HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix B
ûÌÌ×ÎØÓÄ ú èÊÛÖÖÓÙ óÏÌÛÙÈ éÈÇØÃ
General Plan Amendment
Traffic Impact Analysis
Administrative Draft
Prepared for
City of South San Francisco
By
DKS Associates
1000 Broadway, Suite 450
Oakland, California 94607
(510) 763-2061
July 17, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1Executive Summary ............................................................................................... 1
2Introduction........................................................................................................... 7
2.1Analysis Methodology .............................................................................................. 7
2.2Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 8
2.3Level of Service Calculations .................................................................................... 8
3Existing Condition ................................................................................................ 12
3.1Roadway Network ................................................................................................. 12
3.2Existing Intersection Operating Conditions .............................................................. 13
3.3Existing Roadway Segment Operating Conditions .................................................... 13
3.4Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Operations ............................................................. 16
3.5Existing Parking .................................................................................................... 16
42030 Cumulative Without Project Condition ....................................................... 17
4.1Intersection Operating Conditions .......................................................................... 17
4.2Roadway Segment Operating Conditions ................................................................ 19
52030 Cumulative With Project Condition............................................................ 20
5.1Significance Criteria and Project Impacts ................................................................ 20
5.2Full Project Analysis .............................................................................................. 21
5.315% TDM Reduction Analysis ................................................................................ 27
6Alternative Analysis ............................................................................................. 33
Trip Generation .................................................................................................... 33
6.1
6.2Intersection Operating Conditions .......................................................................... 34
6.3Roadway Segment Operating Conditions ................................................................ 35
6.4Parking ................................................................................................................ 36
7Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 39
7.1Intersection Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ 39
7.2Freeway Segment Mitigation Measures ................................................................... 43
8Potential Project Trip Reductions ........................................................................ 44
9Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 46
Appendix A Level of Service Calculations
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Existing Volumes ............................................................................................................. 14
Figure 2 – 2030 Cumulative without Project Condition Volumes .......................................................... 18
Figure 3 – Peak Hour Project Trips .................................................................................................. 24
Figure 4 - 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition Volumes ............................................................... 25
Figure 5 – Peak Hour Project Trips .................................................................................................. 29
Figure 6 - 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition Volumes ............................................................... 30
Figure 7 – Peak Hour Project Trips .................................................................................................. 37
Figure 8 - 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition Volumes ............................................................... 38
Figure 9 – Intersection Geometry for El Camino Real at Westborough Boulevard ................................. 40
Figure 10 – Intersection Geometry for El Camino Real at West Orange Avenue ................................... 40
Figure 11 – Intersection Geometry for El Camino Real at Ponderosa Road .......................................... 41
Figure 12 – Intersection Geometry for El Camino Real at Country Club Drive ....................................... 42
Figure 13 – Intersection Geometry for El Camino Real at South Spruce Avenue ................................... 43
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES 1 – AM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary ...................................................... 4
Table ES 2 – PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary ...................................................... 4
Table ES 3 – AM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary ............................................ 5
Table ES 4 – PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary ............................................ 6
Table 1 – Signalized Intersection LOS Thresholds ............................................................................... 9
Table 2 – Level of Service Criteria for Arterials .................................................................................. 10
Table 3 – Level of Service Criteria for Freeways Based on Volume-to-Capacity Ratios ........................... 11
Table 4 – Existing Condition Intersection Level of Service .................................................................. 15
Table 5 – Existing Condition Roadway Segment Level of Service Analysis ............................................ 15
Table 6 – 2030 Cumulative without Project Condition Intersection Level of Service .............................. 17
Table 7 – 2030 Cumulative without Project Roadway Segment Level of Service ................................... 19
Table 8 - Trip Generation Rates ....................................................................................................... 21
Table 9 – Proposed Trip Generation ................................................................................................. 22
Table 10 – Proposed Project Trip Distribution ................................................................................... 22
Table 11 – 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition Intersection Level of Service ................................. 23
Table 12 - 2030 Cumulative with Project Roadway Segment Level of Service....................................... 26
Table 13 – Proposed Trip Generation – 15% TDM Reduction ............................................................. 27
Table 14 – 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition Intersection Level of Service – 15% TDM Reduction 28
Table 15 - 2030 Cumulative with Project Roadway Segment Level of Service....................................... 31
Table 16 – Proposed Alternative Trip Generation .............................................................................. 33
Table 17 – 2030 Cumulative with Project Alternative Condition Intersection Level of Service ................. 35
Table 18 - 2030 Cumulative with Project Alternative Roadway Segment Level of Service ...................... 36
Table 19 – 2030 without Project Conditions Mitigation LOS ................................................................ 39
1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this study is to determine the potential transportation impacts for the proposed
General Plan Amendment for the City of South San Francisco. The proposed amendment would
include 30,000 square feet of retail space, 176,960 square feet of office space, 75,840 square
feet of hotel space, and 802 condominiums along El Camino Real between Arroyo Drive and
South Spruce Avenue
This report analyzed the traffic conditions of intersection and roadway segments during the
weekday AM and PM peak hours. The operation of these intersections and roadway segments
was evaluated for the following scenarios: Existing Condition, 2030 Cumulative without Project
Conditions, 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition, 2030 Cumulative with Project with a TDM
Program Condition, and one Project Alternative.
Table ES 1 and Table ES 2 provide a summary of the intersection operation Level of Service
(LOS) for the Existing, 2030 Cumulative without Project, 2030 Cumulative with Project, 2030
Cumulative with Project with a TDM Program Condition, and 2030 Cumulative with Project
Alternative Condition. Table ES 3 and Table ES 4 provide a summary of the roadway segment
operations.
Existing Condition
Under the Existing Condition, all 6 study intersections are operating at an acceptable Level of
Services (LOS D or better) during the AM and PM peak hours. All six study roadway segments
are also operating at acceptable Levels of Service (LOS D or better for arterials, and LOS D, E ,
or F for area CMP roadways) during both of the peak hours.
2030 Cumulative without Project Condition
Five intersections during the AM peak hour and four intersections during the PM peak hour
would operate at unacceptable Levels of Service. For the AM peak hour, the intersections of El
Camino Real at Westborough Drive, West Orange Avenue, Ponderosa Road, Country Club Drive,
and South Spruce Avenue would all operate at LOS F. LOS F conditions would also exist during
the PM peak hour along El Camino Real at Westborough Drive, West Orange Avenue, and South
Spruce Avenue. El Camino Real at Ponderosa would experience LOS E. All roadway segments
would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with three exceptions. Based on the results, I-
280 from Avalon Drive to Westborough Boulevard, Westborough Boulevard to Avalon Drive, and
from Hickey Boulevard to Westborough Boulevard would all continue to operate at LOS E during
the PM peak hour.
2030 Cumulative with Project Condition
Impacted intersections under this scenario are similar to those for 2030 Cumulative without
Project Condition. During the AM peak hour, the LOS at the five intersections with unacceptable
levels of service would be F under both 2030 Cumulative without Project Condition and 2030
Cumulative with Project Condition. During PM peak hours, the levels of service at all
intersections will be the same between 2030 Cumulative without Project Condition and 2030
Cumulative with Project Condition. In order to achieve acceptable Levels of Service (LOS D or
better) at these intersections, the widening of all approaches and additional receiving lanes
would be needed, which would require additional right-or-way, relocation of utilities and the
possible relocation of buildings along El Camino Real. Additionally, these intersections are under
the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Policy 4.2-G-9 of the General Plan states that “if there is no practical
and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service and the uses resulting in the lower level
of service are of clear, overall public benefit” the LOS E or F is acceptable. Since the widening of
approaches to accommodate, in most cases, more than one lane, is infeasible and the mixed-
use proposed under the General Plan Amendment would encourage more walking, and bicycle
and transit trips, resulting in public benefit, then LOS E or F is acceptable for the impacted
intersections.
All roadway segments would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with three exceptions.
Based on the results, I-280 from Avalon Drive to Westborough Boulevard, Westborough
Boulevard to Avalon Drive, and from Hickey Boulevard to Westborough Boulevard would all
continue to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour.
2030 Cumulative with Project Condition with TDM Program
Under this condition, a TDM Program resulting in a 15% reduction in automobile traffic was
assumed. Similar to the 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition, five intersections would
operate with unacceptable LOS during the AM peak hour, while four intersections would
experience unacceptable LOS during the PM peak hour. Measures to reduce the delay and LOS
to acceptable level would include widening of approaches and additional receiving lanes which
would include the possible relocation of buildings and utilities and the acquisition of additional
right-of-way. These intersections are under Caltran’s jurisdiction. However, policy 4.2-G-9 of the
General Plan states that “if there is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of
service and the uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit”
the LOS E or F is acceptable. Since the widening of approaches to accommodate, in most cases,
more than one lane, is infeasible and the mixed-use proposed under the General Plan
Amendment would encourage more walking, and bicycle and transit trips, resulting in public
benefit, then LOS E or F is acceptable for the impacted intersections.
All roadway segments would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with three exceptions.
Based on the results, I-280 from Avalon Drive to Westborough Boulevard, Westborough
Boulevard to Avalon Drive, and from Hickey Boulevard to Westborough Boulevard would all
continue to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour.
