HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix B_TIA part 1
Appendix B: Traffic I m pact Study
General Plan Amendment
Traffic Impact Analysis
Administrative Draft
Prepared for
City of South San Francisco
By
OKS Associates
1000 Broadway, Suite 450
Oakland, California 94607
(510) 763-2061
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Executive Summary ...............................................................................................1
2 Introduction........................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Analysis Methodology ..............................................................................................8
2.2 Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Level of Service Calculations.................................................................................... 9
3 Existing Condition................................................................................................13
3.1 Roadway Network.................................................................................................13
3.2 Existing Intersection Operating Conditions.............................................................. 16
3.3 Existing Roadway Segment Operating Conditions.................................................... 17
3.4 Transitr Pedestrian and Bicycle Operations ............................................................. 18
3.5 Existing Parking .................................................................................................... 18
4 2030 Cumulative Without Project Condition....................................................... 19
4.1 Intersection Operating Conditions ..........................................................................19
4.2 Roadway Segment Operating Conditions ................................................................21
5 2030 Cumulative With Project Condition ............................................................ 22
5.1 Significance Criteria and Project Impacts ................................................................ 22
5.2 Full Project Analysis .............................................................................................. 23
5.3 15% TDM Reduction Analysis ................................................................................ 29
6 Alternative Analysis.............................................................................................35
6.1 Trip Generation .................................................................................................... 35
6.2 Intersection Operating Conditions ..........................................................................36
6.3 Roadway Segment Operating Conditions ................................................................ 37
6.4 Parking ..... ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ..... .... 38
7 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 41
7.1 Intersection Mitigation Measures............................................................................ 41
7.2 Freeway Segment Mitigation Measures................................................................... 49
8 Potential Project Trip Reductions........................................................................ 50
9 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 52
Appendix A Level of Service Calculations
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
i
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Existing Volumes.............................................................................................................15
Figure 2 - 2030 Cumulative without Project Condition Volumes.......................................................... 20
Figure 3 - Peak Hour Project Trips .................................................................................................. 26
Figure 4 - 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition Volumes............................................................... 27
Figure 5 - Peak Hour Project Trips .................................................................................................. 31
Figure 6 - 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition Volumes............................................................... 32
Figure 7 - Peak Hour Project Trips................................................................................................... 39
Figure 9 - 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition Volumes............................................................... 40
Figure 10 - Intersection Geometry for EI Camino Real at Westborough Boulevard ...............................42
Figure 11- Intersection Geometry for EI Camino Real at West Orange Avenue ................................... 43
Figure 12 - Intersection Geometry for EI Camino Real at Ponderosa Road .......................................... 44
Figure 13 - Intersection Geometry for EI Camino Real at Country Club Drive....................................... 45
Figure 14 - Intersection Geometry for EI Camino Real at South Spruce Avenue ...................................46
Figure 15 - Intersection Geometry for EI Camino Real at Sneath Lane ................................................ 47
Figure 16 - Intersection Geometry for EI Camino Real at 1-380 WB Off Ramp...................................... 48
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....................................................... 5
Table ES 3 - AM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary ............................................ 6
Table ES 4 - PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary ............................................ 7
Table 1 - Signalized Intersection LOS Thresholds............................................................................. 10
Table 2 - Level of Service Criteria for Arterials.................................................................................. 11
Table 3 - Level of Service Criteria for Freeways Based on Volume-to-Capacity Ratios........................... 12
Table 4 - Existing Condition Intersection Level of Service .................................................................. 16
Table 5 - Existing Condition Roadway Segment Level of Service Analysis............................................ 17
Table 6 - 2030 Cumulative without Project Condition Intersection Level of Service .............................. 19
Table 7 - 2030 Cumulative without Project Roadway Segment Level of Service ................................... 21
Table 8 - Trip Generation Rates.......................................................................................................23
Table 9 - Proposed Trip Generation.................................................................................................24
Table 10 - Proposed Project Trip Distribution ................................................................................... 24
Table 11- 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition Intersection Level of Service .................................25
Table 12 - 2030 Cumulative with Project Roadway Segment Level of Service....................................... 28
Table 13 - Proposed Trip Generation - 15% TDM Reduction ............................................................. 29
Table 14 - 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition Intersection Level of Service - 15% TDM Reduction 30
Table 15 - 2030 Cumulative with Project Roadway Segment Level of Service - 15% TDM Reduction .....33
Table 16 - Proposed Alternative Trip Generation .............................................................................. 35
Table 17 - 2030 Cumulative with Project Alternative Condition Intersection Level of Service................. 36
Table 18 - 2030 Cumulative with Project Alternative Roadway Segment Level of Service ...................... 37
Table 19 - 2030 without Project Conditions Mitigation LOS ................................................................ 42
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
ii
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
1 EXECUTIVE 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 33r050 square feet of retail spacer 180rOlO square feet of office spacer 75r840 square
feet of hotel spacer and 835 condominiums along EI 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 Conditionr 2030 Cumulative without Project
Conditionsr 2030 Cumulative with Project Conditionr 2030 Cumulative with Project with a TDM
Program Conditionr and one Project Alternative.
Table ES 1 and Table ES 2 provide a summary of the intersection operation Level of Service
(LOS) for the Existingr 2030 Cumulative without Projectr 2030 Cumulative with Projectr 2030
Cumulative with Project with a TDM Program Conditionr 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 Conditionr all ten study intersections are operating at an acceptable Level of
Services (LOS D or better) during the AM and PM peak hours. All nine study roadway segments
are also operating at acceptable Levels of Service (LOS D or better for arterialsr and LOS Dr Er
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 six intersections during the PM peak hour would
operate at unacceptable Levels of Service. For the AM peak hourr the intersections of EI Camino
Real at Westborough Driver West Orange Avenuer Ponderosa Roadr Country Club Driver and
South Spruce Avenue would all operate at LOS F. LOS F conditions would also exist during the
PM peak hour along EI Camino Real at Westborough Driver West Orange Avenuer South Spruce
Avenuer and 1-380 westbound off ramp. EI Camino Real at Ponderosa Road and Sneath Lane
would experience LOS E. All roadway segments would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS
with four exceptions. Based on the resultsr 1-280 from Sneath Lane to Avalon Driver Avalon
Drive to Westborough Boulevardr Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevardr and Hickey
Boulevard to Westborough Boulevard would all operate at LOS E or F during the PM peak hour.
2030 Cumulative with Project Condition
LOS for intersections under this scenario are similar to those for 2030 Cumulative without
Project Condition. During the AM peak hourr 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 hourr the levels of service at all intersections
will be the same between 2030 Cumulative without Project Condition and 2030 Cumulative with
Project Condition with four intersections operating at LOS F and two at LOS E. In order to
achieve acceptable Levels of Service (LOS D or better) at these intersectionsr the widening of all
approaches and additional receiving lanes would be neededr which would require additional
right-or-waYr relocation of utilities and the possible relocation of buildings along EI Camino Real.
City of South San Francisco GPA 1 October 28, 2009
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
AdditionallYr 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 c1earr overall public benefit"
the LOS E or F is acceptable. Since the widening of approaches to accommodater in most casesr
more than one laner is infeasible and the mixed-use proposed under the General Plan
Amendment would encourage more walkingr and bicycle and transit tripsr resulting in public
benefitr then LOS E or F is acceptable for the impacted intersections.
All roadway segments would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with four exceptions.
Based on the resultsr 1-280 from Sneath Lane to Avalon Driver Avalon Drive to Westborough
Boulevardr Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevardr and from Hickey Boulevard to
Westborough Boulevard would all continue to operate at LOS E or F during the PM peak hour.
One of these segmentsr 1-280 from Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevardr would
experience a significant and unavoidable impact during the 2030 Cumulative with Project
Alternative PM peak hour.
2030 Cumulative with Project Condition with TOM Program
Under this conditionr a TDM Program resulting in a 15% reduction in automobile traffic was
assumed. Similar to the 2030 Cumulative with Project Conditionr five intersections would
operate with unacceptable LOS during the AM peak hourr while six 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. Howeverr 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 c1earr overall public benefit"
the LOS E or F is acceptable. Since the widening of approaches to accommodater in most casesr
more than one laner is infeasible and the mixed-use proposed under the General Plan
Amendment would encourage more walkingr and bicycle and transit tripsr resulting in public
benefitr then LOS E or F is acceptable for the impacted intersections.
All roadway segments would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with four exceptions.
Based on the resultsr 1-280 from Sneath Lane to Avalon Driver Avalon Drive to Westborough
Boulevardr Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevardr and from Hickey Boulevard to
Westborough Boulevard would all continue to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. One
of these segmentsr 1-280 from Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevardr would experience
a significant and unavoidable impact during the 2030 Cumulative with Project Alternative PM
peak hour.
2030 Cumulative with Project Alternative Condition
The analyzed project alternative would include 627 condominiumsr 108r100 square feet of hotel
spacer 361r850 square feet of office spacer and 67r950 square feet of retail space. With this
project alternativer five intersections would operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour while six
intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS E or F during the PM peak hour. In order to
reduce the delay at these intersections to an acceptable LOS CD or better)r widening
approaches and receiving lanes and the possible relocation of buildings and utilities would be
necessary. AdditionallYr these intersections are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Howeverr
policy 4.2-G-9 of the General Plan states that "if there is no practical and feasible way to
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
2
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
mitigate the lower level of service and the uses resulting in the lower level of service are of
c1earr overall public benefit" the LOS E or F is acceptable. Since the widening of approaches to
accommodater in most casesr more than one laner is infeasible and the mixed-use proposed
under the General Plan Amendment would encourage more walkingr and bicycle and transit
tripsr resulting in public benefitr then LOS E or F is acceptable for the impacted intersections.
