration system or grease removal system;
• Baffle filters;
• Electrostatic precipitator;
• Water cooling/cleaning unit;
• Disposable pleated or bag filters;
• Activated carbon filters;
• Oxidizing pellet beds;
• Incineration;
• Catalytic conversion;
• Proper packaging and frequency of food waste disposal; and
• Exhaust stack and vent location with respect to receptors.
BAAQMD’s thresholds for odors are qualitative. BAAQMD does not consider odors generated from use of
construction equipment and activities to be objectionable. For operational-phase odor impacts, a project
that would result in the siting of a new source of odor or exposure of a new receptor to existing or
422
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 19 City of South San Francisco
Air Quality Study July 2024
planned odor sources should consider odor impacts. BAAQMD considers potential odor impacts to be
significant if there are five confirmed complaints per year from a facility, averaged over 3 years. BAAQMD
has established odor screening thresholds for land uses that have the potential to generate substantial
odor complaints, including wastewater treatment plants, landfills or transfer stations, composting
facilities, confined animal facilities, food manufacturing, and chemical plants. The Project does not
include any of the above-noted uses or processes, nor would it conflict with Air Quality Goal CNR-11,
Policies 11.2 and 11.3, of the City’s General Plan. No impacts would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
Development of the Project in conjunction with the related projects near the Project site would result
in an increase in construction and operational emissions in an already urbanized area of the City.
However, cumulative air quality impacts from construction, based on BAAQMD guidelines, are not
analyzed in a manner similar to project-specific air quality impacts. Instead, BAAQMD recommends that
a project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts should be assessed utilizing the same
significance criteria as those for project-specific impacts. According to BAAQMD, individual development
projects that generate construction or operational emissions that exceed BAAQMD recommended daily
regional or localized thresholds for project-specific impacts, would also cause a cumulatively
considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment.
With the implementation of regulatory compliance measures such as Regulation 6 (Particulate Matter)
and Regulation 7 (Odorous Substances), the Project’s construction and operational emissions are not
expected to significantly contribute to cumulative emissions for CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. As such, the
Project’s contribution to cumulative air quality emissions in combination with the related projects would
not be cumulatively considerable.
As discussed previously, the Project would not jeopardize the attainment of air quality standards in the
AQMP for the Air Basin. As such, the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to
a potential conflict with or obstruction of the implementation of the AQMP regional reduction plans.
423
In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project 20 City of South San Francisco
Air Quality Study July 2024
CERTIFICATION
The contents of this Air Quality Study represent an accurate depiction of the air quality environment and
impacts associated with the proposed In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project. The information contained in
this study is based on the best available information at the time of preparation. If you have any questions,
please contact me directly at (818) 415-7274.
Christ Kirikian
Principal | Director of Air Quality & Acoustics
ckirikian@meridianconsultantsllc.com
424
APPENDIX A
CalEEMod Air Quality Emission Output Files
425
APPENDIX A.1
Existing
426
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report, 3/14/2024
1 / 24
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
427
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report, 3/14/2024
2 / 24
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
428
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report, 3/14/2024
3 / 24
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
429
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report, 3/14/2024
4 / 24
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
8. User Changes to Default Data
430
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report, 3/14/2024
5 / 24
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name INOB_South San Francisco (Existing)
Operational Year 2024
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s)4.60
Precipitation (days)43.0
Location 972 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, CA 94080, USA
County San Mateo
City South San Francisco
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1292
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.22
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq
ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
431
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report, 3/14/2024
6 / 24
———9,5173,0000.071000sqft3.00Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
Parking Lot 41.0 Space 0.37 0.00 0.00 ———
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.6.15 5.70 4.49 52.0 0.14 0.09 12.9 13.0 0.08 3.27 3.36 20.4 14,487 14,508 2.59 0.48 57.5 14,772
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.6.05 5.58 5.28 50.6 0.13 0.09 12.9 13.0 0.08 3.27 3.36 20.4 13,845 13,865 2.65 0.53 6.06 14,095
Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.4.13 3.92 2.64 25.7 0.06 0.05 5.35 5.40 0.04 1.36 1.40 20.4 6,152 6,173 2.41 0.27 14.4 6,327
Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.0.75 0.72 0.48 4.69 0.01 0.01 0.98 0.99 0.01 0.25 0.26 3.37 1,019 1,022 0.40 0.04 2.38 1,047
Exceeds
(Daily
Max)
——————————————————
432
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report, 3/14/2024
7 / 24
———————54.0——82.0————54.054.0—Threshol
d
Unmit.—No No ————No ——No ———————
Exceeds
(Average
Daily)
——————————————————
Threshol
d
—54.0 54.0 ————82.0 ——54.0 ———————
Unmit.—No No ————No ——No ———————
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 6.12 5.59 4.38 51.8 0.14 0.08 12.9 13.0 0.08 3.27 3.35 —14,270 14,270 0.52 0.47 52.8 14,476
Area 0.02 0.10 < 0.005 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.54 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.54
Energy 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —214 214 0.03 < 0.005 —215
Water ———————————1.74 3.51 5.26 0.18 < 0.005 —11.0
Waste ———————————18.6 0.00 18.6 1.86 0.00 —65.2
Refrig.————————————————4.69 4.69
Total 6.15 5.70 4.49 52.0 0.14 0.09 12.9 13.0 0.08 3.27 3.36 20.4 14,487 14,508 2.59 0.48 57.5 14,772
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 6.04 5.50 5.17 50.5 0.13 0.08 12.9 13.0 0.08 3.27 3.35 —13,628 13,628 0.58 0.52 1.37 13,799
Area —0.08 ————————————————
Energy 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —214 214 0.03 < 0.005 —215
Water ———————————1.74 3.51 5.26 0.18 < 0.005 —11.0
433
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report, 3/14/2024
8 / 24
Waste ———————————18.6 0.00 18.6 1.86 0.00 —65.2
Refrig.————————————————4.69 4.69
Total 6.05 5.58 5.28 50.6 0.13 0.09 12.9 13.0 0.08 3.27 3.36 20.4 13,845 13,865 2.65 0.53 6.06 14,095
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Mobile 4.11 3.83 2.53 25.5 0.06 0.04 5.35 5.39 0.03 1.36 1.39 —5,935 5,935 0.34 0.26 9.71 6,031
Area 0.01 0.09 < 0.005 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.26 0.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.27
Energy 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —214 214 0.03 < 0.005 —215
Water ———————————1.74 3.51 5.26 0.18 < 0.005 —11.0
Waste ———————————18.6 0.00 18.6 1.86 0.00 —65.2
Refrig.————————————————4.69 4.69
Total 4.13 3.92 2.64 25.7 0.06 0.05 5.35 5.40 0.04 1.36 1.40 20.4 6,152 6,173 2.41 0.27 14.4 6,327
Annual ——————————————————
Mobile 0.75 0.70 0.46 4.66 0.01 0.01 0.98 0.98 0.01 0.25 0.25 —983 983 0.06 0.04 1.61 998
Area < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.04
Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —35.4 35.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 —35.6
Water ———————————0.29 0.58 0.87 0.03 < 0.005 —1.83
Waste ———————————3.08 0.00 3.08 0.31 0.00 —10.8
Refrig.————————————————0.78 0.78
Total 0.75 0.72 0.48 4.69 0.01 0.01 0.98 0.99 0.01 0.25 0.26 3.37 1,019 1,022 0.40 0.04 2.38 1,047
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
434
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report, 3/14/2024
9 / 24
CO2eRN2OCH4CO2TNBCO2BCO2PM2.5TPM2.5DPM2.5EPM10TPM10DPM10ESO2CONOxROGTOGLand
Use
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
6.12 5.59 4.38 51.8 0.14 0.08 12.9 13.0 0.08 3.27 3.35 —14,270 14,270 0.52 0.47 52.8 14,476
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 6.12 5.59 4.38 51.8 0.14 0.08 12.9 13.0 0.08 3.27 3.35 —14,270 14,270 0.52 0.47 52.8 14,476
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
6.04 5.50 5.17 50.5 0.13 0.08 12.9 13.0 0.08 3.27 3.35 —13,628 13,628 0.58 0.52 1.37 13,799
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 6.04 5.50 5.17 50.5 0.13 0.08 12.9 13.0 0.08 3.27 3.35 —13,628 13,628 0.58 0.52 1.37 13,799
Annual ——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
0.75 0.70 0.46 4.66 0.01 0.01 0.98 0.98 0.01 0.25 0.25 —983 983 0.06 0.04 1.61 998
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.75 0.70 0.46 4.66 0.01 0.01 0.98 0.98 0.01 0.25 0.25 —983 983 0.06 0.04 1.61 998
435
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report, 3/14/2024
10 / 24
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
————————————76.1 76.1 0.01 < 0.005 —76.8
Parking
Lot
————————————7.87 7.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.95
Total ————————————83.9 83.9 0.01 < 0.005 —84.8
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
————————————76.1 76.1 0.01 < 0.005 —76.8
Parking
Lot
————————————7.87 7.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.95
Total ————————————83.9 83.9 0.01 < 0.005 —84.8
Annual ——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
————————————12.6 12.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 —12.7
436
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report, 3/14/2024
11 / 24
Parking
Lot
————————————1.30 1.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.32
Total ————————————13.9 13.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 —14.0
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
0.01 0.01 0.11 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —130 130 0.01 < 0.005 —130
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —130 130 0.01 < 0.005 —130
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
0.01 0.01 0.11 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —130 130 0.01 < 0.005 —130
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —130 130 0.01 < 0.005 —130
Annual ——————————————————
437
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report, 3/14/2024
12 / 24
21.5—< 0.005< 0.00521.521.5—< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.0050.020.02< 0.005< 0.005Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —21.5 21.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 —21.5
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Consum
er
Products
—0.07 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.01 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.54 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.54
Total 0.02 0.10 < 0.005 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.54 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.54
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Consum
er
Products
—0.07 ————————————————
438
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report, 3/14/2024
13 / 24
Architect
Coatings
—0.01 ————————————————
Total —0.08 ————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Consum
er
Products
—0.01 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—< 0.005 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.04
Total < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.04
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
———————————1.74 3.51 5.26 0.18 < 0.005 —11.0
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————1.74 3.51 5.26 0.18 < 0.005 —11.0
439
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report, 3/14/2024
14 / 24
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
———————————1.74 3.51 5.26 0.18 < 0.005 —11.0
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————1.74 3.51 5.26 0.18 < 0.005 —11.0
Annual ——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
———————————0.29 0.58 0.87 0.03 < 0.005 —1.83
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————0.29 0.58 0.87 0.03 < 0.005 —1.83
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
———————————18.6 0.00 18.6 1.86 0.00 —65.2
440
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report, 3/14/2024
15 / 24
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————18.6 0.00 18.6 1.86 0.00 —65.2
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
———————————18.6 0.00 18.6 1.86 0.00 —65.2
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————18.6 0.00 18.6 1.86 0.00 —65.2
Annual ——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
———————————3.08 0.00 3.08 0.31 0.00 —10.8
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————3.08 0.00 3.08 0.31 0.00 —10.8
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
441
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report, 3/14/2024
16 / 24
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
————————————————4.69 4.69
Total ————————————————4.69 4.69
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
————————————————4.69 4.69
Total ————————————————4.69 4.69
Annual ——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
————————————————0.78 0.78
Total ————————————————0.78 0.78
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
442
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report, 3/14/2024
17 / 24
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
443
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report, 3/14/2024
18 / 24
CO2eRN2OCH4CO2TNBCO2BCO2PM2.5TPM2.5DPM2.5EPM10TPM10DPM10ESO2CONOxROGTOGEquipme
nt
Type
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
444
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report, 3/14/2024
19 / 24
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
445
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report, 3/14/2024
20 / 24
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year
446
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report, 3/14/2024
21 / 24
2,857,31914,09618,3774,465534,5171,4071,8341,402Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft)Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 4,500 1,500 964
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive
Thru
136,136 204 0.0330 0.0040 404,763
Parking Lot 14,081 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
447
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report, 3/14/2024
22 / 24
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year)
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 910,601 78,898
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 34.6 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
448
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report, 3/14/2024
23 / 24
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr)Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day)Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
449
INOB_South San Francisco (Existing) Custom Report, 3/14/2024
24 / 24
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Operations: Vehicle Data According to MOU dated February 26, 2024, existing restaurant generates 1,402 daily weekday trips
450
APPENDIX A.2
Proposed
451
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
1 / 41
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
452
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
2 / 41
3.9. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
453
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
3 / 41
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
454
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
4 / 41
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
455
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
5 / 41
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
456
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
6 / 41
8. User Changes to Default Data
457
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
7 / 41
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name INOB_South San Francisco
Construction Start Date 8/1/2025
Operational Year 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s)4.60
Precipitation (days)43.0
Location 972 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, CA 94080, USA
County San Mateo
City South San Francisco
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1292
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.25
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq
ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
458
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
8 / 41
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
3.89 1000sqft 0.09 3,887 0.00 ———
Parking Lot 56.0 Space 0.50 0.00 19,338 ———
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.1.41 1.12 10.9 10.8 0.02 0.47 1.57 2.04 0.43 0.72 1.15 —2,306 2,306 0.15 0.10 1.26 2,340
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.9.48 9.45 10.9 10.8 0.02 0.47 1.57 2.04 0.43 0.72 1.15 —2,302 2,302 0.15 0.10 0.03 2,336
Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.0.22 0.18 1.72 2.12 < 0.005 0.07 0.15 0.22 0.07 0.06 0.13 —387 387 0.02 0.01 0.07 391
Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.0.04 0.03 0.31 0.39 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 —64.1 64.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 64.8
Exceeds
(Daily
Max)
——————————————————
459
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
9 / 41
—————————54.0——82.0——54.054.0—Threshol
d
Unmit.—No No ——No ——No —————————
Exceeds
(Average
Daily)
——————————————————
Threshol
d
—54.0 54.0 ——82.0 ——54.0 —————————
Unmit.—No No ——No ——No —————————
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
2025 1.41 1.12 10.9 10.8 0.02 0.47 1.57 2.04 0.43 0.72 1.15 —2,306 2,306 0.15 0.10 1.26 2,340
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
2025 1.41 1.12 10.9 10.8 0.02 0.47 1.57 2.04 0.43 0.72 1.15 —2,302 2,302 0.15 0.10 0.03 2,336
2026 9.48 9.45 4.28 5.80 0.01 0.18 0.16 0.34 0.16 0.04 0.20 —969 969 0.04 0.01 0.01 974
Average
Daily
——————————————————
2025 0.22 0.18 1.72 2.12 < 0.005 0.07 0.15 0.22 0.07 0.06 0.13 —387 387 0.02 0.01 0.07 391
2026 0.19 0.18 0.50 0.85 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 —132 132 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 132
Annual ——————————————————
2025 0.04 0.03 0.31 0.39 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 —64.1 64.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 64.8
2026 0.04 0.03 0.09 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —21.8 21.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 21.9
460
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
10 / 41
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.10.2 9.32 6.74 85.9 0.25 0.14 24.5 24.6 0.13 6.20 6.33 26.4 25,965 25,992 3.53 0.82 75.2 26,399
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.10.0 9.15 7.93 83.0 0.24 0.14 24.5 24.6 0.13 6.20 6.33 26.4 24,833 24,860 3.61 0.90 7.87 25,226
Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.6.88 6.42 4.01 42.1 0.11 0.07 10.1 10.2 0.07 2.57 2.64 26.4 10,972 10,998 3.23 0.45 18.8 11,233
Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.1.26 1.17 0.73 7.69 0.02 0.01 1.85 1.86 0.01 0.47 0.48 4.37 1,817 1,821 0.53 0.08 3.11 1,860
Exceeds
(Daily
Max)
——————————————————
Threshol
d
—54.0 54.0 ————82.0 ——54.0 ———————
Unmit.—No No ———Yes No ——No ———————
Exceeds
(Average
Daily)
——————————————————
Threshol
d
—54.0 54.0 ————82.0 ——54.0 ———————
Unmit.—No No ———Yes No ——No ———————
461
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
11 / 41
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 10.0 9.19 6.60 85.6 0.25 0.13 24.5 24.6 0.12 6.20 6.32 —25,682 25,682 0.85 0.81 69.2 26,014
Area 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.70 0.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.70
Energy 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —277 277 0.03 < 0.005 —279
Water ———————————2.26 4.71 6.97 0.23 0.01 —14.5
Waste ———————————24.1 0.00 24.1 2.41 0.00 —84.4
Refrig.————————————————6.08 6.08
Total 10.2 9.32 6.74 85.9 0.25 0.14 24.5 24.6 0.13 6.20 6.33 26.4 25,965 25,992 3.53 0.82 75.2 26,399
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 9.93 9.04 7.79 82.9 0.24 0.13 24.5 24.6 0.12 6.20 6.32 —24,551 24,551 0.94 0.89 1.79 24,843
Area 0.10 0.10 ————————————————
Energy 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —277 277 0.03 < 0.005 —279
Water ———————————2.26 4.71 6.97 0.23 0.01 —14.5
Waste ———————————24.1 0.00 24.1 2.41 0.00 —84.4
Refrig.————————————————6.08 6.08
Total 10.0 9.15 7.93 83.0 0.24 0.14 24.5 24.6 0.13 6.20 6.33 26.4 24,833 24,860 3.61 0.90 7.87 25,226
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Mobile 6.75 6.30 3.87 41.9 0.11 0.06 10.1 10.2 0.06 2.57 2.62 —10,690 10,690 0.55 0.45 12.7 10,849
Area 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.34 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.34
Energy 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —277 277 0.03 < 0.005 —279
Water ———————————2.26 4.71 6.97 0.23 0.01 —14.5462
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
12 / 41
Waste ———————————24.1 0.00 24.1 2.41 0.00 —84.4
Refrig.————————————————6.08 6.08
Total 6.88 6.42 4.01 42.1 0.11 0.07 10.1 10.2 0.07 2.57 2.64 26.4 10,972 10,998 3.23 0.45 18.8 11,233
Annual ——————————————————
Mobile 1.23 1.15 0.71 7.65 0.02 0.01 1.85 1.86 0.01 0.47 0.48 —1,770 1,770 0.09 0.07 2.11 1,796
Area 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.06
Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —45.9 45.9 0.01 < 0.005 —46.2
Water ———————————0.37 0.78 1.15 0.04 < 0.005 —2.39
Waste ———————————4.00 0.00 4.00 0.40 0.00 —14.0
Refrig.————————————————1.01 1.01
Total 1.26 1.17 0.73 7.69 0.02 0.01 1.85 1.86 0.01 0.47 0.48 4.37 1,817 1,821 0.53 0.08 3.11 1,860
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.56 0.47 4.33 5.65 0.01 0.16 —0.16 0.14 —0.14 —852 852 0.03 0.01 —855
Demolitio
n
——————0.07 0.07 —0.01 0.01 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
463
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
13 / 41
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 0.04 0.36 0.46 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —70.0 70.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 —70.3
Demolitio
n
——————0.01 0.01 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.06 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —11.6 11.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 —11.6
Demolitio
n
——————< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 —90.1 90.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 90.6
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.02 < 0.005 0.14 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —91.7 91.7 0.01 0.01 0.18 96.7
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.02 7.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.12
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.54 7.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.93
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.16 1.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.18
464
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
14 / 41
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.25 1.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.31
3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.29 1.09 10.1 10.0 0.02 0.46 —0.46 0.43 —0.43 —1,714 1,714 0.07 0.01 —1,720
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————1.38 1.38 —0.67 0.67 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.29 1.09 10.1 10.0 0.02 0.46 —0.46 0.43 —0.43 —1,714 1,714 0.07 0.01 —1,720
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————1.38 1.38 —0.67 0.67 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.11 0.09 0.83 0.83 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —141 141 0.01 < 0.005 —141
465
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
15 / 41
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.11 0.11 —0.05 0.05 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.02 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —23.3 23.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —23.4
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.02 0.02 —0.01 0.01 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 —67.6 67.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.22 68.0
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.09 0.01 0.81 0.55 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 —524 524 0.08 0.08 1.04 552
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 —63.8 63.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 64.6
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.09 0.01 0.85 0.55 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 —524 524 0.08 0.08 0.03 551
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.26 5.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.34
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —43.1 43.1 0.01 0.01 0.04 45.3466
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
16 / 41
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.87 0.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.88
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.13 7.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.51
3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.39 0.33 3.31 5.38 0.01 0.14 —0.14 0.13 —0.13 —810 810 0.03 0.01 —812
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 0.04 0.45 0.73 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —109 109 < 0.005 < 0.005 —110
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.08 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —18.1 18.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 —18.2
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
467
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
17 / 41
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —13.9 13.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.1
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —16.0 16.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.7
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.88 1.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.91
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.16 2.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.26
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.31 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.36 0.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.37 0.31 3.08 5.37 0.01 0.12 —0.12 0.11 —0.11 —809 809 0.03 0.01 —812
468
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
18 / 41
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 0.04 0.43 0.75 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —112 112 < 0.005 < 0.005 —113
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.08 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 —18.7
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —13.6 13.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.8
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —15.7 15.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.4
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.90 1.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.92
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.18 2.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.29
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.31 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.36 0.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00469
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
19 / 41
3.9. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.59 0.49 4.24 5.30 0.01 0.18 —0.18 0.16 —0.16 —823 823 0.03 0.01 —826
Paving 0.26 0.26 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —11.3
Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.87 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.87
Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
470
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
20 / 41
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 —146 146 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 148
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.01 2.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.03
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.33 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.34
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —134 134 0.01 < 0.005 —134
Architect
ural
Coatings
9.33 9.33 ————————————————
471
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
21 / 41
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.83 1.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.84
Architect
ural
Coatings
0.13 0.13 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.30 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.30
Architect
ural
Coatings
0.02 0.02 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.72 2.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.76
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
472
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
22 / 41
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
10.0 9.19 6.60 85.6 0.25 0.13 24.5 24.6 0.12 6.20 6.32 —25,682 25,682 0.85 0.81 69.2 26,014
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 10.0 9.19 6.60 85.6 0.25 0.13 24.5 24.6 0.12 6.20 6.32 —25,682 25,682 0.85 0.81 69.2 26,014
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
9.93 9.04 7.79 82.9 0.24 0.13 24.5 24.6 0.12 6.20 6.32 —24,551 24,551 0.94 0.89 1.79 24,843
473
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
23 / 41
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 9.93 9.04 7.79 82.9 0.24 0.13 24.5 24.6 0.12 6.20 6.32 —24,551 24,551 0.94 0.89 1.79 24,843
Annual ——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
1.23 1.15 0.71 7.65 0.02 0.01 1.85 1.86 0.01 0.47 0.48 —1,770 1,770 0.09 0.07 2.11 1,796
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 1.23 1.15 0.71 7.65 0.02 0.01 1.85 1.86 0.01 0.47 0.48 —1,770 1,770 0.09 0.07 2.11 1,796
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
————————————98.6 98.6 0.02 < 0.005 —99.6
Parking
Lot
————————————10.7 10.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 —10.9
Total ————————————109 109 0.02 < 0.005 —110
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
474
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
24 / 41
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
————————————98.6 98.6 0.02 < 0.005 —99.6
Parking
Lot
————————————10.7 10.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 —10.9
Total ————————————109 109 0.02 < 0.005 —110
Annual ——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
————————————16.3 16.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —16.5
Parking
Lot
————————————1.78 1.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.80
Total ————————————18.1 18.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 —18.3
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
0.02 0.01 0.14 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —168 168 0.01 < 0.005 —169
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —168 168 0.01 < 0.005 —169
475
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
25 / 41
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
0.02 0.01 0.14 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —168 168 0.01 < 0.005 —169
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —168 168 0.01 < 0.005 —169
Annual ——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —27.8 27.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 —27.9
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —27.8 27.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 —27.9
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Consum
er
Products
0.08 0.08 ————————————————
476
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
26 / 41
————————————————0.010.01Architect
ural
Coatings
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.70 0.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.70
Total 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.70 0.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.70
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Consum
er
Products
0.08 0.08 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
0.01 0.01 ————————————————
Total 0.10 0.10 ————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Consum
er
Products
0.02 0.02 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
< 0.005 < 0.005 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.06
Total 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.06
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
477
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
27 / 41
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
———————————2.26 4.27 6.53 0.23 0.01 —14.0
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.45
Total ———————————2.26 4.71 6.97 0.23 0.01 —14.5
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
———————————2.26 4.27 6.53 0.23 0.01 —14.0
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.45
Total ———————————2.26 4.71 6.97 0.23 0.01 —14.5
Annual ——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
———————————0.37 0.71 1.08 0.04 < 0.005 —2.32
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.07
Total ———————————0.37 0.78 1.15 0.04 < 0.005 —2.39
478
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
28 / 41
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
———————————24.1 0.00 24.1 2.41 0.00 —84.4
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————24.1 0.00 24.1 2.41 0.00 —84.4
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
———————————24.1 0.00 24.1 2.41 0.00 —84.4
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————24.1 0.00 24.1 2.41 0.00 —84.4
Annual ——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
———————————4.00 0.00 4.00 0.40 0.00 —14.0
479
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
29 / 41
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————4.00 0.00 4.00 0.40 0.00 —14.0
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
————————————————6.08 6.08
Total ————————————————6.08 6.08
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
————————————————6.08 6.08
Total ————————————————6.08 6.08
Annual ——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with Drive
Thru
————————————————1.01 1.01
480
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
30 / 41
Total ————————————————1.01 1.01
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
481
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
31 / 41
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
482
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
32 / 41
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
483
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
33 / 41
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
484
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
34 / 41
——————————————————Remove
d
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description
Demolition Demolition 8/1/2025 9/11/2025 5.00 30.0 —
Grading Grading 9/12/2025 10/23/2025 5.00 30.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 10/24/2025 3/12/2026 5.00 100 —
Paving Paving 3/13/2026 3/19/2026 5.00 5.00 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/20/2026 3/26/2026 5.00 5.00 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 367 0.40
Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
485
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
35 / 41
Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 4.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix
Demolition ————
Demolition Worker 10.0 12.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor —7.30 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 1.17 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck ——HHDT
Grading ————
Grading Worker 7.50 12.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor —7.30 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 6.67 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck ——HHDT
Building Construction ————
Building Construction Worker 1.63 12.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 0.64 7.30 HHDT,MHDT
486
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
36 / 41
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck ——HHDT
Paving ————
Paving Worker 17.5 12.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor —7.30 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck ——HHDT
Architectural Coating ————
Architectural Coating Worker 0.33 12.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor —7.30 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck ——HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction
Water unpaved roads twice daily 55%55%
Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph 44%44%
Sweep paved roads once per month 9%9%
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 5,831 1,944 1,317
5.6. Dust Mitigation
487
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
37 / 41
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards)Material Exported (Cubic Yards)Acres Graded (acres)Material Demolished (Building
Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,000 —
Grading —1,600 22.5 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day)PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction
Water Exposed Area 3 74%74%
Water Demolished Area 2 36%36%
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres)% Asphalt
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 0.50 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
488
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
38 / 41
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
2,652 3,469 2,661 1,011,084 8,446 34,762 26,664 5,404,857
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft)Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 5,831 1,944 1,317
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive
Thru
176,387 204 0.0330 0.0040 524,438
489
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
39 / 41
Parking Lot 19,232 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year)
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 1,179,836 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 160,316
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 44.8 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
490
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
40 / 41
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr)Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day)Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
491
INOB_South San Francisco Custom Report, 7/2/2024
41 / 41
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Anticipated construction schedule
Construction: Off-Road Equipment No cranes
Operations: Vehicle Data According to MOU dated February 26, 2024, project expected to generate 2,652 daily trips
492
860 Hampshire Road, Suite P Westlake Village, CA 91361 Date:
To:
From:
March 1, 2025
In-N-Out Burger
13502 Hamburger Lane
Baldwin Park, CA 91706
Christ Kirikian
Partner | Director of Air Quality & Acoustics
Subject: In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project Air Quality Supplemental Memorandum
972 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, CA 94080
This memorandum is being provided regarding the Air Quality Study (dated July 2024) for the In-N-Out
Burger Restaurant project located at 972 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, CA 94080. Meridian
Consultants (Meridian) prepared the Air Quality study utilizing the assumptions from the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) prepared by Ganddini dated February 26, 2024 for the Transportation Study Scoping
Agreement. Trip generation for the proposed project was based on the average trip generated observed
at existing In-N-Out Burger restaurants throughout California. The MOU estimated the project would
generate 2,652 weekday daily trips (without incorporation of 50 percent pass-by reduction).
The following analysis is based on the assumptions from the Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA)
prepared by Ganddini dated December 12, 2024. The TIA estimates the project would generate 2,722
weekday daily trips (without incorporation of 50 percent pass-by reduction).
Operation
Operational emissions would result primarily from passenger vehicles traveling to and from the Project
site. As mentioned previously, the vehicle trips associated with the proposed project have been analyzed
by inputting the project-generated trips from the TIA (dated December 12, 2024). The results presented
in Table 1: Maximum Operational Emissions are compared to the BAAQMD-established operational
significance thresholds. As shown in Table 1, the operational emissions would not exceed the regional
concentration thresholds. Additionally, the operational emissions provided below would be further
reduced when taking into account trip reductions from these public transit options located within the
Project vicinity and removal of the existing use. As such, operation of the Project would not generate
any significant environmental impacts associated with air quality compliance.
493
TABLE 1: MAXIMUM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
pounds/day
Mobile 9.4 8.0 25.2 6.5
Area 0.1 -- <0.1 <0.1
Energy <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Total 9.4 8.1 25.2 6.5
BAAQMD Mass Daily Threshold 54 54 82 54
Threshold exceeded? No No No No
tons/year
Mobile 1.2 0.7 1.9 0.5
Area <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Total 1.2 0.7 1.9 0.5
BAAQMD Mass Daily Threshold 10 10 15 10
Threshold exceeded? No No No No
Notes: Totals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding in the computer model calculations.