2030 Cumulative with Project Alternative Condition
The analyzed project alternative would include 600 condominiums, 108,100 square feet of hotel
space, 353,900 square feet of office space, and 60,000 square feet of retail space. With this
project alternative, five intersections would operate at LOS E or F during the AM peak hour
while four intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS during the PM peak hour. In order
to reduce the delay at these intersections to an acceptable LOS (D or better), widening
approaches and receiving lanes and the possible relocation of buildings and utilities would be
necessary. Additionally, these intersections are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. However,
policy 4.2-G-9 of the General Plan states that “if there is no practical and feasible way to
mitigate the lower level of service and the uses resulting in the lower level of service are of
clear, overall public benefit” the LOS E or F is acceptable. Since the widening of approaches to
accommodate, in most cases, more than one lane, is infeasible and the mixed-use proposed
under the General Plan Amendment would encourage more walking, and bicycle and transit
trips, resulting in public benefit, then LOS E or F is acceptable for the impacted intersections.
All roadway segments would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with three exceptions.
Based on the results, I-280 from Avalon Drive to Westborough Boulevard, Westborough
Boulevard to Avalon Drive, and from Hickey Boulevard to Westborough Boulevard would all
continue to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. One of these segments, I-280 from
Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevard, would experience a significant and unavoidable
impact during the 2030 Cumulative with Project Alternative PM peak hour.
2INTRODUCTION
The report provides an evaluation of the potential transportation impacts due to the proposed
General Plan Amendment in the City of South San Francisco. The proposed project consists of
30,000 square feet of retail space, 176,960 square feet of office space, 75,840 square feet of
hotel, and 802 condominiums.
This additional development would be located on a segment of El Camino Real between Arroyo
Drive and South Spruce Avenue in central South San Francisco. This segment of El Camino Real
is approximately 1.25 miles west of downtown South San Francisco and US 101, one mile east
of I-280, and approximately one mile north of I-380. Based on the 1999 City of South San
Francisco General Plan update, this segment is part of the “El Camino Real” sub-area.
The transportation analysis represented in this study incorporates data provided by traffic
counts performed by WILTEC in March, 2009, the City of South San Francisco, and the County
of San Mateo.
2.1Analysis Methodology
The following intersections and roadway segments were evaluated to determine the traffic
conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours:
Study Intersections:
1.Arroyo Drive / El Camino Real
2.Westborough Boulevard / El Camino Real
3.West Orange Avenue / El Camino Real
4.Ponderosa Road / El Camino Real
5.Country Club Drive / El Camino Real
6.South Spruce Avenue / El Camino Real
Roadway and Highway Segments:
1.El Camino Real between Southwood Drive and Westborough Drive
2.El Camion Real between South Spruce Avenue and Country Club Drive
3.I 280 between Avalon Drive and Westborough Boulevard
4.I 280 between Westborough Boulevard and Hickey Boulevard
5.US 101 between Mitchell Avenue and Grand Avenue
6.US 101 Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard
Intersections and roadway segments have been evaluated for the following traffic scenarios:
Existing Condition – Operation analysis based on existing peak hour volumes and
existing intersection and roadway segment lane geometry.
2030 Cumulative without Project Condition – Based on growth factors estimated
from the County of San Mateo’s Transportation Demand Model.
2030 Cumulative with Project Condition – 2030 Cumulative without Project
Condition plus project generated traffic estimated for the General Plan Amendment.
2030 Cumulative with Project Condition and 15% TDM Reduction – 2030
Cumulative without Project Condition plus project generated traffic estimated for the
General Plan Amendment and a 15% reduction in traffic with the implementation of a
TDM Plan.
2030 Cumulative with Alternative Project Condition – 2030 Cumulative without
Project Condition plus project generated traffic estimated for an alternative scenario.
2.2Data Collection
2.2.1Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Intersection Volumes: Weekday AM and PM intersection turning movement volumes for the
study intersections were performed by WILTEC in March, 2009.
2.2.2Intersection and Roadway Configuration
Site visits were conducted in March, 2009, to confirm lane configuration and traffic control at
study intersections and roadway segments.
2.3Level of Service Calculations
The Level of Service (LOS) at the selected study intersections and roadway segments was
determined on methodology described below.
2.3.1Intersection Level of Service
Intersection analysis was conducted using the criteria described in the City/ County Association
of Governments (C/CAG) 2007 Congestion Management Program and utilized the Highway
Capacity Software (HCS 2000) for the analysis where appropriate. For reference purposes, LOS
as defined in the HCM is a quality measure describing operating conditions within a traffic
stream. It is generally described in terms such as service measures as speed and travel time,
freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. LOS at study
intersections was calculated using TRAFFIX software for signalized and unsignalized
intersections.
Level of Service (LOS) Definition:
The LOS evaluation indicates the degree of congestion that occurs during peak travel periods
and is the principal measure of roadway and intersection performance. Level of Service can
range from “A” representing free-flow conditions, to “F” representing extremely long delays.
LOS B and C signify stable conditions with acceptable delays. LOS D is typically considered
acceptable for a peak hour in urban areas. LOS E is approaching capacity and LOS F represents
conditions at or above capacity. The correlation between average stopped delay and level of
service for both signalized and unsignalized intersections is shown in Table 1.
Table 1 – Signalized Intersection LOS Thresholds
Level
Vehicle Delay
ofDescription
(seconds/vehicle)
Service
Free Flow/Insignificant Delays: No approach phase is fully utilized and
Delay 10.0
A
no vehicle waits longer than one red indication.
Stable Operation/Minimal Delays: An occasional approach phase is fully
B10 < Delay 20.0 utilized. Many drivers design to feel somewhat restricted within platoon
of vehicles.
Stable Operation/Acceptable Delays: Major approach phases fully
C20.0 < Delay 35.0
utilized. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted.
Approaching Unstable/Tolerable Delays: Drivers may have to wait
D35.0 < Delay 55.0 through more than one red signal indication. Queues may develop but
dissipate rapidly, without excessive delays.
Unstable Operation/Significant Delays: Volumes at or near capacity.
E55.0 < Delay 80.0 Vehicles may wait through several signal cycles. Long queues from
upstream from intersection.
Forced flow/Excessive Delays: Represents jammed conditions.
F Delay > 80.0 Intersection operates below capacity with low volumes. Queues may
block upstream intersections.
Signalized Intersections
At signalized intersections, level of service is evaluated on the basis of average stopped delay
for all vehicles at the intersection.
2.3.2Roadway Segment Level of Service
Roadway segment analysis was conducted using the criteria described in the City/County
Association of Governments (C/CAG) 2007 Congestion Management Program and utilized the
Highway Capacity Software (HCS 2000) for the analysis where appropriate.
Arterials
Under the 2007 Congestion Management Program, levels of service for arterials are dependent
on the arterial class denoted as Type I, II, or III. Type I arterials are principal arterials with
suburban design, 1 to 5 signals per mile, no parking and free-flow speeds of 35 to 45 miles per
hour. Type III arterials have urban designs, with 6 to 12 signals per mile, parking permitted and
are undivided with free-flow speeds of 25 to 35 miles per hour. Type II arterials fall between
Type I and II and have free-flow speeds of 30 to 35 miles per hour.
The LOS for arterials is based on maneuverability, delays, and speeds. As the volume increases,
the probability of stopping at an intersection due to a red signal indication increases and the
LOS decreases. The specific LOS criteria from the CMP are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 – Level of Service Criteria for Arterials
Average Travel Speed (miles per hour)
Arterial Class
I II III
Range of Free Flow
35 to 45 30 to 35 25 to 35
Speeds
Typical Free Flow Speed 40 33 27
A > 35 > 30 > 25
B > 28 > 24 > 19
C > 22 > 18 > 13
D > 17 > 14 > 9
E > 13 > 10 > 7
F < 13 < 10 < 7
Source: San Mateo County Congestion Management Agency, 2007
Freeways
According to the 2007 Congestion Management Program, a freeway is defined as a “divided
highway facility with two or more lanes in each direction and full control of access and egress.
It has no intersections; access and egress are provided by ramps at interchanges.” As an
example, US 101 is considered a freeway.
For freeway segments, a calculation method based on the v/c ratio was selected for the 2007
Congestion Manage Program. Volumes on each roadway segment in each direction are divided
by the capacity, estimated to be 2,200 vehicles per hour per lane on freeways. For this report,
the freeway free-flow speed was determined to be 65 miles per hour. The v/c ratio for freeways
with a 65 mile per hour free flow speed is related to LOS based on the information in Table 3.
Table 3 – Level of Service Criteria for Freeways Based on Volume-to-Capacity Ratios
65 mph
Free-Flow Speed
abcd
DensitySpeedMaximumMSF
Level of Service
(pc/mi/ln) (mph) V/C (pcphpl)
A 10.0 65.0 0.295 650
B 16.0 65.0 0.473 1,040
C 24.0 64.5 0.704 1,548
D 32.0 61.0 0.887 1,952
E 39.3 56.0 1.000 2,200
F Variable Variable Variable Variable
a
Notes: Density in passenger cars per mile per lane
b
Average travel speed in miles per hour
c
Maximum volume-to-capackty ratio
d
Maximum service flow rate under ideal conditions in passenger cars per hour per lane
Source: Transportation Research Board, (Washington, D.C., 1994), pp. 3-9
3EXISTING CONDITION
The following section presents an analysis of the existing conditions of various transportation
system components.
3.1Roadway Network
The roadway network where additional development would occur under the General Plan
Amendment would occur along El Camino Real in the City of South San Francisco and is
comprised of freeways, arterials, collector streets and local streets.