All roadway segments would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with four exceptions.
Based on the resultsr 1-280 from Sneath Lane to Avalon Driver Avalon Drive to Westborough
Boulevardr Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevardr and from Hickey Boulevard to
Westborough Boulevard would all continue to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. One
of these segmentsr 1-280 from Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevardr would experience
a significant and unavoidable impact during the 2030 Cumulative with Project Alternative PM
peak hour.
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
3
October 28, 2009
~
..
E
E
::l
UI
CU
v
.~
CU
UI
...
0
Qj
>
CU
...
C
0
:p
V
CU
III
...
2l
c
~ .. ...
Z ...
Q ::l
0
.~ .... J:
~
...J ...
(j Q ..
'" CU
~ ll.
z ~
Q
l- e(
<( I
.... ..
..
~ c UI
... w
'" CU
z
Q <( :is
.. ..
l- I-
~
u
co 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0
c. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
E z > > > > > z z z z
~
Q) Q) c
> > 0 Cfl
:;::; :;::; E 0 u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 "' "'
CO CO ""C ...J
:; C c
E ... 0
Q) u
" ~
u <C ~ >-
U <Xl "l "' "l ,-; <D ~ "' .,. ~
0 ..c Q) CO <Xi '" ci " "' .,; cO .,; ci "'
O""l ~ '0' Qj
0 '::; N 0 N " N N ~ .,. n n
... 0 N N N n n
N C.
~
U
co 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0
c. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
E z > > > > > z z z z
~
Q) :E
> Cfl
:;::; ~ 0 0 u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 "' "'
CO u I-
Q) ...J
:; '0' ,
E ... c
" c. 0
U ..c E >-
~ ""C " 0 "! <Xl "' ": " .,. .,. N
0 '::; c CO .0 <i <D <Xi ci "' ,..; cO ci "'
O""l Qj
0 0 N '" 0 <D N N ~ .,. n n
0 n N N n n
N U
~
u
CO 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0
c. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
E z > > > > > z z z z
~
Q)
> Cfl
:;::; tj 0 u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 "' "'
12 Q) C ...J
" '0' 0
E ... E
" C. ""C
U ..c C >-
0 <Xl ~ "! "! N
0 ~ U CO "! ci <i ": N .,. "1
'::; Qj " " n N N <i ci "
O""l N '" n " N N ~ .,. n n
0 0 n N N n n
N
~ Cfl
c 9 u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 "' "'
0 :;::; 0
O""l 12 E
0 " ""C
N E c >- <D '" "' N ~
" 0 CO "' N ci .0 ci "' '" '" .,. 0
U U Qj <i " <Xl ~ n n " '" ci "
0 N n n N n n .,. "' n n
n
Cfl "' u u u "' u u "' <( "'
0
C\ ...J
C
:;::;
'" .
;jj >- '" <D "' N .,. n <D <Xl "1 n
CO ai ,..; cO ci ,..; .,; ,..; <Xi ai
Qj n "' "' "' n N N n '" n
0
- -
- - ro
~ ro
ro ro Q)
Q) Q) - cc: CL
cc: cc: ro E
- Q) 0 0
0 0 ro cc: - .~ !i!
c c ~ ro c
Q) E
- E E 0 cc: - E tt=
c ro ro
u ro ro ro 0 0 Q) U ro 0
Q) c E u
c cc: u u c cc: W al
0 E ro W
0 W W u E 0 z
B c ro ro c - -
- - u W CL 0
Q) E -0 Q) u E E CL al
'" W - ro E J::
... ro > => w
Q) u m c - 0 U ro !i!
- cc:
~ Q) w -
c W .c ~ ~ -" Q) tt=
~ 0> => ~ - 0 tt= Q)
- => 0 c
Q) ro 0 c ro
0 0 0> if> Q) ...J al al ...J
:s c 0 ~ u 5 UJ
:v ..c ..c
0 -" ro ~ => ~ ~
e ~ is -0 C i'i ro 0 0 ro
~ c => <J) Q) al al Q)
.i( 5 fr. 0 c :z :z c
u <J) <J) <J)
0 ~ N O""l .,. co '" " al '" 0
z ~
~
~
,<>'
"J
~
""
~
Cl
".
v
u
E
~
>
-
~ h
-0
C ~
0 ~
u
~ ftJ
'" \.5
>- S <>::
ro li:
" -0 .iIl
0 ~ <.j
~ .~ <:: ~
ro
0> c ~ -Sc:::i
~ 0>
~ .~ <::E!~
~ ~
u ro I)lVj~
c 2' ~
0 ~ t
p ro
u '" :Srtl~
~ ~ ~ " ~
~ 0 c
0 ~~~
~ " p
:s ~ u
~ 't~~
" ...J ~
" ~
>- .~ ~~c:::i
ro '"
" 0 <( \jl'::""
0 ...J
ro .ci u
~
~
~
0
z
~~
.~ ~
(j~
~~
..
~~
Q~
~
u
ctl 0 <II <II <II 0 <II <II <II 0 0
E z ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ z z
~
Q) Q) "
> > 0 U)
:g+:JEO
"S~-g...J
E ~ 0
::l2:lu
u<C
0..<::
O""l ~
:=:J '::;
~
u Cfl
~O
E ...J
~
Q)
>
:;:; +-'
CO aJ
"S .0'
E ~ "
" c.. 0
u..c:E
gj-g
o 0
N U
~
U
Q)
'0'
~
c..
:E ~
OQj
f- 0
,
u ~ ~ w ~ ~ w ~ ~ U
~ O'l O'! N
Q3M8~
o N rl rl
<Xl 0
rl d
" N
rf'! 0 N O'l \.0
N u:i ari a) a)
~ \.0 ~ rl N
o <II <II <II 0 <II <II <II 0 0
Z ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ Z Z
u ~ ~ W ~ ~ W ~ ~ U
~ 00 \.0 ~ ~ ~ O'! rl q ~ ~
Q3 N 00 0 ari 00 ~ N ~ m m
o N O'l rl \.0 rl rl \.0 rl rl N
~
U
ctl 0 <II <II <II 0 <II <II <II 0 0
E z ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ z z
~
~
..
E
E
::l
UI
CU
V
.~
CU
UI
...
o
Qj
~
...
C
o
:,j;l
V
CU
III
...
CU
...
C
...
...
::l
o
J:
...
..
CU
ll.
~
ll.
Q)
>
:;:; +-'
co aJ
"S .0'
E ~
"c..""C
U..<:: "
~ 0
g'::; U
o
N
Q) '" Cfl
> " 0
0:;:; 0 ....J
('Y1.!S!;e
o """C
N E "
" 0
UU
C\
"
.,
'"
;jj
N
UI
w
CU
:is
..
f-
Cfl
o
" ...J
o
E
u ~ ~ w ~ ~ w ~ ~ u
~ rl ~ rf'! rl 0 O'l 0 O'! 00 ~
Q3 M 8 ~ ~ m ~ M ~ m m
o N rl rl \.0 rl rl \.0 rl rl N
u ~ ~ w ~ ~ w ~ ~ u
~ ~ rf'! \.0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rf'!
Q3 rl M ~ \.0 ~ ~ ~ rl O'l O'l
o N 00 O'l ~ rl rl ~ rl rl N
n
~ ~ u u ~ ~ u u ~ ~ U
...J
u
"
o
B
Q)
'"
~
Q)
~
"
~
o
Z
.
>-",
co .,;
Qj n
o
ro E E
Q) ro ro
",uu
o
c
i:iJi:iJ
--
E -0 Q)
ro > =>
u co ~
w ~.5:
- => Q)
o 0>
:s c
B ~
:G 0
SS
o
o
e
.i(
~
~
,<>'
"J
~
""
~
Cl
'"
v
u
-'"
V
LJ) rl LJ) M 0) rl '<t >
~oog:j~~d~:;-
-0
c
o
u
V
'"
'" ~
o::i cd
"' N
ro ro
Q) Q)
"''''
o 0
c c
ro
- Q)
~o:::-
'" 0
c
g E
~ a
u
ro
3!-EE
ro ro ro
o Q) U U
c '" -w
W
g--
E c.. c..
ro E E
U &. flJ
W '"
-1515
C al
~sES
~oo
~oooo
~~~
ro -
Q) ro
"'3!
o 0
C C
c..
E
!i!
tt=
o
al
Z
o
al
J::
-
Q)
C
ro
...J
..<::
~
ro
Q)
C
<J)
iU'
v ~
o .!::::!
v ro
0> C
~ 0>
Q) "Vi
> v
<( u ro
5 "2: ~
.;::; Q) l\J
u '"
V ~ ~
~ 0 5
Q)"'ijJ:.;::;
:s ~ ~
II II Q)
fO (/).~
~9Ci:
n:i ..ci u
h
~ ~
\.5 flJ
s Oc:
.iIl t
~ '"
t': "'~
u:::'l:J....
<::E!~
I)lVj~
t
:Srtl~
" ~r::
~~~
't~~
~t':C:i
\jl'::""
E
wa
i:i:i-i:jJ
-0_
~..o Q)
=> ~
rn 0 Q)
o ~ u
Q:j +-' ::J
"'0 C 0..
B 6 CJ)
c..U<J)
~
v
...-IN{Y')'<;j"LJ1o..Dr--.-oo0'l8o
z
~
..
E
E
::l
UI
CU
v
.~
CU
UI
...