Refer to Appendix 1.0: CalEEMod Air Quality Emission Output Files (Proposed).
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Hotspot
The main air quality concern associated with drive-through facilities is the potential to create carbon
monoxide (CO) hotspots where a large number of vehicles idle. No exceedances of CO have been recorded
at monitoring stations in the Air Basin for some time, and the Air Basin is currently designated as a CO
attainment area for both CAAQS and NAAQS. Thus, it is not reasonable to expect that CO levels at Project-
impacted intersections would rise to the level of an exceedance of these standards.
Furthermore, the screening criteria for CO hotspots indicate that a project would have a less than
significant impact if (1) it is consistent with the Congestion Management Program (CMP); (2) the Project
would not increase traffic volumes at any intersection to greater than 44,000 vehicles per hour; and (3)
the Project would not increase traffic volumes at any intersection to greater than 24,000 vehicles per
hour where atmospheric mixing is limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or
urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). According to the MOU, the proposed project would result
in 2,722 daily trips (277 mid-day peak hour trips and 204 PM peak hour trips). It is important to note,
totals do not include a pass-by reduction of 50 percent during the mid-day and PM periods. As such the
Project would not increase traffic volumes at any intersection greater than 44,000 vehicles per hour, and
24,000 vehicles per hour where atmospheric mixing is limited. The proposed Project would not produce
the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot in the context of the screening criteria above.
494
CERTIFICATION
The contents of this Memorandum represent an accurate depiction of the air quality environment and
impacts associated with the proposed In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project. The information contained in
this study is based on the best available information at the time of preparation. If you have any questions,
please contact me directly at (818) 415-7274.
Christ Kirikian
Partner | Director of Air Quality & Acoustics
ckirikian@meridianconsultantsllc.com
495
APPENDIX 1.0
CalEEMod Air Quality Emission Output Files (Proposed)
496
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
1 / 41
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
3.9. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
497
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
2 / 41
3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
498
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
3 / 41
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
499
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
4 / 41
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
500
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
5 / 41
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
8. User Changes to Default Data
501
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
6 / 41
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name INOB_South San Francisco v2
Construction Start Date 8/1/2025
Operational Year 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s)4.60
Precipitation (days)43.0
Location 972 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, CA 94080, USA
County San Mateo
City South San Francisco
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1292
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.29
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq
ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
502
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
7 / 41
———0.003,8870.091000sqft3.89Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
Parking Lot 56.0 Space 0.50 0.00 19,338 ———
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.1.41 1.12 10.9 10.8 0.02 0.47 1.57 2.04 0.43 0.72 1.15 —2,306 2,306 0.15 0.10 1.26 2,340
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.9.48 9.45 10.9 10.8 0.02 0.47 1.57 2.04 0.43 0.72 1.15 —2,302 2,302 0.15 0.10 0.03 2,336
Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.0.22 0.18 1.72 2.12 < 0.005 0.07 0.15 0.22 0.07 0.06 0.13 —387 387 0.02 0.01 0.07 391
Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.0.04 0.03 0.31 0.39 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 —64.1 64.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 64.8
Exceeds
(Daily
Max)
——————————————————
Threshol
d
—54.0 54.0 ——82.0 ——54.0 —————————
503
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
8 / 41
Unmit.—No No ——No ——No —————————
Exceeds
(Average
Daily)
——————————————————
Threshol
d
—54.0 54.0 ——82.0 ——54.0 —————————
Unmit.—No No ——No ——No —————————
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
2025 1.41 1.12 10.9 10.8 0.02 0.47 1.57 2.04 0.43 0.72 1.15 —2,306 2,306 0.15 0.10 1.26 2,340
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
2025 1.41 1.12 10.9 10.8 0.02 0.47 1.57 2.04 0.43 0.72 1.15 —2,302 2,302 0.15 0.10 0.03 2,336
2026 9.48 9.45 4.28 5.80 0.01 0.18 0.16 0.34 0.16 0.04 0.20 —969 969 0.04 0.01 0.01 974
Average
Daily
——————————————————
2025 0.22 0.18 1.72 2.12 < 0.005 0.07 0.15 0.22 0.07 0.06 0.13 —387 387 0.02 0.01 0.07 391
2026 0.19 0.18 0.50 0.85 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 —132 132 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 132
Annual ——————————————————
2025 0.04 0.03 0.31 0.39 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 —64.1 64.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 64.8
2026 0.04 0.03 0.09 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —21.8 21.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 21.9
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e504
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
9 / 41
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.10.5 9.57 6.92 88.1 0.26 0.14 25.1 25.3 0.14 6.36 6.50 26.4 26,643 26,669 3.55 0.84 77.1 27,085
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.10.3 9.39 8.13 85.2 0.25 0.14 25.1 25.3 0.14 6.36 6.50 26.4 25,481 25,508 3.64 0.92 7.92 25,882
Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.7.06 6.59 4.11 43.2 0.11 0.07 10.4 10.5 0.07 2.64 2.70 26.4 11,254 11,281 3.24 0.47 19.1 11,520
Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.1.29 1.20 0.75 7.89 0.02 0.01 1.90 1.91 0.01 0.48 0.49 4.37 1,863 1,868 0.54 0.08 3.17 1,907
Exceeds
(Daily
Max)
——————————————————
Threshol
d
—54.0 54.0 ————82.0 ——54.0 ———————
Unmit.—No No ———Yes No ——No ———————
Exceeds
(Average
Daily)
——————————————————
Threshol
d
—54.0 54.0 ————82.0 ——54.0 ———————
Unmit.—No No ———Yes No ——No ———————
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
505
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
10 / 41
Mobile 10.3 9.43 6.77 87.8 0.26 0.13 25.1 25.2 0.12 6.36 6.49 —26,360 26,360 0.87 0.83 71.0 26,701
Area 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.70 0.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.70
Energy 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —277 277 0.03 < 0.005 —279
Water ———————————2.26 4.71 6.97 0.23 0.01 —14.5
Waste ———————————24.1 0.00 24.1 2.41 0.00 —84.4
Refrig.————————————————6.08 6.08
Total 10.5 9.57 6.92 88.1 0.26 0.14 25.1 25.3 0.14 6.36 6.50 26.4 26,643 26,669 3.55 0.84 77.1 27,085
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 10.2 9.28 7.99 85.1 0.25 0.13 25.1 25.2 0.12 6.36 6.49 —25,199 25,199 0.96 0.92 1.84 25,498
Area 0.10 0.10 ————————————————
Energy 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —277 277 0.03 < 0.005 —279
Water ———————————2.26 4.71 6.97 0.23 0.01 —14.5
Waste ———————————24.1 0.00 24.1 2.41 0.00 —84.4
Refrig.————————————————6.08 6.08
Total 10.3 9.39 8.13 85.2 0.25 0.14 25.1 25.3 0.14 6.36 6.50 26.4 25,481 25,508 3.64 0.92 7.92 25,882
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Mobile 6.93 6.47 3.97 43.0 0.11 0.06 10.4 10.5 0.06 2.64 2.69 —10,972 10,972 0.56 0.46 13.1 11,135
Area 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.34 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.34
Energy 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —277 277 0.03 < 0.005 —279
Water ———————————2.26 4.71 6.97 0.23 0.01 —14.5
Waste ———————————24.1 0.00 24.1 2.41 0.00 —84.4
Refrig.————————————————6.08 6.08
Total 7.06 6.59 4.11 43.2 0.11 0.07 10.4 10.5 0.07 2.64 2.70 26.4 11,254 11,281 3.24 0.47 19.1 11,520
Annual ——————————————————
Mobile 1.26 1.18 0.72 7.85 0.02 0.01 1.90 1.91 0.01 0.48 0.49 —1,816 1,816 0.09 0.08 2.16 1,844
Area 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.06
506
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
11 / 41
Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —45.9 45.9 0.01 < 0.005 —46.2
Water ———————————0.37 0.78 1.15 0.04 < 0.005 —2.39
Waste ———————————4.00 0.00 4.00 0.40 0.00 —14.0
Refrig.————————————————1.01 1.01
Total 1.29 1.20 0.75 7.89 0.02 0.01 1.90 1.91 0.01 0.48 0.49 4.37 1,863 1,868 0.54 0.08 3.17 1,907
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.56 0.47 4.33 5.65 0.01 0.16 —0.16 0.14 —0.14 —852 852 0.03 0.01 —855
Demoliti
on
——————0.07 0.07 —0.01 0.01 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.05 0.04 0.36 0.46 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —70.0 70.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 —70.3
507
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
12 / 41
———————< 0.005< 0.005—0.010.01——————Demoliti
on
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.06 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —11.6 11.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 —11.6
Demoliti
on
——————< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 —90.1 90.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 90.6
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.02 < 0.005 0.14 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —91.7 91.7 0.01 0.01 0.18 96.7
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.02 7.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.12
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.54 7.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.93
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.16 1.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.18
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.25 1.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.31
508
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
13 / 41
3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.29 1.09 10.1 10.0 0.02 0.46 —0.46 0.43 —0.43 —1,714 1,714 0.07 0.01 —1,720
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————1.38 1.38 —0.67 0.67 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.29 1.09 10.1 10.0 0.02 0.46 —0.46 0.43 —0.43 —1,714 1,714 0.07 0.01 —1,720
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————1.38 1.38 —0.67 0.67 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.11 0.09 0.83 0.83 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —141 141 0.01 < 0.005 —141
509
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
14 / 41
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.11 0.11 —0.05 0.05 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.02 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —23.3 23.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —23.4
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.02 0.02 —0.01 0.01 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 —67.6 67.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.22 68.0
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.09 0.01 0.81 0.55 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 —524 524 0.08 0.08 1.04 552
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 —63.8 63.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 64.6
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.09 0.01 0.85 0.55 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 —524 524 0.08 0.08 0.03 551
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.26 5.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.34
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
510
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
15 / 41
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —43.1 43.1 0.01 0.01 0.04 45.3
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.87 0.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.88
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.13 7.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.51
3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.39 0.33 3.31 5.38 0.01 0.14 —0.14 0.13 —0.13 —810 810 0.03 0.01 —812
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.05 0.04 0.45 0.73 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —109 109 < 0.005 < 0.005 —110
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
511
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
16 / 41
18.2—< 0.005< 0.00518.118.1—< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.0050.130.080.010.01Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —13.9 13.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.1
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —16.0 16.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.7
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.88 1.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.91
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.16 2.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.26
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.31 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.36 0.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
512
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
17 / 41
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.37 0.31 3.08 5.37 0.01 0.12 —0.12 0.11 —0.11 —809 809 0.03 0.01 —812
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.05 0.04 0.43 0.75 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —112 112 < 0.005 < 0.005 —113
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.08 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 —18.7
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —13.6 13.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.8
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —15.7 15.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.4
513
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
18 / 41
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.90 1.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.92
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.18 2.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.29
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.31 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.36 0.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.59 0.49 4.24 5.30 0.01 0.18 —0.18 0.16 —0.16 —823 823 0.03 0.01 —826
Paving 0.26 0.26 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
514
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
19 / 41
11.3—< 0.005< 0.00511.311.3—< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.0050.070.060.010.01Off-Roa
d
Equipm
Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.87 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.87
Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 —146 146 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 148
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.01 2.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.03
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.33 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.34
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00515
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
20 / 41
3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —134 134 0.01 < 0.005 —134
Architect
ural
Coating
s
9.33 9.33 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.83 1.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.84
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.13 0.13 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
516
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
21 / 41
0.30—< 0.005< 0.0050.300.30—< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.005< 0.005< 0.005< 0.005< 0.005Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.02 0.02 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.72 2.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.76
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
517
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
22 / 41
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with
Drive
Thru
10.3 9.43 6.77 87.8 0.26 0.13 25.1 25.2 0.12 6.36 6.49 —26,360 26,360 0.87 0.83 71.0 26,701
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 10.3 9.43 6.77 87.8 0.26 0.13 25.1 25.2 0.12 6.36 6.49 —26,360 26,360 0.87 0.83 71.0 26,701
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with
Drive
Thru
10.2 9.28 7.99 85.1 0.25 0.13 25.1 25.2 0.12 6.36 6.49 —25,199 25,199 0.96 0.92 1.84 25,498
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 10.2 9.28 7.99 85.1 0.25 0.13 25.1 25.2 0.12 6.36 6.49 —25,199 25,199 0.96 0.92 1.84 25,498
Annual ——————————————————
518
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
23 / 41
1,8442.160.080.091,8161,816—0.490.480.011.911.900.010.027.850.721.181.26Fast
Food
Restaurant
with
Drive
Thru
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 1.26 1.18 0.72 7.85 0.02 0.01 1.90 1.91 0.01 0.48 0.49 —1,816 1,816 0.09 0.08 2.16 1,844
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with
Drive
Thru
————————————98.6 98.6 0.02 < 0.005 —99.6
Parking
Lot
————————————10.7 10.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 —10.9
Total ————————————109 109 0.02 < 0.005 —110
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with
Drive
Thru
————————————98.6 98.6 0.02 < 0.005 —99.6
519
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
24 / 41
Parking
Lot
————————————10.7 10.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 —10.9
Total ————————————109 109 0.02 < 0.005 —110
Annual ——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with
Drive
Thru
————————————16.3 16.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —16.5
Parking
Lot
————————————1.78 1.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.80
Total ————————————18.1 18.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 —18.3
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with
Drive
Thru
0.02 0.01 0.14 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —168 168 0.01 < 0.005 —169
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —168 168 0.01 < 0.005 —169
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
520
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
25 / 41
169—< 0.0050.01168168—0.01—0.010.01—0.01< 0.0050.120.140.010.02Fast
Food
Restaurant
with
Drive
Thru
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —168 168 0.01 < 0.005 —169
Annual ——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with
Drive
Thru
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —27.8 27.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 —27.9
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —27.8 27.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 —27.9
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Consum
er
Product
s
0.08 0.08 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.01 0.01 ————————————————
521
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
26 / 41
Landsca
Equipment
0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.70 0.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.70
Total 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.70 0.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.70
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Consum
er
Product
s
0.08 0.08 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.01 0.01 ————————————————
Total 0.10 0.10 ————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Consum
er
Product
s
0.02 0.02 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coating
s
< 0.005 < 0.005 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.06
Total 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.06
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
522
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
27 / 41
CO2eRN2OCH4CO2TNBCO2BCO2PM2.5TPM2.5DPM2.5EPM10TPM10DPM10ESO2CONOxROGTOGLand
Use
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with
Drive
Thru
———————————2.26 4.27 6.53 0.23 0.01 —14.0
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.45
Total ———————————2.26 4.71 6.97 0.23 0.01 —14.5
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with
Drive
Thru
———————————2.26 4.27 6.53 0.23 0.01 —14.0
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.45
Total ———————————2.26 4.71 6.97 0.23 0.01 —14.5
Annual ——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with
Drive
Thru
———————————0.37 0.71 1.08 0.04 < 0.005 —2.32
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.07
Total ———————————0.37 0.78 1.15 0.04 < 0.005 —2.39
523
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
28 / 41
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with
Drive
Thru
———————————24.1 0.00 24.1 2.41 0.00 —84.4
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————24.1 0.00 24.1 2.41 0.00 —84.4
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with
Drive
Thru
———————————24.1 0.00 24.1 2.41 0.00 —84.4
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————24.1 0.00 24.1 2.41 0.00 —84.4
Annual ——————————————————
524
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
29 / 41
14.0—0.000.404.000.004.00———————————Fast
Food
Restaurant
with
Drive
Thru
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————4.00 0.00 4.00 0.40 0.00 —14.0
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with
Drive
Thru
————————————————6.08 6.08
Total ————————————————6.08 6.08
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with
Drive
Thru
————————————————6.08 6.08
Total ————————————————6.08 6.08
525
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
30 / 41
Annual ——————————————————
Fast
Food
Restaurant
with
Drive
Thru
————————————————1.01 1.01
Total ————————————————1.01 1.01
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
526
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
31 / 41
CO2eRN2OCH4CO2TNBCO2BCO2PM2.5TPM2.5DPM2.5EPM10TPM10DPM10ESO2CONOxROGTOGEquipm
ent
Type
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
527
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
32 / 41
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
528
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
33 / 41
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
529
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
34 / 41
——————————————————Sequest
ered
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description
Demolition Demolition 8/1/2025 9/11/2025 5.00 30.0 —
Grading Grading 9/12/2025 10/23/2025 5.00 30.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 10/24/2025 3/12/2026 5.00 100 —
Paving Paving 3/13/2026 3/19/2026 5.00 5.00 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/20/2026 3/26/2026 5.00 5.00 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 367 0.40
Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.40
530
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
35 / 41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 4.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix
Demolition ————
Demolition Worker 10.0 12.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor —7.30 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 1.17 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck ——HHDT
Grading ————
Grading Worker 7.50 12.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor —7.30 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 6.67 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck ——HHDT
Building Construction ————
Building Construction Worker 1.63 12.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 0.64 7.30 HHDT,MHDT
531
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
36 / 41
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck ——HHDT
Paving ————
Paving Worker 17.5 12.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor —7.30 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck ——HHDT
Architectural Coating ————
Architectural Coating Worker 0.33 12.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor —7.30 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck ——HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction
Water unpaved roads twice daily 55%55%
Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph 44%44%
Sweep paved roads once per month 9%9%
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 5,831 1,944 1,317
5.6. Dust Mitigation
532
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
37 / 41
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic
Yards)
Material Exported (Cubic
Yards)
Acres Graded (acres)Material Demolished (Building
Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,000 —
Grading —1,600 22.5 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day)PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction
Water Exposed Area 3 74%74%
Water Demolished Area 2 36%36%
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres)% Asphalt
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 0.50 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year 533
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
38 / 41
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
2,722 3,561 2,731 1,037,772 8,669 35,680 27,367 5,547,519
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 5,831 1,944 1,317
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Fast Food Restaurant with
Drive Thru
176,387 204 0.0330 0.0040 524,438
Parking Lot 19,232 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
534
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
39 / 41
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year)
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 1,179,836 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 160,316
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 44.8 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Thru
Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
535
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
40 / 41
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr)Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day)Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
536
INOB_South San Francisco v2 Custom Report, 2/26/2025
41 / 41
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Anticipated construction schedule
Construction: Off-Road Equipment No cranes
Operations: Vehicle Data According to MOU dated February 26, 2024, project expected to generate 2,652 daily trips
537
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:25-696 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:3b.
Resolution making findings and approving entitlements for Design Review,a Conditional Use Permit and
Master Sign Program for the construction of a new fast-food restaurant with drive-through located at 932 and
972 El Camino Real in the T5 Corridor (T5C) Zoning District.
WHEREAS,the applicant has proposed the construction of a new 3,887 square foot In-N-Out Burger
Restaurant with a drive-through and surface parking lot containing 51 parking stalls,landscaping,and
circulation improvements (“Project”)on the properties located at 932 and 972 El Camino Real (APN 014-011-
320 and 014-011-330) of approximately 1.5 acres (referred to as “Project Site”) in the City; and
WHEREAS,the proposed Project is located within the T5 Corridor (T5C)Zoning District and Medium Density
Mixed Use General Plan Land Use Designation; and
WHEREAS,the applicant seeks entitlement approval of a Planning Project (P23-0135),including Design
Review (DR24-0013),Conditional Use Permit (UP24-0001),and Master Sign Program (SIGNS24-0012)for
the Project; and
WHEREAS,approval of the applicant’s proposal is considered a “project”for purposes of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and
WHEREAS,the City,in conjunction with an environmental consultant,Meridian Consultants,LLC,prepared
an Infill Checklist to provide substantial evidence that the proposed Project qualifies for a Categorical
Exemption under the provision of CEQA, Class 32, Section 15332 as an Infill Development Project; and
WHEREAS,the Design Review Board for the City of South San Francisco considered the Project and
recommended approval to the Planning Commission on November 19, 2024; and
WHEREAS,on July 17,2025,the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully
noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the environmental effects of the Project and
proposed entitlements and take public testimony; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the information in the Infill
Checklist,and by separate resolution,determined that the Infill Checklist is an objective and accurate document
that reflects the independent judgement and analysis of the City in relation to the Project’s environmental
impacts and finds that the Infill Checklist satisfies the requirements of CEQA.The Project is categorically
exempt under the provision of CEQA, Class 32, Section 15332; and
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™538
File #:25-696 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:3b.
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has exercised its independent judgment and analysis,and considered all
reports, recommendations, and testimony before making a determination on the Project.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes
without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq.
(“CEQA”)and the CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the South San
Francisco 2040 General Plan;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;the 2040 General Plan Program EIR
and Statement of Overriding Considerations;the Project applications;the project plan set consisting of:civil
plans prepared by MSL Engineering,Inc.,dated July 1,2025;landscaping plans prepared by Brandon Petrunio
&Associates,Inc.Landscape Architects,dated July 1,2025;photometric plan prepared by RTM Engineering
Consultants,dated stamp received November 1,2024;renderings and elevations prepared by In-N-Out Burger,
dated stamp received November 1,2024;and sign program plans prepared by Signtech,dated stamp received
November 1,2024;the In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Project Infill Checklist,including all appendices thereto,
prepared by Meridian Consultants,dated April 2025;all site plans;all reports,minutes,and public testimony
submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed July 17,2025 public hearing;and any other
evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e)and §21082.2),the Planning Commission of
the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
SECTION 1 FINDINGS
A. General Findings
1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2.The Exhibits attached to this Resolution,including Conditions of Project Approval (Exhibit A),Project
Plan Set (Exhibit B),and Master Sign Program Plan Set (Exhibit C),are each incorporated by reference
and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.
3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the
Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA
94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner.
4.By a separate resolution,the Planning Commission,exercising its independent judgment and analysis,
has found that,the In-N-Out Burger Restaurant Infill Checklist prepared for the Project,is the
appropriate document for the Project and no further environmental analysis would be required,as the
Environmental Checklist concludes that implementation of the Project will not create any new
significant impacts or trigger any new or more severe impacts than were studied in the previously
certified 2040 General Plan Program EIR;that no substantial changes in the projects or circumstances
justifying major revisions to the 2040 General Plan Program EIR have occurred;that no new
information of substantial importance has come to light since the 2040 General Plan Program EIR was
certified that shows new or more severe significant impacts,impacts that are peculiar to the Project or
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™539
File #:25-696 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:3b.
certified that shows new or more severe significant impacts,impacts that are peculiar to the Project or
Project Site,nor shows new,different or more feasible mitigation measures;and that the Project is also
exempt from CEQA as an Infill Development Project.
B. Design Review
1.The Project,including Design Review,is consistent with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal
Code because the Project is an allowed use that has been designed in compliance with all applicable
Zoning requirements and standards.
2.The Project,including Design Review,is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed
restaurant and drive-through is consistent with the policies and design direction provided in the South
San Francisco General Plan Business Medium Density Mixed Use Land Use designation to create an
area intended for a mix of uses serving both surrounding neighborhood and visitors from nearby areas.
3.The Project,including Design Review,is consistent with the applicable design guidelines adopted by
the City Council in that the proposed Project is consistent with the T5C Zoning District development
standards and the Citywide development standards,as evaluated in the Zoning Ordinance Compliance
analysis for the Project.
4.The Project,including Design Review,is consistent with the Conditional Use Permit requirements for
this project,Master Sign Program requirements and drive-through facilities standards included in
SSFMC Chapter 20.350.016.
C. Conditional Use Permit
1.The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable
provisions of this Ordinance and all other titles of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.The Project
Site is located in the T5 Corridor (T5C)Zoning District,in which a limited-service restaurant is
permitted land use by-right and a drive-through facility is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit,and
extended hours of operation are permitted with a Conditional Use Permit.
2.The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.The General Plan
Land Use designation for the Project Site is Medium Density Mixed Use,which is intended for a broad
range of commercial,office,and residential uses and public spaces serving both surrounding
neighborhoods and visitors from nearby areas.The Project is consistent with the guiding and
implementing policies in the General Plan as it will redevelop a vacant,underutilized site with a high
demand restaurant use along a commercial and transit priority corridor identified for redevelopment.
3.The proposed use will not be adverse to the public health,safety,or general welfare of the community,
nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements.The Project Site is surrounded by a mix of
existing commercial,residential,and open space uses,along a major commercial and transit priority
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™540
File #:25-696 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:3b.
existing commercial,residential,and open space uses,along a major commercial and transit priority
corridor.The proposed restaurant and drive-through use is similar to and compatible with the
surrounding area.
4.The Project meets the applicable requirements for redevelopment in the T5C District,as well as the
specific standards for drive-through facilities outlined in SSFMC Section 20.350.016.
5.The design,location,size,and operating characteristics of the proposed activity would be compatible
with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity.The Project Site is
surrounded by a mix of existing commercial,residential and open space uses,and is located in a
General Plan Land Use designation intended for a broad range of uses and along a transit priority
corridor identified for redevelopment.The proposed restaurant and drive-through use is similar to and
compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the surrounding area.The
extended hours of operation are consistent with uses on a major commercial corridor,and having
delivery hours outside of operating hours will help separate truck traffic from vehicle,bicycle,and
pedestrian traffic on the site.
6.The site is physically suitable for the type,density,and intensity of use being proposed,including
access,utilities,and the absence of physical constraints.The Project is a redevelopment of an
underutilized 1.5-acre parcel along a major commercial corridor in an urbanized area with access to all
required utilities and public services.
7.An environmental determination has been prepared in accordance with CEQA.The In-N-Out Burger
Restaurant Infill Checklist prepared for the Project concludes that implementation of the Project will not
create any new significant impacts or trigger any new or more severe impacts than were studied in the
previously certified 2040 General Plan Program EIR;that no substantial changes in the projects or
circumstances justifying major revisions to the 2040 General Plan Program EIR have occurred;that no
new information of substantial importance has come to light since the 2040 General Plan Program EIR
was certified that shows new or more severe significant impacts,impacts that are peculiar to the Project
or Project Site,nor shows new,different or more feasible mitigation measures;and that the Project is
also exempt from CEQA as an Infill Development Project.
D. Master Sign Program
1.The proposed signs are compatible in style and character with the building to which the signs are to be
attached,any surrounding structures and any adjoining signage on the site.The proposed signs were
designed in keeping with the architectural design of the new building,using similar materials and
colors, and maintaining the characteristic qualities and style of the In-N-Out signature and brand.
2.The Master Sign Program contains standards for all wayfinding and identification signage for the site.
Any future tenants will be provided with adequate opportunities to construct,erect or maintain a sign
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™541
File #:25-696 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:3b.
for identification; and
3.The Master Sign Program includes the installation of wayfinding and identification signage for the
entire site that will improve both pedestrian and vehicular circulation and emergency vehicle access.
SECTION 2 DETERMINATION
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San
Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution and approves the entitlements request for 932
and 972 El Camino Real (P23-0135:DR24-0013,UP24-0001 and SIGNS24-0012)subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
adoption.
* * * * * * *
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™542
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
P23-0135: DR24-0013, UP24-0001,
SIGNS24-0012
932 & 972 EL CAMINO REAL
(As recommended by City Staff on July 17, 2025)
PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS
Introduction
The term “applicant”, “developer”, “project owner” or “project sponsor” used hereinafter shall have the
same meaning: the applicant for the 932 & 972 El Camino Real project or the property / project owner if
different from applicant.
GENERAL
1. The project shall be constructed and operated substantially as indicated on the project plan set
consisting of: civil plans prepared by MSL Engineering, Inc., dated July 1, 2025; landscaping plans
prepared by Brandon Petrunio & Associates, Inc. Landscape Architects, dated July 1, 2025;
photometric plan prepared by RTM Engineering Consultants, dated stamp received November 1,
2024; renderings and elevations prepared by In-N-Out Burger, dated stamp received November 1,
2024; and sign program plans prepared by Signtech, dated stamp received November 1, 2024; and
approved by the Planning Commission in association with P23-0135, as amended by the conditions
of approval. The final plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City’s Chief Planner.
2. The construction drawings shall comply with the Planning Commission approved plans, as
amended by the conditions of approval, including the project plan set consisting of: civil plans
prepared by MSL Engineering, Inc., dated July 1, 2025; landscaping plans prepared by Brandon
Petrunio & Associates, Inc. Landscape Architects, dated July 1, 2025; photometric plan prepared
by RTM Engineering Consultants, dated stamp received November 1, 2024; renderings and
elevations prepared by In-N-Out Burger, dated stamp received November 1, 2024; and sign
program plans prepared by Signtech, dated stamp received November 1, 2024
3. The permit shall be subject to revocation if the project is not operated in compliance with the
conditions of approval.
4. Neither the granting of this permit nor any conditions attached thereto shall authorize, require or
permit anything contrary to, or in conflict with any ordinances specifically named therein.
5. Prior to construction, all required building permits shall be obtained from the City’s Building
Division.
543
Conditions of Approval
Page 2 of 28
6. Demolition of any existing structures on site will require demolition permits.
7. All conditions of the permit shall be completely fulfilled to the satisfaction of the affected City
Departments and Planning and Building Divisions prior to occupancy of any building.
8. The applicant shall submit a checklist showing compliance with Conditions of Approval with the
building permit plans and application.
9. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for the construction of public
improvements, the final design for all public improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer, Fire Marshal, and Chief Planner.
10. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for grading improvements, the applicant
shall submit final grading plans for review and approval by the City Engineer, Fire Marshal, and
Chief Planner.