Regional access to the area is provided by I-280, I-380, and US 101 while locally, the
development area is along El Camino Real. Additionally, small collector and local streets connect
the development area to I-280, I-380, and US 101.
I-280 – This eight-lane freeway generally runs in the north-south direction one mile west of
the development area. It is a major regional freeway on the peninsula and has its northern and
southern termini respectively in San Francisco and San Jose. In the vicinity of the project site, I-
280 supports four mixed use lanes in each direction. I-280 has an Annual Average Daily Traffic
(AADT) of approximately 107,000 vehicles south of I-380 including 11,200 during the peak
hour; and approximately 175,000 north of I-380 including 13,400 during the peak hour.
Additionally, access to and from I-280 from the development area is via interchanges with
Westborough Boulevard.
I-380 – This eight-lane spur freeway runs in the east-west direction for 1.5 miles between I-
280 and US 101 and is approximately one mile south of the development area. I-380 has an
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of approximately 124,000 vehicles west of SR 82 with
9,300 vehicles during the peak hour; and approximately 145,000 vehicles east of SR 82 with
10,900 vehicles during the peak hour. Access to and from I-380 from the development area is
most nearly accessed from the interchange with El Camino Real / SR 82.
US 101 – An eight-lane freeway running in the north-south direction, US 101 is approximately
1.25 miles east of the project site. US 101 is over 1,500 miles long and runs between Los
Angeles and Olympia, WA. The freeway has an AADT of approximately 240,000 vehicles south
of I-380 including 16,700 vehicles during the peak hour. Additionally, north of I-380 the AADT is
approximately 214,000 vehicles and 15,200 vehicles during the peak hour. The most direct
route from the development area is via the interchange with Grand Avenue.
El Camino Real (State Route 82) – El Camino Real (SR 82) is an arterial which extends
north from the Santa Clara County line across the San Francisco County line. The development
area is along this six lane arterial between South Spruce Avenue and Arroyo Drive. In the
vicinity of the development area, the roadway has an AADT of approximately 37,500 vehicles
south of I-380 including 3,000 during the peak hour. North of I-380, the AADT is 39,500 with
3,450 vehicles during the peak hour. No on-street parking is allowed on El Camino Real.
Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue – Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue is
a four-lane arterial extending from State Route 1 to the west to Hillside Boulevard to the east of
the development area. This arterial runs southwest-northeast and it provides a direct
connection between I-280 and the development area. On-street parking is not allowed on any
stretch of its length while the speed limit is generally 35 miles per hour.
South Spruce Avenue/Hazelwood Drive – South Spruce Avenue is a four-lane arterial
running between El Camino Real and the north side of South San Francisco. Hazelwood Drive is
a two lane arterial continuation of South Spruce Avenue on the west side of El Camino Real.
South Spruce Avenue connects downtown South San Francisco to the development area while
Hazelwood Drive connects a residential section of the city to El Camino Real. On-street parking
is not permitted along South Spruce Avenue but is permitted allowed along Hazelwood Drive.
3.2Existing Intersection Operating Conditions
Level of service calculations were performed at 6 intersections for the weekday AM and PM
peak hours. The AM peak hour is the highest one-hour period between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM
while the PM peak hour is the highest one-hour traffic volume between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. It
should be noted that there were no intersections identified under the C/CAG Congestion
Management Program analyzed as part of this report.
Figure 1 illustrates the existing intersection traffic volumes at each study intersection. Table 4
summarizes the results of the intersection level of service for the existing condition. Based on
the LOS results, all of the 6 intersections operate at LOS C or better during the respective AM
and PM peak hours. Appendix A includes the detailed calculation level of service analysis
sheets, including weekday AM and PM peak hours.
3.3Existing Roadway Segment Operating Conditions
Based on the classification of the roadway segments described earlier, two arterial roadway
segments and four freeway segments were evaluated for the existing AM and PM peak hour
operating conditions. Table 5 provides a summary of the roadway segments operational
condition under Existing Conditions. As shown in Table 5, all roadway segments currently
operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Detailed level of service
calculations are included in Appendix A.
ïêé øêê÷ïçë øíèç÷
íî øê÷êë øïíè÷
èî øëî÷îîî øíëê÷
øîï÷ ïïêøéì÷ èïøéì÷ êê
øîï÷ çéøèð÷ èð
øèî÷ ïîé
øçê÷ ïíéøêï÷ ìì
ìëê
îéî øîïç÷
ïîè øëé÷
ïîì øïêç÷
èî
ï
øïïê÷ ïëð
î
øêí÷ êç
øìê÷ ìè
í
í
ïîð øîïé÷
êíé øêîè÷
ì
ìîë øìêï÷
øïêì÷ ïèé
øìèê÷ êðï
ë
øìêï÷ ìîè
î
ê
èî
øïìð÷ îëð
ÔÛÙÛÒÜ
øïîê÷ îîí
Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼ ײ¬»®»½¬·±²
ßÓ øÐÓ÷ л¿µ ر«® ʱ´«³»
¨¨ ø¨¨÷
ï
ÜÕÍ ß±½·¿¬»
ÌÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ÍÑÔËÌ×ÑÒÍ
Table 4 – Existing Condition Intersection Level of Service
PM Peak
AM Peak Hour
Hour
No Intersection Location Control
ab
Delay LOS Delay LOS
Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñß®®±§±Ü®Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼ïçòçÞïëòçÞ
1
Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñÉ»¬¾±®±«¹¸Ü®Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼íïòêÝíìòçÝ
2
Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñÉÑ®¿²¹»ßª»Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼ííòíÝîèòëÝ
3
Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñб²¼»®±¿Î¼Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼íðòîÝïéòëÞ
4
Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñݱ«²¬®§Ý´«¾Ü®Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼ïïòìÞèòïß
5
Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñÍÍ°®«½»ßª»Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼îëòïÝííòëÝ
6
Source:DKS Associates
Notes:a. Delay is in seconds per vehicle. For signalized intersections, delay is based on average stopped delay.
b. LOS = Level of Service
Table 5 – Existing Condition Roadway Segment Level of Service Analysis
Existing Condition
Roadway
AMPM
Location
Segment
VolumeVolume
a b
MOELOSMOELOS
(veh/hr) (veh/hr)
From South Spruce Ave to Country Club Dr 1019 39.9 A 1805 39.5 A
From Country Club Dr to South Spruce Ave 1417 39.8 A 1513 39.7 A
El Camino
c
Real
From 1st St to Westborough Blvd 1209 39.9 A 1831 39.4 A
From Westborough Blvd to 1st St 1533 39.7 A 1671 39.6 A
From Avalon Dr to Westborough Blvd 0.54 C 0.84 D
4719 7377
From Westborough Blvd to Avalon Dr 0.49 C 0.40 B
4277 3485
c
I 280
Westborough Blvd to Hickey Blvd 0.57 C 0.83 D
5056 7327
Hickey Blvd to Westborough Blvd 0.65 C 0.71 D
5708 6214
Mitchell Ave to Grand Ave 0.78 D 0.73 D
6829 6405
Grand Ave to Mitchell Ave 0.71 D 0.75 D
6235 6562
c
US 101
Grand Ave to Oyster Point Blvd 0.76 D 0.79 D
6727 6950
Oyster Point Blvd to Grand Ave 0.78 D 0.72 D
6856 6362
Source: DKS Associates
Notes: a. MOE = Measures of Effectiveness. MOE is average travel speed for arterials and v/c ratio for freeways
b. LOS = Level of Service is based on 2007 C/CAG of San Mateo County Final Congestion Management Plan criteria
c. El Camino Real in this area is an Arterial I facility and I 280 and US 101 are Freeways
3.4Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Operations
3.4.1Existing Transit Operations
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) operates a commuter rail public transit system with 43 stations
through San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Mateo Counties. The five lines provide
regular service between 4:00 AM and midnight with trains for each line arriving every 15
minutes. In the vicinity of the project site, the San Bruno BART Station is the closest station,
approximately one mile south of the development area. Between October 2007 and September
2008, the average weekday exits at this station were 2,574 riders.
The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) operates 55 bus routes throughout San
Mateo County and link to areas of San Francisco and Palo Alto. SamTrans buses connect to
BART and Caltrain Stations while providing local and express service to the county. The closest
SamTrans routes, the 122, 132, 133, 390, and 391, run along or cross El Camino Real in the
vicinity of the proposed development.
3.5Existing Parking
Off-Street Parking
Off-street parking is generally provided in the area for patrons using local stores and
businesses. Most of these parking facilities are for store patrons only and do not provide
general public parking capacity.
On-Street Parking
On-street parking in the vicinity of the project site is generally scarce. Along El Camino Real,
parking regulations and restrictions generally do not permit on-street parking. The existing on-
street parking supply is provided by cross-streets which do permit some on-street parking.
However, these areas are largely residential with high parking utilization rates.
42030 CUMULATIVE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITION
This section discusses the traffic operating conditions of the study intersections and roadway
segments under the 2030 Cumulative without Project Condition. The 2030 Cumulative
Conditions includes the existing traffic volumes plus the additions of background growth traffic
derived from the C/CAG travel forecast model.
The cumulative growth volumes have been calculated by using the C/CAG traffic forecast model
which provides 2005 and forecasted 2030 traffic volumes. Using a furness process between the
2009 existing field volumes, C/CAG 2005, and C/CAG 2030 traffic volumes, the 2030 Cumulative
intersection traffic volumes were estimated.