0
Qj
>
CU
...
...
C
CU
E
Cl
CU
UI
>-
..
:l:
"c:J
..
0
~ .. 1%
z ...
Q ::l
0
.~ .... J:
~
...J ...
(j Q ..
'" CU
~ ll.
z ~
Q
l- e(
<( I
.... M
..
~ c UI
... w
'" CU
z
Q <( :is
.. ..
l- I-
Q) Q) c ~
> > 0 Cfl
., ., ;t;;1 9 <( u <( CO U 0 U 0 0 0 0 CO 0 CO 0 U UU u
12 co ""C
" C c
E ... 0
Q) u
" ~
u <c tj .
"': '" "! '" 0 O""l ao O""l ... O""l ao ... 0"> ... '" ao 0"> ao
0 ..c Q) uu ": ": ~ "< "< ": ": '" "< "': "< ~ "< ~
O""l ~ '0 a 0"> "- 0"> ,..,
0 .~ ... :E O""l N O""l O""l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N c..
~ :E ~
., ~ 0 Cfl <( U <( co u 0 u 0 0 0 0 co 0 co 0 u UU U
co u I- a
Q)
:; '0 , ...J
E ... c
" c.. 0
U ..c E .
0 ~ ""C uu ~ ~ '" ,.., 0 O""l ao O""l ... O""l ao ... 0"> ... '" ao 0"> ao
O""l .~ c a 0"> "- 0"> N "- "- '" ao ao "- "- O""l ao ... ao '" "< '"
0 0 :E O""l N O""l O""l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N U
~
Q) ~ Cfl <( <( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
> u c a u co u u co co u uu U
Q)
0 ., '0 0 ...J
co E
O""l :; ...
0 c.. ""C
N E ..c c .
0 uu Lf"l Lf"l O""l ~ 0 O""l ao O""l ... O""l ao ... 0"> ... '" ao 0"> ao
" ~ u ": ": ~ "< "< ": ": '" "< "': "< ~ ao ~
U .~ a 0"> "- 0"> ,..,
:E O""l N O""l O""l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~
Q) Cfl <( co <( co u 0 u 0 0 0 0 co 0 co 0 u uu U
> c a
0 ., 0 ...J
O""l 12 E
0 " ""C
N E c . ... ... ...
0 uu "- "- Lf"l N 0"> O""l ao O""l O""l ao 0"> '" "- 0"> "-
" u '" "- '" ao ao "- "- O""l ao ... ao '" ao '"
u a 0"> ao 0"> O""l
:E O""l N O""l O""l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~
Cfl <( <( <( <( u u u 0 u u 0 co 0 co 0 0 0 0
C\ 9
c
~
'x .
uu uu ~ ao ~ ": ... 0"> ... N "- Lf"l ... 0 ,.., "- ao ,.., '" ao
a 0"> 0"> 0"> 0"> Lf"l "': Lf"l ": Lf"l ~ ": '" "< '" ": ": "- ":
:E O""l O""l O""l O""l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
... ~ ""C ...
0 Q) > 0
..0 U co c
" " .Q ""C ~
.~ ..c >
0 C\ co co co ""C Q)
~ Cfl " ~ > ~
..c 0 ~ ..c co
~ ~ Ii) ... 0 C\
C 0 ~ ""C
" ..0 ~ " ,.., co Q) Q) c c
c " 0 .!.2 0 ~ ~
0 Cfl co . ~ ""C co 0 0 Q) '0 co
0 ,.., ... c > I ... ao ,.., c< ...
., u Ig 0 ...J Q) co 0 Q) c.. "
0 0 ~ 0 ..0 c< N Cfl ""C Qj
co 0 ~ ~ C ..c ~ ~ , => 0 c ... 0
u ~ " ~ ..c ~ C ..c Q)
0 Q) 0 0 0 co ~ ~
Q) .O!: 0 ""C co co C\ ""C Q) C 0 0 'E ... u
...J ~ ... > Q) ~ " > ~ ~ ~ " ~ > ""C
... 0 co ~ ... co 'E :E >
0 c 0 co a
..0 Cfl 0 ... 0 co co u 0 co
Q) ..0 ~ ..c 0 ..c ~ co Q) Q) ~ 0 0
<J> 0 0 c U UJ ~
u .2 Q) C\ ~ ~ ..0 C\ ""C c< c< Q) ~ ~ c
" ~ " 0 ~ " > UJ ~ Q) Q)
,~ u 0 c ... co Q) 0 co 0 0 0 ~ ~ '0
~ ... ...J 0 ~ ... c c ~ c..
Cfl 0 0 ~ 0 0 'E 'E ,..,
~ ..c C > ~ Qj ...
..c ..0 ~ ..0 0 ""C ""C Q)
C ~ ~ .Q E E ~ ~ 0 co co ..c
~ Cfl <J> co <J> ao ,.., u c c ~
" " Q) Q) co 0 0 Q) .!.2 u u "" co co
0 0 ';..; ~ c ~ ... ... ~ N Cfl ... ... >
Cfl U Cfl LL LL I , UJ UJ => :E " " a
~
>u 0
co ~ c ,..,
;;: ~ 'E co 0 0 0
ao ao ,..,
""C E co Q) N O""l
co U c< , , Cfl
0 C\ ~ ~ =>
c< Q) UJ
Cfl
~
~
,<>'
"J
~
""
~
Cl
ci
~
u
>
.~
.-
~
.u
~
>-
ro
~
~
~
ro
~
.E
,,'
v
v ~
0. >-
'" ro
" ~
v
> ~
ro 'C
,:: ~
v ~
0> ro
~ ~
v 0
~ ~
'"
.~ ::>
~ "
c
ro
.u 0
~ ro
ro ::2
.c 0'
E ro
.;, :::
c ~
ro
~
.E .u
w ~
0
'" ro
v .c
E E
~' .;,
~ c h
v ro ~
c .~ ~
v
> ro ftJ
p \.5
u ~
~ v ro S <>::
w u ~ li:
~ 2' :.s .iIl
0 v <.j
~ '" .~ <:: '"
~ ~ ro ~ "'~
~ ~ 0 v U:::'l:J
v ~ " '" <::E!~
ro ro >
v 0
.u '" v I)lVj~
...J C
0 E
~ " " t
~ ro :Srtl~
<( w '" U
'" 0 0 " ~
" '" ...J '" ~~~
0 ro .ci u
v ~ 't~~
u
~ v
~ ~ ~~Cl
0 0
<J> z \jl'::""
~
..
E
E
::l
UI
CU
v
.~
CU
UI
...
0
Qj
>
~
...
C
CU
E
Cl
CU
UI
>-
..
:l:
"c:J
..
~ .. /i
z ...
Q ::l
0
.~ .... J:
~
...J ...
(j Q ..
'" CU
~ ll.
z ~
Q
l- ll.
<( I
.... ....
..
~ c UI
... w
'" CU
z
Q <( :is
.. ..
l- I-
Q) Q) c ~
> > 0 Cfl
:;::; :;::; E a co <( <( <( LL U uu 0 uu uu co 0 u uu 0 uu 0 uu
12 co ""C ...J
" C c
E ... 0
Q) u
" ~
u <c ~ .
u
0 ..c Q) uu Lf"l "': "! ~ ,.., ao O""l '" N '" ... 0"> '" 0 N ,.., 0"> 0
O""l ~ '0 a 0 "- Lf"l "- 0 Lf"l ~ "- ~ ~ ... "- Lf"l ~ ao ~ ao ~
0 .~ ... :E O""l O""l O""l O""l ,.., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N c-
Q) :E
> ~
:;::; ~ 0 Cfl <( <( <( 0 0 0 0
co u I- a co LL U uu uu uu co u uu uu uu
Q)
:; '0 , ...J
E ... c
" c- o
U ..c E
0 ~ ""C . ,.., ,.., ... ,..,
.~ c uu 0"> ao 0"> ao O""l '" N '" 0"> '" 0 N ao 0
O""l 0 Lf"l 0"> "- 0"> 0"> "': "- Lf"l 0"> ao 0"> ao 0">
0 0 a 0 "- Lf"l ao
N U :E O""l O""l O""l O""l ,.., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~
~ tj Cfl co <( <( <( LL U uu 0 uu uu co 0 u uu 0 uu 0 uu
Q) c a
0 :;::; .~ 0 ...J
O""l 12 e E
0 " c- ""C
N E ..c c . ,.., N '" ... 0 ,.., 0
0 uu ": ": ": '" ao O""l '" 0"> '" N ao
" ~ u '" Lf"l ~ ": ~ ~ "': ": Lf"l ~ "< ~ "< ~
u .~ a 0 "- Lf"l ao
:E O""l O""l O""l O""l ,.., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~
Q) Cfl co <( <( <( LL U uu 0 uu uu co 0 u uu 0 uu uu uu
> c a
0 :;::; 0 ...J
O""l 12 E
0 " ""C
N E c . ,.., "': ,.., ,.., ... ,..,
0 uu '" ~ ao O""l Lf"l '" 0"> '" 0 N 0"> 0">
" U 0 Lf"l ~ "- ~ ~ ... "- Lf"l ~ ao ~ ao "<
u a ,.., ao '" ao
:E O""l O""l O""l O""l ,.., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~
Cfl <( <( <( <( 0 co 0 u 0 0 co u co 0 0 0 0 0
C\ a
c ...J
~
'x . ,.., ,..,
uu uu Lf"l "- "': ~ ... 0 O""l 0"> '" Lf"l '" '" O""l Lf"l 0"> N
a 0"> 0"> 0"> 0"> "< "': ao Lf"l ao ": '" ~ "': "- ": ": ": "-
:E O""l O""l O""l O""l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q)
... ~ ""C ...