11. The applicant shall comply with all permitting requirements of the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) related to the project, and provide proof of permits and/or approval prior
to building permit issuance for these project elements.
12. Any modification to the approved plans shall be subject to SSFMC Section 20.450.012
(“Modification”), whereby the Chief Planner may approve minor changes. All exterior design
modifications, including any and all utilities, shall be presented to the Chief Planner for a
determination.
13. Unless the use has commenced or related building permits have been issued within two (2) years
of the date this permit is granted, this permit will automatically expire on that date, A one-year
permit extension may be granted in accordance with provisions of the SSFMC Chapter 20.450
(“Common Procedures”).
14. The permit shall not be effective for any purpose until the property owner or a duly authorized
representative files a signed acceptance form, prior to the issuance of a building permit, stating
that the property owner is aware of, and accepts, all of the conditions of the permit.
15. Prior to scheduling a Final Inspection with the Planning Division, the applicant must submit a
Planning Final Inspection Request form, which states that the project has been built according to
approved plans, and any revisions have been approved by the Planning Division.
544
Conditions of Approval
Page 3 of 28
16. The project shall be subject to a four (4), eight (8), and 12-month administrative review by staff
and presented to the Planning Commission from the date of commencement of project operations.
The administrative review shall be limited to the issues of the project’s onsite queuing traffic
impacts to the adjacent streets, traffic access, or onsite parking issues
CONSTRUCTION
17. The applicant is responsible for maintaining site security prior to, and throughout the construction
process. This includes installation of appropriate fencing, lighting, remote monitors, or on-site
security personnel as needed.
18. The applicant shall include in all building permit plans and post onsite the name and telephone
number of an individual empowered to manage construction-related complaints generated from
the project. The individual’s name, telephone number, and responsibility for the project shall be
posted at the project site for the duration of the project in a location easily visible to the public.
The individual shall record all complaints received and actions taken in response and submit
written reports of such complaints and actions to the City’s construction coordination
representative on a weekly basis.
19. After the building permits are approved, but before beginning construction, the owner/applicant
shall hold a preconstruction conference with City Planning, Building, Fire and Engineering staff
and other interested parties. The developer shall arrange for the attendance of the construction
manager, contractor, and all relevant subcontractors.
DESIGN REVIEW / SITE PLANNING
20. All equipment (either roof, building, or ground-mounted) shall be screened from view through the
use of integral architectural elements, such as enclosures or roof screens, and landscape screening
or shall be incorporated inside the exterior building wall. Equipment enclosures and/or roof
screens shall be painted to match the building. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant
shall submit plans showing utility locations, stand-pipes, equipment enclosures, landscape screens,
and/or roof screens for review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee.
21. The total sign area for all signs included in the Master Sign Program shall not exceed the square
footage as indicated in the Planning Commission approved plans. Sign area shall be calculated by
blocking or boxing around the outside edge of the proposed signage, including the logo.
22. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for landscaping improvements, the
applicant shall submit final landscaping and irrigation plans for review and approval by the City’s
Chief Planner. The plans shall include documentation of compliance with SSFMC Section
20.300.008 (“Landscaping”).
545
Conditions of Approval
Page 4 of 28
23. Plant materials shall be replaced when necessary with the same species originally specified unless
otherwise approved by the Chief Planner.
24. All landscape areas shall be watered via an automatic irrigation system, which shall be maintained
in fully operable condition at all times, and which complies with SSFMC Chapter 20.300 (“Lot
and Development Standards”).
25. All planting areas shall be maintained by a qualified professional; the landscape shall be kept on a
regular fertilization and maintenance program and shall be maintained weed free.
26. Plant materials shall be selectively pruned by a qualified arborist; no topping or excessive cutting-
back shall be permitted. Tree pruning shall allow the natural branching structure to develop.
27. All landscaping installed within the public right-of-way by the property owner shall be maintained
by the property owner.
28. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit final landscaping and
irrigation plans demonstrating compliance with the State’s Model Water Efficiency Landscaping
Ordinance (MWELO), if applicable (See SSFMC Section 20.300.008, and the City’s WELO
Document Verification package).
a. Projects with a new aggregate landscape of 501 – 2,499 sq. ft. may comply with the
prescriptive measures contained in Appendix D of the MWELO.
b. Projects with a new aggregate landscape of 2,500 sq. ft. or greater must comply with the
performance measures required by the MWELO.
c. For all projects subject to the provisions of the MWELO, the applicant shall submit a
Certificate of Completion to the City, upon completion of the installation of the
landscaping and irrigation system.
29. The applicant shall contact the South San Francisco Scavenger Company to properly size any
required trash enclosures and work with staff to locate and design the trash enclosure in accordance
with the SSFMC Section 20.300.014 (“Trash and Refuse Collection Areas”). Applicant shall
submit an approval letter from South San Francisco Scavenger to the Chief Planner prior to the
issuance of building permits.
30. The applicant shall incorporate the recommendations of the Design Review Board (DRB) from
their meeting of November 19, 2024 and included in the DRB Comment Letter, dated December
2, 2024, in the building permit plans and application.
546
Conditions of Approval
Page 5 of 28
31. The applicant shall include the required long-term bicycle parking spaces in accordance with
SSFMC Section 20.330.007 (“Bicycle Parking”) in the building permit plans and application.
32. Landscaped areas in the project area may contain trees defined as protected by the South San
Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance, Title 13, Chapter 13.30. Any removal or pruning of
protected trees shall comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance, and applicant shall obtain a
permit for any tree removals or alterations of protected trees, and avoid tree roots during trenching
for utilities.
33. Prior to receiving certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install patio furniture, trash
receptacles, and bicycle racks per the approved plan set. The Planning Division shall review and
approve all patio furniture, trash receptacles and bicycle rack options during the Building Permit
process.
TRANSPORTATION / PARKING
34. A Parking and Traffic Control Plan for the construction of the project shall be submitted with the
application for a building permit, for review and approval by the Chief Planner and City Engineer.
35. During construction, the applicant shall provide parking for construction workers within the
project site.
36. Prior to receiving certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install “No U-Turn” signs along El
Camino Real at the Southwood Drive / 1st Street intersection.
OPERATIONS
37. Prior to receiving certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit an Opening Traffic Plan for
review and approval by the Chief Planner, Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer
and other relevant reviewers as appropriate. The Opening Traffic Plan shall include details on
temporary signage, if any, and traffic and parking management.
38. Hours of Operation shall be as follows, as stated on the applicant’s operational plan:
i. Sunday through Thursday: 10:30 AM to 1:00 AM
ii. Friday and Saturday: 10:30 AM to 1:30 AM
39. Delivery hours shall be as follows, as stated on the applicant’s operational plan:.
a. Monday through Sunday: 2:00 AM to 9:00 AM
40. The business shall be subject to the performance standards outlined in SSFMC Section 20.300.010.
41. The business shall be subject to the lighting and illuminations standards outlined in SSFMC
Section 20.300.009.
42. The business shall be subject to the noise regulations outlined in SSFMC Chapter 8.32.
547
Conditions of Approval
Page 6 of 28
IMPACT / DEVELOPMENT FEES
**Fees are subject to annual adjustment and will be calculated based on the fee in effect at the time
that the payment of the fee is due. The fees included in these Conditions of Approval are estimates,
based on the fees in place at the time of project approval. Estimates are subject to change, based on
final plans submitted for building permits. Credits for existing uses will be calculated and applied
to applicable fees.**
43. PARKS AND RECREATION FEES: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant
shall pay the Parkland Acquisition Fee and Parkland Construction Fee in accordance with South
San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.67. The fee is subject to annual adjustment. Based on
the plans reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on July 17, 2025, the Parks and
Recreation Impact Fee estimate for the project is:
Commercial / Retail: $1.52 x 3,887sf = $5,908.24
44. CHILDCARE FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay any
applicable Childcare Fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.77.
This fee is subject to annual adjustment. Based on the plans approved by the Planning Commission
on July 17, 2025, the Childcare Impact Fee estimate for the project is:
Commercial / Retail: $0.82 x 3,887sf = $3,187.34
45. COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall
pay the applicable Commercial Linkage Fee in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal
Code Chapter 8.69, based on the current fee for each applicable land use category. The fee shall
be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued. Based
on the plans approved by the Planning Commission on July 17, 2024, the Commercial Linkage
Fee estimate for the project is:
Retail / Restaurant / Services: $2.90 x 3,887sf = $11,272.30
46. LIBRARY IMPACT FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the development, the
applicant shall pay applicable Library Impact Fees in accordance with South San Francisco
Municipal Code Chapter 8.74. Based on the plans approved by the Planning Commission on July
17, 2025, the Library Impact Fee for the project is:
Commercial / Retail: $0.08 x 3,887sf = $310.96
47. PUBLIC SAFETY IMPACT FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the
548
Conditions of Approval
Page 7 of 28
development, the applicant shall pay applicable Public Safety Impact Fees in accordance with
South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.75. Based on the plans approved by the Planning
Commission on July 17, 2025, the Public Safety Impact Fee for the project is:
Commercial / Retail: $0.53 x 3,887sf = $2,060.11
48. PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT: All non-residential development is subject to the Public Art
Requirement, per South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.76. The public art requirement
for this project shall be satisfied by providing qualifying public art, as defined in South San
Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.76 and reviewed and approved by the Cultural Arts
Commission or designee, with a value equal to not less than 1% of construction costs for
acquisition and installation of public art on the project site; or electing to make a public art
contribution payment in an amount not less than 0.5% of construction costs into the public art
fund. The in-lieu contribution payment shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit.
For questions regarding Planning Division COAs, please contact Stephanie Skangos at
Stephanie.Skangos@ssf.net
BUILDING DIVISION CONDITIONS
1. Provide a separate permit for demolition of the existing building and site work with a J Permit
form the Bay Area Quality Management District. https://www.baaqmd.gov/
2. Provide accessible compliance per California Building Code 11B.
3. Provide a letter from a California certified surveyor to certify the building location and elevations.
4. There may be other comments generated by the Building Division and/or other City departments
that will also require your attention and response during the Building Permit process.
For questions concerning Building Division COAs, please contact Gary Lam at Gary.Lam@ssf.net
or (650) 829-6669.
ENGINEERING DIVISION CONDITIONS
Below are the conditions that apply to the subject permit, which may overlap with any standard
development conditions.
549
Conditions of Approval
Page 8 of 28
Permits
1. At the time of each permit submittal, the Applicant shall submit a deposit for each of the following
permit reviews and processing:
a. Building Permit plan check and civil review. Provide an engineer’s estimate or opinion of
probable cost of on-site improvements for deposit amount calculation.
b. Hauling/Grading plan check and permit processing. Provide Cubic Yards for deposit
amount calculation.
c. Encroachment for Public Improvements plan check and permit processing. Provide an
engineer’s estimate or opinion of probable cost of ROW improvements for fees and
deposits amount calculation.
2. A Grading Permit is required for grading over 50 cubic yards and if 50 cubic yards or more of soil
is exported and/or imported. The Applicant shall pay all permit and inspection fees, as well as any
deposits and/or bonds required to obtain said permits. The Grading Permit requires several
documents to be submitted for the City’s review and approval. The Grading Permit Application,
Checklist and Requirements may be found on the City website at
http://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/engineering-division.
3. A Hauling Permit shall be required for excavations and off-haul or on-haul, per Engineering
requirements; should hauling of earth occur prior to grading. Otherwise, hauling conditions would
be included with the grading permit. Hauling Permit may be found on the City website at:
http://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/engineering-division.
4. The Applicant shall submit a copy of their General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit
Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), where required by State or
Federal regulations, to the Engineering Division for our information. These documents shall be
submitted prior to receiving a grading or building permit for the subject project.
5. The City of South San Francisco is mandated by the State of California to divert sixty-five percent
(65%) of all solid waste from landfills either by reusing or recycling. To help meet this goal, a city
ordinance requires completion of a Waste Management Plan (“WMP”) for covered building
projects identifying how at least sixty-five percent (65%) of non-inert project waste materials and
one hundred percent (100%) of inert materials (“65/100”) will be diverted from the landfill through
recycling and salvage. The Contractor shall submit a WMP application and fee payment prior to
the issuance of a building or grading permit.
6. An Encroachment Permit is required for any work proposed within the public right-of-way. The
550
Conditions of Approval
Page 9 of 28
Applicant shall pay all permit, plan check, and inspection fees, as well as, any deposits and/or
bonds required to obtain said permits.
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit written evidence from the
County or State Regulators in charge, indicating that the site is cleared of hazardous materials and
hazardous groundwater to a level that poses no impacts to human health. The Applicant shall
submit a soil and groundwater management plan and include a vapor barrier with its building
construction as recommended in the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of the development
site. The Applicant shall also confirm that if there are any existing groundwater monitoring wells
on the project site or any groundwater wells discovered during construction, that they have been
properly closed and/or relocated as necessary as approved by the County or State Regulators in
charge.
Plan Submittal
8. The Applicant shall submit detailed plans printed to PDF and combined into a single electronic
file, with each being stamped and digitally signed by a Professional Engineer registered in the
State of California. Incorporated within the construction plans shall be applicable franchise utility
installation plans, stamped and signed and prepared by the proper authority. Plans shall include
the following sheets;
Cover, Separate Note Sheet, Existing Conditions, Demolition Plan, Grading Plan, Horizontal
Plan, Striping and Signage Plan, Utility Plan(s), Detail Sheet(s), Erosion Control Plan, and
Landscape Plans, (grading, storm drain, erosion control, and landscape plans are for reference
only and shall not be reviewed during this submittal).
9. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall obtain a grading permit with the Engineering
Division and shall submit an application, all documentation, fees, deposits, bonds and all necessary
paperwork needed for the grading permit. The Applicant shall submit a grading plan that clearly
states the amount of cut and fill required to grade the project. The Grading Plans shall include the
following plans:
Cover, Notes, Existing Conditions, Grading Plans, Storm Drain Plans, Stormwater Control
Plan, and Erosion Control Plan.
10. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit for all
proposed work within the City ROW and shall submit an application, all documentation, fees,
deposits, bonds and all necessary paperwork needed for the Encroachment Permit. Applicant shall
prepare and submit a separate Public Improvement Plan set that shall include only the scope of
work within the City ROW (with reference to the on-site plans) consisting of the following plans:
551
Conditions of Approval
Page 10 of 28
Civil Plans, Landscape Plans, and Joint Trench Plans.
An engineer’s cost estimate for the scope of work shown on the approved Public Improvement
Plans is required to determine the performance and payment bond amount. The submittal of the
bonds is required prior to the execution of the Improvement Agreement.
11. All improvements shall be designed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the Engineering
Division.
12. The design for all proposed gravity line utilities or for utility vaults or pole foundations shall
include the potholing of existing utilities where there may be vertical grade or horizontal clearance
conflicts. Said potholing information shall be shown on the plans. If potholing work is required
within the public right-of-way, a separate Encroachment Permit is required for said work.
13. The Engineering Division reserves the right to include additional conditions during review of the
building permit, grading permit, or encroachment permit.
Mapping and Agreements
14. The Applicant shall create a parking and access easement on APN 014-011-330 in favor of the
owners of APN 014-011-320 and a drainage and utility easement on APN 014-011-320 in favor
of the owners of APN 014-011-330. Said Easements shall be recorded at with the San Mateo
County Recorder prior to the issuance of a Temporary Occupancy for the project.
15. The Applicant shall provide documentation that the existing City Public Utility Easement on the
project site is no longer needed by the various utility companies. Once said documentation is
provided, the Applicant shall provide the City with all necessary surveying documents to enable
the City to vacate the said existing Public Utility Easement prior to the issuance of the Temporary
Certificate of Occupancy.
16. The Applicant shall provide documentation from San Mateo County that the existing County
Public drainage easement has been vacated or can remain as-is with the proposed development
prior to the issuance of Certificate of the Temporary Occupancy.
17. The Applicant shall dedicate a 20’ wide Public storm drain easement to the City or to San Mateo
County for the existing reinforced concrete box stormdrain on the property that is currently not in
a recorded easement prior to the issuance of the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
18. All required public easement dedications to the City on the project site shall be accepted by the
City (or County) and recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder’s Office prior to the issuance
of Certificate of Occupancy.
552
Conditions of Approval
Page 11 of 28
19. The Applicant shall ensure the proposed structures within the project site do not conflict with any
proposed easements. Any existing easements proposed to be quitclaimed to the Applicant shall be
completed prior to the issuance of the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
20. Applicant shall submit all documents required for review of any mapping or agreement application
as a separate application from the improvement plans.
21. Prior to the approval of any Permits, the Applicant shall enter into an Improvement and
Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement with the City. These agreements shall be approved by
the City Attorney and City Engineer prior to execution.
a. The Improvement Agreement shall require the Applicant to ensure the faithful performance
of the design, construction, installation and inspection of all public improvements as
reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division at no cost to the City and shall be
secured by good and sufficient payment, performance, and one (1) year warranty bonds or
cash deposit adequate to cover all of the costs, inspections and administrative expenses of
completing such improvements in the event of a default. The value of the bonds or cash
deposit shall include 110% of the cost of construction based on prevailing wage rates. The
value of the warranty bond or cash deposit shall be equivalent to 10% of the value of the
performance security.
b. The Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement shall obligate the Applicant to maintain
any street furniture and all landscaping within the project frontage at no cost to the City.
In addition, the Agreement shall obligate the Applicant to remove graffiti from both sides
of the proposed retaining walls on the eastern side of the property. The Encroachment and
Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder and may
be transferred to the property owner.
22. Applicant shall pay for all Engineering Division deposits and fees required for any mapping
application prior to review.
23. In the event that traffic queues from the drive-through operation are greater than the capacity of
the on-site vehicle storage, the Applicant shall provide qualified staff to direct traffic within the
project site to maximize traffic flow and minimize impacts to the public right-of-way.
Right-of-Way
24. Prior to any work within the State Right-of-Way on El Camino Real, the Applicant shall obtain an
Encroachment Permit from the Engineering Division and from Caltrans. Prior to submitting any
improvement plans to Caltrans for the Caltrans Encroachment Permit Application, the Applicant
shall first receive approval from the City of all plans to be submitted to Caltrans. All new public
553
Conditions of Approval
Page 12 of 28
improvements required to accommodate the development shall be installed at no cost to the City
unless otherwise noted and shall be approved by the City Engineer and constructed to City and
Caltrans Standards. All new public improvements shall be completed prior to Final Occupancy of
the project or prior to any Temporary Occupancy as approved by the City Engineer, or as specified
in the following Conditions of Approval.
25. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit a video survey of the adjacent streets
(perimeter of proposed property location) to determine the pre-construction condition of the streets
at no cost to the City. The Applicant will be responsible to ensure that the condition of the streets
and striping is in at least existing condition or better after construction is completed.
26. The Applicant shall reconstruct the curb, gutter, sidewalk, and driveways along El Camino Real
frontage of the project site.
27. The Applicant shall install detectable warnings on each side of frontage driveways per the City
Standards.
28. The Applicant shall install a stop sign for vehicles exiting the project driveways on El Camino
Real.
29. The Applicant shall design and install a new traffic signal on El Camino Real at the intersection
of Southwood Dr./1st Street (the “Traffic Signal Improvements”) pursuant to the proposed terms
set forth in that certain Agreement for Construction and Reimbursement for Constructing Off-
Site Improvements, the terms of which is attached hereto as Attachment A (“Summary of
Terms”). Said Agreement requires separate approval by the City Council.
30. In order to mitigate the impacts of traffic congestion on southbound El Camino Real created by
U-turning vehicles, the Applicant shall post a temporary No-U Turn sign on El Camino Real at
the intersection of Southwood Dr./1st Street prior to Final Occupancy of the On-Site
improvements. Said No-U-Turn sign shall be removed once the new traffic signal at said
intersection has been completed and is operational.
31. Upon completion of construction and landscape work at the site, the Applicant shall clean, repair
or reconstruct, at their expense, as required to conform to City Standards, all public improvements
including driveways, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street pavements along the street frontages of
the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
32. The Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining all street trees and landscaped irrigation
systems installed within the Public right-of-way.
33. Prior to the issuance of an Encroachment Permit, the Applicant shall provide an engineer’s
estimate for all work performed with in the public right-of-way and submit a bond equal to 110%
of the estimate.
554
Conditions of Approval
Page 13 of 28
34. Prior to the issuance of an Encroachment Permit, the Applicant shall submit Traffic and Pedestrian
Control Plans for proposed work on El Camino Real and/or any area of work that will obstruct the
existing pedestrian walkways.
35. No private foundation or private retaining wall support shall extend into the City Right-of-Way
without express approval from the Engineering Department. Applicant shall design any
bioretention area or flow-through planters adjacent to the property line such that the facility and
all foundations do not encroach within the City Right-of-Way or into an adjacent parcel.
36. Applicant shall ensure that any pavement markings impacted during construction are restored and
upgraded to meet City standards current to the time of Encroachment Permit approval.
37. The project shall not include any permanent structural supports (retaining walls, tiebacks, etc.)
within the ROW. City Engineer approval is required for any temporary structural supports within
the ROW. Any temporary structural supports shall be removed after construction.
38. Any work within the public sidewalk and/or obstructing pedestrian routes shall require pedestrian
routing plans along with traffic control plans. Temporary lane or sidewalk closures shall be
approved by the City Engineer and by the Construction Coordination Committee (if within the
CCC influence area). For any work affecting the sidewalks or pedestrian routes greater than 2 days
in duration, the adjacent parking lane or adjacent travel lane shall be closed and temporary vehicle
barriers placed to provide a protected pedestrian corridor. Temporary ramps shall be constructed
to connect the pedestrian route from the sidewalk to the street if no ramp or driveway is available
to serve that purpose.
39. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall coordinate with Scavenger and submit
all garbage related plans.
Stormwater
40. The Applicant shall submit to the City Engineer a storm drainage and hydraulic study for the fully
improved development analyzing existing conditions and post-development conditions. The study
shall confirm that the proposed development will meet the goal of reducing peak runoff by 15%
based on a 25-year, 5-minute design storm for each drainage basin or subwatershed within the
project site. Methods for reducing stormwater flow shall include stormwater storage on-site if
necessary. The study shall also evaluate the capacity of each new storm drain installed as part of
the development. Precipitation shall be based on NOAA Atlas 14 data for the site. The study shall
be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
41. On-site storm drainage conveyance systems shall be designed to accommodate the 10-year design
storm. Precipitation used for the hydraulic analysis shall be based on NOAA Atlas 14 data for the
project site. Storm duration shall be equal to the time of concentration with an initial minimum of
10 minutes.
42. Hydraulic Grade lines shall not be less than 1 foot from the ground surface.
43. Runoff Coefficients used for hydraulic calculations shall be as follows:
555
Conditions of Approval
Page 14 of 28
a. Pervious areas—0.35
b. Impervious areas—0.95
44. Drainage runoff shall not be allowed to flow across lot lines or across subdivision boundaries onto
adjacent private property without an appropriate recorded easement being provided for this
purpose.
45. All building downspouts shall be connected to rigid pipe roof leaders which shall discharge into
an approved drainage device or facility that meets the C3 stormwater treatment requirements of
Municipal Regional Permit.
46. All storm drainage runoff shall be discharged into a pipe system or concrete gutter. Runoff shall
not be surface drained into surrounding private property or public streets.
47. Existing on-site drains that are not adequately sized to accommodate run-off from the fully
developed property and upstream drainage basin shall be improved as required by the Applicant’s
civil engineering consultant’s plans and specifications as approved by the City Engineer. These
on-site improvements shall be installed at no cost to the City.
48. The on-site storm drainage system shall not be dedicated to the City for ownership or maintenance.
The storm drainage system and any storm water pollutions control devices within the private
property shall be owned, repaired, and maintained by the property owner or their tenant.
Sanitary Sewer
49. Applicant shall video inspect the sanitary sewer mains along the project frontage to the nearest
manholes upstream and downstream of the project point of connection both prior to construction
and post construction. The video must be submitted to City Engineering for review as part of the
improvement plans submittal and shall confirm the number of existing sewer laterals serving the
site that must be abandoned.
50. The Applicant shall abandon the two existing private sewer laterals from the project site connected
to the public sanitary sewer system on El Camino Real. The two sewer laterals to be abandoned
shall be shown on the plans and shall be confirmed by the review of a video inspection of the
private sanitary sewer main.
51. The Applicant shall install a new sewer lateral to City Standards.
52. Sanitary Sewer plan shall show all existing and proposed utilities. Be sure to provide minimum
horizontal and vertical clearances for all existing and proposed utilities. Also include all existing
and proposed manhole, catch basin and pipe invert elevations.
53. All utility crossings shall be potholed, verified and shown on the plans prior to the building permit
submittal.
556
Conditions of Approval
Page 15 of 28
54. The on-site sanitary sewer system/plumbing shall be designed and installed in accordance with the
Uniform Plumbing Code, as amended and adopted by the City, and in accordance with the
requirements of the South San Francisco Building Division.
55. Each on-site sanitary sewer manhole and cleanout shall be accessible to maintenance personnel
and equipment via pathway or driveways as appropriate. Each maintenance structure shall be
surrounded by a level pad of sufficient size to provide a safe work area.
56. The on-site sanitary sewer system up to the public sanitary sewer manhole connection shall not
be dedicated to the City for maintenance. The sanitary sewer facilities within the property shall
be repaired and maintained by the property owner or their tenant.
Dry Utilities
57. All new electrical and communication lines serving the property, shall be placed underground
within the property being developed and to the nearest overhead facility or underground utility
vault. Pull boxes, junction structures, vaults, valves, and similar devices shall not be installed
within pedestrian walkway areas.
Domestic Water
58. The Applicant shall be responsible to coordinate with California Water Service (Calwater) do
determine if their existing public water distribution system has the capacity to serve the
development. Any off-site water system improvements that may be needed, as determined by
Calwater, will be the responsibility of the Applicant at the Applicant’s expense.
59. The Applicant shall coordinate with the California Water Service (Calwater) for all water-related
issues. All on-site private water mains and services shall be installed to the standards of Calwater
at the expense of the applicant.
60. The Applicant shall install fire hydrants at the locations specified by the Fire Marshal. Installation
shall be in accordance with City Standards as administered by the Fire Marshall.
On-site Improvements
61. Internal driveways shall be a minimum of 15-feet wide for one-way travel and 25-feet wide for
areas subject to two-way travel. One-way travel lanes within the site shall be clearly posted and
marked appropriately.
62. Staging or storing of trash bins shall not be permitted on Public right-of-way.
63. The Applicant shall provide a pedestrian path within the project site to provide pedestrian access
to/from the City’s Centennial Way Trail. The path shall include a lockable pedestrian gate along
the property line. The Applicant shall maintain pedestrian access to the Centennial Way Trail
during all daylight hours of operation and may lock the gate after sundown.
64. The Applicant shall submit a construction access plan that clearly identifies all areas of proposed
access during the proposed development.
557
Conditions of Approval
Page 16 of 28
65. Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy form the Building Division, the Applicant shall
require its Civil Engineer to inspect the finished grading surrounding the building and to certify
that it conforms to the approved site plan and that there is positive drainage away from the exterior
of the building. The Applicant shall make any modifications to the grading, drainage, or other
improvements required by the project engineer to conform to intent of his plans.
66. The Applicant shall submit a proposed workplan and intended methodologies to ensure any
existing structures on or along the development’s property line are protected during proposed
activities.
67. All common areas are to be landscaped and irrigated and shall meet the requirements of the City’s
Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (WELO). Submit landscape, drainage and grading plans
for review and approval by the Engineering Division.
68. Any monument signs to be installed for the project shall be located completely on private property
and shall not encroach into the City’s right-of-way. The Developer shall ensure that placement of
the monument signs do not obstruct clear lines of sight for vehicles entering or exiting the site.
Grading
69. The recommendations contained within the geotechnical report shall be included in the Site
Grading and Drainage Plan. The Site Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared by the
developer’s civil engineer and approved by the project geotechnical engineer.
70. During grading operations, the entire project site shall be adequately sprinkled with water to
prevent dust or sprayed with an effect dust palliative to prevent dust from being blown into the air
and carried onto adjacent private and public property. Dust control shall be for seven days a week
and 24 hours a day. Should any problems arise from dust, the developer shall hire an environmental
inspector at his/her expense to ensure compliance with the grading permit.
71. Haul roads within the City of South San Francisco shall be cleaned daily, or more often, as required
by the City Engineer, of all dirt and debris spilled or tracked onto City streets or private driveways.
72. The Applicant shall submit a winterization plan for all undeveloped areas within the site to control
silt and stormwater runoff from entering adjacent public or private property. This plan shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to September 1 of each year. The
approved plan shall be implemented prior to November 1 of each year.
73. Prior to placing any foundation concrete, the Applicant shall hire a licensed land surveyor or civil
engineer authorized to practice land surveying to certify that the new foundation forms conform
with all setbacks from confirmed property lines as shown on the Plans. A letter certifying the
foundation forms shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for approval.
74. The applicant is required by ordinance to provide for public safety and the protection of public and
private property in the vicinity of the land to be graded from the impacts of the proposed grading
work.
558
Conditions of Approval
Page 17 of 28
75. All hauling and grading operations are restricted to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
for residential areas and 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for industrial/commercial areas, Monday through
Friday, excluding holidays.
76. Unless approved in writing by the City Engineer, no grading in excess of 200 cubic yards per day
shall be accomplished between October 1 and May 1 of each year. Approval requires a sufficient
Site Winterization Plan that fully addresses the implementation of BMP measures for erosion
control.