4.1Intersection Operating Conditions
Figure 2 illustrates the 2030 Cumulative without Project Condition intersection traffic volumes
at each study intersection. Table 6 summarizes the results of the intersection Level of Service
calculations for the 2030 Cumulative Conditions. Detailed Level of Service calculations for the
Cumulative Conditions are contained in Appendix A. Under 2030 Cumulative Conditions, five
intersections during the AM peak hour and four intersections during the PM peak hour would
deteriorate from an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) to a deficient LOS (LOS E or F) during
both peak hours.
Table 6 – 2030 Cumulative without Project Condition Intersection Level of Service
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
No Intersection Location Control
ab
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñß®®±§±Ü®Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼íìòêÝíðòìÝ
2 Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñÉ»¬¾±®±«¹¸Ü®Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼ïéîòêÚèíòíÚ
3 Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñÉÑ®¿²¹»ßª»Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼ïéíòèÚçìòîÚ
4 Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñб²¼»®±¿Î¼Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼îëéòëÚëèòêÛ
5 Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñݱ«²¬®§Ý´«¾Ü®Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼ïïðòîÚïéòìÞ
6 Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñÍÍ°®«½»ßª»Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼ïïéòëÚïìëòïÚ
Source:DKS Associates
Notes:a. Delay is in seconds per vehicle. For signalized intersections, delay is based on average stopped delay.
b. LOS = Level of Service
ïéï øçî÷
îëî øìéë÷
îï øïï÷
èé øïîé÷
îîè øèî÷
èìé øìêî÷
øíé÷ îìëøëç÷ ïîîøïíî÷ éð
øíí÷ ïçéøéí÷ éì
øïêè÷ ïçî
øïèç÷ éèçøïïê÷ ïíè
ìëê
íèï øîíï÷
ïèç øéç÷
îèê øîéí÷
èî
ï
øïìë÷ ïéê
î
øïðî÷ ïîè
øèè÷ çí
í
í
íîî øíðë÷
çèë øçìì÷
ì
èéð øëéï÷
øîìé÷ ëêç
øêîð÷ çëï
ë
øêïí÷ ççí
î
ê
èî
øîïî÷ íêê
ÔÛÙÛÒÜ
øïçï÷ ííç
Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼ ײ¬»®»½¬·±²
ßÓ øÐÓ÷ л¿µ ر«® ʱ´«³»
¨¨ ø¨¨÷
ï
ÜÕÍ ß±½·¿¬»
ÌÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ÍÑÔËÌ×ÑÒÍ
4.2Roadway Segment Operating Conditions
Table 7 summarizes the analysis result of the study roadway segments under the 2030 without
Project Cumulative Conditions. Based on the results, three of the study roadway segments
would exceed the level of service standard for that respective segment. I-280 from Avalon Drive
to Westborough Boulevard, Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevard, and from Hickey
Boulevard to Westborough Boulevard would all operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour.
Appendix A includes the detailed calculation level of service analysis sheets.
Table 7 – 2030 Cumulative without Project Roadway Segment Level of Service
Peak Hour
Roadway
AMPM
Location
Segment
VolumeVolume
a b
MOELOSMOELOS
(veh/hr) (veh/hr)
From South Spruce Ave to Country Club Dr 1587 39.7 A 3802 31.6 B
From Country Club Dr to South Spruce Ave 4205 28.7 B 2489 38.1 A
El Camino
Real
From 1st St to Westborough Blvd 1777 39.5 A 2931 36.6 A
From Westborough Blvd to 1st St 3564 33.2 B 2378 38.4 A
From Avalon Dr to Westborough Blvd 0.68 C 0.94 E
5966 8242
From Westborough Blvd to Avalon Dr 0.60 C 0.56 C
5241 4970
I 280
Westborough Blvd to Hickey Blvd 0.84 D 0.94 E
7373 8285
Hickey Blvd to Westborough Blvd 0.73 D 0.96 E
6400 8458
Mitchell Ave to Grand Ave 0.86 D 0.82 D
7549 7211
Grand Ave to Mitchell Ave 0.67 C 0.91 E
5920 8008
US 101
Grand Ave to Oyster Point Blvd 0.89 E 0.88 D
7833 7760
Oyster Point Blvd to Grand Ave 0.67 C 0.89 E
5935 7864
Source: DKS Associates
Notes: a. MOE = Measures of Effectiveness. MOE is average travel speed for arterials and v/c ratio for freeways
b. LOS = Level of Service is based on 2007 C/CAG of San Mateo County Final Congestion Management Plan criteria
c. El Camino Real in this area is an Arterial I facility and I 280 and US 101 are Freeways
52030 CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT CONDITION
This section evaluates the 2030 cumulative traffic conditions plus project-generated traffic
estimated for the proposed project.
5.1Significance Criteria and Project Impacts
The City of South San Francisco’s intersection and roadway segment significance criteria have
been adopted from the 2007 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP).
Based on the CMP standards, the acceptable operating level of service (LOS) is defined at LOS
D unless defined differently by the 2007 CMP. No CMP intersections are included in this study.
Intersection Impact Criteria:
1.Intersection is currently in compliance with the adopted LOS standard:
a.A project will be considered to have an impact if the project will cause the
intersection to operate at a level of service that violates the standard adopted.
b.A project will be considered to have an impact if the cumulative analysis indicates
that the combination of the proposed project and future cumulative traffic demand
will result in the intersection to operate at a level of service that violates the
standard adopted and the proposed project increases average control delay at the
intersection by four (4) seconds or more.
2.Intersection is not currently in compliance with the adopted LOS standard:
a.A project is considered to have an impact if the project will add any additional
traffic to the intersection that is currently not in compliance with its adopted level of
service standard.
Freeway Segments:
For freeway segments currently in compliance with the adopted LOS standard:
a.A project is considered to have an impact if the project will cause the freeway
segment to operate at a level of service that violates the standard adopted
b.A project will be considered to have an impact if the cumulative analysis indicates
that the combination of the proposed project and future cumulative traffic demand
will result in the freeway segment to operate at a level of service that violates the
standard adopted and the proposed project increases traffic demand on the
freeway segment by an amount equal to one (1) percent or more of the segment
capacity, or causes the freeway segment volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio to increase
by one (1) percent.
For freeway segments currently not in compliance with the adopted LOS standard:
a.A project is considered to have an impact if the project will add traffic demand
equal to one (1) percent or more or the segment capacity or causes the freeway
segment volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio to increase by one (1) percent, if the
freeway is currently not in compliance with the adopted LOS standard.
Arterial Segment Impact Criteria:
The CMP states that the analysis of arterial segments is only required when a jurisdiction
proposes to reduce the capacity of a designated arterial through reduction in the number of
lanes, adding or modifying on-street parking, or other actions that will affect arterial segment
performance.
A project is considered to have an impact if it causes mid-block queuing, parking maneuvers
resulting in delays or other impacts that result in any segment to operate at a level of service
that violates the adopted LOS standard set for the nearest intersection. Additionally, an impact
is determined if the average travel speed for the arterial segment is reduced by 4 miles per
hour or more. This criterion was used in evaluating arterial segments.
5.2Full Project Analysis
5.2.1Trip Generation
The trip generation for the proposed project was based on either the number of units or square
footage of each land use in the development area, and standard trip generation equations and
rates for retail, office hotel, and condominium use, as published by the Institute of
th
Transportation Engineers in the Trip Generation 8 edition. According to the information
provided by the City of South San Francisco, the proposed project would include approximately
282,800 square feet of new development and 802 condominiums. Table 8 describes the trip
generation rates derived from the ITE trip generation equations while
Table9summarizes the resulting trip generation volumes.
Table 8 - Trip Generation Rates
ITETrip Generation Rates
Land
Land Use Size/Units AMAMAMPMPMPM
Use
Daily
In Out TotalIn Out Total
Code
Condominiums802 units 230 0.0660.28 0.35 0.25 0.14 0.39 4.91
Hotel75,840 sf 310 0.32 0.26 0.58 0.33 0.24 0.57 4.56
Office* 176,960 sf 710 1.47 0.20 1.67 0.27 1.30 1.57 11.70
Retail* 30,000 sf 814 4.20 4.57 8.77 2.83 2.20 5.03 44.03
Note: Rates are based on the trip generation equations for each land use
* - Per 1,000 sf
Table 9 – Proposed Trip Generation
AM Trips PM Trips
ITE Land
Land Use Size/Units Daily
Use Code
In Out Total In Out Total
Condominiums802 units 230 53 227 280 198 111 309 3,935
Hotel75,840 sf 310 27 22 49 28 20 48 388
Office 176,960 sf 710 260 36 296 47 230 277 2,070
Retail 30,000 sf 814 126 137 263 85 66 151 1,321
Source: DKS Associates
5.2.2Trip Distribution
The direction of approaches and departures for project trips related to the proposed
development area has been estimated from the existing traffic patterns in the vicinity of the
project area. Table 10 shows the trip distribution patterns assumed for the proposed project.
Trip ends would be spread out along El Camino Real between Arroyo Drive and South Spruce
Avenue.