0 Q) > 0
..0 U C1i c
" " .Q ""C ""C
(] .~ ..c > >
C\ ~ C1i C1i ~ Q)
~ Cfl " ~
..c 0 > ..c C1i
~ ""C ~ ... 0 ~ C\
C 0 ~ ""C
" > Cfl ..0 ~ " ,.., co Q) ~ c c
c " 0 C1i ~ .~ 0 0 ~ co
0 Cfl ~ ""C co 0 Q) '0
0 u ... c > I ... ao ,.., c< ...
:;::; 0 I~ 0 ...J Q) C1i 0 Q) c- "
0 ~ 0 ..0 c< N Cfl ""C
co 0 ~ ~ C ..c ~ ~ , => 0 c Qj ... 0
u ~ " ~ ..c <J> ~ C ..c Q)
0 Q) 0 0 Q) 0 co ~ ~
Q) .O!: 0 ""C co co C\ ""C C 0 0 'E ... u
...J ~ ... > Q) ~ " > ~ ~ ~ " "" > ""C
... 0 C1i ~ c ... C1i 'E co >
0 ..0 Cfl 0 0 co co u 0 :E a C1i
~ ... 0 co ~
Q) ..0 ..c 0 0 c 0 ..c ~ U Q) Q) 0 0 ~
u .2 Q) C\ ~ ..0 C\ c< c< OJ Q) ~ ~
~ .Q ~ c
" ~ " ~ " OJ ~ Q) Q)
~ u e c ... co <J> 0 0 0 0 '0
~ ~ ...J 0 ~ Q) ... C1i 0 c c ~ ~ ~ c-
o 0 ~ 0 'E 'E ,..,
~ ..c C ~ ~ Qj ...
..c ..0 ~ ..0 0 ""C ""C Q)
C Ii) ~ .Q E E ~ 0 co co ..c
~ <J> co ao ,.., u c c ~
" " Q) Q) co 0 0 Q) .~ u u ~ co co <J>
0 0 . ~ c ~ ... ... ~ N Cfl :E ... ... {;
Cfl U ,.., Cfl LL LL I , OJ OJ => " "
~
>u 0
co ~ c ,..,
;;: ~ 'E co 0 0 0
ao ao ,..,
""C E co Q) N O""l
co U c< , , Cfl
0 C\ ~ ~ =>
c< Q) OJ
Cfl
~
~
,<>'
"J
~
""
~
Cl
ci
~
u
>
.~
.-
~
.u
~
>-
ro
~
~
~
ro
~
.E
,,'
v
v ~
"- >-
'" ro
" ~
v
> ~
ro "
,:: ~
v ~
0> ro
~ ~
v 0
~ ~
'"
.~ ::>
~ -0
C
ro
.u 0
~ ro
ro ::2
.c 0'
E ro
.;, :::
c ~
ro
~
.E .u
w ~
0
'" ro
v .c
E E
~' .;,
~ c h
v ro ~
c .~ ~
v
> ro ftJ
p \.5
u ~
~ v ro S <>::
w u ~ li:
~ 2' :.s .iIl
0 v <.j
~ '" .~ <:: '"
~ ~ ro ~ "'~
~ ~ 0 v U:::'l:J
v ~ " '" <::E!~
ro ro >
v 0
.u '" v I)lVj~
...J C
0 E
~ " " t
~ ro :Srtl~
<( w '" U
'" 0 0 " ~
" '" ...J '" ~~~
0 ro .ci u
v ~ 't~~
u
~ v
~ ~ ~~Cl
0 0
<J> z \jl'::""
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
2 INTRODUCTION
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
33r050 square feet of retail spacer 180rOlO square feet of office spacer 75r840 square feet of
hotelr and 835 condominiums.
This additional development would be located on a segment of EI Camino Real between Arroyo
Drive and South Spruce Avenue in central South San Francisco. This segment of EI Camino Real
is approximately 1.25 miles west of downtown South San Francisco and US 101r one mile east
of 1-280r and approximately one mile north of 1-380. Based on the 1999 City of South San
Francisco General Plan updater this segment is part of the "EI Camino Real" sub-area.
The transportation analysis represented in this study incorporates data provided by traffic
counts performed by WIL TEC in Marchr 2009r the City of South San Franciscor and the County
of San Mateo.
2.1 Analysis 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 / EI Camino Real
2. Westborough Boulevard / EI Camino Real
3. West Orange Avenue / EI Camino Real
4. Ponderosa Road / EI Camino Real
5. Country Club Drive / EI Camino Real
6. South Spruce Avenue / EI Camino Real
7. Sneath Lane / EI Camino Real
8. 1-380 WB Off Ramp / EI Camino Real
9. 1-380 EB Off Ramp / EI Camino Real
10. Sneath Lane / 1-280 NB Off Ramp
Roadway and Highway Segments:
1. EI Camino Real between South Spruce Avenue and Country Club Drive
2. EI Camino Real between 1" Street and Westborough Drive
3. 1-280 between Sneath Lane and Avalon Drive
4. 1-280 between Avalon Drive and Westborough Boulevard
5. 1-280 between Westborough Boulevard and Hickey Boulevard
6. 1-380 between 1-280 and EI Camino Real
7. 1-380 between EI Camino Real and US 101
8. US 101 between Mitchell Avenue and Grand Avenue
9. US 101 Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
8
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
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% TOM 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.
2.2 Data Collection
2.2.1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Intersection Volumes: Weekday AM and PM intersection turning movement volumes for the
study intersections were performed by WIL TEC in Marchr 2009.
2.2.2 Intersection and Roadway Configuration
Site visits were conducted in Marchr 2009r to confirm lane configuration and traffic control at
study intersections and roadway segments.
2.3 Level of Service Calculations
The Level of Service (LOS) at the selected study intersections and roadway segments was
determined on methodology described below.
2.3.1 Intersection level of Service
Intersection analysis was conducted using the criteria described in the Cityf County Association
of Governments (CfCAG) 2007 Congestion Management Program and utilized the Highway
Capacity Software (HCS 2000) for the analysis where appropriate. For reference purposeSr 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 timer
freedom to maneuverr traffic interruptionsr and comfort and convenience. LOS at study
intersections was calculated using TRAFFIX software for signalized and unsignalized
intersections.
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
9
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
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 "Au representing free-flow conditionsr to "Fu representing extremely long delays.
LOS Band 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
of Description
Service (seconds/vehicle)
A Delay ~ 10.0 Free Flow/Insignificant Delays: No approach phase is fully utilized and
no vehicle waits longer than one red indication.
Stable Operation/Minimal Delays: An occasional approach phase is fully
B 10 < Delay ~ 20.0 utilized. Many drivers design to feel somewhat restricted within platoon
of vehicles.
C 20.0 < Delay ~ 35.0 Stable Operation/Acceptable Delays: Major approach phases fully
utilized. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted.
Approaching UnstablefTolerable Delays: Drivers may have to wait
D 35.0 < 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.
E 55.0 < 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.
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
10
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
Signalized Intersections
At signalized intersectionsr level of service is evaluated on the basis of average stopped delay
for all vehicles at the intersection.
2.3.2 Roadway 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 Programr levels of service for arterials are dependent
on the arterial class denoted as Type Ir IIr or III. Type I arterials are principal arterials with
suburban designr 1 to 5 signals per miler no parking and free-flow speeds of 35 to 45 miles per
hour. Type III arterials have urban designsr with 6 to 12 signals per miler 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 maneuverabilityr delaysr and speeds. As the volume increasesr
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
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
11
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
Freeways
According to the 2007 Congestion Management Programr 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
exam pier US 101 is considered a freeway.
For freeway segmentsr a calculation method based on the vlc ratio was selected for the 2007
Congestion Manage Program. Volumes on each roadway segment in each direction are divided
by the capacityr estimated to be 2r200 vehicles per hour per lane on freeways. For this reportr
the freeway free-flow speed was determined to be 65 miles per hour. The vlc 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
Level of Service Density' Speedb Maximumc MSP'
(pc/mi/ln) (mph) vie (pcphpl)
A 10.0 65.0 0.295 650
B 16.0 65.0 0.473 1,040
e 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
Notes: a 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, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209 (Washington, D.C., 1994), pp. 3-9
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
12
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
3 EXISTING CONDITION
The following section presents an analysis of the existing conditions of various transportation
system components.
3.1 Roadway Network
The roadway network where additional development would occur under the General Plan
Amendment would occur along EI Camino Real in the City of South San Francisco and is
comprised of freewaysr arterialsr collector streets and local streets.
Regional access to the area is provided by I-280r I-380r and US 101 while 10callYr the
development area is along EI Camino Real. AdditionallYr small collector and local streets connect
the development area to I-280r I-380r and US 101.
1-280 - 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 siter 1-
280 supports four mixed use lanes in each direction. 1-280 has an Annual Average Daily Traffic
(AADT) of approximately 102rOOO vehicles south of 1-380 including 12r100 during the peak
hour; and approximately 167rOOO north of 1-380 including 13r100 during the peak hour.
AdditionallYr access to and from 1-280 from the development area is via interchanges with
Westborough Boulevard.
1-380 - This eight-lane spur freeway runs in the east-west direction for 1.5 miles between 1-
280 and US 101 and is approximately one mile south of the development area. 1-380 has an
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of approximately 122rOOO vehicles west of SR 82 with
9r200 vehicles during the peak hour; and approximately 142rOOO vehicles east of SR 82 with
10,100 vehicles during the peak hour. Access to and from 1-380 from the development area is
most nearly accessed from the interchange with EI Camino Real / SR 82.