Engineering Impact Fees
77. The Applicant shall pay the following Fees prior to receiving a Building Permit for the subject
project:
a. Pursuant to the terms set forth in that certain Agreement for Construction and
Reimbursement for Constructing Off-Site Improvements referenced in Condition of
Approval 29 (the “Agreement for Off-Site Improvements”), if the City Council approves
the Agreement for Off-Site Improvements, the Applicant will provide the Traffic Signal
Improvements and therefore the City will credit to Applicant an amount equal to
said Citywide Transportation Impact Fee per the formula established by Resolution 120-
2020, the result being that Applicant will not be obligated to pay said Fee to the City.
b. If City Council does not approve the Agreement for Off-Site Improvements, the
Applicant shall pay, prior to receiving a Building Permit for the subject project, the
Citywide Transportation Impact Fee per the formula established by Resolution 120-
2020.
For questions concerning Engineering COAs, please contact Anthony Schaffer at
Anthony.Schaffer@ssf.net.
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
1. Projects shall be designed and constructed in compliance with established regulations as adopted
by the City of South San Francisco affecting or related to structures, processes, premises, and
safeguards in effect at the time of building permit application.
2. Fire service features for buildings, structures and premises shall comply with all City adopted
building standards in effect at the time of building permit application.
3. Permit(s) shall be required as set forth in adopted California Building Code (CBC) Section 105
and California Fire Code (CFC) Sections 105.5 and 105.6. Submittal documents consisting of
construction documents, statement of special inspection, geotechnical report, referenced
559
Conditions of Approval
Page 18 of 28
documents, and other data shall be submitted electronically with each permit application. The
construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional. Where special
conditions exist, the code official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be
prepared by a registered design professional.
4. Construction documents shall be to scale (graphic scale required on all plan sheets), dimensioned
and drawn on suitable electronic media. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to
indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform
to the provisions of adopted codes and relevant laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations, as
determined by the fire code official.
5. Shop/construction drawings for the fire protection system(s) and other hazardous operations
regulated by the fire department shall be submitted directly to the Fire Department to indicate
conformance with adopted codes and standards. The construction documents shall be approved
prior to the start of system installation.
6. The construction documents submitted with the application for permit shall be accompanied by a
site plan showing to scale the size and location of new construction and existing structures on the
site, distances from lot lines, the established street grades and the proposed finished grades and it
shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey. In the case of demolition, the
site plan shall show construction to be demolished and the location and size of existing structure
and construction that are to remain on the site or plot.
7. Where fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection are required to be installed,
such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction.
a. Prior to submitting applications for building permits, a fire department access and water
supply for firefighting site plan shall be submitted for review and approval directly to the
Fire Department.
b. The plan shall indicate the location of fire protection equipment, including standpipes, fire
department connections and fire hydrants.
8. Prior to submittal of building permits, design documents for proposed fire service features, such
as fire apparatus access road(s), access to building opening(s) and roof(s), premise identification,
key boxes, fire protection water supplies, fire department connection location(s), and fire
command center location(s) shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval.
a. Where fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection are required to be
installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the
560
Conditions of Approval
Page 19 of 28
time of construction except where approved alternative methods of protection are provided.
Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection where construction of
new roadways allows passage by vehicles.
b. Construction documents for proposed fire apparatus access, location of fire lanes, security
gates across fire apparatus access roads and construction documents and hydraulic
calculations for fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review
and approval prior to construction.
9. An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be
provided to premises on which facilities, buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter
constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction, in accordance with CFC Section 507,
Appendices B & C.
a. Fire-flow requirements for buildings or portions of buildings and facilities shall be
determined by adopted CFC Appendix B and SSF Municipal Code.
b. Fire hydrant systems shall comply with adopted CFC Section 507.5.1 through 507.5.8 and
Appendix C.
10. Prior to issuance of building permits, the owner or owner’s authorized agent shall be responsible
for the development, implementation, and maintenance of an approved written site safety plan
approved by the fire code official in accordance with CBC & CFC Chapter 33.
11. Prior to issuance of building permits, in accordance with CFC Section 105.6, the fire code official
shall have the authority to require fire construction permit documents and calculations for all fire
protection and life safety systems and to require permits be issued for the installation, rehabilitation
or modification of any fire protection and life safety systems. Construction documents for fire
protection and life safety systems shall be submitted for review and approval prior to system
installation. Only the following fire construction permits are approved for deferred submittal: (1)
Automatic fire extinguishing systems, (2) Emergency responder communication coverage system
(ERCCS), and (3) Fire alarm and detection systems and related equipment.
12. Fire apparatus access roads shall be approved by the fire code official, installed and maintained in
accordance with CFC Section 503 and Appendix D.
a. Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or
portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction in
accordance with adopted codes and standards at time of building permit application.
561
Conditions of Approval
Page 20 of 28
i. Traffic calming measures (bollards, speed cushions, humps, undulations, etc.) are
required to be approved by the fire code official prior to installation.
ii. Should a security gate(s) be planned to serve the facility, they shall be approved by
the fire code official prior to installation.
b. Required Fire Department access roads shall be signed “No Parking – Fire Lane” per
current Fire Department standards and California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22500.
13. The provisions of the adopted CFC shall specify where fire protection and life safety systems are
required and shall apply to the design, installation, inspection, operation, testing and maintenance
of all fire protection systems.
a. Approved automatic fire sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures, buildings
changing use or occupancy, or as otherwise determined by the fire code official shall be
provided in the locations described in adopted CFC Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.20.
i. Fire Department Connection (FDC) for the sprinkler and/or standpipe systems shall
be located on the street side of the structure or facing approved fire apparatus access
roadway fully visible and recognizable from the street, and within 100 feet an
approved fire hydrant.
14. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for the construction of public
improvements, the final design for all public improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer, Fire Marshal, and Chief Planner.
15. The following are a list of submittal items that are required by the Fire Department and shall be
submitted directly to the Fire Department, additional items may be called out based on subsequent
reviews:
a. Fire apparatus access site plan and fire protection water supply
For questions concerning Fire Department COAs, please contact Ian Hardage at
Ian.Hardage@ssf.net or (650) 829-6645.
PARKS DIVISION CONDITIONS
1. Trees #8, 11, and 12 on Sheet LTP.1 of the landscaping plans will need permits prior to their
removal. Please visit the Parks Division “tree page” to find permit application and information.
562
Conditions of Approval
Page 21 of 28
2. The proposed Red Push Pistache trees, while nice trees, will not survive in this location. High
winds limit growth or kill these species in SSF. This has been attempted numerous times in SSF.
Please find substitutes and include in the building permit plan set for review and approval by the
Parks Division.
For questions concerning Parks Division COAs, please contact Joshua Richardson at
Joshua.Richardson@ssf.net.
POLICE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
1. All construction must conform to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 15.48.070
Minimum security standards for non-residential building, (Ord. 1477 § 1C, 2013; Ord. 1166
§ 1, 1995)
a. § 15.48.085 Additional Security Measures May Be Required. Per South San
Francisco Municipal Code 15.48085 – Additional Security Measures, the following
conditions will also be required:
(a) Any exterior double door entrances shall only have one exterior handle,
which should be on the right door (from a person’s perspective from the
outside). This is to prevent the malicious locking/chaining of the doors
from the outside. This requirement shall also apply to interior double
doors to shared common areas.
(b) The hardware design of any double doorways shall prevent any doors
from being secured in a closed position to either another door or a fixed
object within four feet of any door by means of a rope, cable, chain, or
similar item. This is to prevent malicious prevention of egress and/or
ingress by building occupants or first responders. Pay particular attention
to all glass doorways.
(c) All exterior doorways shall be illuminated during darkness by a white
light source that has full cut-off and is of pedestrian scale.
(d) Any exterior bicycle racks installed shall be of an inverted “U” design, or
other design that allows two different locking points on each bicycle.
(e) Any publicly accessible benches shall be of a design that prevents persons from lying
563
Conditions of Approval
Page 22 of 28
on them, such as a center railing.
(f) Any publicly accessible power outlets shall be of a design that prevents their
access or use during those hours the business is normally closed. If physical
locking covers are used, they must be made of metal, not plastic, and locks must
be installed prior to inspection.
(g) Any publicly accessible raised edge surfaces, such as retaining walls, concrete
benches, handrails, or railings, shall be of a design that prevents or discourages
skateboard use on those surfaces.
(h) The mature height of all shrubbery shall be no higher than three feet, if so, it shall
be maintained at a maximum height of three feet, and tree canopies shall be no lower
than six feet above grade.
(i) The applicant shall install and maintain a camera surveillance system that conforms
to the minimum technical specifications of South San Francisco Municipal Code
Chapter 8.66.050 Minimum technological standards, (Ord. 1515, 2016). The video
surveillance cameras will be used as a crime deterrent and assist with the
identification and apprehension of criminals if a crime is committed on the property.
Enough cameras shall be installed to provide adequate coverage for the intended
space. Cameras shall be placed minimally in the following locations:
All exterior entrances/exits
Cash registers
Parking lot
(j) The building shall be alarmed with a central station-monitored silent intruder alarm
system.
(k) The building shall have a safe to securely store currency and other valuable items.
This safe will need to be securely mounted to a fixed solid object to prevent easy
removal.
(l) Should the operation of the business result in any traffic-related issues within the
community or surrounding area, the business agrees to cooperate fully with the
Police Department to address and mitigate such issues.
2. The Police Department reserves the right to review and comment upon the submission
of revised and updated plans.
564
Conditions of Approval
Page 23 of 28
For questions concerning Police Department COAs, please contact Sean Curmi at
planningsergeant@ssf.net or (650) 877-8927.
WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION CONDITIONS
The following items must be included in the plans or are requirements of the Water Quality
Control Stormwater and/or Pretreatment Programs and must be completed prior to the
issuance of a building permit:
1. Storm drains must be protected during construction. Discharge of any
demolition/construction debris or water to the storm drain system is prohibited.
2. Do not use gravel bags for erosion control in the street or drive aisles. Drains in street
must have inlet and throat protection of a material that is not susceptible to breakage from
vehicular traffic.
3. No floatable bark shall be used in landscaping. Only fibrous mulch or pea gravel is
allowed.
4. After 7/1/19, Demolition Projects must complete a PCBs Screening Assessment Form
(available in Building Division). If screening determines the building is an applicable
structure, the Protocol for Evaluating PCBs-Containing Materials before Building
Demolition shall be followed.
Submit a PCB screening package for each address/building containing:
1.) PCBs Screening Form
2.) QAQC checklist
3.) Contractor’s Report
4.) Analytical Results (if applicable)
5. If PCBs Screening and Assessment result in any materials containing PCBs in
concentrations > 50 ppm, appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) from the
attached Specified BMPs for Demolition Projects will be required on the Erosion
Control Plan (submitted as part of plan set) and on site until completion of the demolition
process (including Erosion Control, Sediment Control, and management of Dust, Waste,
Materials and Non-stormwater).
6. If site falls in a High Trash Generation area per South San Francisco’s Trash
565
Conditions of Approval
Page 24 of 28
Generation Map (http://www.flowstobay.org/content/municipal-trash-generation-
maps), determined by the Water Quality Control Division:
a. Regional Water Quality Control Board-approved full trash capture devices must
be installed to treat the stormwater drainage from the site.
b. At a minimum, a device must be installed before the onsite drainage enters the
City’s public stormwater system (i.e. trash capture must take place no farther
downstream than the last private stormwater drainage structure on the site).
c. An Operation & Maintenance Agreement will be required to be recorded with
San Mateo County, ensuring the device(s) will be properly maintained.
d. A full trash capture system is any single device or series of devices that traps all
particles retained by a 5 mm mesh screen and has a design treatment capacity of
not less than the peak flow rate resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in the
sub-drainage area or designed to carry at least the same flow as the storm drain
connected to the inlet.
7. Roof leaders/gutters must NOT be plumbed directly to public storm drains; they shall
discharge to private stormwater treatment devices or landscaping first.
8. Fire sprinkler test drainage must be plumbed to sanitary sewer and be clearly shown on
plans.
9. Trash enclosure shall be covered (roof, canopy) and contained (wall/fence). Floor shall slope to a
central drain that discharges to the sanitary sewer system. The central drain shall first discharge
to a grease trap/interceptor and then connect to the sanitary sewer. Details of trash enclosure
shall be clearly provided on plans.
10. Install a condensate drain line connected to the sanitary sewer for rooftop equipment and
clearly show on plans.
11. Food service kitchen/ prep area shall connect to a gravity grease interceptor at least 1000 gallons
(liquid capacity) in size. Sizing of the grease removal device must be in accordance with the
uniform plumbing code.
12. Grease interceptor shall be connected to all non-domestic wastewater sources in the kitchen (wash
sinks, prep sinks, mop sinks, floor drains) and shown on plans.
566
Conditions of Approval
Page 25 of 28
13. A cut sheet of the Grease Interceptor/Trap must be shown on plans.
14. Garbage Disposals in Industrial/Commercial facilities are prohibited by City of South San
Francisco Municipal Code. Do not include/Remove Garbage Disposal(s) in plans.
15. Applicant will be required to pay a Sewer Capacity Fee (connection fee) based on SSF City
Council-approved EDU calculation (involving anticipated flow, BOD and TSS calculations and
including credits for previous site use). Based on the information received, the estimated Sewer
Capacity Fee will be $100,134.00, payable with the Building Permit.
16. Wherever feasible, install landscaping that minimizes irrigation runoff, promotes surface
infiltration, minimizes use of pesticides and fertilizers and incorporates appropriate
sustainable landscaping programs (such as Bay-Friendly Landscaping).
17. Site is subject to C.3 requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (please see
SMCWPPP C.3 Regulated Projects Guide at https://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment
for guidance). C.3 compliance review will be performed by the City’s consultant and the
following items will be required;
18. Applicant shall provide 100% Low-Impact Development for C.3 stormwater treatment for all of
the project’s impervious areas per MRP Section C.3.b. In-lieu of feasible on-site treatment,
qualifying applicants may apply for the Special Project Status exemption per Provision C.3.e.ii
to Low Impact Development for C.3 treatment. However, the applicant must provide a complete
Infeasibility Narrative establishing all of the following (while still treating as much of the
runoff via LID onsite as possible):
a. Infeasibility of treating 100% of the amount of runoff identified in Provision C.3.d for
the project’s drainage area with LID treatment measures onsite;
b. Infeasibility of treating 100% of the amount of runoff identified in Provision C.3.d for
the project’s drainage area with LID treatment measures offsite within South San
Francisco, providing LID treatment of an equivalent amount of runoff either at a:
i. Available Regional Stormwater Project in same watershed;
ii. Property owned by the project proponent in the same watershed; or
iii. Planned South San Francisco Green Infrastructure (GI) Stormwater Project.
1. Project options to be made available by City Engineering staff upon request
567
Conditions of Approval
Page 26 of 28
c. Infeasibility of treating 100% of the amount of runoff identified in Provision C.3.d for
the project’s drainage area with some combination of LID treatment measures onsite,
offsite or at a Regional Project in the same watershed;
d. Infeasibility of installing LID treatment within the Right-of-Way. If Applicant chooses
to treat any of their Project’s impervious areas within the ROW, Applicant shall size the
treatment measures to treat both the Project’s impervious areas and the ROW. The ROW
area to be treated shall be from the property line to the street centerline or crown whichever
is a greater distance along the entire project frontage. Sizing and design shall conform to
the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program design templates and
technical guidance and be approved by the Water Quality Control Plant and the
Engineering Division. Applicant shall maintain all treatment measures required by the
project and enter into a Stormwater Treatment Measure Maintenance Agreement with the
City.
19. Completed attached forms for Low Impact Development (C3-C6 Project Checklist).
Forms must be on 8.5in X 11in paper and signed and wet stamped by a professional engineer.
Calculations must be submitted with this package.
Forms can be found at http://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment
A completed copy must also be emailed to andrew.wemmer @ssf.net
20. Sign and have engineer wet stamp forms for Low Impact Development.
21. Submit flow calculations and related math for LID.
22. Complete attached Operation and Maintenance (O&M) agreements.
Use attached forms for completing documents, as old forms are no longer sufficient.
Do not sign agreement, as the City will need to review prior to signature. Prepare packet
and submit including a preferred return address for owner signature.
Packet should also be mailed or emailed to:
Andrew Wemmer
City of SSF WQCP
195 Belle Air Road
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Andrew.wemmer@ssf.net
Exhibit Templates can also be found within Chapter 6 the C.3 Technical Guidance at
http://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment.
568
Conditions of Approval
Page 27 of 28
23. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater
Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay).
24. Landscaping shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use on the project
site:
a. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat stormwater runoff by
incorporating elements that collect, detain, and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide
detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged
exposure to water shall be specified.
b. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type,
topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air
movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure
successful establishment.
c. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the
landscape plan to the maximum extent practicable.
d. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility
of the property owner.
e. Integrated pest management (IPM) principles and techniques shall be encouraged as part
of the landscaping design to the maximum extent practicable. Examples of IPM principles
and techniques include:
i. Select plants that are well adapted to soil conditions at the site.
ii. Select plants that are well adapted to sun and shade conditions at the site. In making
these selections, consider future conditions when plants reach maturity, as well as
seasonal changes.
iii. Provide irrigation appropriate to the water requirements of the selected plants.
iv. Select pest-resistant and disease-resistant plants.
v. Plant a diversity of species to prevent a potential pest infestation from affecting the
entire landscaping plan.
vi. Use “insectary” plants in the landscaping to attract and keep beneficial insects.
569
Conditions of Approval
Page 28 of 28
25. A SWPPP must be submitted (if > 1 acre). Drawings must note that erosion control shall be in
effect all year long.
26. A copy of the state approved NOI must be submitted (if > 1 acre).
For questions concerning Water Quality Control Division COAs, contact Andrew Wemmer at
Andrew.Wemmer@ssf.net or (650) 829-3840.
570
IN-N-OUT BURGER
13502 HAMBURGER LANE
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
CONTACT: BRIGID WILLIAMS
PHONE: 626 813-5398
972 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
16775 ADDISON ROAD, SUITE 350
ADDISON, TX 75001 PH: (469) 960-2322
DEVELOPER:IN-N-OUT BURGER
C30
CITY ENTITLEMENT
SITE PLAN
571
CITY ENTITLEMENT
EXISTING SITE PLAN
C31
IN-N-OUT BURGER
13502 HAMBURGER LANE
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
CONTACT: BRIGID WILLIAMS
PHONE: 626 813-5398
972 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
16775 ADDISON ROAD, SUITE 350
ADDISON, TX 75001 PH: (469) 960-2322
DEVELOPER:IN-N-OUT BURGER
7/
1
/
2
0
2
5
9
:
1
7
:
1
7
A
M
,
M
S
L
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
,
I
N
C
.
,
(
S
A
)
572
CITY ENTITLEMENT
DEMOLITION PLAN
C32
IN-N-OUT BURGER
13502 HAMBURGER LANE
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
CONTACT: BRIGID WILLIAMS
PHONE: 626 813-5398
972 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
16775 ADDISON ROAD, SUITE 350
ADDISON, TX 75001 PH: (469) 960-2322
DEVELOPER:IN-N-OUT BURGER
7/
1
/
2
0
2
5
9
:
0
7
:
5
4
A
M
,
M
S
L
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
,
I
N
C
.
,
(
S
A
)
573
CITY ENTITLEMENT
GRADING AND
DRAINAGE PLAN C33
IN-N-OUT BURGER
13502 HAMBURGER LANE
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
CONTACT: BRIGID WILLIAMS
PHONE: 626 813-5398
972 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
16775 ADDISON ROAD, SUITE 350
ADDISON, TX 75001 PH: (469) 960-2322
DEVELOPER:IN-N-OUT BURGER
574
575
CITY ENTITLEMENT
PRELIMINARY STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWM)
SITE PLAN C35
IN-N-OUT BURGER
13502 HAMBURGER LANE
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
CONTACT: BRIGID WILLIAMS
PHONE: 626 813-5398
972 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
16775 ADDISON ROAD, SUITE 350
ADDISON, TX 75001 PH: (469) 960-2322
DEVELOPER:IN-N-OUT BURGER
7/
1
/
2
0
2
5
9
:
0
8
:
0
9
A
M
,
M
S
L
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
,
I
N
C
.
,
(
S
A
)
57
6
CITY ENTITLEMENT
HYDROLOGY STUDY
MAP - EXISTING
CONDITIONS C36.0
IN-N-OUT BURGER
13502 HAMBURGER LANE
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
CONTACT: BRIGID WILLIAMS
PHONE: 626 813-5398
972 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
16775 ADDISON ROAD, SUITE 350
ADDISON, TX 75001 PH: (469) 960-2322
DEVELOPER:IN-N-OUT BURGER
7/
1
/
2
0
2
5
9
:
0
8
:
1
4
A
M
,
M
S
L
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
,
I
N
C
.
,
(
S
A
)
577
CITY ENTITLEMENT
HYDROLOGY STUDY
MAP - PROPOSED
CONDITIONS C36.1
IN-N-OUT BURGER
13502 HAMBURGER LANE
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
CONTACT: BRIGID WILLIAMS
PHONE: 626 813-5398
972 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
16775 ADDISON ROAD, SUITE 350
ADDISON, TX 75001 PH: (469) 960-2322
DEVELOPER:IN-N-OUT BURGER
7/
1
/
2
0
2
5
9
:
0
8
:
1
9
A
M
,
M
S
L
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
,
I
N
C
.
,
(
S
A
)
578
C37
IN-N-OUT BURGER
13502 HAMBURGER LANE
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
CONTACT: BRIGID WILLIAMS
PHONE: 626 813-5398
972 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
16775 ADDISON ROAD, SUITE 350
ADDISON, TX 75001 PH: (469) 960-2322
DEVELOPER:IN-N-OUT BURGER CITY ENTITLEMENT
TOPOGRAPHY
SURVEY MAP
579
IN-N-OUT BURGER
13502 HAMBURGER LANE
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
CONTACT: BRIGID WILLIAMS
PHONE: 626 813-5398
972 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
16775 ADDISON ROAD, SUITE 350
ADDISON, TX 75001 PH: (469) 960-2322
DEVELOPER:IN-N-OUT BURGER CITY ENTITLEMENT
BOUNDARY AND
EASEMENT MAP
C38
580
PISTACIA X
'RED PUSH'
RED PUSH PISTACHE 24" BOX STANDARDS
MATCHED
LOWPER PLAN
SHRUBS
TECOMA HYBRID
'BELLS OF FIRE'
BELLS OF FIRE
ESPARANZA
LITTLE REV FLAX LILYDIANELLA REVOLUTA
'LITTLE REV'
1 GALLON
1 GALLON
TEQUILA SUNRISE
MIRROR PLANT
LOW
LOW
MED
5 GALLON MED
5 GALLON LOW
MED
MED
D / LPD.15 GALLON
5 GALLON
5 GALLON
HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA
'BRAKELIGHTS'
BRAKELIGHTS
RED YUCCA
5 GALLON LOW
LOW5 GALLON
A
H
CALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA
'KARL FOERSTER'
FEATHER REED GRASS 5 GALLON MED36" O.C.
36" O.C.
36" O.C.
36" O.C.
24" O.C.
24" O.C.
24" O.C.
24" O.C.
24" O.C.
24" O.C.TRIANGLE SPACING
TRIANGLE SPACING
TRIANGLE SPACING
TRIANGLE SPACING
TRIANGLE SPACING
TRIANGLE SPACING
TRIANGLE SPACING
TRIANGLE SPACING
TRIANGLE SPACING
TRIANGLE SPACING
BLONDE AMBITION
BLUE GRAMA GRASS
BOUTELOUA GRACILIS
'BLONDE AMBITION'
ALASKA AZALEAAZALEA INDICA
'ALASKA'
HAPPY DAYS AZALEAAZALEA INDICA
'HAPPY DAYS'
5 GALLON
LANTANA X
'NEW GOLD'
NEW GOLD LANTANA 1 GALLON
LOW
LOW
48" O.C.
36" O.C.
TRIANGLE SPACING
TRIANGLE SPACING
GROUNDCOVER
LANTANA CAMARA
'ROBPATRAI'
PATRIOT RAINBOW
COMPACT LANTANA
1 GALLON LOW36" O.C.TRIANGLE SPACING
PELARGONIUM
'AMERICANA RED'
ZONAL GERANIUM MED5 GALLON 24" O.C.TRIANGLE SPACING
+/- 20
5 GALLON LOW36" O.C.LINEARTORCH GLOW
BOUGAINVILLEA
BOUGAINVILLEA
'TORCH GLOW'
RASPBERRY ICE
BOUGAINVILLEA
BOUGAINVILLEA
'RASPBERRY ICE'
OO-LA-LA®
BOUGAINVILLEA
BOUGAINVILLEA
'MONKA'
5 GALLON LOW48" O.C.TRIANGLE SPACING
RED DAYLILYHEMEROCALLIS
‘PARDON ME’
EUONYMUS JAPONICUS
'SILVER KING'
SILVER KING EUONYMUS
PROTECTIVE BARRIER HEDGE
BUXUS MICROPHYLLA VAR.
JAPONICA 'WINTER GEM'
WINTER GEM BOXWOOD 5 GALLON MED12" O.C.ROOT BALL TO ROOT
BALL DEPENDENT ON
PLANT SIZE
WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTA
IN N OUT CROSS PLAMS
MEXICAN FAN PALM 20' CBT PER PLAN LOW
24" BOX STANDARDS
MATCHED
MEDPER PLAN
PLANTING LEGEND
BOTANICAL NAMESYMBOL COMMON NAME SIZE REMARKSQUANTITY DETAILSZONE 1WUCOLSSPACING
+/-2
TREES
COTINUS COGGYGRIA
'ROYAL PURPLE'
24" BOX STANDARDS
MATCHED
LOWPER PLANROYAL PURPLE
SMOKE TREE
5 GALLON LOW36" O.C.TRIANGLE SPACINGLITTLE OLLIE
DWARF OLIVE
OLEA EUROPAEA
'MONTRA'
VARIEGATED FLAX LILYDIANELLA TASMANICA
‘VARIEGATA’
24" O.C.MED5 GALLON TRIANGLE SPACING
A,C /
LPD.1
6' X 3'
CERCIS CANADENSIS
'MERLOT'
MERLOT REDBUD
LOWPER PLAN
24" BOX STANDARDS
MATCHED
LOWPER PLAN
5 GALLON LOW36" O.C.TRIANGLE SPACINGRHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA
'BALLERINA'
BALLERINA INDIAN
HAWTHORN
OLEA EUROPAEA
'WILSONII'
FRUITLESS OLIVE
LOW5 GALLON 36" O.C.LANTANA DALLAS REDLANTANA CAMARA X
‘DALLAS RED’
TRIANGLE SPACING
STANDARDS -
MATCHED
PER PLANARBUTUS X
'MARINA'
MARINA STRAWBERRY
TREE
24" BOX LOW
SKIN TRUNKS TO
INDUSTRY STANDARD
DOCUMENT ANSI Z60.1
4' BTH PER PLAN +/- 1WINDMILL PALMTRACHYCARPUS FORTUNEI
6' BTH
8' BTH
+/- 1+/- 2
LOW
+/- 24
+/-44
+/- 260
+/- 185
+/- 84
+/- 126
+/- 110
+/- 161
+/- 96
+/- 57
+/- 43
+/- 124
+/- 108
+/- 50
+/- 81
+/-186
+/- 53
+/- 33
+/- 135
+/- 163
+/- 6
+/-6
+/- 7
+/3
+/- 3
5 GALLONTULBAGHIA VIOLACEA
'PURPLEICIOUS'
PURPLEICIOUS
SOCIETY GARLIC
24" O.C.TRIANGLE SPACING+/- 135
MED
COPROSMA HYBRID
'TEQUILA SUNRISE'
SKIN TRUNKS TO
INDUSTRY STANDARD
DOCUMENT ANSI Z60.1
SKIN TRUNKS TO
INDUSTRY STANDARD
DOCUMENT ANSI Z60.1
4' BTH
6' BTH
8' BTH
+/- 5+/- 6+/- 6
5 GALLON LOW36" O.C.TRIANGLE SPACING+/- 75RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA
'PINKIE'
PINKIE INDIAN HAWTHORN
BARRIER SHRUB HEDGE
4' X 4'
3' X 3'
4' X 3'
4' X 4'
HEIGHT &
SPREAD
NOTE: BOUGAINVILLEA 'TORCH GLOW' AROUNG TRACH ENCLOSURE TO BE ESPALIER
4' X 3'
5 GALLON MEDPER PLAN TRIANGLE SPACINGSKY PENCIL
JAPANESE HOLLY
ILEX CRENATA
'SKY PENCIL'
+/- 24
TRISTANIA CONFERTA BRISBANE BOX 24" BOX STANDARDS
MATCHED
MEDPER PLAN +/- 3
GINKGO BILOBA
'JADE BUTTERFLY'
JADE BUTTERFLY
GINKGO
24" BOX STANDARDS
MATCHED
MEDPER PLAN +/-3
DYPSIS DECARYI TRIANGLE PALM
A,C /
LPD.1
A,C /
LPD.1
A,C /
LPD.1
A,C /
LPD.1
A,C /
LPD.1
A,C /
LPD.1
B,C /
LPD.1
B,C /
LPD.1
B,C /
LPD.1
D / LPD.1
D / LPD.1
D / LPD.1
D / LPD.1
D / LPD.1
D / LPD.1
D / LPD.1
D / LPD.1
D / LPD.1
D / LPD.1
D / LPD.1
D / LPD.1
D / LPD.1
D / LPD.1
D / LPD.1
D / LPD.1
D / LPD.1
D / LPD.1
D / LPD.1
D / LPD.1
D / LPD.1
D / LPD.1
D / LPD.1
A
A
A
A
AA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AA
A
A
A
A
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H H H H H
HH
H H H H H
HH
NOTE:
1.CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT IN-N-OUT PERSONNEL FOR FIELD LOCATION
OF SAID BOULDERS. REFER TO BOULDER DETAIL.