Table 10 – Proposed Project Trip Distribution
Percentage of
Total Traffic (%)
Origin / Destination
Autos
North via El Camino Real 17
South via El Camino Real 25
West via Arroyo Dr 5
West via Westborough Blvd 13
East via Westborough Blvd 13
West via W Orange Ave 4
East via W Orange Ave 7
West via Ponderosa Rd 4
East via Ponderosa Rd 1
West via Country Club Drive 3
West via S Spruce Dr 3
East via S Spruce Dr 5
Total 100
Source: DKS Associates
5.2.3Intersection Operating Conditions
Figure 3 illustrates the project trips at each of the study intersections while Figure 4 illustrates
the total 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition traffic volumes at each of the study
intersections for the AM and PM peak hours.
Intersection levels of service and associated delays are summarized in Table 11.Appendix A
includes the detailed calculation level of service analysis sheets, including the weekday AM and
PM peak hours. The study intersections that operate at an unacceptable LOS F under the 2030
Cumulative without Project Condition would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F under
the 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition. The addition of traffic generated by the proposed
project would result in potentially significant impacts to five intersections during the AM peak
hour and four intersections during the PM peak hour.
Table 11 – 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition Intersection Level of Service
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
No Intersection Location Control
b
a
DelayLOS Impact Delay LOSImpact
íêòêÜÒ±íïòçÝÒ±
1 Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñß®®±§±Ü®Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼
ïçêòçÚ¦ïððòéÚ¦
2 Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñÉ»¬¾±®±«¹¸Ü®Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼
îðîòêÚ¦ïðçòêÚ¦
3 Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñÉÑ®¿²¹»ßª»Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼
îéïòêÚ¦êèòìÛ¦
4 Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñб²¼»®±¿Î¼Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼
ïîïòéÚ¦ïçòðÞÒ±
5 Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñݱ«²¬®§Ý´«¾Ü®Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼
ïîìòîÚ¦ïêìòîÚ¦
6 Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñÍÍ°®«½»ßª»Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼
Source:DKS Associates
Notes:a. Delay is in seconds per vehicle. For signalized intersections, delay is based on average stopped delay.
b. LOS = Level of Service
íë øîé÷
øç÷ ïîøïè÷ îí
øç÷ ïî
ìëê
íð øîí÷
ïî øç÷
èî
ï
øì÷ ë
î
øç÷ ïî
í
í
ì
íë øîé÷
øìë÷ ëè
ë
î
ê
èî
øïè÷ îí
ÔÛÙÛÒÜ
Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼ ײ¬»®»½¬·±²
ßÓ øÐÓ÷ л¿µ ر«® ʱ´«³»
¨¨ ø¨¨÷
ï
ÜÕÍ ß±½·¿¬»
ÌÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ÍÑÔËÌ×ÑÒÍ
îèé øëðî÷
èé øïîé÷
èìé øìêî÷
øìê÷ îëéøéé÷ ïìëøïíî÷ éð
øíí÷ ïçéøéí÷ éì
øïêè÷ ïçî
øïçè÷ èðïøïïê÷ ïíè
ìëê
ìïï øîëì÷
ïèç øéç÷
îçè øîèî÷
èî
ï
øïìç÷ ïèï
î
øïðî÷ ïîè
øçé÷ ïðë
í
í
íîî øíðë÷
çèë øçìì÷
ì
çðë øëçè÷
øîìé÷ ëêç
øêîð÷ çëï
ë
øêëè÷ ïôðëï
î
ê
èî
øîïî÷ íêê
ÔÛÙÛÒÜ
øîðç÷ íêî
Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼ ײ¬»®»½¬·±²
ßÓ øÐÓ÷ л¿µ ر«® ʱ´«³»
¨¨ ø¨¨÷
ï
ÜÕÍ ß±½·¿¬»
ÌÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ÍÑÔËÌ×ÑÒÍ
5.2.4Roadway Segment Operating Conditions
Table 12 provides a summary of the roadway segment operating conditions, including MOEs
and LOS. Appendix A includes the detailed LOS calculation sheets. All roadway segments
would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with three exceptions. Based on the results, I-
280 from Avalon Drive to Westborough Boulevard, Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevard
and from Hickey Boulevard to Westborough Boulevard would all continue to operate at LOS E
during the PM peak hour. The traffic increases for all the roadways would be below the
respective significance threshold criteria. As a result, the projected development would not
result in any significant impacts to the study roadway segments.
Table 12 - 2030 Cumulative with Project Roadway Segment Level of Service
Peak Hour
Roadway
AMPM
Location
c
Segment
VolumeVolume
a b
MOELOSMOELOS
(veh/hr) (veh/hr)
From South Spruce Ave to Country Club Dr 1,750 39.5 A 3,927 30.8 B
From Country Club Dr to South Spruce Ave 4,353 27.5 C 2,639 37.7 A
El Camino
Real
From 1st St to Westborough Blvd 1,957 39.3 A 3,113 35.8 A
From Westborough Blvd to 1st St 3,762 31.9 B 2,531 38.0 A
From Avalon Dr to Westborough Blvd 5,996 0.68 C 8,265 0.94 E
From Westborough Blvd to Avalon Dr 5,268 0.60 C 4,998 0.57 C
I 280
Westborough Blvd to Hickey Blvd 7,400 0.84 D 8,313 0.94 E
Hickey Blvd to Westborough Blvd 6,430 0.73 D 8,481 0.96 E
Mitchell Ave to Grand Ave 7,579 0.86 D 7,234 0.82 D
Grand Ave to Mitchell Ave 5,947 0.68 C 8,036 0.91 E
US 101
Grand Ave to Oyster Point Blvd 7,860 0.89 E 7,788 0.89 D
Oyster Point Blvd to Grand Ave 5,965 0.68 C 7,887 0.90 E
Source: DKS Associates
Notes: a. MOE = Measures of Effectiveness. MOE is average travel speed for arterials and v/c ratio for freeways
b. LOS = Level of Service is based on 2007 C/CAG of San Mateo County Final Congestion Management Plan criteria
c. El Camino Real in this area is an Arterial I facility and I 280 and US 101 are Freeways
5.2.5Parking
Off-Street Parking
Pursuant to sections 20.74.040, 20.74.060 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the
proposed development would be required to satisfy the City’s parking code requirements. For
hotel uses, section 20.74.040 states that “one parking space is required for each sleeping room.
Section 20.74.040 also states that for a multi-family project with “four or more units two spaces
per unit with at least one space covered is required.” Additionally, “one guest space per every
four units shall be provided on the site. Tandem parking may be permitted to satisfy the off-
street parking requirement for multi-family residential units in projects where parking is
assigned, when both spaces in a tandem parking bay are assigned to a single dwelling unit. In
no case shall tandem spaces be permitted to satisfy the guest parking requirement.”
Section 20.74.060 states that for retail uses, one space for each two hundred gross square feet
of floor area, plus one additional space for each delivery vehicle is required. In the same
section, office uses are required to provide one space for each three hundred gross square feet
of floor area, provided that in no case shall less than one space for every business
establishment or firm be required.
5.315% TDM Reduction Analysis
5.3.1Trip Generation
The implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program would provide
measures that would reduce the number of trips generated by the proposed project. While the
City has TDM guidelines that would provide up to a 28% trip credit, a more conservative 15%
credit has been assumed. This 15% credit is also consistent with other projects in South San
Francisco implementing a TDM program. A 15% TDM trip credit has been applied to the 2030
Cumulative with Project Conditions for the purposes of this analysis and Table 13 summarizes
the resulting trip generation.
Table 13 – Proposed Trip Generation – 15% TDM Reduction
AM Trips PM Trips
ITE Land
Land Use Size/Units Daily
Use Code
In Out Total In Out Total
Condominiums802 units 230 45 193 238 168 95 263 3,345
Hotel75,840 sf 310 23 19 42 24 17 41 330
Office 176,960 sf 710 221 30 252 40 195 235 1,760
Retail 30,000 sf 814 107 116 224 72 56 128 1,123
Source: DKS Associates
5.3.2Trip Distribution
The direction of approaches and departures for project trips related to the proposed
development area were estimated from the existing traffic patterns in the vicinity of the project
site and are the same as those detailed in the 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition. Table
10 shows the trip distribution patterns assumed for the proposed project.
5.3.3Intersection Operating Conditions
Figure 5 illustrates the resulting project trips at each of the study intersections while Figure 6
illustrates the associated 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition traffic volumes at each of the
study intersections for the AM and PM peak hours.
Intersection operational levels of service along with their associated delays are summarized in
Table 14.Appendix A includes the detailed calculation level of service analysis sheets,
including the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The study intersections that operate at an
unacceptable LOS F under the 2030 Cumulative without Project Condition would continue to
operate at unacceptable LOS F under the 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition with a 15%
TDM reduction in project-related traffic. The addition of traffic generated by the proposed
development would result in significant impacts to five intersections during the AM peak hour
and four intersections during the PM peak hour.