US 101 - An eight-lane freeway running in the north-south directionr US 101 is approximately
1.25 miles east of the project site. US 101 is over 1r500 miles long and runs between Los
Angeles and Olympiar WA. The freeway has an AADT of approximately 230rOOO vehicles south
of 1-380 including 16rOOO vehicles during the peak hour. AdditionallYr north of 1-380 the AADT is
approximately 230rOOO vehicles and 14r600 vehicles during the peak hour. The most direct
route from the development area is via the interchange with Grand Avenue.
EI Camino Real (State Route 82) - EI 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 arear the roadway has an AADT of approximately 36rOOO vehicles
south of 1-380 including 3r150 during the peak hour. North of I-380r the AADT is 41r500 with
3r600 vehicles during the peak hour. No on-street parking is allowed on EI Camino Real.
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
13
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
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 1-280 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 EI 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 EI 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 EI Camino Real. On-street parking
is not permitted along South Spruce Avenue but is permitted allowed along Hazelwood Drive.
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
14
October 28, 2009
~
o
,JJ
CDurlr;
(74)81 J
(82) 127,
5
,JII.,
F\ndcr
(21) 116J
(21)97-
(96) 137,
4
,JJI.,
')r%08
(116) 150J
(63) 69-
(46) 48 ,
3
.,JII.,
(164) 187J
(486) 601-
(461) 428,
2
~N
~M
~~
.,JI
~ Arrc/(
s!
,,,:
>j
,
'f'
')
q
~
(140)250 J
(126) 223,
D
TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS
o
""It
roM
M CO
~O
RiD
ro~
ro~
o
'-167 (66)
_ 32(6)
r 82 (52)
"Itt'
Mroro
NOO
Nro
;D'
:;;~
o
'- 272 (219)
_ 128 (57)
r 124(169)
"Itt'
n"~
~~~
,_,0:> ..-
N
~,
o
'- 120 (217)
_ 637 (628)
r 425 (461)
Chc,;lrul
""I t t' A,"
~on
n 7N
nroN
in
N
!!'.
') t
nM
roo
~ ro
'- 195 (389) 0 '- 27 (263)
;::~,lD
_ 65 (138) N~~ _ 60 (362)
.,J P. r 222 (356) .,J II., r 141 (555)
nazel feed ~, ~,JrUC8
""It... Ln ""It t'
(74) 66 J ~ro" (366) 216 J roa~
(80) 80- co <.n '-0 (247) 336- ro~~
~l'-('1 ~ron
(61)44, 0 (191)250,
N
~
C;
6 7
cD'
n
N
o
co
M
N
'- 667 (677)
r 445 (445)
-3']U\,",16
FaTT'
I
t
o
a
ro
0;
a
S
131
8
"'
n~
C;
a
~
ro
I
Jill:
8TJc. t
(297) 179 J "
(381) 162, N
8
M
a
9 C;
O~~
'- 1 (0)
- 333 (726)
r 88 (260)
.Jtl.,
Sr88th
LEGEND
o Signalized Intersection
xx (xx) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
1
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
3.2 Existing Intersection Operating Conditions
Level of service calculations were performed at ten 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 CjCAG 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 resultsr all of the ten 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
sheetsr including weekday AM and PM peak hours.
Table 4 - Existing Condition Intersection Level of Service
AM Peak Hour PM Peak
No Intersection Location Control Hour
Delay' LOS b Delay LOS
1 EI Camino Real/Arroyo Dr Signalized 19.9 B 15.9 B
2 EI Camino Real / Westborough Dr Signalized 31.6 C 34.9 C
3 EI Camino Real / W Orange Ave Signalized 33.3 C 28.5 C
4 EI Camino Real / Ponderosa Rd Signalized 30.2 C 17.5 B
5 EI Camino Real/Country Club Dr Signalized 11.4 B 8.1 A
6 EI Camino Real / S Spruce Ave Signalized 25.1 C 33.5 C
7 Sneath Ln / EI Camino Real Signalized 21.6 C 26.3 C
8 ]-380 WB Off Ramp / EI Camino Real Signalized 18.8 B 18.9 B
9 ]-380 EB Off Ramp / EI Camino Real Signalized 9.3 A 13.1 B
10 Sneath Lane / ]-280 NB Off Ramp Signalized 19.1 B 23.4 C
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
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
16
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
3.3 Existing Roadway Segment Operating Conditions
Based on the classification of the roadway segments described earlierr two arterial roadway
segments and seven 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 5r 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.
Table 5 - Existing Condition Roadway Segment Level of Service Analysis
Existing Condition
Roadway Location AM PM
Segment' Volume MOE" LOS. Volume MOE LOS
(vehfhr) (vehfhr)
From South Spruce Ave to Country Club Dr 1019 39.9 A 1805 39.5 A
EI Camino From Country Club Dr to South Spruce Ave 1417 39.8 A 1513 39.7 A
Real From 1st St to West borough Blvd 1209 39.9 A 1831 39.4 A
From Westborough Blvd to 1st St 1533 39.7 A 1671 39.6 A
Sneath Ln to Avalon Dr 4719 0.54 C 7377 0.84 D
Avalon Dr to Sneath Ln 4277 0.49 C 3485 0.40 B
From Avalon Dr to Westborough Blvd 4722 0.54 C 7327 0.83 D
1-280
From Westborough Blvd to Avalon Dr 6305 0.72 D 5155 0.59 C
Westborough Blvd to Hickey Blvd 5056 0.57 C 7091 0.81 D
Hickey Blvd to Westborough Blvd 5708 0.65 C 6214 0.71 D
1-280 to EI Camino Real 6551 0.74 D 3175 0.36 B
EI Camino Real to 1-280 2622 0.30 B 5733 0.65 C
1-380
EI Camino Real to US 101 7134 0.81 D 4013 0.46 B
US 101 to EI Camino Real 3223 0.37 B 6645 0.76 D
Mitchell Ave to Grand Ave 6829 0.78 D 6405 0.73 D
Grand Ave to Mitchell Ave 6235 0.71 D 6562 0.75 D
US 101
Grand Ave to Oyster Point Blvd 6727 0.76 D 6950 0.79 D
Oyster Point Blvd to Grand Ave 6856 0.78 D 6362 0.72 D
Source: DKS Associates
Notes: a. MOE = Measures of Effectiveness. MOE is average travel speed for arterials and vie ratio for freeways
b. LOS = Level of Service is based on 2007 CjCAG of San Mateo County Final Congestion Management Plan criteria
c. EI Camino Real in this area is an Arterial I facility and 1-280, 1-380 and US 101 are Freeways
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
17
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
3.4 Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Operations
3.4.1 Existing Transit Operations
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) operates a commuter rail public transit system with 43 stations
through San Franciscor Alamedar Contra Costar 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 siter the San Bruno BART Station is the closest stationr
approximately one mile south of the development area. Between October 2008 and September
2009r the average weekday exits at this station were 2r638 riders.
The San Mateo County Transit District (Sam Trans) 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 routesr the 122r 132r 133r 390r and 391r run along or cross EI Camino Real in the
vicinity of the proposed development.
3.5 Existing Parking
Off-Street Parkina
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 Parkina
On-street parking in the vicinity of the project site is generally scarce. Along EI Camino Realr
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.
Howeverr these areas are largely residential with high parking utilization rates.
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
18
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
4 2030 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 CjCAG travel forecast model.
The cumulative growth volumes have been calculated by using the CjCAG traffic forecast model
which provides 2005 and forecasted 2030 traffic volumes. Using a furness process between the
2009 existing field volumesr CjCAG 2005r and CjCAG 2030 traffic volumesr the 2030 Cumulative
intersection traffic volumes were estimated.
4.1 Intersection 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 Conditionsr five
intersections during the AM peak hour and six 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 LOS b
Delay' Delay LOS
1 EI Camino Real/Arroyo Dr Signalized 24.3 C 21.2 C
2 EI Camino Real / Westborough Dr Signalized 172.6 F 83.3 F
3 EI Camino Real / W Orange Ave Signalized 180.9 F 94.6 F
4 EI Camino Real / Ponderosa Rd Signalized 256.3 F 56.2 E
5 EI Camino Real/Country Club Dr Signalized 110.2 F 17.4 B
6 EI Camino Real / S Spruce Ave Signalized 117.5 F 145.1 F
7 Sneath Ln / EI Camino Real Signalized 47.9 D 57.5 E
8 1-380 WB Off Ramp / EI Camino Real Signalized 39.9 D 115.3 F
9 1-380 EB Off Ramp / EI Camino Real Signalized 10.4 B 19.4 B
10 Sneath Lane / 1-280 NB Off Ramp Signalized 17.0 B 29.3 C
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
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
19
October 28, 2009
JI
CDuntrJ
(59) 122 J
(168)192~
5
,lIt,
F\ndcr
(37) 245 J
(33) 197-
(189) 789 ~
4
,JJt,
")r%08
(145) 176J
(102) 128-
(88) 93 ~
3
,lIt,
(247) 569 J
(620) 951-
(613)993~
2
Jl
~ Arrc/(
s!