2.QUANTITIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE, CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY
COUNTAND ADJUST BASED ON ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS AND SIZE OF
PLANTERS.
3.ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY IN-N-OUT
REP. AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
4.ALIGN TREES WITH PARKING STALLS STRIPING.
5.CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL 2 AERATION TUBES, 48" IN LENGTH FOR ALL
TREES INCLUDING PALMS. INSTALL 4 DEVICES FOR EXISTING TREES
GREATER THAN 6" TRUNK DIAMETER.
BOULDER PLACEMENT (GROUPINGS) SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PLACEMENT.
3
2
1
SIZE TYPE/ COLOR/ MANUFACTURERBOULDER #
1' X 2' X 3'
2' X 4' X 3'
3' X 3' X 3'
LANDSCAPE BOULDER LEGEND
DECORATIVE STONE SOLUTIONS
BOULDER/ COLOR: AMBER CLOUD
PH: 800-699-1878
DECORATIVE STONE SOLUTIONS
BOULDER/ COLOR: AMBER CLOUD
PH: 800-699-1878
DECORATIVE STONE SOLUTIONS
BOULDER/ COLOR: AMBER CLOUD
PH: 800-699-1878
CITY ENTITLEMENT
LANDSCAPE PLANTING
PLAN LPP.1
24" WIDE MATTED INOB ASSOCIATE
WALKWAY
SYMBOL
LANDSCAPE KEY LEGEND
MATERIAL
SYMBOL
LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION LEGEND
MATERIAL
NO SYMBOL
SHOWN
AMBER CLOUD MIX OF 1"-3" AND 4"TO 8"
RUBBLE OVER FILTER FABRIC WITH AN
INFILL OF 3/8" MINUS CALIFORNIA GOLD
GRAVEL.
3" THICK MULCH LAYER TO BE INSTALLED IN
ALL PLANTERS WITHOUT DRY STREAM
BED,GRAVEL, OR BIOSWALES.
IN-N-OUT BURGER
13502 HAMBURGER LANE
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
CONTACT: BRIGID WILLIAMS
PHONE: 626 813-5398
972 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
DEVELOPER:IN-N-OUT BURGER
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
BRANDON PETRUNIO & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Design Studio: 301 N. San Dimas Ave., San Dimas, CA. 91773
Corp Office: 15699 Cherry Leaf Lane, Fontana, CA. 92336
T: (424) 235-8940, M: (951) 312-9943, E: brandon@bpalas.com
16775 ADDISON ROAD, SUITE 350
ADDISON, TX 75001
PH: (469) 960-2322
Signature
BRAND ON M .PETRUNIO NO
.
5
8
9
4
L
ICENS E D L A NDSCAPE A
R
C
H
I
T
E
CT
S
T
ATE OF CA L I F O R NIADate
Renewal Date
01/31/2027
2025-07-01LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION INTENT:
PLAN VIEW SCALE: 1" : 20'-0"
IT IS THE INTENT TO PROVIDE AN IRRIGATION DESIGN UTILIZING DRIP IRRIGATION
SYSTEM FOR THE ENTIRE SITE BURIED A CONSTANT 4" BELOW FINISH GRADE AND
STAPLED DOWN @ 5' INTERVALS FOR ADDED PROTECTION. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM
SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY A SMART CONTROLLER WITH ONSITE WEATHER SENSOR
AND REMOTE OPERATION THROUGH THE INTERNET FROM CENTRAL LOCATION.
CONTROLLER SHALL BE A TYPE WHICH AUTOMATICALLY ADJUSTS RUNTIMES AND
FREQUENCIES BASED, NOT ONLY ON HISTORICAL ET, BUT ACTUAL ONSITE WEATHER
CONDITIONS.
TREE ROOTBARRIER - FIBERWEB BIO BARRIER:
·CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL TREE ROOT BARRIERS FOR ALL TREES WITHIN 6'
OF CONCRETE EDGE. INSTALL THE 24" VERSION AND SHALL BE CONTINUOUS FOR
10' ON EITHER SIDE OF TREE.
·STREET TREES AND OTHER TREES LOCATED WITHIN 10-FEET OF THE PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PALM TREES) SHALL BE PROVIDED
WITH A BIO BARRIER.
AFTER MAJOR GRADING OPERATIONS ARE COMPLETED, CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN
SOIL SAMPLES FROM MIN 6" DEPTH AND SUBMIT TO AN APPROVED LABORATORY FOR
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. OBTAIN A MINIMUM OF 1 SAMPLE PER ACRE AND
1 SAMPLE AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF FIRST REPORT FOR VERIFICATION SOIL
MEETS SOILS LAB STANDARDS. REPORTS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT, CITY AND OWNERS REP. FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
AGRONOMIC SOILS REPORT REQUIREMENT
I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND
APPLIED THEM ACCORDINGLY FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLAN.
BRANDON PETRUNIO,
RLA 5894:
DATE:
TITLE 23 - WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE COMPLIANCE NOTE
TOTAL INSTALLED TURF AREA: 0 S.F. (0%)
TOTAL INSTALLED PLANTING (SHRUB/GROUNDCOVER) AREA: 19,338 S.F. (100%)
TOTAL INSTALLED LANDSCAPE AREA: 19,338 S.F.
LANDSCAPE AREA CALCULATION NOTE:
BOUTELOUA GRACILIS
'BLONDE AMBITION'
CALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA
'KARL FOERSTER'
DIANELLA TASMANICA
'VARIEGATA'
N
W
S
E
WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTA
IN N OUT CROSS PLAMS
BUXUS MICROPHYLLA VAR.
JAPONICA 'WINTER GEM'
BOUGAINVILLEA
'TORCH GLOW'
DIANELLA REVVOLUTA
'LITTLE REV'
AZALEA INDICA
'HAPPY DAYS'
LANTANA X
'NEW GOLD'
HEMEROCALLIS
‘PARDON ME’
BOUGAINVILLEA
'RASPBERRY ICE'
PISTACIA X
'RED PUSH'
CERCIS CANADENSIS
'MERLOT'
COTINUS COGGYGRIA
'ROYAL PURPLE'
PELARGONIUM
'AMERICANA RED'
AZALEA INDICA
'ALASKA'
COPROSMA HYBRID
'TEQUILA SUNRISE'
HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA
'BRAKELIGHTS'
TECOMA HYBRID
'BELLS OF FIRE'
BOUGAINVILLEA
'MONKA'
OLEA EUROPAEA
'MONTRA'
LANTANA CAMARA
'ROBPATRAI'
20'10'0'20'40'60'
GRAPHIC SCALE
SCALE: 1" : 20'
ARBUTUS X
'MARINA'
OLEA EUROPAEA
'WILSONII'
TRACHYCARPUS FORTUNEI
DYPSIS DECARYI
LANTANA CAMARA X
‘DALLAS RED’
EUONYMUS JAPONICUS
'SILVER KING'
TULBAGHIA VIOLACEA
'PURPLEICIOUS'
RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA
'PINKIE'
RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA
'BALLERINA'
HEAT ISLAND REDUCTION (Section 20.330.010) SUMMARY
TOTAL UNCOVERED PARKING AND DRIVE AREA: 34,715 S.F.
50% SHADING REQUIRED FOR UNCOVERED AREAS:17,357 S.F.
PARKING AREA SHADED BY TREE COVERAGE:3,585 S.F.
REFLECTIVE CONCRETE 14,108 S.F.
TOTAL SHADED/ REFLECTIVE CONCRETE AREA: 17,693 S.F. 54%
LANDSCAPING AREA REQUIRED
TOTAL PARKING LOT AREA: 20,607 S.F.
10% PARKING LOT AREA:2,060 S.F.
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA PROVIDED IN PARKING LOT AREA: 3,525 S.F.
SOLAR REFLECTIVE
CONCRETE
SOLAR REFLECTIVE
CONCRETE
July 2, 2025
TRISTANIA CONFERTA
GINKGO BILOBA
'JADE BUTTERFLY'
ILEX CRENATA
'SKY PENCIL'
GOLD DG
PATHWAY
58
1
CITY ENTITLEMENT
LANDSCAPE SITE
PHOTOS PART 1 LSP.1
IN-N-OUT BURGER
13502 HAMBURGER LANE
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
CONTACT: BRIGID WILLIAMS
PHONE: 626 813-5398
972 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
DEVELOPER:IN-N-OUT BURGER
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
BRANDON PETRUNIO & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Design Studio: 301 N. San Dimas Ave., San Dimas, CA. 91773
Corp Office: 15699 Cherry Leaf Lane, Fontana, CA. 92336
T: (424) 235-8940, M: (951) 312-9943, E: brandon@bpalas.com
16775 ADDISON ROAD, SUITE 350
ADDISON, TX 75001
PH: (469) 960-2322
Signature
BRAND O N M .PETRUNIO NO
.
5
8
9
4
L
ICENS E D L A NDSCAPE AR
C
H
I
T
E
CT
S
T
ATE OF CA L I F O R N IADate
Renewal Date
01/31/2027
2025-07-01
PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN PARCEL AND 972 EL CAMINO REAL (NINE 88) APARTMENTS
NORTH NEIGHBORING PROPERTY - FRONT 972 EL CAMINO REAL (NINE 88) APARTMENTS
EAST PROPERTY LINE BEHIND PARCEL ALONG CENTENNIAL WAY TRALL
PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN PARCEL AND 972 EL CAMINO REAL (NINE 88) APARTMENTS
58
2
CITY ENTITLEMENT
LANDSCAPE SITE
PHOTOS PART 2 LSP.2
IN-N-OUT BURGER
13502 HAMBURGER LANE
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
CONTACT: BRIGID WILLIAMS
PHONE: 626 813-5398
972 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
DEVELOPER:IN-N-OUT BURGER
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
BRANDON PETRUNIO & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Design Studio: 301 N. San Dimas Ave., San Dimas, CA. 91773
Corp Office: 15699 Cherry Leaf Lane, Fontana, CA. 92336
T: (424) 235-8940, M: (951) 312-9943, E: brandon@bpalas.com
16775 ADDISON ROAD, SUITE 350
ADDISON, TX 75001
PH: (469) 960-2322
Signature
BRAND O N M .PETRUNIO NO
.
5
8
9
4
L
ICENS E D L A NDSCAPE AR
C
H
I
T
E
CT
S
T
ATE OF CA L I F O R N IADate
Renewal Date
01/31/2027
2025-07-01
SOUTH WEST PROPERTY - FRONT OF 934 EL CAMINO REAL BUILDING (SOCIAL CLUB)
SOUTH PROPERTY - BACK OF 934 EL CAMINO REAL BUILDING (SOCIAL CLUB)
SOUTH WEST PROPERTY LINE - MALTESE AMERICAN SOCIAL CLUB AND DELUXE INN
SOUTH EAST PROPERTY LINE - 66 A ST ALL TRANSMISSIONS BUILDING
58
3
CITY ENTITLEMENT
LANDSCAPE SITE
PHOTOS PART 3 LSP.3
IN-N-OUT BURGER
13502 HAMBURGER LANE
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
CONTACT: BRIGID WILLIAMS
PHONE: 626 813-5398
972 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
DEVELOPER:IN-N-OUT BURGER
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
BRANDON PETRUNIO & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Design Studio: 301 N. San Dimas Ave., San Dimas, CA. 91773
Corp Office: 15699 Cherry Leaf Lane, Fontana, CA. 92336
T: (424) 235-8940, M: (951) 312-9943, E: brandon@bpalas.com
16775 ADDISON ROAD, SUITE 350
ADDISON, TX 75001
PH: (469) 960-2322
Signature
BRAND O N M .PETRUNIO NO
.
5
8
9
4
L
ICENS E D L A NDSCAPE AR
C
H
I
T
E
CT
S
T
ATE OF CA L I F O R N IADate
Renewal Date
01/31/2027
2025-07-01
ONSITE FRONT OF PARCEL 972 EL CAMINO REAL
ONSITE PARKING LOT BURGER KING 972 EL CAMINO REAL
ONSITE PARKING LOT PARCEL 972 EL CAMINO REAL
ONSITE PARKING LOT OF PARCEL 972 EL CAMINO REAL
58
4
LANDSCAPE EXISTING
TREE PLAN
LTP.1
IN-N-OUT BURGER
13502 HAMBURGER LANE
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
CONTACT: BRIGID WILLIAMS
PHONE: 626 813-5398
972 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
DEVELOPER:IN-N-OUT BURGER
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
BRANDON PETRUNIO & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Design Studio: 301 N. San Dimas Ave., San Dimas, CA. 91773
Corp Office: 15699 Cherry Leaf Lane, Fontana, CA. 92336
T: (424) 235-8940, M: (951) 312-9943, E: brandon@bpalas.com
16775 ADDISON ROAD, SUITE 350
ADDISON, TX 75001
PH: (469) 960-2322
Signature
BRAND ON M .PETRUNIO NO
.
5
8
9
4
L
ICENS E D L A NDSCAPE A
R
C
H
I
T
E
CT
S
T
ATE OF CA L I F O R NIADate
Renewal Date
01/31/2027
2025-07-01
REMOVAL NOTES
DEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXISTING TREE INCLUDING TRUNK AND ROOTS SYSTEM
SCALE: 1" : 20'-0"EXISTING TREE PLAN
N
W
S
E
20'10'0'20'40'60'
GRAPHIC SCALE
SCALE: 1" : 20'-0"
EXISTING TREE LEGEND
TREE
NO.SPECIES BOTANICAL NAME SPECIES COMMON NAME DBH HEALTH ACTION
1 LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS Brisbane Box 4", 8", 10"MODERATE DEMO
2 LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS Brisbane Box 4-6"MODERATE DEMO
3 LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS Brisbane Box 4-6", 2-4"MODERATE DEMO
4 LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS Brisbane Box 2-8" , 6"MODERATE DEMO
5 LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS Brisbane Box 3-8", 6", 3-4"MODERATE DEMO
6 LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS Brisbane Box 12"MODERATE DEMO
7 LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS Brisbane Box 4-10"MODERATE DEMO
8 LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS Brisbane Box 24"MODERATE DEMO
9 LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS Brisbane Box 12", 10", 2-6"MODERATE DEMO
10 LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS Brisbane Box 3-8", 4"MODERATE DEMO
11 LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS Brisbane Box 18"MODERATE DEMO
12 LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS Brisbane Box 24"MODERATE DEMO
13 LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS Brisbane Box 2", 4"MODERATE DEMO
14 LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS Brisbane Box 12"MODERATE DEMO
15 LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS Brisbane Box 10"DEAD DEMO
58
5
586
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
23
'
-
6
"
23
'
-
6
"
SOUTHEAST ELEVATION
NORTHEAST ELEVATION
ELEVATIONS 1
19
'
-
1
0
"
13
'
-
7
"
19
'
-
1
0
"
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
972 EL CAMINO REAL
587
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
13
'
-
7
"
19
'
-
1
0
"
13
'
-
7
"
19
'
-
1
0
"
23
'
-
6
"
23
'
-
6
"
NORTHWEST ELEVATION
SOUTHWEST ELEVATION
ELEVATIONS 2
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
972 EL CAMINO REAL
588
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
13
'
-
7
"
19
'
-
1
0
"
23
'
-
6
"
14'-11"
6'
-
8
3
/
4
"
NORTHWEST ELEVATION
ELEVATIONS 3
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
972 EL CAMINO REAL
589
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
11
'
-
1
1
"
11
'
-
1
1
"
11
'
-
1
1
"
11
'
-
1
1
"
SIDE ENTRY ELEVATION
TE ELEVATIONS
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
972 EL CAMINO REAL
FRONT SERVICE AREA ELEVATION
SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION
590
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.5
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
1.9
1.6
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.8
2.0
1.8
2.3
2.5
2.3
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.9
7.0
3.4
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.5
2.2
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.5
2.5
9.4
15.8
5.7
2.8
4.6
4.4
3.0
2.8
2.5
2.1
1.6
2.0
2.2
2.1
2.1
7.3
16.0
15.8
13.1
3.7
3.7
3.3
2.6
1.8
2.2
2.1
1.8
2.4
2.4
11.2
18.2
5.4
4.1
3.8
3.2
2.3
1.6
1.4
1.9
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.6
2.5
2.9
4.1
3.9
3.6
3.7
2.6
1.7
1.3
1.5
1.9
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.5
3.0
7.5
6.8
4.1
4.1
3.9
2.7
1.7
1.2
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.7
2.1
2.6
2.9
2.9
2.6
2.3
2.7
5.5
4.8
4.2
3.7
2.6
1.8
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.6
2.0
2.4
2.8
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.4
2.4
3.2
7.3
6.9
4.0
3.4
2.4
1.7
1.0
2.6
2.0
1.5
1.4
1.6
1.9
2.3
2.8
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.0
2.7
2.5
2.9
6.6
10.2
12.7
4.2
3.9
4.0
2.4
1.6
0.8
0.6
3.3
3.8
3.3
2.6
2.1
1.9
2.0
2.3
2.7
3.2
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.4
3.1
2.6
2.5
3.5
8.6
7.7
4.5
4.2
3.4
4.2
4.0
2.3
1.2
0.5
0.4
1.9
2.6
4.2
4.0
3.4
2.9
2.7
2.6
2.9
3.1
3.4
3.7
3.7
2.8
3.5
3.2
2.7
2.4
2.7
4.4
5.3
4.9
7.3
13.2
17.7
3.8
4.1
4.3
2.7
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.3
2.6
3.6
4.7
4.4
3.9
3.4
3.1
3.2
3.5
3.7
4.0
4.1
4.0
3.7
3.5
3.1
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.2
8.1
17.6
18.7
18.6
5.6
4.0
4.1
2.5
0.3
0.1
0.3
1.7
3.2
4.5
4.7
4.5
3.9
3.4
3.4
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.3
4.1
4.0
3.8
3.4
2.7
2.0
1.7
4.9
17.7
13.8
5.1
3.5
4.1
3.8
2.2
0.2
0.3
0.8
2.5
4.2
5.1
4.9
4.4
3.8
3.8
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.6
4.8
4.6
4.3
3.9
3.0
2.2
1.8
1.9
6.3
3.9
3.2
3.8
3.8
3.2
1.9
0.2
0.6
1.9
3.7
5.0
5.4
4.9
4.3
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.9
5.1
4.6
4.0
3.8
3.4
2.6
2.1
2.3
2.7
3.5
3.9
4.0
3.1
2.6
0.4
1.7
2.7
5.2
5.4
4.9
4.5
4.2
4.4
4.8
4.9
4.9
4.9
5.0
4.5
3.3
3.9
3.6
2.8
2.5
2.7
3.3
4.1
4.2
3.0
2.7
0.4
0.7
2.9
3.9
5.1
4.9
4.6
4.6
4.7
5.0
5.2
5.1
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.3
3.9
3.5
2.9
2.9
3.3
3.9
4.3
3.5
2.9
1.3
0.6
1.5
3.4
5.0
5.2
5.0
4.9
5.1
4.0
4.7
4.9
4.7
4.4
4.3
4.1
3.5
3.2
3.2
3.5
4.0
4.3
4.0
2.8
1.7
0.5
0.8
3.1
3.8
4.9
4.9
5.0
4.9
4.5
4.4
4.8
4.5
3.9
3.5
3.4
3.1
3.1
3.4
3.9
4.4
4.7
2.9
2.4
0.6
1.4
2.3
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.5
4.4
3.8
4.3
3.9
3.2
2.9
2.8
2.9
3.2
3.6
4.0
4.4
3.3
2.4
0.5
1.0
2.2
2.6
3.4
3.6
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.4
3.1
2.8
2.5
2.6
3.0
3.4
4.0
4.2
3.5
1.9
1.2
0.9
1.5
2.2
2.9
3.2
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.5
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.6
3.1
3.7
4.4
3.8
2.1
1.4
1.1
1.4
2.1
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.9
2.2
2.7
3.3
3.9
4.2
2.9
2.0
0.2
0.4
1.2
1.7
2.1
2.6
2.8
2.5
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.8
2.5
3.1
3.8
4.1
3.4
2.4
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.6
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.8
2.3
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.7
2.2
3.0
3.7
4.0
4.2
2.7
1.7
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.7
2.0
2.9
2.7
2.5
2.7
2.3
1.8
1.7
1.8
2.2
2.8
3.5
3.9
4.3
2.7
2.5
0.2
0.4
0.7
1.8
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.6
3.0
3.6
4.1
4.2
3.3
2.0
0.3
0.6
0.8
1.6
2.4
2.5
2.8
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.1
4.1
2.8
1.6
1.1
0.7
1.0
1.7
2.7
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.6
3.9
4.0
4.3
3.8
2.9
2.6
2.1
1.0
0.8
1.2
2.0
3.3
3.6
3.9
4.2
4.4
4.2
3.9
2.8
2.8
2.5
0.6
0.9
1.4
2.3
3.2
4.0
4.1
4.3
4.4
3.7
3.0
2.4
1.0
0.7
1.2
1.7
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.6
1.9
1.3
0.4
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.4
SITE LIGHTING
PHOTOMETRIC PLAN
E11.0
PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
PROFESSIONAL SEAL
PROJECT NAME
14901 Quorum Dr. #565 Dallas, TX 75254
rtmassociates.com | 972.387.3500
PROFESSIONAL SEAL
GOD BLESS AMERICA
REVISION RECORD
ISSUE RECORD
DATE DESCRIPTION
PROTOTYPE VERSION
24U.2.5
IN-N-OUT
BURGER
SAN FRANCISCO
CA
972 EL CAMINO REAL
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
23-0123
2.7 FC 5.4 FC 0 FC
3.3 FC 18.7 FC 0 FC
N/A
STATISTICS
CALC ZONE #2
CALC ZONE #1 N/A
N/A N/A
59
1
"GOD BLESS AMERICA"
13502 HAMBURGER LANE
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
972 EL CAMINO REAL
ISSUED: 10/11/24
BONE CHINA STUCCO, PRO LEDGE "WHITE" WAINSCOT, AND COOLEY BRITE AWNINGS 592
"GOD BLESS AMERICA"
13502 HAMBURGER LANE
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
972 EL CAMINO REAL
BONE CHINA STUCCO, PRO LEDGE "WHITE" WAINSCOT, AND COOLEY BRITE AWNINGS
ISSUED: 10/11/24
593
"GOD BLESS AMERICA"
13502 HAMBURGER LANE
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
972 EL CAMINO REAL
BONE CHINA STUCCO, PRO LEDGE "WHITE" WAINSCOT, AND COOLEY BRITE AWNINGS
ISSUED: 10/11/24
594
"GOD BLESS AMERICA"
13502 HAMBURGER LANE
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
972 EL CAMINO REAL
BONE CHINA STUCCO, PRO LEDGE "WHITE" WAINSCOT, AND COOLEY BRITE AWNINGS
ISSUED: 10/11/24
595
"GOD BLESS AMERICA"
13502 HAMBURGER LANE
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
972 EL CAMINO REAL
BONE CHINA STUCCO, PRO LEDGE "WHITE" WAINSCOT, AND COOLEY BRITE AWNINGS
ISSUED: 10/11/24
596
"GOD BLESS AMERICA"
13502 HAMBURGER LANE
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
972 EL CAMINO REAL
BONE CHINA STUCCO, PRO LEDGE "WHITE" WAINSCOT, AND COOLEY BRITE AWNINGS
ISSUED: 10/11/24
597
"GOD BLESS AMERICA"
13502 HAMBURGER LANE
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
972 EL CAMINO REAL
BONE CHINA STUCCO, PRO LEDGE "WHITE" WAINSCOT, AND COOLEY BRITE AWNINGS
ISSUED: 10/11/24
598
"GOD BLESS AMERICA"
13502 HAMBURGER LANE
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
972 EL CAMINO REAL
BONE CHINA STUCCO, PRO LEDGE "WHITE" WAINSCOT, AND COOLEY BRITE AWNINGS
ISSUED: 10/11/24
599
"GOD BLESS AMERICA"
13502 HAMBURGER LANE
BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
972 EL CAMINO REAL
BONE CHINA STUCCO, PRO LEDGE "WHITE" WAINSCOT, AND COOLEY BRITE AWNINGS
ISSUED: 10/11/24
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:25-495 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:4.
Report regarding a proposed Development Agreement to extend approved entitlements to construct a new
Office/R&D Campus at 800 Dubuque Avenue in the East of 101 Transit Core (ETC)Zoning District for a
period of ten (10)years in exchange for pre-payment of Community Benefit Program Fee obligations in
accordance with Title 19 and 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and a recommendation
determining consistency of the proposed action with the adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND)pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.(Tony Rozzi,AICP,Deputy Economic and
Community Development Director)
MOTIONS TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
(1)Move to adopt the resolution recommending approval of the Development Agreement.
(2)Move to determine the Development Agreement is in compliance with CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and take the following actions:
1.Adopt a Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council approve the proposed
Development Agreement to extend approved entitlements to construct a new Office/R&D Campus at
800 Dubuque Avenue in the East of 101 Transit Core (ETC)Zoning District for a period of ten (10)
years in exchange for pre-payment of Community Benefit Program Fee obligations in accordance with
Title 19 and 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and a recommendation determining
consistency of the proposed action with the adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND)pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines Section 15070
and Public Resources Code Sections 15000 et seq)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Project Description
The IQHQ project at 800 Dubuque Avenue (Project)is a transit-oriented commercial project comprised of three
buildings for a total of approximately 857,000 square feet of floor area.
The Project will ultimately transform a nondescript,low-density commercial site with an office/R&D complex
that will anchor the life science core along US-101.By locating high-density employment uses adjacent to
public transit and integrating significant improvements to the public realm,the Project will also create an
improved pedestrian-accessible gateway to the Dubuque Avenue corridor from the South San Francisco
Caltrain Station.
The project was considered and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission in June 2023 and
approved by the City Council in July 2023.Per South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.450.011
(Expiration and Extension),entitlements automatically expire if building permits have not been issued within
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™615
File #:25-495 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:4.
(Expiration and Extension),entitlements automatically expire if building permits have not been issued within
two years from the date of final approval.This code section also allows a one-year time extension approval
with Chief Planner approval, for a total entitlement timeframe of three years prior to expiration.
Development Agreement Request
City Council approved the 800 Dubuque project two years ago,as part of a second phase of development by
IQHQ -the first phase of planning and construction is almost complete at 580 Dubuque Avenue with a 200,000
square foot building nearing final inspection.
Since entitlement in 2023,the Office/R&D sector has faced serious challenges -higher than typical vacancy
rates,contraction in the capital markets,high borrowing costs and a glut of new Class A space in the Bay Area.
Simply put,there is contracting demand and investment for new Office/R&D construction.Aside from the
permit for 580 Dubuque Avenue,the City has issued no new permits for life science projects in the past two
years.The applicant,recognizing that they first needed to lease their building at 580 Dubuque Avenue,
approached the City several months ago to discuss a development agreement to extend entitlements on their
800 Dubuque Avenue campus to allow the life science market to steady and recover.
The draft Development Agreement (attached to the Resolution as Exhibit A) includes the following key terms:
·Ten (10) year extension from effective date
·Payment of all applicable Development Fee rates at time of permit issuance
·Pre-payment of Community Benefit Program Fees, as follows:
o First Pre-Payment of $1,000,000 by the 1st anniversary of the effective date
o Second Pre-Payment of $1,000,000 by the 3rd anniversary of the effective date
o Third Pre-Payment of 50%of the remaining fees by the 5th anniversary of the effective date
(estimated to be $1,061,250).
·In lieu of paying the Third Pre-Payment as of the fifth (5th) anniversary date, Developer may elect to
provide written notice to the City of its desire to terminate this Agreement.
·All fees paid are non-refundable but can be transferred to a new project owner/developer
These terms have the benefit of providing additional time for the applicant,and a small but steady stream of
payments to the City for community reinvestment.The City Council may choose to use Community Benefit
Program fees can be used broadly for public infrastructure,mobility improvements,local business support,
affordable housing, public services and facilities, and even sea level rise mitigation.
Staff anticipate that several recently entitled Office/R&D projects that are now in their second year post-
entitlements,or within the one-year extension will also seek similar development agreement terms under
forecasted market conditions.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The Project site’s land use designation per the ShapeSSF 2040 General Plan is East of 101 Transit Core (ETC),
which is described as “Transit-oriented community with a walkable street pattern and a vibrant mix of high-
density multifamily and employment uses with supportive retail,services,and amenities (minimum FAR from
1.0 up to 8.0 with community benefits; maximum residential densities up to 120 du/ac to 200 du/ac).”
The Project has been designed to conform with the ETC Zoning District’s standards and vision.The Project
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™616
File #:25-495 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:4.
The Project has been designed to conform with the ETC Zoning District’s standards and vision.The Project
proposes an employment use development with a maximum FAR of 3.31,with a community benefits proposal,
that is located adjacent to high-quality and regional transit.The draft Development Agreement does not propose
any changes to the previously entitled project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
An IS/MND was prepared by the City with assistance from Lamphier-Gregory,Inc.for the 800 Dubuque
project and was adopted by the City Council on July 12,2023.The IS/MND included mitigation measures to
ensure any potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Extension of the entitlements will not result in any changes to the project currently -if,during the Development
Agreement,the applicant proposes changes to the configuration of buildings,site planning,or operational
features,a new environmental analysis may be warranted.But under the current circumstances,no further
environmental study is required, and the project is consistent with the adopted IS/MND.