Table 14 – 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition Intersection Level of Service – 15% TDM Reduction
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
No Intersection Location Control
ab
Delay LOS Impact Delay LOS Impact
íêòíÜÒ±íïòêÝÒ±
1
Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñß®®±§±Ü®Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼
ïçíòíÚ¦çéòèÚ¦
2 Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñÉ»¬¾±®±«¹¸Ü®Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼
ïçëòìÚ¦ïðéòîÚ¦
3
Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñÉÑ®¿²¹»ßª»Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼
îéðòíÚ¦êêòçÛ¦
4 Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñб²¼»®±¿Î¼Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼
ïîðòðÚ¦ïèòéÞÒ±
5
Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñݱ«²¬®§Ý´«¾Ü®Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼
ïîíòîÚ¦ïêïòíÚ¦
6 Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñÍÍ°®«½»ßª»Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼
Source:DKS Associates
Notes:a. Delay is in seconds per vehicle. For signalized intersections, delay is based on average stopped delay.
b. LOS = Level of Service
íð øîí÷
øè÷ ïðøïë÷ îð
øè÷ ïð
ìëê
îê øîð÷
ïð øè÷
èî
ï
øí÷ ì
î
øè÷ ïð
í
í
ì
íð øîí÷
ë
øíè÷ ëð
î
ê
èî
øïë÷ îð
ï
ÜÕÍ ß±½·¿¬»
ÌÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ÍÑÔËÌ×ÑÒÍ
ïéï øçî÷
îèî øìçè÷
îï øïï÷
èé øïîé÷
îîè øèî÷
èìé øìêî÷
øìë÷ îëëøéì÷ ïìîøïíî÷ éð
øíí÷ ïçéøéí÷ éì
øïçé÷ éççøïêè÷ ïçîøïïê÷ ïíè
ìëê
ìðé øîëï÷
ïèç øéç÷
îçê øîèï÷
èî
ï
øïìè÷ ïèð
î
øïðî÷ ïîè
øçê÷ ïðí
í
í
íîî øíðë÷
çèë øçìì÷
ì
çðð øëçì÷
øîìé÷ ëêç
øêîð÷ çëï
ë
øêëï÷ ïôðìí
î
ê
èî
øîïî÷ íêê
øîðê÷ íëç
ï
ÜÕÍ ß±½·¿¬»
ÌÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ÍÑÔËÌ×ÑÒÍ
5.3.4Roadway Segment Operating Conditions
Table 15 provides a summary of the roadway segments operation conditions, including MOEs
and LOS. Appendix A includes the detailed LOS calculation sheets. All roadway segments
would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with three exceptions. Based on the results, I-
280 from Avalon Drive to Westborough Boulevard, Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevard,
and from Hickey Boulevard to Westborough Boulevard would all continue to operate at LOS E
during the PM peak hour. The traffic increases for all the roadways would be below the
respective significance threshold criteria. As a result, the projected development would not
result in any significant impacts to the study roadway segments.
Table 15 - 2030 Cumulative with Project Roadway Segment Level of Service
Peak Hour
Roadway
AMPM
Location
c
Segment
VolumeLOSVolume
a
MOEMOELOS
b
(veh/hr) (veh/hr)
From South Spruce Ave to Country Club Dr 1726 39.6 A 3909 30.9 B
From Country Club Dr to South Spruce Ave 4331 27.7 C 2616 37.8 A
El Camino
Real
From 1st St to Westborough Blvd 1930 39.3 A 3086 35.9 A
From Westborough Blvd to 1st St 3733 32.1 B 2507 38.1 A
From Avalon Dr to Westborough Blvd 0.68 C 0.94 E
5992 8262
From Westborough Blvd to Avalon Dr 0.60 C 0.57 C
5264 4994
I 280
Westborough Blvd to Hickey Blvd 0.84 D 0.94 E
7396 8309
Hickey Blvd to Westborough Blvd 0.73 D 0.96 E
6426 8478
Mitchell Ave to Grand Ave 0.86 D 0.82 D
7575 7231
Grand Ave to Mitchell Ave 0.68 C 0.91 E
5943 8032
US 101
Grand Ave to Oyster Point Blvd 0.89 E 0.88 D
7856 7784
Oyster Point Blvd to Grand Ave 0.68 C 0.90 E
5961 7884
Source: DKS Associates
Notes: a. MOE = Measures of Effectiveness. MOE is average travel speed for arterials and v/c ratio for freeways
b. LOS = Level of Service is based on 2007 C/CAG of San Mateo County Final Congestion Management Plan criteria
c. El Cami no Real in this area is an Arterial I facility and I 280 and US 101 are Freeways
5.3.5Parking
Off-Street Parking
Pursuant to sections 20.74.040, 20.74.060 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the
proposed development would be required to satisfy the City’s parking code requirements. For
hotel uses, section 20.74.040 states that “one parking space is required for each sleeping room.
Section 20.74.040 also states that for a multi-family project with “four or more units two spaces
per unit with at least one space covered is required.” Additionally, “one guest space per every
four units shall be provided on the site. Tandem parking may be permitted to satisfy the off-
street parking requirement for multi-family residential units in projects where parking is
assigned, when both spaces in a tandem parking bay are assigned to a single dwelling unit. In
no case shall tandem spaces be permitted to satisfy the guest parking requirement.”
Section 20.74.060 states that for retail uses, one space for each two hundred gross square feet
of floor area, plus one additional space for each delivery vehicle is required. In the same
section, office uses are required to provide one space for each three hundred gross square feet
of floor area, provided that in no case shall less than one space for every business
establishment or firm be required.
6ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
6.1Trip Generation
The trip generation for the proposed project was based on either the number of units or the
square footage of each land use in the development area, and standard trip generation
equations and rates for retail, office hotel, and condominium use, as published by the Institute
th
of Transportation Engineers in the 8 edition of the Trip Generation Manual. According to the
information provided by the City of South San Francisco, the proposed project would include
approximately 522,000 square feet of new development and 600 condominiums. Table 16
summarizes the trip generation.
Table 16 – Proposed Alternative Trip Generation
ITE Land AM Trips PM Trips
Land Use Size/Units Daily
Use Code
In Out Total In Out Total
Condominiums600 units 230 42 178 220 154 86 240 3,057
Hotel108,100 sf 310 36 30 66 39 28 67 701
Office 353,900 sf 710 454 62 516 81 394 475 3,530
Retail 60,000 sf 814 197 213 410 169 132 301 2,604
Source: DKS Associates
Parking
Off-Street Parking
Pursuant to sections 20.74.040, 20.74.060 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the
proposed development would be required to satisfy the City’s parking code requirements. For
hotel uses, section 20.74.040 states that “one parking space is required for each sleeping room.
Section 20.74.040 also states that for a multi-family project with “four or more units two spaces
per unit with at least one space covered is required.” Additionally, “one guest space per every
four units shall be provided on the site. Tandem parking may be permitted to satisfy the off-
street parking requirement for multi-family residential units in projects where parking is
assigned, when both spaces in a tandem parking bay are assigned to a single dwelling unit. In
no case shall tandem spaces be permitted to satisfy the guest parking requirement.”
Section 20.74.060 states that for retail uses, one space for each two hundred gross square feet
of floor area, plus one additional space for each delivery vehicle is required. In the same
section, office uses are required to provide one space for each three hundred gross square feet
of floor area, provided that in no case shall less than one space for every business
establishment or firm be required.
Figure 7illustrates the alternative project trips at each of the study intersections while Figure 8
illustrates the total 2030 Cumulative with Project Alternative Condition traffic volumes at each of
the study intersections for the AM and PM peak hours.
6.2Intersection Operating Conditions
Intersection operational levels of service along with their associated delays are summarized in
Table 17.Appendix A includes the detailed calculation level of service analysis sheets,
including the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The study intersections that operate at an
unacceptable LOS F under the 2030 Cumulative without Project Condition would continue to
operate at unacceptable LOS F under the 2030 Cumulative with Project Alternative Condition.
The addition of traffic generated by the proposed development would result in significant
impacts to five intersections during the AM peak hour and four intersections during the PM peak
hour, similar to the two other conditions analyzed.
Table 17 – 2030 Cumulative with Project Alternative Condition Intersection Level of Service
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
No Intersection Location Control
ab
Delay LOS Impact Delay LOS Impact
íéòëÜÒ±íîòëÝÒ±
1
Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñß®®±§±Ü®Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼
îðèòïÚ¦ïðêòéÚ¦
2 Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñÉ»¬¾±®±«¹¸Ü®Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼
îïïòçÚ¦ïïèòîÚ¦
3
Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñÉÑ®¿²¹»ßª»Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼
îééòïÚ¦éîòïÛ¦
4 Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñб²¼»®±¿Î¼Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼
ïîîòêÚ¦ïçòèÞÒ±
5
Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñݱ«²¬®§Ý´«¾Ü®Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼
ïîëòîÚ¦ïéïòðÚ¦
6 Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñÍÍ°®«½»ßª»Í·¹²¿´·¦»¼
Source:DKS Associates
Notes:a. Delay is in seconds per vehicle. For signalized intersections, delay is based on average stopped delay.
b. LOS = Level of Service
6.3Roadway Segment Operating Conditions
Table 18 provides a summary of the roadway segments operation conditions, including MOEs
and LOS. Appendix A includes the detailed LOS calculation sheets. All roadway segments
would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with three exceptions. Based on the results, I-
280 from Avalon Drive to Westborough Boulevard, Westborough Boulevard to Avalon Drive, and
from Hickey Boulevard to Westborough Boulevard would all continue to operate at LOS E during
the PM peak hour. However, the addition of traffic generated by the proposed development
would result in one significant impact to a segment of I-280 from Westborough Boulevard to
Hickey Boulevard during the PM peak hour. The increase of project-related traffic on this
segment would increase the v/c ratio from 0.94 during the without project condition to 0.95 for
violating the significance standard for freeways.