,,,:
>j
,
'f'
')
q
~
(212) 366 J
(191)339~
D
TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS
"'It
,~ rn
"rn
~ ,,~
s
"
M
<:c
'-171 (92)
_ 21 (11)
r 228 (82)
"ltt'
'- 381 (231)
_ 189 (79)
r 286 (273)
"ltt'
'- 322 (305)
_ 985 (944)
r 870 (571)
Chc,;lrul
"'I t t' A,"
o
~
M
co
') t
~~
~M
N ~~
'- 161 (296)
_ 192 (474)
r 409 (481)
'- 252 (475)
_ 87 (127)
r 84 7 \4~2)
~, ~,JU"b
,lIt,
n2zel:ccd
,
(132) 70 J
(73) 74-
(116) 138~
Ln
(744) 1,049J
(395) 646-
(299) 592 ~
"'Itt'
"'It('
O~~
~~~
...-0,1.""
8
6
7
Jill:
8TJc.
(119)263J
(796) 304 ~
9
o~~
,Jlt,
Sr88th
(3) 1QJ
(994) 1,711-
(95) 464 ~
LEGEND
N
~
"
':i
M
rn
~
N
'- 1,223 (1 ,958)
r 202 (190)
-3']U\,",16
FaTT'
I
t
o
~~
131
M
"
''c
co
'"
rn
''c
co
rn
M
00
t
t
~
"
~
N
'"
00
~
~
'- 1 (0)
- 453 (1 ,497)
r 59 (495)
"ltt'
N"
rn
o Signalized Intersection
xx (xx) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
2
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
4.2 Roadway Segment Operating Conditions
Table 7 summarizes the analysis result of the study roadway segments under the 2030 without
Project Cumulative Conditions. Based on the resultsr four of the study roadway segments would
exceed the level of service standard for that respective segment. 1-280 from Sneath Lane to
Avalon Driver Avalon Drive to Westborough Boulevardr Westborough Boulevard to Hickey
Boulevardr and from Hickey Boulevard to Westborough Boulevard would all operate at LOS E or
F 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 Location AM PM
Segment" Volume MOE" LOS. Volume MOE LOS
(vehfhr) (vehfhr)
From South Spruce Ave to Country Club Dr 1587 39.7 A 3802 31.6 B
EI Camino From Country Club Dr to South Spruce Ave 4205 28.7 B 2489 38.1 A
Real From 1st St to West borough Blvd 1777 39.5 A 2931 36.6 A
From Westborough Blvd to 1st St 3564 33.2 B 2378 38.4 A
Sneath Ln to Avalon Dr 6104 0.69 C 8858 1.01 F
Avalon Dr to Sneath Ln 6396 0.73 D 5060 0.58 C
From Avalon Dr to Westborough Blvd 5969 0.68 C 8187 0.93 E
1-280
From Westborough Blvd to Avalon Dr 7269 0.83 D 6633 0.75 D
Westborough Blvd to Hickey Blvd 7374 0.84 D 8043 0.91 E
Hickey Blvd to Westborough Blvd 6400 0.73 D 8446 0.96 E
1-280 to EI Camino Real 6824 0.78 D 3889 0.44 B
EI Camino Real to 1-280 2959 0.34 B 6964 0.79 D
1-380
EI Camino Real to US 101 7798 0.89 D 4951 0.56 C
US 101 to EI Camino Real 3879 0.44 B 7883 0.90 E
Mitchell Ave to Grand Ave 7548 0.86 D 7208 0.82 D
Grand Ave to Mitchell Ave 5920 0.67 C 7999 0.91 E
US 101
Grand Ave to Oyster Point Blvd 7832 0.89 E 7856 0.89 E
Oyster Point Blvd to Grand Ave 5935 0.67 C 7864 0.89 E
Source: DKS Associates
Notes: a. MOE = Measures of Effectiveness. MOE is average travel speed for arterials and vie ratio for freeways
b. LOS = Level of Service is based on 2007 CjCAG of San Mateo County Final Congestion Management Plan criteria
c. EI Camino Real in this area is an Arterial I facility and 1-280, 1-380 and US 101 are Freeways
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
21
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
5 2030 CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT CONDITION
This section evaluates the 2030 cumulative traffic conditions plus project-generated traffic
estimated for the proposed project.
5.1 Significance 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 standardsr 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
capacityr or causes the freeway segment volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio to increase
by one (1) percent.
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
22
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
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 (vie) ratio to increase by one (1) percentr 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
lanesr adding or modifying on-street parkingr or other actions that will affect arterial segment
performance.
A project is considered to have an impact if it causes mid-block queuingr 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. AdditionallYr 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.
5.2 Full Project Analysis
5.2.1 Trip 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 arear and standard trip generation equations and
rates for retailr office hotelr and condominium user as published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers in the Trip Generation 8th edition. According to the information
provided by the City of South San Franciscor the proposed project would include approximately
288r900 square feet of new development and 835 condominiums. Table 8 describes the trip
generation rates derived from the ITE trip generation equations while
Table 9 summarizes the resulting trip generation volumes.
Table 8 - Trip Generation Rates
ITE Trip Generation Rates
Land Use Size/Units Land AM AM AM PM PM PM
Use Daily
Code In Out Total In Out Total
Condominiums 835 units 230 0.066 0.28 0.35 0.25 0.14 0.38 4.88
Hotel 75 840 sf 310 0.32 0.26 0.58 0.33 0.24 0.56 4.56
Office* 180,010 sf 710 1.47 0.20 1.67 0.27 1.29 1.56 11.65
Retail* 33 050 sf 814 4.02 4.39 8.41 2.81 2.21 5.02 43.93
Note: Rates are based on the trip generation equations for each land use
* - Per 1,000 sf
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
23
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
Table 9 - Proposed Trip Generation
Land Use Size/Units ITE Land AMTri s PM Trips Daily
Use Code In Out Total In Out Total
Condominiums 835 units 230 55 324 289 205 115 320 4076
Hotel 75 840 sf 310 27 22 49 28 20 48 388
Office 180,010 sf 710 264 36 300 48 232 280 2,098
Retail 33,050 sf 814 133 145 278 93 73 166 1,452
Source: DKS Associates
5.2.2 Trip 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 EI Camino Real between Arroyo Drive and South Spruce
Avenue.
Table 10 - Proposed Project Trip Distribution
Percentage of
Origin / Destination Total Traffic (Ufo)
Autos
North via EI Camino Real 18
South via EI Camino Real 18
West via Arroyo Dr 5
West via Westborough Blvd 12
East via Westborough Blvd 8
West via W Orange Ave 3
East via W Orange Ave 9
West via Ponderosa Rd 5
West via Country Club Drive 5
East via S Spruce Dr 8
East via Sneath Ln 3
West via ]-380 2
East via ]-380 2
North via ]-280 1
South via ]-280 1
Total 100
Source: DKS Associates
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
24
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
5.2.3 Intersection 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 sheetsr 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 six 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 LOS b
Delay' Impact Delay LOS Impact
1 EI Camino Real/Arroyo Dr Signalized 27.2 C No 23.1 C No
2 EI Camino Real / Westborough Dr Signalized 197.8 F Yes 101.5 F Yes
3 EI Camino Real / W Orange Ave Signalized 210.5 F Yes 111.3 F Yes
4 EI Camino Real / Ponderosa Rd Signalized 271.2 F Yes 67.1 E Yes
5 EI Camino Real/Country Club Dr Signalized 122.2 F Yes 19.0 B No
6 EI Camino Real / S Spruce Ave Signalized 124.2 F Yes 164.9 F Yes
7 Sneath Ln / EI Camino Real Signalized 52.4 D No 63.0 E Yes
8 1-380 WB Off Ramp / EI Camino Real Signalized 44.2 D No 121.9 F Yes
9 1-380 EB Off Ramp / EI Camino Real Signalized 10.4 B No 19.8 B No
10 Sneath Lane / 1-280 N B Off Ramp Signalized 17.3 B No 29.5 C No
Source: DKS Associates
~ a. Delay is in seconds per vehicle. For signalized intersections, delay is based on average stopped delay.
b. LOS = Level of Service
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
25
October 28, 2009
'"
'"~
.,J I
CDurlr;
(19)24J
5
:;:
.n
PonC:CfC'"
(9) 12J
(9) 12..
4
~ Arrc/(
s!
(19)24..
.,,:
>j
,
'f'
')
q
~
t
ro
ro
;;;
co
EI
"l t
~ ,~
~-
..- !...0
~'!...0
co
G
S
"
ro
.
') t
'" ,~
'"~
01t:::'
~t::
D
TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS
o
Nn
~n
~m~
~m~
'- 36 (28)
.,JII.,
'- 12 (9)
t I.,
n2zel:ccd
~, ~,JrUC8
t
Ln
1
(9) 12J
ro
o
N
n
n'
o
"
s
6
7
8
Jill:
8TJc.
9
Sreath
LEGEND
00'
S
ro
ro
'- 12 (9)
t
t
-3']U\,".I6
FaTT'
ro
m
co
'::0
EI
,~
'::0
~
,~
t
(9) 12J
t
"
ro
<D'
S
r11(11)
r
'"
e:
'-J['
o Signalized Intersection
xx (xx) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
3
.n
CDurlr;
(78) 146 J
(168)192,
5
,JII.,
F\ndcr
(46) 257 J
(33) 197-
(198) 801,
4
,JJI.,
")r%08
(149)181 J
(102) 128-
(97) 105,
3
.,JII.,
(247) 569 J
(620) 951-
(660) 1,053,
2
.,JI
~ Arrc/(
s!