CONCLUSION
The draft Development Agreement is an opportunity to confirm the City’s commitment to the project
entitlements at 800 Dubuque Avenue,recognize the unique economic circumstances facing the life science
market,and ensure a stream of community benefit fee payments for reinvestment.Unfortunately,improvements
to the life science sector may not be immediate -allowing an extension for entitlements through the
Development Agreement should give the applicant the ability to persevere and ultimately construct the
envisioned campus.
For these reasons, staff recommend that the Planning Commission take the following action:
1.Adopt a Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council approve the proposed
Development Agreement to extend approved entitlements to construct a new Office/R&D Campus at
800 Dubuque Avenue in the East of 101 Transit Core (ETC)Zoning District for a period of ten (10)
years in exchange for pre-payment of Community Benefit Program Fee obligations in accordance with
Title 19 and 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and a recommendation determining
consistency of the proposed action with the adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND)pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines Section 15070
and Public Resources Code Sections 15000 et seq)
Exhibit to Associated Entitlements Resolution
A.Draft Development Agreement
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™617
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:25-496 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:4a.
Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council approve a proposed Development
Agreement to extend approved entitlements to construct a new Office/R&D Campus at 800 Dubuque
Avenue in the East of 101 Transit Core (ETC)Zoning District for a period of ten (10)years in exchange
for pre-payment of Community Benefit Program Fee obligations in accordance with Title 19 and 20 of
the South San Francisco Municipal Code and a recommendation determining consistency of the
proposed action with the adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act.
WHEREAS,the applicant received entitlements approval (P21-0117)by the City Council on July 12,2023 for
the construction of a new Office/R&D campus at 800 Dubuque Avenue (APN 015-021-030 and 5.89 acres)and
comprised of three new office and R&D buildings on the site at approximately 857,000 square feet with 1,335
parking spaces (“Project”); and
WHEREAS,approval of the applicant’s proposal was considered a project for purposes of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and
WHEREAS,the City filed a Notice of Determination on July 13,2023 determining that a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (ND22-0001)was the appropriate document and that the project would not have a significant effect
on the environment; and
WHEREAS,the applicant now seeks approval of a Development Agreement (DA24-0001)for the Project to
extend entitlement approval for a period of ten (10) years; and
WHEREAS,in exchange for the term extension,the applicant will make up to three (3)pre-payments towards
their outstanding Community Benefit Program fee obligations; and
WHEREAS,on May 15,2025 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully
noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the Development Agreement,take public
testimony, and recommend approval of the Project; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed and determined that the previously adopted IS/MND (ND22-
0001)remains accurate and that the time extension will not cause a new environmental impact not already
evaluated/mitigated and therefore recommends that the IS/MND is still the appropriate and accurate document
that reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City in relation to the Project’s environmental
impacts,and finds that the IS/MND satisfies the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and
no further environmental review is necessary.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes
without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq.City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™618
File #:25-496 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:4a.
without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq.
(“CEQA”)and the CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the South San
Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;the Project
applications;the draft Development Agreement;the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration,as prepared
by Lamphier-Gregory,Inc.,dated March 2023;all site plans,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony
submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed June 15,2023 meeting;all site plans,and all
reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed July 12,2023
meeting;all site plans,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning
Commission’s duly noticed July 17,2025 meeting and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public
Resources Code §21080(e)and §21082.2),the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby
finds as follows:
SECTION 1 FINDINGS
General
1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2.The Exhibits attached to this Resolution,including the draft Development Agreement (Exhibit A),are
each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.
3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the
Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA
94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner.
Development Agreement (DA24-0001)
1.The draft Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives,policies,general land uses and
programs specified in the general plan and any applicable specific plan as it conforms to all governing
land use requirements and would only extend the duration of project entitlements to ten (10) years;
2.The draft Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in,and the regulations
prescribed for the land use district in which the real property is located and would only extend the
duration of project entitlements to ten (10) years;
3.The draft Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience,general welfare and good
land use practice given the extended term for the entitlements proposed in the draft Development
Agreement will allow the City to absorb new development over a longer period with fewer temporary
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™619
File #:25-496 Agenda Date:7/17/2025
Version:1 Item #:4a.
impacts related to new construction;
4.The draft Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health,safety and general welfare
given the extended term for the entitlements proposed in the draft Development Agreement will allow
the City to absorb new development over a longer period with fewer temporary impacts related to new
construction;
5.The draft Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the
preservation of property values and instead will contribute to a paced development and orderly
transition from industrial use to an Office/R&D campus.
SECTION 2 DETERMINATION
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San
Francisco hereby recommends that the City Council makes the findings contained in this Resolution,approves
the Development Agreement (DA24-0001)to extend entitlements for 800 Dubuque Avenue (P21-0117),and
makes a determination that the time extension will not cause a new environmental impact not already
evaluated/mitigated and therefore recommends that the IS/MND is still the appropriate and accurate document
and no further environmental review is necessary.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
adoption.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2025Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™620
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City Clerk
City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083
(Space Above This Line Reserved For Recorder’s Use)
This instrument is exempt from recording fees pursuant to Government Code section 27383.
Documentary Transfer Tax is $0.00 (exempt per Revenue & Taxation Code section 11922, Transfer to
Municipality).
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND DUBUQUE CENTER, L.P.
800 – 890 DUBUQUE AVE. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. [________] OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CITY COUNCIL
Effective Date: [________]
621
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS .........................................................................................................3
1.1 Project Description...................................................................................................3
ARTICLE 2 EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM ...........................................................................6
2.1 Effective Date ..........................................................................................................6
2.2 Term .........................................................................................................................6
2.3 Administrative Extension.........................................................................................6
ARTICLE 3 OBLIGATIONS OF DEVELOPER ........................................................................6
3.1 Obligations of Developer Generally ........................................................................6
3.2 City Development Fees ............................................................................................6
3.3 Community Benefits Proposal .................................................................................7
3.4 Other Developer Commitments .............................................................................10
ARTICLE 4 OBLIGATIONS OF CITY ....................................................................................10
4.1 Obligations of City Generally ................................................................................10
4.2 Protection of Vested Rights ...................................................................................10
4.3 Availability of Public Services ..............................................................................11
4.4 Developer’s Right to Rebuild ................................................................................11
4.5 Expedited Plan Check Process ...............................................................................11
4.6 Project Coordination ..............................................................................................11
4.7 Estoppel Certificates ..............................................................................................11
ARTICLE 5 COOPERATION – IMPLEMENTATION............................................................11
5.1 Processing Application for Subsequent Approvals................................................11
5.2 Timely Submittals By Developer...........................................................................12
5.3 Timely Processing By City ....................................................................................12
5.4 Denial of Subsequent Approval Application .........................................................12
5.5 Other Government Permits ....................................................................................12
5.6 Assessment Districts or Other Funding Mechanisms ............................................12
ARTICLE 6 STANDARDS, LAWS AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE PROJECT ...............................................................................................................14
6.1 Vested Right to Develop ........................................................................................14
6.2 Permitted Uses Vested by This Agreement ...........................................................14
6.3 Applicable Law ......................................................................................................14
622
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 ii
6.4 Uniform Codes .......................................................................................................14
6.5 No Conflicting Enactments ....................................................................................14
6.6 Initiatives and Referenda; Other City Actions Related to Project .........................15
6.7 Environmental Review and Mitigation ..................................................................16
6.8 Life of Development Approvals and Permits ........................................................16
6.9 State and Federal Law ............................................................................................16
6.10 Timing and Review of Project Construction and Completion ...............................17
ARTICLE 7 AMENDMENT......................................................................................................17
7.1 Project Amendments ..............................................................................................17
7.2 Amendment of this Agreement ..............................................................................18
ARTICLE 8 ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER .......................................................................18
8.1 Assignment and Transfer .......................................................................................18
ARTICLE 9 COOPERATION IN THE EVENT OF LEGAL CHALLENGE ..........................19
9.1 Cooperation ............................................................................................................19
9.2 Reapproval .............................................................................................................20
9.3 Extension Due to Legal Challenge ........................................................................20
ARTICLE 10 DEFAULT; REMEDIES; TERMINATION .........................................................20
10.1 Defaults ..................................................................................................................20
10.2 Requirements for Termination by City ..................................................................21
10.3 Enforced Delay; Extension of Time of Performance .............................................21
10.4 Legal Action...........................................................................................................22
10.5 Periodic Review .....................................................................................................22
10.6 California Law .......................................................................................................23
10.7 Resolution of Disputes ...........................................................................................23
10.8 Attorneys’ Fees ......................................................................................................23
10.9 Hold Harmless .......................................................................................................23
ARTICLE 11 MISCELLANEOUS ..............................................................................................24
11.1 Incorporation of Recitals and Introductory Paragraph ...........................................24
11.2 No Agency .............................................................................................................24
11.3 Enforceability .........................................................................................................24
11.4 Severability ............................................................................................................24
11.5 Other Necessary Acts and City Approvals ............................................................24
11.6 Construction ...........................................................................................................25
623
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 iii
11.7 Other Miscellaneous Terms ...................................................................................25
11.8 Covenants Running with the Land .........................................................................25
11.9 Notices ...................................................................................................................25
11.10 Mortgagee Protection .............................................................................................26
11.11 Entire Agreement, Counterparts And Exhibits ......................................................27
11.12 No Third Party Beneficiaries .................................................................................27
11.13 Recordation Of Development Agreement .............................................................27
Exhibits
Exhibit A – Legal Description of Project Site Exhibit B – List of Project Approvals as of Effective Date
Exhibit C – City Fees, Exactions, and Payments
Exhibit D – Applicable Laws Exhibit E – Form of Assignment and Assumption Agreement
624
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 1
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into as of [________]
(“Effective Date”) by and between Dubuque Center, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
(“Developer”), and the City of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation (“City”), pursuant to California Government Code (“Government Code”) sections 65864 et seq. Developer and City are sometimes collectively referred to herein as “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in
comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California enacted California Government Code sections 65864 et seq., which authorizes City to enter into an agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of such property.
B. Pursuant to Government Code section 65865, City has adopted procedures and
requirements for the consideration of development agreements (South San Francisco Municipal Code (“SSFMC”) Chapter 19.60). This Agreement has been processed, considered, and executed in accordance with such procedures and requirements.
C. Developer has a legal and/or equitable interest in certain real property located in
the City on the approximately 5.89-acre site commonly known as “800 – 890 Dubuque Ave.,” as
more particularly described in Exhibit A (“Project Site”). Developer has requested City to enter into a development agreement and proceedings have been taken in accordance with the rules and regulations of the City with regard to Developer’s proposed Project (as defined below).
D. The terms and conditions of this Agreement have undergone extensive review by
Developer, City, and the City of South San Francisco City Council (“City Council”) members and
have been found to be fair, just, and reasonable.
E. The City Council believes that the best interests of the citizens of the City of South San Francisco and the public health, safety, and welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement.
F. This Agreement and the Project (as defined in Section 1.1 of this Agreement) will
be consistent with the City of South San Francisco General Plan (“General Plan”), and the SSFMC.
G. Development (as defined in Section 1.16 of this Agreement) of the Project Site with the Project in accordance with this Agreement will provide substantial benefits to and will further
important policies and goals of City. This Agreement will, among other things, benefit the City
by (1) advancing the City’s economic development goals of enhancing the competitiveness of the local economy and maintaining a strong and diverse revenue and job base, (2) creating a state-of-the art transit-oriented office/R&D development to advance General Plan objectives for the East of 101 Transit Core area, (3) making significant investments in expanding and upgrading access
to transit and multimodal circulation, (4) supporting the City’s achievement of its Climate Action
Plan goals through incorporation of environmentally sensitive design and equipment, energy
625
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 2
conservation features, water conservation measures, and other sustainability features, (5) generating construction-related benefits, including employment, economic and fiscal benefits
related to new construction, and (6) generating fiscal benefits to the City and San Mateo County
due to community benefits payments, taxes and other revenue sources from operations.
H. In exchange for the benefits to City described in the preceding Recital, together with the other public benefits that will result from the Development of the Project, Developer will receive by this Agreement assurance that it may proceed with the Project in accordance with
Applicable Law (as defined in Section 1.6 of this Agreement), and therefore desires to enter into
this Agreement.
I. This Agreement will eliminate uncertainty in planning and provide for the orderly Development of the Project on the Project Site, facilitate progressive installation of necessary improvements, provide for public services appropriate to the Development of the Project on the
Project Site, and generally serve the purposes for which development agreements under section
65864, et seq. of the California Government Code are intended.
J. On July 12, 2023, following review and recommendation by the South San Francisco Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) and after a duly noticed public hearing, by Resolution No. 118-2023, the City Council adopted the Initial Study / Mitigated
Negative Declaration (“MND”) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”)) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §§ 15000 et seq.). The MND analyzed the potential environmental impacts of Development of the Project on the Project Site. Concurrent with its adoption of the MND, and by the same resolution, the City Council duly adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (“MMRP”) for the Project. The MMRP identifies all mitigation measures
identified in the MND that are applicable to the Project and sets forth a program for monitoring or reporting on the implementation of such mitigation measures.
K. Also on July 12, 2023, after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council duly adopted Resolution No. 119-2023 approving the Design Review Permit, Transportation Demand
Management Plan (“TDM Plan”), and Community Benefits Proposal for the Project.
L. On ________, 2025, following a duly noticed public hearing, by Resolution No. [________], the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving and authorizing the execution of this Agreement.
M. On ___________2025, after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council
introduced Ordinance No. [_______], approving and authorizing execution of this Agreement.
N. On __________ 2025, at a duly noticed public meeting, the City Council adopted on second reading Ordinance No. [________], approving and authorizing execution of this Agreement.
O. The entitlements described in Recitals J through N, and listed on Exhibit B, are
collectively referred to herein as the “Project Approvals.”
626
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 3
P. The Project has been designed to fulfill the Development vision of the Project Approvals consistent with the City’s land use policies and regulations, and to secure Developer’s
ability to achieve the Development potential of the Project Site at an appropriate level of growth.
Q. In adopting Ordinance No. [________], the City Council found that this Agreement is consistent with the General Plan and Title 20 of the SSFMC and has followed all necessary proceedings in accordance with the City’s rules and regulations for the approval of this Agreement.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, pursuant to the authority contained in Government Code
sections 65864 through 65869.5 and Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code in effect on the Effective Date and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1
DEFINITIONS
1.1 Project Description. As used herein, “Project” shall mean the Development on the Project Site as contemplated by the Project Approvals and, as and when they are issued, the Subsequent Approvals, including, without limitation, the permitted uses, density and intensity of uses, and maximum size and height of buildings specified in the General Plan and in Title 20 of
the SSFMC, and as such Project Approvals and Subsequent Approvals may be further defined or
modified pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. Without limitation, the Project shall consist of three office/research and development buildings of 10 stories, 9 stories, and 6 stories respectively, with a combined floor area of approximately 857,000 sf, and a 4-level subterranean parking structure with approximately 1,335 spaces, for a parking ratio of 1.5 spaces/1,000 sf; and
off-site circulation and infrastructure improvements, all as set forth in the Project Approvals.
1.2 “Administrative Agreement Amendment” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 7.2 of this Agreement.
1.3 “Administrative Project Amendment” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 7.1 of this Agreement.
1.4 “Affiliate” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 8.1 of this Agreement.
1.5 “Agreement” shall mean this Development Agreement.
1.6 “Applicable Law” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 6.3 of this Agreement.
1.7 “CEQA” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital J of this Agreement.
1.8 “City” shall mean the City of South San Francisco.
1.9 “City Council” shall mean the City of South San Francisco City Council.
627
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 4
1.10 “City Law” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 6.5 of this Agreement.
1.11 “CFD” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 5.6 of this Agreement.
1.12 “Community Benefits Proposal” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 3.3
of this Agreement.
1.13 “Control,” “controlled,” and “controlling” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 8.1 of this Agreement.
1.14 “Deficiencies” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 9.2 of this Agreement.
1.15 “Developer” shall mean Dubuque Center, L.P. and any successors or assignees
pursuant to Article 8 of this Agreement.
1.16 “Development” or “Develop” shall mean the division or subdivision of land into one or more parcels; the construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, improvement, maintenance, or enlargement of any structure; any excavation, fill, grading, landfill,
or land disturbance; the construction of specified road, path, trail, transportation, water, sewer,
electric, communications, and wastewater infrastructure directly related to the Project whether located within or outside the Project Site; the installation of landscaping and other facilities and improvements necessary or appropriate for the Project; and any use or extension of the use of land.
1.17 “Development Fees” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 3.2 of this
Agreement.
1.18 “Direct Community Benefits” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 3.3 of this Agreement.
1.19 “Effective Date” shall have that meaning set forth in the introductory paragraph to this Agreement.
1.20 “FAR” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 3.3 of this Agreement.
1.21 “Final Payment” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 3.3 of this Agreement.
1.22 “Force Majeure Delay” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 10.3 of this Agreement.
1.23 “GDP” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 10.3 of this Agreement.
1.24 “General Plan” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital F of this Agreement.
1.25 “Initial Pre-Payment” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 3.3 of this Agreement.
1.26 “Judgment” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 9.2 of this Agreement.
628
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 5
1.27 “Legal Challenge” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 9.1 of this Agreement.
1.28 “MND” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital J of this Agreement.
1.29 “Monetary Contribution” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 3.3 of this Agreement.
1.30 “Mortgage” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 11.10 of this Agreement.
1.31 “Mortgagee” shall mean the beneficiary of any Mortgage.
1.32 “MMRP” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital J of this Agreement.
1.33 “Parties” shall mean the Developer and City, collectively.
1.34 “Periodic Review” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 10.5 of this Agreement.
1.35 “Planning Commission” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital J of this
Agreement.
1.36 “Project Approvals” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital O of this Agreement.
1.37 “Project Site” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital C of this Agreement.
1.38 “Second Pre-Payment” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 3.3 of this
Agreement.
1.39 “Severe Economic Recession” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 10.3 of this Agreement.
1.40 “SOV” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 3.4 of this Agreement.
1.41 “SSFMC” shall have the meaning set forth in Recital B of this Agreement.
1.42 “Subsequent Approvals” shall mean those certain other land use approvals,
entitlements, and permits other than the Project Approvals that are necessary or desirable for the Project. In particular, for example and without limitation, the parties contemplate that Developer may, at its election, seek approvals for the following: amendments of the Project Approvals; improvement agreements; grading permits; demolition permits; building permits; lot line
adjustments; sewer, water, and utility connection permits; certificates of occupancy; subdivision
map approvals; parcel map approvals; resubdivisions; zoning and rezoning approvals; conditional use permits; minor use permits; sign permits; any subsequent approvals required by other state or federal entities for Development and implementation of the Project that are sought or agreed to in writing by Developer; and any amendments to, or repealing of, any of the foregoing.
1.43 “TDM Plan” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital K of this Agreement.
629
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 6
1.44 “Term” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 2.2 of this Agreement.
1.45 “Third Pre-Payment” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 3.3 of this
Agreement.
1.46 To the extent that any capitalized terms contained in this Agreement are not defined above, then such terms shall have the meaning otherwise ascribed to them elsewhere in this Agreement, or if not in this Agreement, then by controlling law, including the SSFMC.
ARTICLE 2
EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM
2.1 Effective Date. This Agreement is effective as of the Effective Date first set forth above.
2.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the Effective Date and continue (unless this Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended as provided in this
Agreement) until ten (10) years plus one (1) day after the Effective Date (“Term”).
2.3 Administrative Extension. Developer shall have the right to request an extension due to (1) any Litigation Tolling Period equal to the period of excusable delay or as mutually agreed to by the Parties, (2) delays related to other public agency approvals necessary to carry out the Project or for any building moratorium equal to the period of delay, and (3) Force Majeure
Delay. Developer may also request an extension due to delays resulting from economic or other
conditions that are not within the Developer’s control, which such approval is subject to City’s reasonable discretion. City shall process such requested extension as a request for an Administrative Agreement Amendment pursuant to Section 7.2.
ARTICLE 3
OBLIGATIONS OF DEVELOPER
3.1 Obligations of Developer Generally. The Parties acknowledge and agree that City’s agreement to perform and abide by the covenants and obligations of City set forth in this Agreement is a material consideration for Developer’s agreement to perform and abide by its long- term covenants and obligations, as set forth herein. The Parties acknowledge that many of
Developer’s long-term obligations set forth in this Agreement are in addition to Developer’s
agreement to perform all the applicable mitigation measures identified in the MMRP and conditions of approval applicable to the Project. Failure by Developer to make any of the payments called for in this Article 3 at the times and in the amounts specified shall constitute a default by Developer subject to the provisions of Article 10 of this Agreement.
3.2 City Development Fees.
(a) Developer shall pay those processing, building permit, inspection and plan checking fees and charges required by City for processing applications and requests for Subsequent Approvals under the applicable regulations in effect at the time such applications and requests are submitted to City.
630
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 7
(b) Consistent with the terms of the Agreement, City shall have the right to impose only such development fees (“Development Fees”) as had been adopted by City as of the
Effective Date, as set forth in Exhibit C, and at the rates of such Development Fees in effect at the
time of payment of the Development Fees. The Development Fees shall be paid at the time set forth in Exhibit C except as otherwise provided in Article 3 of this Agreement. This Section 3.2(b) shall not prohibit City from imposing on Developer any fee or obligation that is imposed by a regional agency or the State of California in accordance with state or federal obligations and
required to be implemented by City.
(c) For any Development Fees in effect as of the Effective Date but no longer in effect at the time of payment, Developer shall pay the rate in effect as of the Effective Date plus an increase of five percent (5%) annually, which shall be applied as of July 1 each year. Notwithstanding any City ordinance or regulation regarding allocation of Development Fees, City
shall allocate Developer’s payments for such Development Fees to the then-existing impact fee
fund that most closely corresponds to the purpose for which each fee has been paid, in City’s reasonable discretion.
3.3 Community Benefits Proposal. In connection with construction of the Project, Developer shall satisfy the terms of the “Community Benefits Proposal” approved by the City
Council pursuant to Resolution No. 119-2023 and as modified herein.
(a) SSFMC Chapter 20.395 establishes a Community Benefits Program, which is required to be satisfied for commercial development above a floor area ratio (“FAR”) of 1.0. The Community Benefits Program may be satisfied through either (1) payment of a Community Benefits Fee, which is currently calculated at a rate of Twenty Dollars ($20.00) per gross square
foot of commercial development above a floor area ratio of 1.0, as such fee amount may be
adjusted by the City Council from time to time, or (2) entering a Community Benefits Agreement, which may include payment of Community Benefits Fees to satisfy part of the benefit.
(b) The Project’s Community Benefits Proposal establishes a monetary value for several direct Project commitments that are consistent with the City’s priorities for the
Community Benefits Program (the “Direct Community Benefits”), as described in Section 3.3(c),
and applies these toward the total value due to the City pursuant to the Community Benefits Program. The remaining value due to the City pursuant to the Community Benefits Program is required to be satisfied through a monetary contribution (the “Monetary Contribution”). For informational purposes, at the time the City Council approved the Project Approvals, the total
value of the Community Benefits Proposal was Twelve Million Six Hundred Twenty Thousand
Dollars ($12,620,000), including (i) the Direct Community Benefits (Seven Million Eight Hundred Seventy-Seven Thousand and Five Hundred Dollars ($7,877,500)) and (ii) the Monetary Contribution (Four Million Seven Hundred Forty-Two Thousand and Five Hundred Dollars ($4,742,500)).
(c) For purposes of this Development Agreement, the City shall apply the value
of the following Direct Community Benefits as credits against the Community Benefits Fee that would otherwise be due, with a total credit value of Seven Million Eight Hundred Seventy-Seven Thousand and Five Hundred Dollars ($7,877,500):
631
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 8
(i) Developer shall provide plaza space on the Project Site, substantially in the size and in the locations provided in the Project Approvals, that is publicly
accessible during business hours. The City will consider approximately 40% of the cost of these
plazas as a Direct Community Benefit, at a value of Two Million Six Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($2,620,000). Nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit Developer from enacting reasonable rules and regulations for the usage of such open space, including regulations related to hours of operation, security, and conduct within such open space.
(ii) Developer shall improve public access and connectivity around the
Project Site by installing new landscaping and sidewalk improvements, as well as facilitate vehicular and pedestrian connections to the Caltrain Station, as set forth in the Project Approvals. The City will consider approximately 35% of this estimated cost, or Three Million Seven Hundred Twenty-Seven Thousand and Five Hundred Dollars ($3,727,500), as a Direct Community Benefit.
If the enhanced connectivity improvements identified in the Project
Approvals are not possible due to external factors that are not within Developer’s control, Developer will instead submit a proposal for equivalent alternative pedestrian improvements or appropriate replacement, subject to the Chief Planner’s review and approval prior to issuance of building permits for the Project. Submittal requirements will include an in-kind valuation, site
plan, and specifications for any proposed improvements. A financial contribution may be
permitted if equivalent on-site improvements are not possible.
(iii) Developer has committed to 100% electric buildings, furthering the City’s Climate Action Plan goals by avoiding use of natural gas. The City will consider approximately 30% of the added upfront cost, or One Million Five Hundred Thirty Thousand
Dollars ($1,530,000), as a Direct Community Benefit toward mitigating the impacts of sea level
rise.
(d) Developer shall pay to City its Monetary Contribution in the following amounts and at the following times, which payments City, in its sole discretion, may allocate and spend for any authorized governmental purpose:
(i) Unless Developer has commenced construction and paid all fees due
by the first (1st) anniversary of the Effective Date, Developer shall make an initial One Million Dollar ($1,000,000) payment towards Developer’s total Monetary Contribution (the “Initial Pre-Payment”);
(ii) Unless Developer has commenced construction and paid all fees due
by the third (3rd) anniversary of the Effective Date, Developer shall pay an additional One Million
Dollars ($1,000,000) payment towards Developer’s total Monetary Contribution (the “Second Pre-Payment”); and
(iii) Unless Developer has commenced construction and paid all fees due by the fifth (5th) anniversary of the Effective Date, Developer shall pay fifty percent (50%) of the
remaining Monetary Contribution (the “Third Pre-Payment”). The Third Pre-Payment shall be
calculated by multiplying the Community Benefits Fee rate then in effect by the square foot of proposed development in the Project above 1.0 FAR, then subtracting the value of the Direct
632
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 9
Community Benefits identified above, then subtracting the Initial Pre-Payment and the Second Pre-Payment, then multiplying by fifty percent (50%).
The table below provides an example of how the Third Pre-Payment would
be calculated, assuming a Citywide Community Benefits Fee of Twenty Dollars ($20.00) per square foot of development over 1.0 FAR, and a proposed development of six hundred thousand (600,000) square feet of development over 1.0 FAR. The Parties acknowledge and agree that this example is provided for illustration purposes only and that the actual Monetary Contribution may
differ.
Example of Monetary Contribution Calculation as of Third Pre-Payment:
Total Community Benefits Fee Due $12,000,000
Minus Direct Community Benefits ($7,877,500)
Minus Initial Pre-Payment ($1,000,000)
Minus Second Pre-Payment ($1,000,000)
Total Remaining Monetary Contribution $2,122,500
Third Pre-Payment (50% of Total Remaining) ($1,061,250)
(iv) In lieu of paying the Third Pre-Payment as of the fifth (5th) anniversary date, Developer may elect to provide written notice to the City of its desire to terminate this Agreement.
(e) Developer shall pay the remaining portions of the Monetary Contribution (the “Final Payment”) at the times and in the manner set forth in Exhibit C.
(f) For any Pre-Payment or payment of the Monetary Contribution made by Developer, Developer shall provide written confirmation of payment to the City which identifies the obligation and the portion of the Monetary Contribution that is being paid.
(g) The obligation to satisfy the Community Benefits Proposal , or the right to receive credit for prior completion of the Community Benefits Proposal, or any portion thereof, may be assigned in connection with any assignment and assumption of rights under Article 8 of this Agreement.
(h) If Developer does not provide any Pre-Payment or payment of the Monetary
Contribution when due, City will provide notice to Developer of its failure to pay and afford an opportunity for Developer to cure by submitting payment within ten (10) business days from receipt of such notice.
633
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 10
(i) Once paid, no Pre-Payment or payment of the Monetary Contribution is refundable in the event Developer does not pursue development of the Project or elects to terminate
this Agreement as of the fifth (5th) anniversary of the Effective Date.
3.4 Other Developer Commitments.
(a) Transportation Demand Management Plan. Developer shall implement the TDM Plan approved by the City as described in Recital K to reduce the Project-related single occupancy vehicle (“SOV”) trips and to encourage the use of public transit and alternate modes of
transportation. The TDM Plan is designed to ensure that at least fifty percent (50%) of Project
employee trips to the Project Site occur using non-SOV transportation modes.
(b) Dubuque Avenue Widening. Developer shall cooperate with the City to dedicate land for the widening of Dubuque Avenue, including utilizing commercially reasonable efforts to acquire right-of-way from the adjacent property owner to the south of the Project Site,
as specified in the Project Approvals.
(c) Sustainability Commitments. Developer shall implement the sustainability features identified in the Project Approvals, including achieving LEED Gold Certification, exceeding the baseline requirements established under CALGreen, as well as Fitwel building health certification.
(d) Union Labor. Developer shall utilize union labor, including local hire, for
mechanical, plumbing, electrical, shoring/dewatering, and electrical skin.
(e) Mitigation Measures. Developer shall comply with the Mitigation Measures identified and approved in the MND for the Project, in accordance with CEQA or other law as identified and as set forth on the MMRP.
(f) Conditions of Approval. Developer shall comply with the conditions of
approval identified and approved for the Project, in accordance with and as set forth in the Project Approvals.