Table 18 - 2030 Cumulative with Project Alternative Roadway Segment Level of Service
Peak Hour
Roadway
AMPM
Location
c
Segment
VolumeVolume
a b
MOELOSMOELOS
(veh/hr) (veh/hr)
From South Spruce Ave to Country Club Dr 1843 39.4 A 3957 30.5 B
From Country Club Dr to South Spruce Ave 4374 27.3 C 2713 37.4 A
El Camino
Real
From 1st St to Westborough Blvd 1983 39.2 A 3203 35.3 A
From Westborough Blvd to 1st St 3874 31.1 B 2567 37.9 A
From Avalon Dr to Westborough Blvd 0.68 C 0.94 E
6006 8267
From Westborough Blvd to Avalon Dr 0.60 C 0.57 C
5268 5005
I 280
Westborough Blvd to Hickey Blvd 0.84 D 0.95 E
7400 8320
Hickey Blvd to Westborough Blvd 0.73 D 0.96 E
6440 8483
Mitchell Ave to Grand Ave 0.86 D 0.82 D
7589 7236
Grand Ave to Mitchell Ave 0.68 C 0.91 E
5947 8043
US 101
Grand Ave to Oyster Point Blvd 0.89 E 0.89 D
7860 7795
Oyster Point Blvd to Grand Ave 0.68 C 0.90 E
5975 7889
Source: DKS Associates
Notes: a. MOE = Measures of Effectiveness. MOE is average travel speed for arterials and v/c ratio for freeways
b. LOS = Level of Service is based on 2007 C/CAG of San Mateo County Final Congestion Management Plan criteria
c. El Camino Real in this area is an Arterial I facility and I 280 and US 101 are Freeways
6.4Parking
Off-Street Parking
Pursuant to sections 20.74.040, 20.74.060 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the
proposed development would be required to satisfy the City’s parking code requirements. For
hotel uses, section 20.74.040 states that “one parking space is required for each sleeping room.
Section 20.74.040 also states that for a multi-family project with “four or more units two spaces
per unit with at least one space covered is required.” Additionally, “one guest space per every
four units shall be provided on the site. Tandem parking may be permitted to satisfy the off-
street parking requirement for multi-family residential units in projects where parking is
assigned, when both spaces in a tandem parking bay are assigned to a single dwelling unit. In
no case shall tandem spaces be permitted to satisfy the guest parking requirement.”
Section 20.74.060 states that for retail uses, one space for each two hundred gross square feet
of floor area, plus one additional space for each delivery vehicle is required. In the same
section, office uses are required to provide one space for each three hundred gross square feet
of floor area, provided that in no case shall less than one space for every business
establishment or firm be required.
ëë øíí÷
øïï÷ ïèøîî÷ íé
øïï÷ ïè
ìëê
ìé øîç÷
ïè øïï÷
èî
ï
øì÷ é
î
øïï÷ ïè
í
í
ì
ëë øíí÷
ë
øëê÷ çï
î
ê
èî
øîî÷ íé
ï
ÜÕÍ ß±½·¿¬»
ÌÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ÍÑÔËÌ×ÑÒÍ
ïéï øçî÷
íðé øëðè÷
îï øïï÷
èé øïîé÷
îîè øèî÷
èìé øìêî÷
øìè÷ îêíøèï÷ ïëçøïíî÷ éð
øíí÷ ïçéøéí÷ éì
øîðð÷ èðéøïêè÷ ïçîøïïê÷ ïíè
ìëê
ìîè øîêð÷
ïèç øéç÷
íðì øîèì÷
èî
ï
øïìç÷ ïèí
î
øïðî÷ ïîè
øçç÷ ïïï
í
í
íîî øíðë÷
çèë øçìì÷
ì
çîë øêðì÷
øîìé÷ ëêç
øêîð÷ çëï
ë
øêêç÷ ïôðèì
î
ê
èî
øîïî÷ íêê
øîïí÷ íéê
ï
ÜÕÍ ß±½·¿¬»
ÌÎßÒÍÐÑÎÌßÌ×ÑÒ ÍÑÔËÌ×ÑÒÍ
7MITIGATION MEASURES
Potential mitigation measures are identified for the project transportation deficiencies.
Mitigation measures are analyzed for the Project Alternative since that scenario has the highest
trip generation.
7.1Intersection Mitigation Measures
7.1.1El Camino Real at Westborough Boulevard
Under the 2030 Cumulative with Project Alternative Condition, the delay at this intersection
during the AM Peak Hour would increase from 172.6 seconds in the “without project” condition
to 208.1 seconds in the “with project alternative” condition. For the PM peak hour, the delay
would increase from 83.3 seconds to 106.7 seconds in the respective “without project” and
“with project alternative” conditions. Table 19 shows a comparison of the intersection’s
operation between the 2030 without project and 2030 with project.
Figure 9 shows the existing intersection geometry and the geometry needed to achieve LOS D
under the “with project” condition. With these intersection improvements, the intersection
would operate at LOS D during both peak periods and experience 52.4 and 41.6 seconds of
delay during the respective AM and PM peak hours.
This intersection geometry would require additional right-of-way and relocation of utilities. The
widening of all four approaches and additional receiving lanes to achieve LOS D would be
infeasible. This intersection is also a state controlled intersection and under the jurisdiction of
Caltrans. Policy 4.2-G-9 of the South San Francisco General Plan states that “if there is no
practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service and the uses resulting in the
lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit” then LOS E or F is acceptable. As this
is the case with the mixed-use development, the project would not result in a significant impact
at this intersection.
Table 19 – 2030 without Project Conditions Mitigation LOS
2030 without 2030 with Project 2030 without 2030 with Project
ProjectAlternativeProjectAlternative
Condition AM Condition AM Condition PM Condition PM
c
No Intersection Location
Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour
ababab
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
íìòêÝíéòëÜíðòìÝíîòëÝ
1
Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñß®®±§±Ü®
ïéîòêÚîðèòïÚèíòíÚïðêòéÚ
2
Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñÉ»¬¾±®±«¹¸Ü®
ïéíòèÚîïïòçÚçìòîÚïïèòîÚ
3
Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñÉÑ®¿²¹»ßª»
îëéòëÚîééòïÚëèòêÛéîòïÛ
4
Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñб²¼»®±¿Î¼
ïïðòîÚïîîòêÚïéòìÞïçòèÞ
5
Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñݱ«²¬®§Ý´«¾Ü®
ïïéòëÚïîëòîÚïìëòïÚïéïòðÚ
6
Û´Ý¿³·²±Î»¿´ñÍÍ°®«½»ßª»
Notes:a. Delay is in seconds per vehicle. For signalized intersections, delay is based on average stopped delay.
b. LOS = Level of Service
c. All intersections are signal controlled.
Figure 9 – Intersection Geometry for El Camino Real at Westborough Boulevard
Westborough Blvd
Westborough Blvd
Mitigation Geometry
Existing Geometry
7.1.2El Camino Real at West Orange Avenue
For the 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition, the AM peak hour intersection delay would
increase from 173.8 seconds to 211.9 seconds during the respective without and with project
alternative conditions. For the PM peak hour, the respective without and with project alternative
intersection delay would increase from 94.2 seconds to 118.2 seconds.
Table 19 shows a comparison of the intersection’s operation between the 2030 without project
and 2030 with project.
Figure 10 shows the existing intersection geometry and the geometry needed to achieve LOS
D under the “with project” condition. With these intersection improvements, the intersection
would operate at LOS D during both peak periods and experience 53.8 and 38.7 seconds of
delay during the respective AM and PM peak hours.
Figure 10 – Intersection Geometry for El Camino Real at West Orange Avenue
W Orange Ave
W Orange Ave
Mitigation Geometry
Existing Geometry
This intersection geometry would require additional right-of-way and relocation of utilities. The
widening of all four approaches and additional receiving lanes to achieve LOS D would be
infeasible. This intersection is also a state controlled intersection and under the jurisdiction of
Caltrans. Policy 4.2-G-9 of the South San Francisco General Plan states that “if there is no
practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service and the uses resulting in the
lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit” then LOS E or F is acceptable. As this
is the case with the mixed-use development, the project would not result in a significant impact
at this intersection.
7.1.3El Camino Real at Ponderosa Road
During the 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition, the AM peak hour delay during the “without
project” condition would be 257.5 seconds and would increase to 277.1 seconds for the “with
project alternative” condition. For the PM peak hour, the delay would increase from 58.6
seconds to 72.1 seconds for the respective “without project” and “with project alternative”
conditions.
Table19 shows a comparison of the intersection’s operation between the 2030 without project
and 2030 with project conditions.
Figure 11 shows the existing intersection geometry and the geometry needed to achieve LOS
D under the “with project” condition. With these intersection improvements, the intersection
would operate at LOS D during both peak periods and respectively experience 50.1 and 23.2
seconds of delay during the AM and PM peak hours.
Figure 11 – Intersection Geometry for El Camino Real at Ponderosa Road
Ponderosa Rd
Ponderosa Rd
Mitigation Geometry
Existing Geometry
This intersection geometry would require additional right-of-way and relocation of utilities. The
widening of all four approaches and additional receiving lanes to achieve LOS D would be
infeasible. This intersection is also a state controlled intersection and under the jurisdiction of
Caltrans. Policy 4.2-G-9 of the South San Francisco General Plan states that “if there is no
practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service and the uses resulting in the
lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit” then LOS E or F is acceptable. As this
is the case with the mixed-use development, the project would not result in a significant impact
at this intersection.