,,,:
>j
,
'f'
')
q
~
(212) 366 J
(210) 363,
D
TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS
""It
1--1'-
,,~
~~,
,~
"
<:c
'-171 (92)
_ 21 (11)
r 228 (82)
"Itt'
'- 412 (255)
_ 189 (79)
r 298 (282)
"ltt'
'- 322 (305)
_ 985 (944)
r 906 (599)
Chc,;lrul
""I t t' A,"
~
::;
co
') t
WM
ro ~
N W,
a
~
~
':i
0;
ro
N
'- 173 (305)
_ 192 (474)
r 409 (481)
'- 288 (503)
_ 87 (127)
r 84 7 \4~2)
~, ~,JU"b
'- 1,235 (1 ,967)
r 202 (190)
-3']U\,",16
FaTT'
.,J P.
n2zel:ccd
.
,
(132) 70 J
(73) 74-
(116) 138,
Ln
(753) 1,061 J
(395) 646-
(299) 592,
,~
W
~,
""It('
""Itt'
I
a~~
~w~
...-n.""
6
4
131
'"
G
''c
7
8
co
;:0'
,~
ro
co
~
0;
I
Jill:
8TJc.
t
(128) 275 J
(796) 304..
'"
N
M
~
ro
~
9
a~~
'- 1 (0)
- 453 (1 ,497)
r 70 (506)
.n I.,
Sr88th
(3) 1QJ
(994) 1,711-
(95) 464..
"lIt'
N,"
G
LEGEND
o Signalized Intersection
xx (xx) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
5.2.4 Roadway Segment Operating Conditions
Table 12 provides a summary of the roadway segment operating conditionsr including MOEs
and LOS. Appendix A includes the detailed LOS calculation sheets. All roadway segments
would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with four exceptions. Based on the resultsr 1-
280 from Sneath Lane to Avalon Driver Avalon Drive to Westborough Boulevardr Westborough
Boulevard to Hickey Boulevardr and from Hickey Boulevard to Westborough Boulevard would all
continue to operate at LOS E or F during the PM peak hour. Howeverr the addition of traffic
generated by the proposed development would result in one significant impact to a segment of
1-280 from Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevard during the PM peak hour. The increase
of project-related traffic on this segment would increase the vlc ratio from 0.91 during the
without project condition to 0.92 for the with project conditionr violating the significance
standard for freeways.
Table 12 - 2030 Cumulative with Project Roadway Segment Level of Service
Peak Hour
Roadway Location AM PM
Segment C Volume MOE" LOS. Volume MOE LOS
(vehfhr) (vehfhr)
From South Spruce Ave to Country Club Dr 1755 39.5 A 3933 30.7 B
EI Camino From Country Club Dr to South Spruce Ave 4358 27.5 C 2643 37.7 A
Real From 1st St to West borough Blvd 1964 39.3 A 3118 35.7 A
From Westborough Blvd to 1st St 3768 31.9 B 2537 38.0 A
Sneath Ln to Avalon Dr 6135 0.70 C 8882 1.01 F
Avalon Dr to Sneath Ln 6424 0.73 D 5089 0.58 C
From Avalon Dr to Westborough Blvd 6000 0.68 C 8211 0.93 E
1-280
From Westborough Blvd to Avalon Dr 7297 0.83 D 6662 0.76 D
Westborough Blvd to Hickey Blvd 7402 0.84 D 8072 0.92 E
Hickey Blvd to Westborough Blvd 6431 0.73 D 8470 0.96 E
1-280 to EI Camino Real 6838 0.78 D 3900 0.44 B
EI Camino Real to 1-280 2972 0.34 B 6977 0.79 D
1-380
EI Camino Real to US 101 7811 0.89 D 4964 0.56 C
US 101 to EI Camino Real 3893 0.44 B 7894 0.90 E
Mitchell Ave to Grand Ave 7579 0.86 D 7232 0.82 D
Grand Ave to Mitchell Ave 5948 0.68 C 8028 0.91 E
US 101
Grand Ave to Oyster Point Blvd 7860 0.89 E 7785 0.88 D
Oyster Point Blvd to Grand Ave 5966 0.68 C 7880 0.90 E
Source: DKS Associates
Notes: a. MOE = Measures of Effectiveness. MOE is average travel speed for arterials and vie ratio for freeways
b. LOS = Level of Service is based on 2007 CjCAG of San Mateo County Final Congestion Management Plan criteria
c. EI Camino Real in this area is an Arterial I facility and 1-280, 1-380 and US 101 are Freeways
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
28
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
5.2.5 Parking
Off-Street Parkina
Pursuant to sections 20.74.040r 20.74.060 of the South San Francisco Municipal Coder the
proposed development would be required to satisfy the City's parking code requirements. For
hotel useSr 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." AdditionallYr "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
assignedr 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 usesr one space for each two hundred gross square feet
of floor arear plus one additional space for each delivery vehicle is required. In the same
sectionr office uses are required to provide one space for each three hundred gross square feet
of floor arear provided that in no case shall less than one space for every business
establishment or firm be required.
5.3 15% TOM Reduction Analysis
5.3.1 Trip 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 creditr 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 - 150/0 TDM Reduction
Land Use Size/Units ITE Land AMTri s PM Trips Daily
Use Code In Out Total In Out Total
Condominiums 835 units 230 47 199 246 174 98 272 3465
Hotel 75 840 sf 310 23 19 42 24 17 41 330
Office 180 010 sf 710 224 31 255 40 198 238 1,783
Retail 33,050 sf 814 133 123 236 79 62 141 1,234
Source: DKS Associates
5.3.2 Trip 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.
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
29
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
5.3.3 Intersection 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 sheetsr
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 six 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 LOS b
Delay' Impact Delay LOS Impact
1 EI Camino Real/Arroyo Dr Signalized 26.7 C No 22.8 C No
2 EI Camino Real / Westborough Dr Signalized 194.0 F Yes 98.6 F Yes
3 EI Camino Real / W Orange Ave Signalized 206.2 F Yes 108. 7 F Yes
4 EI Camino Real / Ponderosa Rd Signalized 268.8 F Yes 65.5 E Yes
5 EI Camino Real/Country Club Dr Signalized 120.3 F Yes 18.7 B No
6 EI Camino Real / S Spruce Ave Signalized 123.4 F Yes 161.9 F Yes
7 Sneath Ln / EI Camino Real Signalized 51.7 D No 62.1 E Yes
8 1-380 WB Off Ramp / EI Camino Real Signalized 43.4 D No 121.0 F Yes
9 1-380 EB Off Ramp / EI Camino Real Signalized 10.4 B No 19.7 B No
10 Sneath Lane / 1-280 N B Off Ramp Signalized 17.2 B No 29.5 C No
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
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
30
October 28, 2009
rn
"'.
CDurlr;
(16)20J
5
rn
,J .
PonC:CfC'"
(8) 1QJ
(8) 10..
4
~ Arrc/(
s!
(16) 20..
.,,:
>j
,
'f'
')
q
~
t
M
""
EI
in
N
"l t
rn CO
~"
rn~
~N
M
::
"'
'"
;:
.
') t
W~
~ ~
(i)tO
::.-S
D
TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS
N
O~
~N
w rn
'- 31 (24)
'- 10 (8)
..JII.,
. I.,
n2zel:ccd
~, ~,JrUC8
t
Ln
1
(8) 1QJ
N
W
N'
t:::,
N
::
r::'
~,
6
7
8
Jill:
8TJc.
9
Sreath
LEGEND
<D'
'"
""
~
'- 10 (8)
-3']U\,".I6
FaTT'
.
t
N
~
:;;'
~,
EI
"'
e
co
~
.
(8) 1QJ
t
,~
"'
'"
r 9(9)
('
o
iii:
'-J['
o Signalized Intersection
xx (xx) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
1
5
\.. 408 (252) \.. 1 (0)
oo~~ - 453 (1 ,497)
_ 189 (79) .Jtl.,
,JJl., r 296 (281) r 68 (504)
")r%08 Sr88th
"l I (' (3) 10..1 "ll(,
(148) 180..1
(102) 128- m (994) 1,711-
(96) 103..... 0:;'.,- (95) 464.....
~,
:;
3 a
<J
JI
CQurtrJ
(75) 142..1
(168) 192.....
""II
1--('1
""
~oo,
5
:;
"
<:c
JIl.,
\..171 (92)
_ 21 (11)
r 228 (82)
F\ndcr
(45) 255 ..1
(33) 197-
(197) 799.....
"ll(,
4
\.. 322 (305)
_ 985 (944)
r 901 (595)
Chc,;lrul
JIl.,
(247) 569..1
(620) 951-
(653) 1,044.....
""I I (' A,"
2
~
a
"
co
Jl
~ Arrc/(
s!
"l t
,,,:
>j
,
'f'
')
q
~
(212) 366..1
(207) 359.....
a ~
rooo
NO,
D
TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS
\.. 171 (304)
_ 192 (474)
r 409 (481)
\.. 283 (499)
_ 87 (127)
r 84 7 \4~2)
~, ~,JU"b
JII.
n2zel:ccd
,
(132) 70..1
(73) 74-
(116) 138.....
Ln
(752) 1,059..1
(395) 646-
(299) 592.....
""III"'
""III"'
oo~~
oo~~
...-n.""
8
6
9
7
Jill:
8TJc.
(127) 273..1
(796) 304.....