ARTICLE 4 OBLIGATIONS OF CITY
4.1 Obligations of City Generally. The Parties acknowledge and agree that
Developer’s agreement to perform and abide by its covenants and obligations set forth in this Agreement, including Developer’s decision to site the Project in the City, is a material consideration for City’s agreement to perform and abide by the long-term covenants and obligations of City, as set forth herein.
4.2 Protection of Vested Rights. City acknowledges that the vested rights provided
to Developer by this Agreement might prevent some City Law from applying to the Project Site or prevailing over all or any part of this Agreement. City further acknowledges that Developer’s vested rights to Develop the Project Site include the rights provided by the Project Approvals or the Subsequent Approvals, which may not be diminished by the enactment or adoption of City
634
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 11
Law. City shall cooperate with Developer and shall consider undertaking actions mutually agreed by the Parties as necessary to ensure that this Agreement remains in full force and effect.
4.3 Availability of Public Services. To the maximum extent permitted by law and
consistent with its authority, City shall reasonably assist Developer in reserving such capacity for sewer and water services as may be necessary to serve the Project. For the avoidance of doubt, City shall have no obligation to assist Developer’s activities related to reserving electrical capacity or service from PG&E.
4.4 Developer’s Right to Rebuild. City agrees that, during the Term of this
Agreement, Developer may renovate or rebuild all or any part of the Project should it become necessary due to damage or destruction, within Developer’s sole discretion. Any such renovation or rebuilding shall be subject to the square footage and height limitations vested by this Agreement, and shall comply with the Project Approvals, the building codes existing at the time of issuance of
building permits for such rebuilding or reconstruction, and the requirements of CEQA.
4.5 Expedited Plan Check Process. City agrees to provide an expedited plan check process for the approval of Project drawings consistent with its existing practices for expedited plan checks. Developer agrees to pay City’s established fees for expedited plan check services. City shall use reasonable efforts to provide such plan checks within three (3) weeks of a submittal
that meets the requirements of Section 5.2. City acknowledges that City’s timely processing of
Subsequent Approvals and plan checks is essential to the successful and complete Development of the Project.
4.6 Project Coordination. City shall perform those obligations of City set forth in this Agreement, which the City acknowledges are essential for the Developer to perform its obligations
in Article 3. City and Developer shall use good faith and diligent efforts to communicate,
cooperate and coordinate with each other during Development of the Project.
4.7 Estoppel Certificates. Developer may at any time, and from time to time, deliver to City notice requesting that City certify to Developer, a potential transferee pursuant to Article 8, a potential lender to Developer, or a Mortgagee in writing: (i) that this Agreement is in full force
and effect and creates binding obligations on the Parties; (ii) that this Agreement has not been
amended or modified, or if so amended or modified, identifying such amendments or modifications; (iii) that Developer is not in Default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in Default, identifying the nature, extent and status of any such Default; and (iv) the findings of the City with respect to the most recent Periodic Review performed pursuant to
Section 10.5 of this Agreement. The City Manager or his or her designee, acting on behalf of City,
shall execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the request.
ARTICLE 5 COOPERATION – IMPLEMENTATION
5.1 Processing Application for Subsequent Approvals. By approving the Project
Approvals, City has made a final policy decision that the Project is in the best interests of the
public health, safety and general welfare of the City. Accordingly, in considering any application for a Subsequent Approval, to the maximum extent permitted by law, City shall not use its
635
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 12
discretionary authority to revisit, frustrate, or change the policy decisions or material terms reflected by the Project Approvals, or otherwise to prevent or delay Development of the Project.
Instead, the Subsequent Approvals shall be deemed to be tools to implement those final policy
decisions.
5.2 Timely Submittals By Developer. Developer acknowledges that City cannot expedite processing Subsequent Approvals until Developer submits complete applications on a timely basis. Developer shall use its best efforts to (i) provide to City in a timely manner any and
all documents, applications, plans, and other information necessary for City to carry out its
obligations hereunder; and (ii) cause Developer’s planners, engineers, and all other consultants to provide to City in a timely manner all such documents, applications, plans and other necessary required materials as set forth in the Applicable Law. It is the express intent of Developer and City to cooperate and diligently work to obtain any and all Subsequent Approvals.
5.3 Timely Processing By City. Upon submission by Developer of all appropriate
applications and processing fees for any Subsequent Approval, City shall, to the maximum extent permitted by law, promptly and diligently commence and complete all steps necessary to act on the Subsequent Approval application including, without limitation: (i) providing at Developer’s expense and subject to Developer’s request and prior approval, reasonable overtime staff
assistance and/or staff consultants for planning and processing of each Subsequent Approval
application; (ii) if legally required, providing notice and holding public hearings; and (iii) acting on any such Subsequent Approval application. City shall ensure that adequate staff is available, and shall authorize overtime staff assistance as may be necessary, to timely process any such Subsequent Approval application.
5.4 Denial of Subsequent Approval Application. City may deny an application for
a Subsequent Approval only if such application does not comply with this Agreement or Applicable Law or with any state or federal law, regulations, plans, or policies as set forth in Section 6.9.
5.5 Other Government Permits. At Developer’s sole discretion and in accordance
with Developer’s construction schedule, Developer shall apply for such other permits and
approvals as may be required by other governmental or quasi-governmental entities in connection with the Development of, or the provision of services to, the Project. City, at Developer’s expense, shall reasonably cooperate with Developer in its efforts to obtain such permits and approvals and shall, from time to time, at the request of Developer, use its reasonable efforts to assist Developer
to ensure the timely availability of such permits and approvals.
5.6 Assessment Districts or Other Funding Mechanisms.
(a) Existing Fees. As set forth in Section 3.2, above, the Parties understand and agree that as of the Effective Date the fees, exactions, and payments listed in Exhibit C are the only City fees and exactions that apply to the Project, subject to the credits and exemptions set
forth in Article 3 of this Agreement or identified on Exhibit C.
(b) Potential East of 101 Area CFD. Developer shall support the City’s formation of a Community Facilities Districts (“CFD”) to levy special taxes within the East of 101
636
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 13
Area as generally established within the parameters described in the City Manager’s presentation of October 2, 2019, provided that (i) the Project’s maximum CFD assessment rate does not exceed
one dollar ($1.00) per square foot of assessable real property and (ii) the Project’s maximum CFD
assessment rate does not exceed the rate assessed against other office/R&D properties in the East of 101 area. If during the term of this Agreement, Developer forms, or becomes subject to, a separate CFD to fund community facilities within the Dubuque Avenue corridor that would result in an equivalent assessment rate of one dollar ($1.00) per square foot of assessable real property
or more, Developer will no longer be required to support the City’s formation of the CFD. Without
limitation, City Council shall consider adoption of a resolution of intention to establish the CFD(s), and following adoption, City shall use good faith and diligent efforts, in compliance with Government Code section 53318 et seq., to establish and implement the CFD(s) pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, including noticing and conducting necessary public hearings, adoption
of resolutions, and, as appropriate, levying special taxes and providing for issuance of CFD bonds.
Developer shall not be prohibited from participating in public hearings, negotiations, or other communications regarding the formation of the CFD or the facilities and/or services proposed to be funded by CFD proceeds.
(c) Future Taxes and Assessments. City understands that long term assurances
by City concerning fees, taxes and assessments are a material consideration for Developer agreeing
to enter this Agreement and to pay long term fees, taxes and assessments described in this Agreement. City shall retain the ability to initiate or process applications for the formation of new assessment districts or tax districts or citywide assessments or taxes covering all or any portion of the Project Site. In the event an assessment district or tax district is lawfully formed to provide
funding for services, improvements, maintenance, or facilities which are substantially the same as
those services, improvements, maintenance, or facilities being funding by the fees or assessments to be paid by Developer under the Project Approvals or this Agreement, such fees or assessments to be paid by Developer shall be subject to reduction/credit in an amount equal to Developer’s new or increased assessment under the assessment district. Alternatively, the new assessment district
shall reduce/credit Developer’s new assessment in an amount equal to such fees or assessments to
be paid by Developer under the Project Approvals or this Agreement. Except as provided for in Section 5.6(b), Developer retains, and this Agreement shall not restrict or limit, its right to oppose or challenge the formation or proposed adoption of any new assessment district or tax district increased assessment.
(d) Application of Fees Imposed by Outside Agencies. City agrees to exempt
Developer from any and all fees, including but not limited to, development impact fees, which other public agencies request City to impose at City’s discretion on the Project or Project Site after the Effective Date through the expiration of the Term. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, in the event that another public agency requests that City impose a fee, including a development
impact fee on all new development and land use projects on a citywide basis, then any such fee
duly adopted by City shall apply to the Project. This Section 5.6(d) shall not prohibit City from imposing on Developer any fee or obligation that is imposed by a regional agency in accordance with state or federal obligations implemented by City in cooperation with such regional agency, or that is imposed by the State of California.
637
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 14
ARTICLE 6 STANDARDS, LAWS AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE PROJECT
6.1 Vested Right to Develop. Developer shall have a vested right to Develop the
Project on the Project Site in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Project Approvals, the Subsequent Approvals (as and when they are issued), and Applicable Law. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to eliminate or diminish the requirement of Developer to obtain any required Subsequent Approvals, or to eliminate or diminish Developer’s right to have
its applications for any Subsequent Approval timely processed by City in accordance with this
Agreement and Applicable Law.
6.2 Permitted Uses Vested by This Agreement. The vested permitted uses of the Project Site; the vested density and intensity of use of the Project Site; the vested maximum height, bulk, and size of proposed buildings; vested provisions for reservation or dedication of land for
public purposes and the location of public improvements; the general location of public utilities;
and other vested terms and conditions of Development applicable to the Project, shall be as set forth in the vested Project Approvals and, as and when they are issued (but not in limitation of any right to Development as set forth in the Project Approvals) the vested Subsequent Approvals. The vested permitted uses for the Project shall include those uses listed as “permitted” in the Project
Approvals, as they may be amended from time to time in accordance with this Agreement.
6.3 Applicable Law. The rules, regulations, official policies, standards and specifications applicable to the Project (the “Applicable Law”) shall be those set forth in this Agreement and the Project Approvals, and, with respect to matters not addressed by this Agreement or the Project Approvals, those rules, regulations, official policies, standards and
specifications (including City ordinances and resolutions) governing permitted uses, building
locations, timing of construction, densities, design, heights, fees, exactions, and taxes in force and effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement. A list of Applicable Law is provided in Exhibit D.
6.4 Uniform Codes. At the time it issues permits for construction, City may apply to the Project Site, at any time during the Term, then current Uniform Building Code and other
uniform construction codes, and City’s then current design and construction standards for road and
storm drain facilities, provided any such uniform code or standard has been adopted and uniformly applied by City on a citywide basis and provided that no such code or standard is adopted for the purpose of preventing or otherwise limiting Development of all or any part of the Project. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to any local “reach codes” adopted by City after the
Effective Date (including, without limitation, any local measures to restrict use of natural gas or
require on-site renewable energy generation, or to require energy efficiency measures beyond Title 24 requirements), City may, at any time, excuse Developer from compliance with such reach codes on the basis of a written good faith assessment by Developer that compliance will not be feasible, including for technological or financial reasons, or that compliance would frustrate the goals of
the Project Approvals or this Agreement.
6.5 No Conflicting Enactments. Developer’s vested right to Develop the Project shall not be diminished by City approval (whether by action of the City Council or by initiative, referendum or other means) of any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, standard, directive, condition or other measure (each individually, a “City Law”) that is in conflict with Applicable
638
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 15
Law or this Agreement or that reduces the rights or assurances provided by this Agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any City Law shall be deemed to conflict with
Applicable Law or this Agreement or reduce the Development rights provided hereby if it would
accomplish any of the following results, either by specific reference to the Project or as part of a general enactment which applies to or affects the Project:
(a) Change any land use designation or permitted use of the Project Site;
(b) Limit or control the availability of public utilities, services, or facilities, or
any privileges or rights to public utilities, services, or facilities (for example, water rights, water
connections or sewage capacity rights, sewer connections, etc.) for the Project, provided that Developer has complied with all applicable requirements for receiving or using public utilities, services, or facilities;
(c) Limit or control the location of buildings, structures, grading, or other
improvements of the Project in a manner that is inconsistent with or more restrictive than the
limitations included in the Project Approvals or the Subsequent Approvals (as and when they are issued);
(d) Limit or control the rate, timing, phasing, or sequencing of the Development of all or any part of the Project in any manner;
(e) Result in Developer having to substantially delay Development of the
Project or require the issuance of additional permits or approvals by City other than those required by Applicable Law;
(f) Establish, enact, increase, or impose against the Project or Project Site any fees, taxes (including without limitation general, special and excise taxes but excluding any
increased local (city or county) sales tax or increases city business license tax), assessments, liens
or other monetary obligations (including generating demolition permit fees, encroachment permit and grading permit fees) other than those specifically permitted by this Agreement or other connection fees imposed by third party utilities;
(g) Impose against the Project any condition, dedication or other exaction not
specifically authorized by Applicable Law; or
(h) Limit the processing or procuring of applications and approvals of Subsequent Approvals.
6.6 Initiatives and Referenda; Other City Actions Related to Project.
(a) If any City Law is enacted or imposed by initiative or referendum, or by the
City Council directly or indirectly in connection with any proposed initiative or referendum, which
City Law would conflict with Applicable Law or this Agreement or reduce the Development rights provided by this Agreement, such Law shall only apply to the Project to the extent it would not diminish Developer’s vested rights to Develop the Project.
639
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 16
(b) Except as authorized in Section 6.9, without limiting the generality of any of the foregoing, no moratorium or other limitation (whether relating to the rate, timing, phasing
or sequencing of Development) affecting subdivision maps, building permits or other entitlements
to use that are approved or to be approved, issued or granted within the City, or portions of the City, shall diminish Developer’s vested rights to Develop the Project.
(c) To the maximum extent permitted by law, City shall cooperate with Developer and shall undertake such actions as may be necessary to ensure this Agreement remains
in full force and effect.
(d) Developer reserves the right to challenge in court any City Law that would reduce the Development rights provided by this Agreement.
6.7 Environmental Review and Mitigation. The Parties understand that the MND and MMRP were intended to be used in connection with each of the Project Approvals and
Subsequent Approvals needed for the Project. Consistent with the CEQA policies and
requirements applicable to the MND, City agrees to use the MND and MMRP in connection with the processing of any Subsequent Approval to the maximum extent allowed by law and not to impose on the Project any mitigation measures other than those specifically imposed by the Project Approvals, MND, and MMRP, or specifically required by CEQA or other Applicable Law, except
as provided for in this Section 6.7. Without limitation of the foregoing, the Parties acknowledge
that Subsequent Approvals may be eligible for one or more streamlining provisions under CEQA, including Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183. Consistent with CEQA, a future, additional CEQA document may be prepared for any Subsequent Approval. Developer specifically acknowledges and agrees that City, as lead agency, is responsible
and retains sole discretion to determine whether an additional CEQA document must be prepared,
which discretion City agrees it shall not exercise unreasonably or delay.
6.8 Life of Development Approvals and Permits. The term of any permit, rezoning, or other land use entitlement approved as a Project Approval or Subsequent Approval shall automatically be extended for the longer of the Term (including any extensions) or the term
otherwise applicable to such Project Approval or Subsequent Approval if this Agreement is no
longer in effect. The Term of this Agreement and the term of any other Project Approval or Subsequent Approval shall not include any period of time during which a Development moratorium (including, but not limited to, a water or sewer moratorium or water and sewer moratorium) or the actions of other public agencies that regulate land use, Development or the
provision of services to the land, prevents, prohibits or delays the construction of the Project or a
lawsuit involving any such Development approvals or permits is pending.
6.9 State and Federal Law. As provided in Government Code section 65869.5, this Agreement shall not preclude the application to the Project of changes in laws, regulations, plans or policies, to the extent that such changes are specifically mandated and required by changes in
state or federal laws or regulations. Not in limitation of the foregoing, nothing in this Agreement
shall preclude City from imposing on Developer any fee specifically mandated and required by state or federal laws and regulations. In the event of any changes required by state or federal laws or regulations, the Developer and City shall meet and confer in good faith to determine what, if any, modifications to this Agreement and/or the Project Approvals would allow the Project and
640
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 17
City to comply with such state or federal law or regulation while preserving to the maximum extent feasible the spirit and intent of the Parties in this Agreement and the Project Approvals.
6.10 Timing and Review of Project Construction and Completion. Except as
expressly provided in the Project Approvals, Developer shall have the vested right to Develop the Project in such order, at such rate and at such times as the Developer deems appropriate in the exercise of its sole business judgment. In particular, and not in any limitation of any of the foregoing, since the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of
Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties therein to consider, and expressly
provide for, the timing of Development resulted in a later-adopted initiative restricting the timing of Development to prevail over such Parties’ agreement, it is the desire of the Parties hereto to avoid that result. The Parties acknowledge that, except as otherwise provided for in the Project Approvals, Developer shall have the vested right to Develop the Project on the Project Site in such
order and at such rate and at such times as the Developer deems appropriate in the exercise of its
business judgment. Nothing in this Agreement shall create any obligation for Developer to complete development of the Project, or any portion thereof, except and to the extent set forth in the Project Approvals.
ARTICLE 7
AMENDMENT
7.1 Project Amendments. To the extent permitted by state and federal law, any Project Approval or Subsequent Approval may, from time to time, be amended or modified in the following manner:
(a) Administrative Project Amendments. Upon the written request of
Developer for an amendment or modification to a Project Approval or Subsequent Approval,
City’s Chief Planner or his/her designee shall determine: (i) whether the requested amendment or modification is minor when considered in light of the Project as a whole; and (ii) whether the requested amendment or modification is consistent with this Agreement and Applicable Law. If the Chief Planner or his/her designee finds that the proposed amendment or modification is minor,
consistent with this Agreement and Applicable Law, and will result in no new significant impacts
not addressed and mitigated in the MND, the amendment shall be determined to be an “Administrative Project Amendment” and the Chief Planner or his/her designee may, except to the extent otherwise required by law, approve the Administrative Project Amendment without notice and public hearing. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, lot line adjustments,
minor alterations in vehicle circulation patterns or vehicle access points, location of parking stalls
on the site, number of required parking stalls if City development standards allow, substitutions of comparable landscaping for any landscaping shown on any final development plan or landscape plan, variations in the location of structures that do not substantially alter the design concepts of the Project, location or installation of utilities and other infrastructure connections or facilities that
do not substantially alter the design concepts of the Project, and minor adjustments to the Project
Site diagram or Project Site legal description shall be treated as Administrative Project Amendments. Any requested amendment seeking modification of or deviation from the performance or development standards contained in the Municipal Code and which would otherwise require a discretionary approval by the City Council, Planning Commission, or other
formal approval body shall not be treated as an Administrative Project Amendment.
641
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 18
(b) Non-Administrative Project Amendments. Any request by Developer for an amendment or modification to a Project Approval or Subsequent Approval which is determined
not to be an Administrative Project Amendment as set forth above shall be subject to review,
consideration and action pursuant to the Applicable Law and this Agreement.
7.2 Amendment of this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended from time to time, in whole or in part, by mutual written consent of the Parties hereto or their successors in interest, as follows:
(a) Administrative Agreement Amendments. Any amendment to this
Agreement which does not substantially affect (i) the Term, (ii) permitted uses of the Project Site, (iii) provisions for the reservation or dedication of land, (iv) conditions, terms, restrictions, or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, (v) the density or intensity of use of the Project Site or the maximum height or size of proposed buildings or (vi) monetary contributions by
Developer, shall be considered an “Administrative Agreement Amendment” and shall not,
except to the extent otherwise required by law, require notice or public hearing before the parties may execute an amendment hereto. Administrative Agreement Amendments may be approved by the City Manager or, in the sole discretion of the City Manager, the City Manager may refer any proposed Administrative Agreement Amendment to the City Council for consideration and
approval or denial.
(b) Other Agreement Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement other than an Administrative Agreement Amendment shall be subject to recommendation by the Planning Commission (by advisory resolution) and approval by the City Council (by ordinance) following a duly noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council,
consistent with Government Code sections 65867 and 65867.5.
(c) Amendment Exemptions. No Subsequent Approval, or amendment of a Project Approval or Subsequent Approval, shall require an amendment to this Agreement. Instead, any such matter automatically shall be deemed to be incorporated into the Project and vested under this Agreement.
ARTICLE 8 ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER
8.1 Assignment and Transfer.
(a) Developer may transfer or assign all or any portion of its interests, rights, or obligations under the Agreement and the Project approvals to third parties acquiring an interest
or estate in the Project or the Project Site or any portions thereof including, without limitation,
purchasers or lessees of lots, parcels, or facilities. Prior to any such transfer or assignment, Developer will seek City’s prior written consent thereof, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. City may refuse to give consent only if, in light of the proposed transferee’s reputation and financial resources, such transferee would not, in City’s reasonable opinion, be able
to perform the obligations proposed to be assumed by such transferee. To assist the City Manager
in determining whether to provide consent to a transfer or assignment, the City Manager may request from the transferee (directly or through Developer) reasonable documentation of
642
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 19
transferee’s understanding of, financial resources, and ability and plan to perform the obligations proposed to be assumed by transferee, including without limitation obligations specifically
identified in this Agreement, the Project Approvals, the MND and MMRP, the General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, and the TDM Plan. Such determination will be made by the City Manager and will be appealable by Developer to the City Council. For any transfer of all or any portion of the Property, the Developer and assignee shall enter into an assignment and assumption agreement in substantially the form set forth in Exhibit E.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, each
of following Transfers are permitted and shall not require City consent under this Section 8.1:
(i) Any transfer for financing purposes to secure the funds necessary for construction and/or permanent financing of the Project;
(ii) An assignment of this Agreement to an Affiliate;
(iii) Transfers of common area to a property owners association;
(iv) Dedications and grants of easements and rights of way required in accordance with the Project Approvals;
(v) Transfers in the event of foreclosure or deed in lieu thereof; or
(vi) Any leasing activity.
(c) For the purposes of this Section 8.1, “Affiliate” means an entity or person
that is directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control or management of or with Developer. For the purposes of this definition, “control” means the possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of an entity or a person, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract, or otherwise, and the
terms “controlling” and “controlled” have the meanings correlative to the foregoing.
ARTICLE 9 COOPERATION IN THE EVENT OF LEGAL CHALLENGE
9.1 Cooperation. In the event of any administrative, legal, or equitable action or other proceeding instituted by any person not a party to the Agreement challenging the validity of any
provision of the Agreement, or any Project Approval or Subsequent Approval (“Legal Challenge”), the Parties will cooperate in defending such action or proceeding. City shall promptly (within five business days) notify Developer of any such Legal Challenge against City. If City fails promptly to notify Developer of any Legal Challenge against City or if City fails to cooperate in the defense, Developer will not thereafter be responsible for City’s defense. The Parties will use
best efforts to select mutually agreeable legal counsel to defend such Legal Challenge, and
Developer will pay compensation for such legal counsel (including City Attorney time and overhead for the defense of such action), but will exclude other City staff overhead costs and normal day-to-day business expenses incurred by City. Developer’s obligation to pay for legal counsel will extend to attorneys’ fees incurred on appeal. In the event City and Developer are
unable to select mutually agreeable legal counsel to defend such Legal Challenge, each party may
643
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 20
select its own legal counsel and Developer will pay its and City’s attorneys’ fees and costs. Developer shall reimburse City for all reasonable court costs and attorneys’ fees expended by City
in defense of any such Legal Challenge or payable to any prevailing plaintiff/petitioner.
9.2 Reapproval.
(a) If, as a result of any Legal Challenge, all or any portion of the Agreement or the Project Approvals are set aside or otherwise made ineffective by any judgment in such action or proceeding (“Judgment”), based on procedural, substantive or other deficiencies
(“Deficiencies”), the Parties will use their respective best efforts to sustain and reenact or readopt
the Agreement, and/or the Project approvals, that the Deficiencies related to, as follows, unless the Parties mutually agree in writing to act otherwise:
(i) If any Judgment requires reconsideration or consideration by City of the Agreement or any Project approval, then City will consider or reconsider that matter in a
manner consistent with the intent of the Agreement and with Applicable Law. If any such
Judgment invalidates or otherwise makes ineffective all or any portion of the Agreement or Project approval, then the Parties will cooperate and will cure any Deficiencies identified in the Judgment or upon which the Judgment is based in a manner consistent with the intent of the Agreement and with Applicable Law. City will then consider readopting or reenacting the Agreement, or the
Project approval, or any portion thereof, to which the Deficiencies related.
(ii) Acting in a manner consistent with the intent of the Agreement includes, but is not limited to, recognizing that the Parties intend that Developer may undertake and complete Development of the Project as described in the Agreement, and adopting such ordinances, resolutions, and other enactments as are necessary to readopt or reenact all or any
portion of the Agreement or Project approvals without contravening the Judgment.
(b) The Parties agree that this Section 9.2 shall constitute a separate agreement entered into concurrently, and that if any other provision of this Agreement, or the Agreement as a whole, is invalidated, rendered null, or set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Parties agree to be bound by the terms of this Section 9.2, which shall survive invalidation, nullification,
or setting aside.
9.3 Extension Due to Legal Challenge. In the event that any Legal Challenge has the direct or indirect effect of setting aside or modifying the Project Approvals, or preventing or delaying development of the Project as set forth herein, the Term of this Agreement shall be automatically extended for a tolling period equal to the number of days from the commencement
of litigation to its conclusion; provided, however, that such tolling period shall not exceed a total
of five (5) years.
ARTICLE 10 DEFAULT; REMEDIES; TERMINATION
10.1 Defaults. Any failure by either Party to perform any term or provision of the
Agreement, which failure continues uncured for a period of thirty (30) days following written
notice of such failure from the other Party (unless such period is extended by mutual written consent), will constitute a default under the Agreement. Any notice given will specify the nature
644
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 21
of the alleged failure and, where appropriate, the manner in which said failure satisfactorily may be cured. If the nature of the alleged failure is such that it cannot reasonably be cured within such
30-day period, then the commencement of the cure within such time period, and the diligent
prosecution to completion of the cure thereafter, will be deemed to be a cure within such 30-day period. Upon the occurrence of a default under the Agreement, the non-defaulting party may institute legal proceedings to enforce the terms of the Agreement or, in the event of a material default, terminate the Agreement. If the default is cured, then no default will exist and the noticing
party shall take no further action.
10.2 Requirements for Termination by City. If City elects to consider terminating the Agreement due to a material default of Developer, then City will give a notice of intent to terminate the Agreement and the matter will be scheduled for consideration and review by the City Council at a duly noticed and conducted public hearing. Developer will have the right to offer written and
oral evidence prior to or at the time of said public hearings. If the City Council determines that a
material default has occurred and is continuing, and elects to terminate the Agreement, City will give written notice of termination of the Agreement to Developer by certified mail and the Agreement will thereby be terminated sixty (60) days thereafter.
10.3 Enforced Delay; Extension of Time of Performance. Subject to the limitations
set forth below, performance by either party hereunder shall not be deemed to be in default, and
all performance and other dates specified in this Agreement shall be extended, where delays are due to: war; insurrection; strikes and labor disputes; lockouts; riots; floods; earthquakes; fires; casualties; acts of God; acts of the public enemy; terrorism; epidemics or pandemics; quarantine or shelter-in-place restrictions; freight embargoes; governmental restrictions or priority; litigation
and arbitration, including court delays; legal challenges to this Agreement, the Project Approvals,
Subsequent Approvals, or any other approval required for the Project or any initiatives or referenda regarding the same; environmental conditions that have not been previously disclosed or discovered or that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence that delays the construction or Development of the Property or any portion thereof; unusually severe weather but
only to the extent that such weather or its effects (including, without limitation, dry out time) result
in delays that cumulatively exceed thirty (30) days for every winter season occurring after commencement of construction of the Project; acts or omissions of the other party; or acts or failures to act of any public or governmental agency or entity (except that acts or failures to act of City shall not excuse performance by City); moratorium; or a Severe Economic Recession (each a
“Force Majeure Delay”). An extension of time for any such cause shall be for the period of the
enforced delay and shall commence to run from the time of the commencement of the cause, if Notice by the party claiming such extension is sent to the other party within sixty (60) days of the commencement of the cause. If Notice is sent after such sixty (60) day period, then the extension shall commence to run no sooner than sixty (60) days prior to the giving of such Notice. Times of
performance under this Agreement may also be extended in writing by the mutual agreement of
City and Developer. Developer’s inability or failure to obtain financing or otherwise timely satisfy shall not be deemed to be a cause outside the reasonable control of the Developer and shall not be the basis for an excused delay unless such inability, failure or delay is a direct result of a Severe Economic Recession. “Severe Economic Recession” means a decline in the monetary value of all
finished goods and services produced in the United States, as measured by initial quarterly
estimates of United States Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) published by the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (and not subsequent monthly revisions),
645
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 22
lasting more than three (3) consecutive calendar quarters. Any quarter of flat or positive GDP growth shall end the period of such Severe Economic Recession.
10.4 Legal Action. Either Party may institute legal action to cure, correct, or remedy
any default, enforce any covenant or agreement in the Agreement, enjoin any threatened or attempted violation thereof, and enforce by specific performance or declaratory relief the obligations and rights of the Parties thereto. Except as provided in Section 10.1, the sole and exclusive remedies for any default or violation of the Agreement will be specific performance or
declaratory relief. In any proceeding brought to enforce the Agreement, the prevailing Party will
be entitled to recover from the unsuccessful Party all costs, expenses and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by the prevailing party in the enforcement proceeding.