7.1.4El Camino Real at Country Club Drive
For the 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition, delay at this intersection during the AM Peak
Hour would increase from 110.2 seconds during the “without project” condition to 122.6
seconds during the “with project alternative” condition.
Table19 shows a comparison of the intersection’s operation between the 2030 without project
and 2030 with project conditions
Figure 12 shows the existing intersection geometry and the geometry needed to achieve LOS
D under the “with project” condition. With these intersection improvements, the intersection
would operate at LOS D during both peak periods and would experience 40.1 seconds of delay
during the AM peak hour.
Figure 12 – Intersection Geometry for El Camino Real at Country Club Drive
Country Club Dr
Country Club Dr
Mitigation Geometry
Existing Geometry
This intersection geometry would require additional right-of-way and relocation of utilities. The
widening of an approach and an additional receiving lane to achieve LOS D would be infeasible.
This intersection is also a state controlled intersection and under the jurisdiction of Caltrans.
Policy 4.2-G-9 of the South San Francisco General Plan states that “if there is no practical and
feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service and the uses resulting in the lower level of
service are of clear, overall public benefit” then LOS E or F is acceptable. As this is the case with
the mixed-use development, the project would not result in a significant impact at this
intersection.
7.1.5El Camino Real at South Spruce Avenue
At this intersection, the delay for the AM Peak Hour would increase from 117.5 seconds to
125.2 seconds during the respective “without project” and “with project alternative” conditions.
Table19 shows a comparison of the intersection’s operation between the 2030 without project
and 2030 with project conditions. During the PM peak hour, the intersection delay would
increase from 145.1 seconds to 171.0 seconds for the respective “without project” and “with
project alternative” conditions Figure 13 shows the existing intersection geometry and the
geometry needed to achieve LOS D under the “with project” condition. With these intersection
improvements, the intersection would operate at LOS D during both peak periods and
respectively experience 39.2 and 48.8 seconds of delay during the AM and PM peak hours.
Figure 13 – Intersection Geometry for El Camino Real at South Spruce Avenue
S. Spruce Ave
S. Spruce Ave
Mitigation Geometry
Existing Geometry
This intersection geometry would require additional right-of-way and relocation of utilities. The
widening of all four approaches and additional receiving lanes to achieve LOS D would be
infeasible. This intersection is also a state controlled intersection and under the jurisdiction of
Caltrans. However, section 4.2-G-9 of the South San Francisco General Plan states that “if there
is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service and the uses resulting in
the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit” then LOS E or F is acceptable. As
this is the case with the mixed-use development, the project would not result in a significant
impact at this intersection.
7.2Freeway Segment Mitigation Measures
7.2.1I-280 from Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevard
One freeway segment, I-280 from Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevard, would be
significantly impacted by the proposed project alternative for the 2030 Cumulative with Project
Alternative for the PM peak hour. For the without project conditions, the segment would
experience LOS E and a v/c ratio of 0.94 while under the project alternative condition, the LOS
would remain E but the v/c ratio would increase to 0.95.
Although the increase in the v/c ratio would be minimal, the impacts would be significant and
unavoidable. Adding capacity to the roadway system is not a feasible mitigation measure and
the project alternative would have to be reduced in size in order to lower the number of trips
being generated. However, virtually any increase in trips on this roadway would trigger a
significant impact under the significance criteria. Thus, the impacts to roadway segments would
remain significant and unavoidable for the project alternative. It should be noted that this
impact is for the project alternative and does not exist for the 2030 Cumulative with Project
Condition.
8POTENTIAL PROJECT TRIP REDUCTIONS
This report presents a conservative analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed General
Plan Amendment and represents a worst-case generation estimate (i.e. it generates the
greatest number of trips). The analysis did not take into account the future Mission Road
extension, the full extent of the TDM program, or the mixed-use nature of future development
under the General Plan Amendment. This section discusses the potential reduction of traffic
impacts that may be attributed to the Mission Road extension, TDM, and mixed-use
development.
Mission Road Extension
Under the current City of South San Francisco General Plan (section 4.2-I-2), an extension of
Mission Road from Chestnut Avenue to the South Linden Avenue extension has been proposed.
Mission Road is a four lane roadway with two lanes of travel in each direction which generally
runs parallel to El Camino Real. Currently, Mission Road ends at Chestnut Avenue approximately
0.15 miles from the intersection of Westborough Boulevard and El Camino Real.
The proposed 1.35 mile extension would run parallel to El Camino Real and would operate with
two moving lanes in each direction. Constructed on the BART right-of-way, the extension would
also include a bikeway and a linear park. From a traffic circulation standpoint, the extension
would not only attract some traffic from El Camino Real, alleviating some of the congestion
concerns on the roadway, but would also disperse project-related trips from the mixed-use
development. As a result, it is possible that the traffic on El Camino Real will improve as a result
of the Mission Road extension.
Transportation Demand Management
Section 20.120 of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code details the requirements for a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. The purpose of a TDM Program is to
reduce the number of vehicle trips via alternative modes of transportation through public
transportation, bicycle usage, or walking. In the City of South San Francisco, a TDM Program is
required for all nonresidential development expected to generate one hundred or more average
daily trips. However, some residential projects in South San Francisco have included TDM
measures such as shuttles, bike parking, direct route to transit, and passenger loading zones,
as part of their project approval.
Section 20.120 states that for sites generating more than 100 daily trips, a minimum of 28% of
all trips must be made through alternative mode use. Some mandatory provisions for
encouraging alternative transportation uses include bicycle parking space, free parking for
carpools and vanpools, shuttle programs, and direct routes to transit.
However, for the purposes of this analysis, a 15% reduction of vehicle trips has been assumed
for a more conservative analysis. This 15% reduction of vehicle trips is also consistent with
other projects in South San Francisco implementing a TDM program. Reducing the daily vehicle
trips generated from the General Plan Amendment by 15% would result in 1,156 daily trips by
alternative modes of transportation under project conditions. Further, 133 and 118 trips would
be removed from the respective AM and PM peak hour vehicle networks as a result of
implementing a TDM Program. A TDM program would also reduce the number of vehicles
traveling to and from the sites and would lessen the overall effect of the project on the street
network.
Mixed-Use
Mixed-use development can be an effective way of reducing traffic impacts. It has the potential
to reduce vehicle travel, needs for parking and street widening, and impacts on climate change.
Mixed-use development can create trips with origin-destination pairs that are more easily
traveled by “alternative” modes such as transit, walking, and/or bicycling. In addition, mixed-
use development satisfies travel needs within an area, therefore reducing external travel and
the need for multiple vehicle trips. For example, clustering of services such as dry cleaning, day
care, restaurants, and stores near employment can provide the opportunity for workers to take
care of personal errands on foot from work and possibly avoid unnecessary motor vehicle trips.
A mixed-use land designation along El Camino Real would encourage more walking and bicycle
trips, while also optimizing the use of existing transit along El Camino Real, decreasing the need
for multiple vehicle trips.
9CONCLUSION
The study determined the potential transportation impacts of the proposed General Plan
Amendment for the City of South San Francisco. Six study intersections and six roadway
segments were selected to evaluate their operating conditions under Existing Condition, 2030
Cumulative without Project Condition, 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition, 2030 Cumulative
with Project Condition and 15% TDM reduction, and 2030 Cumulative with Project Alternative
Condition. The project trips generated by Centrum Distribution Center were estimated based on
th
the 8 edition of the ITE Trip Generation.
Following the
the study used several Measures of Effectiveness
(MOE) to evaluate the Level of Services (LOS) of the study intersections and roadway segments
under different study conditions.
The three project conditions, 2030 Cumulative with Project, 2030 Cumulative with Project and
15% TDM Reduction, and 2030 Cumulative with Alternative Project, all yielded the same traffic
impacts. For the AM peak hour, the intersections of El Camino Real at Westborough Drive, West
Orange Avenue, Ponderosa Road, Country Club Drive, and South Spruce Avenue would all
operate at LOS F. For the 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition PM peak hour, LOS F
conditions would exist along El Camino Real at Westborough Drive, West Orange Avenue, and
South Spruce Avenue. LOS E conditions would exist at El Camino Real at Ponderosa Road. To
achieve LOS D at these intersections would require widening most approaches and additional
receiving lanes, which would require additional right-of-way, relocating utilities, possible
relocation of buildings along El Camino Real, and would prove to be infeasible. Additionally,
these intersections are within the jurisdiction of Caltrans. However, Policy 4.2-G-9 of the City’s
General Plan states that if there is no feasible mitigation for the intersection in question and if
the proposed uses along El Camino Real are of public benefit, then LOS E or F is considered
acceptable and any potential traffic impacts are not significant.
One freeway segment, I-280 from Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevard, would be
impacted under the 2030 Cumulative with Project Alternative Conditions during the PM peak
hour. It should be noted that this impact would occur under the alternative condition and not
for the project condition.
Overall traffic impacts to the roadway network may be reduced due to a number of factors. The
extension of Mission Drive would open a parallel roadway to El Camino Real and would alleviate
some of the traffic concerns along El Camino Real. Additionally, a full Transportation Demand
Management program would reduce the amount of vehicle traffic generated by the proposed
uses. Implementing a Transportation Demand Management program would encourage multi-
modal uses including public transportation, bicycles, and walking. Mixed-use development
would also encourage linked and alternative-mode trips and reduce the number of potential
vehicle trips.