10.5 Periodic Review.
(a) Conducting the Periodic Review. Throughout the Term, at least once every
twelve (12) months following the Effective Date of this Agreement, City shall review the extent
of good-faith compliance by Developer with the terms of this Agreement. This review (“Periodic Review”) shall be conducted by the Chief Planner or his/her designee and shall be limited in scope to compliance with the terms of this Agreement pursuant to Government Code section 65865.1. At least ten (10) days prior to the Periodic Review, and in the manner prescribed in Section 11.9
of this Agreement, City shall deposit in the mail or transmit electronically to Developer a copy of
any staff report and documents to be relied upon in conducting the Periodic Review and, to the extent practical, related exhibits concerning Developer’s performance hereunder.
(b) Developer Submission of Periodic Review Report. Annually commencing one year from the Effective Date and continuing through termination of this Agreement, upon
thirty (30) days’ advance notice by the City, Developer shall submit a report to the Chief Planner
stating the Developer’s good faith compliance with terms of the Agreement.
(c) Good Faith Compliance Review. During the Periodic Review, the Chief Planner shall set a meeting to consider the Developer’s good-faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Developer shall be permitted an opportunity to respond to City’s evaluation of
Developer’s performance, either orally at the meeting or in a supplemental written statement, at
Developer’s election. Such response shall be made to the Chief Planner. At the conclusion of the Periodic Review, the Chief Planner shall make written findings and determinations, on the basis of substantial evidence, as to whether or not Developer has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The decision of the Chief Planner shall be appealable to the City
Council. If the Chief Planner finds and determines that Developer has not complied with such
terms and conditions, the Chief Planner may recommend to the City Council that it terminate or modify this Agreement by giving notice of its intention to do so, in the manner set forth in Government Code sections 65867 and 65868. The costs incurred by City in connection with the Periodic Review process described herein shall be borne by Developer.
(d) Failure to Properly Conduct Periodic Review. If City fails, during any
calendar year, to either: (i) conduct the Periodic Review or (ii) notify Developer in writing of City’s determination, pursuant to a Periodic Review, as to Developer’s compliance with the terms of this Agreement and such failure remains uncured as of December 31 of any year during the
646
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 23
Term, such failure shall be conclusively deemed an approval by City of Developer’s compliance with the terms of this Agreement for the period of time since the last Periodic Review.
(e) Written Notice of Compliance. With respect to any year for which
Developer has been determined or deemed to have complied with this Agreement, City shall, within thirty (30) days following request by Developer, execute and deliver to Developer (or to any party requested by Developer) a written “Notice of Compliance,” in recordable form, duly executed and acknowledged by City, that certifies:
(i) The Agreement is unmodified and in full force and effect, or if there
have been modifications hereto, that this Agreement is in full force and effect as modified and stating the date and nature of such modifications;
(ii) That there are no current uncured defaults under this Agreement or specifying the dates and nature of any such default;
(iii) Any other information reasonably requested by Developer. City’s
failure to deliver to Developer such a Notice of Compliance within such time shall constitute a conclusive presumption against City that this Agreement is in full force and effect without modification, except as may be represented by Developer, and that there are no uncured defaults in the performance of Developer, except as may be represented by Developer. Developer shall
have the right, in Developer’s sole discretion, to record such Notice of Compliance.
10.6 California Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action to enforce or interpret this Agreement shall be filed and heard in the Superior Court of San Mateo County, California.
10.7 Resolution of Disputes. With regard to any dispute involving Development of the
Project, the resolution of which is not provided for by this Agreement or Applicable Law,
Developer shall, at City’s request, meet with City. The parties to any such meetings shall attempt in good faith to resolve any such disputes. Nothing in this Section 10.7 shall in any way be interpreted as requiring that Developer and City and/or City’s designee reach agreement with regard to those matters being addressed, nor shall the outcome of these meetings be binding in any
way on City or Developer unless expressly agreed to by the parties to such meetings.
10.8 Attorneys’ Fees. In any legal action or other proceeding brought by either Party to enforce or interpret a provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and any other costs incurred in that proceeding in addition to any other relief to which it is entitled.
10.9 Hold Harmless. Developer shall hold City and its elected and appointed officers,
agents, employees, and representatives harmless from claims, costs, and liabilities for any personal injury, death, or property damage which is a result of, or alleged to be the result of, the construction of the Project, or of operations performed under this Agreement by Developer or by Developer’s contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees, whether such operations were performed by
Developer or any of Developer’s contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees. Nothing in this
Section 10.9 shall be construed to mean that Developer shall hold City harmless from any claims of personal injury, death or property damage arising from, or alleged to arise from, any gross
647
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 24
negligence or willful misconduct on the part of City, its elected and appointed representatives, offices, agents and employees.
ARTICLE 11 MISCELLANEOUS
11.1 Incorporation of Recitals and Introductory Paragraph. The Recitals contained in this Agreement, and the introductory paragraph preceding the Recitals, are hereby incorporated into this Agreement as if fully set forth herein.
11.2 No Agency. It is specifically understood and agreed to by and between the Parties
hereto that: (i) the subject Project is a private development; (ii) City has no interest or responsibilities for, or duty to, third parties concerning any improvements until such time, and only until such time, that City accepts the same pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement or in connection with the various Project Approvals or Subsequent Approvals; (iii) Developer shall have
full power over and exclusive control of the Project herein described, subject only to the limitations
and obligations of Developer under this Agreement, the Project Approvals, Subsequent Approvals, and Applicable Law; and (iv) City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any form of agency relationship, joint venture or partnership between City and Developer and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed
as creating any such relationship between City and Developer.
11.3 Enforceability. City and Developer agree that unless this Agreement is amended or terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be enforceable by any party hereto notwithstanding any change hereafter enacted or adopted (whether by ordinance, resolution, initiative, or any other means) in any applicable general plan, specific plan,
zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, or any other land use ordinance or building ordinance,
resolution or other rule, regulation or policy adopted by City that changes, alters or amends the rules, regulations, and policies applicable to the Development of the Project Site at the time of the approval of this Agreement as provided by Government Code section 65866.
11.4 Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement, or the application of any
term or provision of this Agreement to a particular situation, is held by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement, or the application of this Agreement to other situations, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by mutual consent of the parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any material provision of this Agreement, or the application of such provision to a
particular situation, is held to be invalid, void or unenforceable, either City or Developer may (in
their sole and absolute discretion) terminate this Agreement by providing written notice of such termination to the other party.
11.5 Other Necessary Acts and City Approvals. Each party shall execute and deliver to the other all such other further instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary to
carry out the Project Approvals, Subsequent Approvals and this Agreement and to provide and
secure to the other party the full and complete enjoyment of its rights and privileges hereunder. Whenever a reference is made herein to an action or approval to be undertaken by City, the City
648
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 25
Manager or his or her designee is authorized to act on behalf of City, unless specifically provided otherwise by this Agreement or Applicable Law.
11.6 Construction. Each reference in this Agreement or any of the Project Approvals
or Subsequent Approvals shall be deemed to refer to the Agreement, Project Approval, or Subsequent Approval as it may be amended from time to time, whether or not the particular reference refers to such possible amendment. This Agreement has been reviewed and revised by legal counsel for both City and Developer, and no presumption or rule that ambiguities shall be
construed against the drafting party shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this
Agreement.
11.7 Other Miscellaneous Terms. The singular shall include the plural; the masculine gender shall include the feminine; “shall” is mandatory; “may” is permissive. If there is more than one signer of this Agreement, the signer obligations are joint and several.
11.8 Covenants Running with the Land. All of the provisions contained in this
Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective heirs, successors and assigns, representatives, lessees, and all other persons acquiring all or a portion of the Project, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever. All of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and shall constitute
covenants running with the land pursuant to California law including, without limitation, Civil
Code section 1468. Each covenant herein to act or refrain from acting is for the benefit of or a burden upon the Project, as appropriate, runs with the Project Site, and is binding upon the owner of all or a portion of the Project Site and each successive owner during its ownership of such property.
11.9 Notices. Any notice or communication required hereunder between City or
Developer must be in writing, and may be given either personally, by email (with original forwarded by regular U.S. Mail), by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested), or by Federal Express or other similar courier promising overnight delivery. If personally delivered, a notice shall be deemed to have been given when delivered to the party to whom it is addressed. If
delivered by email, a notice shall be deemed given upon verification of receipt if received before
5:00 p.m. on a regular business day, or else on the next business day. If given by registered or certified mail, such notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received on the first to occur of: (i) actual receipt by any of the addressees designated below as the party to whom notices are to be sent, or (ii) five (5) days after a registered or certified letter containing
such notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited in the United States mail. If
given by Federal Express or similar courier, a notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received on the date delivered as shown on a receipt issued by the courier. Such notices or communications shall be given to the parties at their addresses set forth below:
649
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 26
If to City, to: City of South San Francisco Attn: City Manager
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080 Phone: (650) 877-8500 Email: sharon.ranals@ssf.net
With a Copy to: Redwood Public Law
Attn: Sky Woodruff
409 13th St., Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510-877-5840 Email: sky.woodruff@redwoodpubliclaw.com
If to Developer, to: Dubuque Center, L.P.
Attn: General Counsel 674 Via De La Valle, Suite 206 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Phone: 858-779-1111
Email: info@iqhqreit.com
With a Copy to: Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP Attn: Megan Jennings One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 391-4800
Email: mjennings@coblentzlaw.com
Any party hereto may at any time, by giving ten (10) days written notice to the other party hereto, designate any other address in substitution of the address to which such notice or
communication shall be given.
11.10 Mortgagee Protection. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit Developer, in any manner, at Developer’s sole discretion, from encumbering the Project Site or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any lien of mortgage, deed of trust, or other security device securing financing with respect to the Project or the Project Site (“Mortgage”).
City acknowledges that the lenders providing such financing may require, in addition to estoppel
certificates as set forth in Section 4.7, certain Agreement interpretations and modifications and agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet with Developer and representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purpose of this Agreement. Any
Mortgagee of the Project Site shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges:
(a) Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any Mortgage on the Project Site made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise required by law.
650
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 27
(b) If City timely receives a request from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to Developer under this Agreement, City shall provide a copy of that notice
to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to Developer or within ten
(10) days of receiving a request, if a Mortgagee has not provided a request prior to the City sending a notice of default to Developer. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during the remaining cure period allowed such Party under this Agreement.
(c) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Project Site, or any
portion thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the Mortgage or deed in lieu of such foreclosure, shall
take the Project Site, or portion thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform any of Developer’s obligations or other affirmative covenants of Developer hereunder, or to guarantee such performance; provided, however, that to the extent that
any covenant to be performed by Developer is a condition precedent to the performance of a
covenant by City, the performance thereof shall continue to be condition precedent to City’s performance hereunder, and further provided that any sales, transfer, or assignment by any Mortgagee in possession shall be subject to the provisions of Section 8.1 of this Agreement.
11.11 Entire Agreement, Counterparts And Exhibits. This Agreement is executed in
two (2) duplicate counterparts, each of which is deemed to be an original. This Agreement consists
of twenty-six (26) pages, exclusive of cover, table of contents, and signature pages, and five (5) exhibits which constitute in full, the final and exclusive understanding and agreement of the parties and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements of the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be in writing
and signed by the appropriate authorities of City and the Developer. The following exhibits are
attached to this Agreement and incorporated herein for all purposes:
Exhibit A: Legal Description of Project Site
Exhibit B: List of Project Approvals as of Effective Date
Exhibit C: City Fees, Exactions and Payments
Exhibit D: Applicable Laws
Exhibit E: Form of Assignment and Assumption Agreement
11.12 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is intended for the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective permitted successors and assigns, and is not for the benefit of, nor may any express or implied provision hereof be enforced by, any other person, except as
otherwise set forth in Section 11.10.
11.13 Recordation Of Development Agreement. Pursuant to Government Code section 65868.5, no later than ten (10) days after City enters into this Agreement, the City Clerk shall record an executed copy of this Agreement in the Official Records of the County of San Mateo.
651
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 28
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by and between Developer and City as of the day and year first above written.
[Signatures to follow on subsequent pages.]
652
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 Signature Page - 1
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND DUBUQUE CENTER, L.P.
CITY:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a California municipal corporation
By:
Date:
Name: Sharon Ranals Its: City Manager ATTEST:
By: City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: City Attorney
[Insert Notary Acknowledgment]
653
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 Signature Page - 2
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND DUBUQUE CENTER, L.P.
DEVELOPER:
DUBUQUE CENTER, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
By:
Date:
Name: Its:
[Insert Notary Acknowledgment]
654
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 A-1
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND
DUBUQUE CENTER, L.P.
Exhibit A
Legal Description of Project Site
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO IN THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL ONE: BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF THE 10.444 ACRE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE ENTERPRISE FOUNDRY CO., BY THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LAND AND IMPROVEMENT CO., BY DEED RECORDED JULY 15, 1918, IN BOOK 269 OF DEEDS AT A PAGE 462, RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING DISTANT NORTH 52° 22' 21" WEST 0.28 FEET FROM A CROSS MARKED ON A BRASS PLATE, SET IN THE TOP OF A LARGE CONCRETE MONUMENT; RUNNING THENCE ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID 10.444 ACRE TRACT AND ITS EXTENSION, SOUTH 52° 22' 21" EAST 805.11 FEET; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 278 FEET, 103.50 FEET, THE CHORD OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 3° 14' 12" WEST 102.90 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF SAID RIGHT OF WAY, NORTH 37° 32' 410" EAST 524.84 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF THE 12.03 ACRE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO PACIFIC CAR AND EQUIPMENT CO. BY NORMAN B. LIVERMORE, BY DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1911, IN BOOK 199 OF DEEDS AT PAGE 485, RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID 12.03 ACRE TRACT AND ITS EXTENSION, NORTH 52° 27' 30" WEST 826.17 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAN BRUNO ROAD; THENCE ALONG THE SAID EASTERLY LINE OF SAN BRUNO ROAD, THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES; SOUTH 51° 4' 39" WEST 90.85 FEET; SOUTH 40° 5' 39" WEST 350.56 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM SO MUCH THEREOF AS WAS CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES, BY DEED DATED OCTOBER 18, 1928 AND RECORDED DECEMBER 10, 1928, IN BOOK 384 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, PAGE 302 AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAN BRUNO ROAD, DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 51° 06' WEST 938.02 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAN BRUNO ROAD AND BUTLER ROAD, SAID POINT BEING COMMON TO THE LANDS OF THE FONTANA FOODS PRODUCTS COMPANY AND THE PACIFIC CAR AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY; THENCE ALONG A LINE COMMON TO THE LANDS OF SAID COMPANIES, SOUTH 52° 25-3/4' EAST 61.42 FEET; THENCE ALONG A LINE 62.5 FEET EASTERLY MEASURED RADIALLY FROM THE CENTERLINE OF A SURVEY FOR THE STATE HIGHWAY, KNOWN AS ROAD IV, SAN MATEO COUNTY, ROUTE 68, SECTION A, CURVING TO THE LEFT FROM A TANGENT BEARING SOUTH 49° 25-1/4' WEST, WITH A RADIUS OF 1737.5 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 14° 33 1/2', FOR A DISTANCE OF 441.48 FEET TO A POINT IN THE LINE COMMON TO LANDS OF THE FONTANA FOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY AND THE PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE, NORTH 52° 25-3/4' WEST 63.50 FEET TO A POINT IN SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAN BRUNO ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE NORTH 40° 04-3/4' EAST 350.56 FEET; NORTH 51° 04-3/4' EAST 90.85 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE PROPERTY CONVEYED BY DEED FROM FONTANA FOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY, A CORPORATION TO STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DATED FEBRUARY 21, 1944 AND RECORDED MARCH 22, 1944 IN BOOK 1110, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, PAGE 228 AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO LAND AND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY TO M.E. FONTANA, BY DEED DATED OCTOBER 15, 1921 AND RECORDED OCTOBER 17, 1921 IN BOOK 25, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, PAGE 9, SAID PORTION BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
655
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 A-2
BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN 0.60 ACRE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY FONTANA FOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY, A CORPORATION TO STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY DEED DATED OCTOBER 18,1928 AND RECORDED DECEMBER 10, 1928, IN BOOK 384, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, PAGE 302; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID 0.60 ACRE TRACT OF LAND, ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, FROM A TANGENT THAT BEARS NORTH 34° 45' 19" EAST, WITH A RADIUS OF 1737.5 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 14° 36' 57" A DISTANCE OF 443.23 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN 9.325 ACRE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY NORMAN B. LIVERMORE & SONS, FORMERLY NORMAN B. LIVERMORE & COMPANY TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY DEED DATED JUNE 10, 1943 AND RECORDED JULY 1, 1943, IN BOOK 1074 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, PAGE 100; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID 9.325 ACRE TRACT OF LAND, SOUTH 52° 31' 32" EAST 216.65 FEET; THENCE FROM A TANGENT THAT BEARS SOUTH 48° 12' 35" WEST, ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, WITH A RADIUS OF 2400 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 10° 34" 50', A DISTANCE OF 443.20 FEET TO THE PROPERTY LINE COMMON TO THE LANDS NOW OR FORMERLY OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY AND FONTANA FOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY; THENCE ALONG THE LAST MENTIONED LINE NORTH 52° 32' 02" WEST 210.02 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL TWO: PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN 9.325 ACRE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY N.B. LIVERMORE & SONS TO STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY DEED DATED JUNE 10, 1943 AND RECORDED JULY 1, 1943, IN BOOK 1074 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, PAGE 100 AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID 9.325 ACRE TRACT, DISTANT ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE, SOUTH 52° 31' 32" EAST 216.65 FEET FROM THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID 9.325 ACRE TRACT; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE, BEING THE PROPERTY LINE COMMON TO THE LANDS NOW OR FORMERLY OF FONTANA FOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTH 52° 31' 32" EAST 45.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 29° 18' 45" WEST 45.21 FEET; THENCE FROM A TANGENT THAT BEARS SOUTH 48° 38' 35" WEST, ALONG CURVE TO THE LEFT, WITH A RADIUS OF 2400 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 0° 26', A DISTANCE OF 18.15 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: 015-021-030
656
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 B-1
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND
DUBUQUE CENTER, L.P.
Exhibit B
List of Project Approvals as of Effective Date
1. Resolution to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, approved by the City Council on July 12, 2023 by Resolution No.
118-2023;
2. Resolution to approve a Design Review Permit, Transportation Demand Management Plan, and Community Benefits Proposal, approved by the City Council on July 12, 2023 by Resolution No. 119-2023;
3. Ordinance No. [______] adopting Development Agreement by and between the City of
South San Francisco and Dubuque Center, L.P., introduced by the City Council on
[______] and adopted by the City Council on [______].
657
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 C-1
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND
DUBUQUE CENTER, L.P.
Exhibit C
City Fees, Exactions, and Payments
Subject to the terms of Sections 3.2 and 5.6 of this Agreement, Developer agrees that Developer shall be responsible for the payment of the following fees, charges, exactions, and
assessments (collectively, “City Fees”). Nothing herein shall be construed to relieve the Property
from common benefit assessments or district taxes levied against it and similarly situated properties by the City pursuant to and in accordance with any statutory procedure for the assessment of property to pay for infrastructure and/or services that benefit the Property. As authorized by this Agreement, the amount paid for a particular City Fee shall be as specified below.
1. Administrative/Processing Fees. The Developer shall pay the applicable application,
processing, administrative, legal and inspection fees and charges, as then currently adopted pursuant to City’s Master Fee Schedule and required by City for processing of land use entitlements, including without limitation, General Plan amendments, zoning changes, Precise Plans, development agreements, conditional use permits, variances, transportation
demand management plans, tentative subdivision maps, parcel maps, lot line adjustments,
general plan maintenance fee, demolition permits, and building permits.
2. Vested Development Fees. Only the Development Fees in effect as of the Effective Date of the Development Agreement, as set forth in Table 1 below, shall be paid for net new square footage (after consideration of any applicable credits for replacement of existing
square footage in accordance with the calculation methodology for the associated
resolutions for each Development Fee as cited in Table 1 below) at the earlier of (i) issuance of certificate of occupancy or (ii) the times prescribed in the resolution(s) or ordinance(s) adopting and implementing the fees. Developer shall pay each Development Fee at the rates in effect at the time of payment of such Development Fees. For any Development
Fees no longer in effect as of the date such Development Fees are due and payable,
Developer shall pay the rate in effect as of the Effective Date, as set forth in the table below, plus an increase of five percent (5%) annually, which shall be applied as of July 1 each year. City shall allocate Developer’s payments for such Development Fees to the then-existing impact fee fund that most closely corresponds to the purpose for which each fee
has been paid, in City’s reasonable discretion.
***
658
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 C-2
Table 1: Vested Development Fees1
Applicable Development Fee Timing for Payment
Rate as of Effective Date – Office/R&D Cost per Square Foot
Park and Recreation Impact Fee
(SSFMC Ch. 8.67, Resolution 120-2020)
Issuance of
Building Permit, per building
$3.56
Childcare Impact Fee (SSFMC Ch. 8.77, Resolution
122-2020)
$1.52
Public Safety Impact Fee
(SSFMC Ch. 8.75)
$1.32
Citywide Transportation Impact Fee (SSFMC Ch. 8.73, Resolution
131-2020)
$35.06
Commercial Linkage Fee (SSFMC Ch. 8.69, Resolution 123-2018)
$17.38
Library Impact Fee (SSFMC Ch. 8.74, Resolution 121-2020)
$0.14
Sewer Capacity Charge (SSFMC Ch. 14.08.03) Calculated per Reso. 56-2017
Public Art Requirement (SSFMC Ch. 8.76) 0.5% of construction costs2
Community Benefits Fee (SSFMC Ch. 20.395, Resolution 179-2022)3
Issuance of Building Permit, per
building unless otherwise specified in Development Agreement
Sec. 3.3
$20.00
1 South San Francisco Unified School District Fees are not vested by this Agreement. For reference purposes only, as of the Effective Date of the Agreement, this fee is $0.61 per square foot of Commercial/Industrial space.
2 If public art requirement is not provided on site in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 8.76.
3 The Community Benefits Fee is applicable on any square footage of development above 1.0 FAR. Section 3.3 of the Development outlines pre-payments due on the 1st, 3rd, and 5th anniversary of the Effective Date of the Development Agreement.
Remaining payments due as provided in this Exhibit C.
659
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 C-3
660
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 D-1
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND
DUBUQUE CENTER, L.P.
Exhibit D
Applicable Laws
Developer shall comply with the following City regulations and provisions applicable to the Property as of the Effective Date of this Agreement (except as modified by this Agreement and
the Project Approvals).
1. South San Francisco General Plan, as adopted on October 12, 2022, and as amended from time to time prior to the Effective Date.
2. City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, as amended from time to time prior to the Effective Date.
3. South San Francisco Zoning Map, as amended from time to time prior to the Effective
Date.
4. City Fees as set forth in Exhibit C.
661
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 E-1
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND
DUBUQUE CENTER, L.P.
Exhibit E
Form of Assignment and Assumption Agreement
(Starts on Next Page)
662
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 E-2
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of South San Francisco
Attn: City Clerk
400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080
______________________________________________________________________________ Space Above for Recorder’s Use Exempt from Recording Fees per Cal. Gov. Code § 6103
ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT
This Assignment and Assumption Agreement (“Assignment Agreement”) is entered into to be effective on ______, 202_, by and between Dubuque Center, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“Assignor”), and ___________________, a _______________ (“Assignee”), and the City of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation (“City”). Assignor and Assignee are sometimes
referred to herein as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. Assignor and City have previously entered into that certain Development Agreement between City and Assignor dated ________, 2025, approved by the City of South San Francisco City Council by Ordinance No. ________ on [______], 2025, and recorded on
______________, 2025 as Document No. ______________, San Mateo County Official Records (“Development Agreement”) to facilitate the development and redevelopment of that certain real property consisting of approximately 5.89 acres within the City of South San Francisco, California, which is legally described in Exhibit A of the Development Agreement (“Property”). A true and complete copy of the Development Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
B. Assignor is the fee owner of the Property, and Assignor desires to convey its interest in the developable, approximately [_] acre portion of the Property and more particularly described on Exhibit 2 attached hereto (“Assigned Property”) to Assignee concurrently with execution of this Assignment Agreement; and Assignee desires to so acquire such interest in the Assigned Property from the Assignor.
C. Section 8.1 of the Development Agreement (“Agreement and Transfer” therein)
refers to Assignor as “Developer” and provides in part that:
Developer may transfer or assign all or any portion of its interests, rights, or obligations under the Agreement and the Project approvals to third parties acquiring an interest or estate in the Project or any portion thereof including, without
limitation, purchasers or lessees of lots, parcels, or facilities. Prior to the issuance
of the first certificate of occupancy for the Project Site, Developer will seek City’s prior written consent to any transfer, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. City may refuse to give consent only if, in light of the proposed
663
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 E-3
transferee’s reputation and financial resources, such transferee would not, in City’s reasonable opinion, be able to perform the obligations proposed to be assumed by
such transferee, including without limitation obligations specifically identified in
the Development Agreement, the Project Approvals, the Project’s MND, the General Plan, and zoning. Such determination will be made by the City Manager and will be appealable by Developer to the City Council. For any transfer of all or any portion of the Property, the Developer and assignee shall enter into an
assignment and assumption agreement in substantially the form set forth in
Exhibit E.
D. The Parties desire to enter into this Assignment Agreement in order to satisfy and fulfill their respective obligations under Section 8.1 of the Development Agreement.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and the mutual covenants
hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Assignment by Assignor. Assignor hereby assigns, transfers and grants to Assignee, and its successors and assigns, all of Assignor’s rights, title and interest and obligations,
duties, responsibilities, conditions and restrictions under the Development Agreement with respect
to the Assigned Property and only to the extent accruing or arising on and after the Effective Date (collectively, the “Assigned Rights and Obligations”).
2. Acknowledgement and Assumption of Obligations by Assignee. Assignee, for itself and its successor and assigns, hereby acknowledges that it has reviewed, is aware of and
intends to honor its Assigned Rights and Obligations with respect to its Development of the
Assigned Property pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement, and additionally expressly and unconditionally assumes all of the Assigned Rights and Obligations. Assignee agrees, expressly for the benefit of Assignor and City, to comply with, perform, and execute all of the Assigned Rights and Obligations.
3. Release of Assignor. Assignee and City hereby fully release Assignor from all
Assigned Rights and Obligations. Both Assignor and Assignee acknowledge that this Assignment Agreement is intended to fully assign all of the Assigned Rights and Obligations to Assignee, and it is expressly understood that Assignor shall continue to be obligated under the Development Agreement only with respect to those portions of the Project Site retained by Assignor.
4. Substitution of Assignor. Assignee hereinafter shall be substituted for and replace
Assignor in the Development Agreement with respect to the Assigned Property. Whenever the term “Developer” appears in the Development Agreement, it shall hereinafter include Assignee with respect to the Assigned Property.
5. Development Agreement in Full Force and Effect. Except as specifically provided
herein with respect to the assignment and assumption, all the terms, covenants, conditions and
provisions of the Development Agreement are hereby ratified and shall remain in full force and effect.
664
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 E-4
6. Recording. Assignor shall cause this Assignment Agreement to be recorded in the Official Records of San Mateo County, California, and shall promptly provide conformed copies
of the recorded Assignment Agreement to Assignee and City.
7. Successors and Assigns. All of the terms, covenants, conditions and provisions of this Assignment Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors and assigns.
8. Applicable Law/Venue. This Assignment Agreement shall be construed and
enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without reference to choice of law
provisions. Any legal actions under this Assignment Agreement shall be brought only in the Superior Court of the County of San Mateo, State of California.
9. Applicable Law/Venue. This Assignment Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without reference to choice of law
provisions. Any legal actions under this Assignment Agreement shall be brought only in the
Superior Court of the County of San Mateo, State of California.
10. Interpretation. All parties have been represented by counsel in the preparation and negotiation of this Assignment Agreement, and this Assignment Agreement shall be construed according to the fair meaning of its language. The rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities
are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Assignment
Agreement. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise: (a) the plural and singular numbers shall each be deemed to include the other; (b) the masculine, feminine, and neuter genders shall each be deemed to include the others; (c) “shall,” “will,” or “agrees” are mandatory, and “may” is permissive; (d) “or” is not exclusive; and (e) “includes” and “including” are not limiting.
11. Severability. Except as otherwise provided herein, if any provision(s) of this
Assignment Agreement is (are) held invalid, the remainder of this Assignment Agreement shall not be affected, except as necessarily required by the invalid provisions, and shall remain in full force and effect unless amended or modified by mutual consent of the parties.
12. Counterparts. This Assignment Agreement may be executed in one or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to constitute an original, but all of which, when taken
together, shall constitute one and the same instrument, with the same effect as if all of the parties to this Assignment Agreement had executed the same counterpart.
13. City Consent. City is executing this Assignment Agreement for the limited purpose of consenting to the assignment and assumption and clarifying that there is privity of contract
between City and Assignee with respect to the Development Agreement.
14. Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Assignment Agreement shall be the date upon which Assignee obtains fee title to the Assigned Property by duly recorded deed (“Effective Date”).
665
018135.0004 4925-6939-7024.4 E-5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor, Assignee and City have entered into this Assignment Agreement as of the date first written above.
ASSIGNOR:
DUBUQUE CENTER, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
By:
Name:
Title:
ASSIGNEE:
[INSERT NAME OF ASSIGNEE]
By:
Name:
Title:
CITY:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
a Municipal Corporation
By:
Name:
Title: City Manager
Approved as to form by:
By:
Name:
Title: City Attorney
666