LEGEND
,~
M
a
<J
~
a
a
N
\.. 1,233 (1 ,966)
r 202 (190)
-3']U\,",16
FaTT'
I
I
M
ro
a,
131
fC'
ro
,.,
co
.;;
ro
ro
"
a
a
I
I
a
o
~
N
.;;
"
a
~
o Signalized Intersection
xx (xx) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
1
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
5.3.4 Roadway Segment Operating Conditions
Table 15 provides a summary of the roadway segments operation conditionsr including MOEs
and LOS. Appendix A includes the detailed LOS calculation sheets. All roadway segments
would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with four exceptions. Based on the resultsr 1-
280 from Sneath Lane to Avalon Driver Avalon Drive to Westborough Boulevardr Westborough
Boulevard to Hickey Boulevardr and from Hickey Boulevard to Westborough Boulevard would all
continue to operate at LOS E or F during the PM peak hour. Howeverr the addition of traffic
generated by the proposed development would result in one significant impact to a segment of
1-280 from Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevard during the PM peak hour. The increase
of project-related traffic on this segment would increase the vlc ratio from 0.91 during the
without project condition to 0.92 for the with project condition and TDM programr violating the
significance standard for freeways.
Table 15 - 2030 Cumulative with Project Roadway Segment level of Service - 15% TDM Reduction
Peak Hour
Roadway Location AM PM
Segment C Volume MOE" LOS. Volume MOE LOS
(vehfhr) (vehfhr)
From South Spruce Ave to Country Club Dr 1730 39.6 A 3913 30.9 B
EI Camino From Country Club Dr to South Spruce Ave 4335 27.6 C 2620 37.8 A
Real From 1st St to West borough Blvd 1936 39.3 A 3091 35.9 A
From Westborough Blvd to 1st St 3738 32.1 B 2514 38.1 A
Sneath Ln to Avalon Dr 6130 0.70 C 8879 1.01 F
Avalon Dr to Sneath Ln 6420 0.73 D 5084 0.58 C
From Avalon Dr to Westborough Blvd 5995 0.68 C 8208 0.93 E
1-280
From Westborough Blvd to Avalon Dr 7293 0.83 D 6657 0.76 D
Westborough Blvd to Hickey Blvd 7398 0.84 D 8067 0.92 E
Hickey Blvd to Westborough Blvd 6426 0.73 D 8467 0.96 E
1-280 to EI Camino Real 6836 0.78 D 3899 0.44 B
EI Camino Real to 1-280 2970 0.34 B 6975 0.79 D
1-380
EI Camino Real to US 101 7809 0.89 D 4962 0.56 C
US 101 to EI Camino Real 3891 0.44 B 7893 0.90 E
Mitchell Ave to Grand Ave 7574 0.86 D 7229 0.82 D
Grand Ave to Mitchell Ave 5944 0.68 C 8023 0.91 E
US 101
Grand Ave to Oyster Point Blvd 7856 0.89 E 7780 0.88 D
Oyster Point Blvd to Grand Ave 5961 0.68 C 7877 0.90 E
Source: DKS Associates
Notes: a. MOE = Measures of Effectiveness. MOE is average travel speed for arterials and vie ratio for freeways
b. LOS = Level of Service is based on 2007 CjCAG of San Mateo County Final Congestion Management Plan criteria
c. EI Camino Real in this area is an Arterial I facility and 1-280, 1-380 and US 101 are Freeways
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
33
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
5.3.5 Parking
Off-Street Parkina
Pursuant to sections 20.74.040r 20.74.060 of the South San Francisco Municipal Coder the
proposed development would be required to satisfy the City's parking code requirements. For
hotel useSr 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." AdditionallYr "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
assignedr 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 usesr one space for each two hundred gross square feet
of floor arear plus one additional space for each delivery vehicle is required. In the same
sectionr office uses are required to provide one space for each three hundred gross square feet
of floor arear provided that in no case shall less than one space for every business
establishment or firm be required.
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
34
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
6 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
6.1 Trip 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 arear and standard trip generation
equations and rates for retailr office hotelr and condominium user as published by the Institute
of Transportation Engineers in the 8th edition of the Trip Generation Manual. According to the
information provided by the City of South San Franciscor the proposed project would include
approximately 537r900 square feet of new development and 627 condominium units. Table 16
summarizes the trip generation.
Table 16 - Proposed Alternative Trip Generation
Land Use Size/Units ITE Land AMTri s PM Trips Daily
Use Code In Out Total In Out Total
Condominiums 627 units 230 44 185 229 159 90 249 3177
Hotel 108 100 sf 310 36 30 66 39 28 67 701
Office 361 850 sf 710 462 63 525 82 402 484 3,591
Retail 67 950 sf 814 216 233 449 191 150 341 2945
Source: DKS Associates
Figure 7 illustrates 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.
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
35
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
6.2 Intersection 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 sheetsr
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 six intersections during the PM peak
hourr 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 LOS b
Delay' Impact Delay LOS Impact
1 EI Camino Real/Arroyo Dr Signalized 28.8 C No 23.9 C No
2 EI Camino Real / Westborough Dr Signalized 209.5 F Yes 107.9 F Yes
3 EI Camino Real / W Orange Ave Signalized 220.3 F Yes 118.2 F Yes
4 EI Camino Real / Ponderosa Rd Signalized 277.5 F Yes 71.8 E Yes
5 EI Camino Real/Country Club Dr Signalized 123.1 F Yes 20.0 B No
6 EI Camino Real / S Spruce Ave Signalized 125.6 F Yes 172.3 F Yes
7 Sneath Ln / EI Camino Real Signalized 53.5 D No 66.0 E Yes
8 1-380 WB Off Ramp / EI Camino Real Signalized 45.3 D No 125.2 F Yes
9 1-380 EB Off Ramp / EI Camino Real Signalized 10.4 B No 19.7 B No
10 Sneath Lane / 1-280 N B Off Ramp Signalized 17.5 B No 29.6 C No
Source: DKS Associates
~ a. Delay is in seconds per vehicle. For signalized intersections, delay is based on average stopped delay.
b. LOS = Level of Service
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
36
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
6.3 Roadway Segment Operating Conditions
Table 18 provides a summary of the roadway segments operation conditionsr including MOEs
and LOS. Appendix A includes the detailed LOS calculation sheets. All roadway segments
would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with four exceptions. Based on the resultsr 1-
280 from Sneath Lane to Avalon Driver Avalon Drive to Westborough Boulevardr Westborough
Boulevard to Hickey Boulevardr and from Hickey Boulevard to Westborough Boulevard would all
continue to operate at LOS E or F during the PM peak hour. Howeverr the addition of traffic
generated by the proposed development would result in one significant impact to a segment of
1-280 from Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevard during the PM peak hour. The increase
of project-related traffic on this segment would increase the vlc ratio from 0.91 during the
without project condition to 0.92 for the with project alternative conditionr violating the
significance standard for freeways.
bl
I .
. h
d
I f
Ta e 18 - 2030 Cumu atlve Wit ProJect A ternatlve Roa way Seament Leve 0 Service
Peak Hour
Roadway Location AM PM
Segment C Volume MOE" LOS. Volume MOE LOS
(vehfhr) (vehfhr)
From South Spruce Ave to Country Club Dr 1852 39.4 A 3965 30.5 B
EI Camino From Country Club Dr to South Spruce Ave 4382 27.3 C 2722 37.4 A
Real From 1st St to West borough Blvd 1991 39.2 A 3214 35.2 A
From Westborough Blvd to 1st St 3886 31.0 B 2576 37.9 A
Sneath Ln to Avalon Dr 6146 0.70 C 8884 1.01 F
Avalon Dr to Sneath Ln 6424 0.73 D 5097 0.58 C
From Avalon Dr to Westborough Blvd 6011 0.68 C 8213 0.93 E
1-280
From Westborough Blvd to Avalon Dr 7297 0.83 D 6670 0.76 D
Westborough Blvd to Hickey Blvd 7402 0.84 D 8080 0.92 E
Hickey Blvd to Westborough Blvd 6442 0.73 D 8472 0.96 E
1-280 to EI Camino Real 6843 0.78 D 3901 0.44 B
EI Camino Real to 1-280 2972 0.34 B 6981 0.79 D
1-380
EI Camino Real to US 101 7811 0.89 D 4968 0.56 C
US 101 to EI Camino Real 3898 0.44 B 7895 0.90 E
Mitchell Ave to Grand Ave 7590 0.86 D 7234 0.82 D
Grand Ave to Mitchell Ave 5948 0.68 C 8036 0.91 E
US 101
Grand Ave to Oyster Point Blvd 7860 0.89 E 7793 0.89 D
Oyster Point Blvd to Grand Ave 5977 0.68 C 7882 0.90 E
Source: DKS Associates
Notes: a. MOE = Measures of Effectiveness. MOE is average travel speed for arterials and vie ratio for freeways
b. LOS = Level of Service is based on 2007 CjCAG of San Mateo County Final Congestion Management Plan criteria
c. EI Camino Real in this area is an Arterial I facility and 1-280, 1-380 and US 101 are Freeways
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
37
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
6.4 Parking
Off-Street Parkina
Pursuant to sections 20.74.040r 20.74.060 of the South San Francisco Municipal Coder the
proposed development would be required to satisfy the City's parking code requirements. For
hotel useSr 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." AdditionallYr "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
assignedr 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 usesr one space for each two hundred gross square feet
of floor arear plus one additional space for each delivery vehicle is required. In the same
sectionr office uses are required to provide one space for each three hundred gross square feet
of floor arear provided that in no case shall less than one space for every business
establishment or firm be required.
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
38
October 28, 2009
~
N~
.,J I
CDurlr;
(23) 38 J
t
~
~
N
n'
~
5
EI
.n
PonC:CfC'"
(12) 19J
(12) 19..
"l t
~~
~N
~.('1
~-
~OO
'-'0)
C!
4
\. 49 (30)
,J , \., r 19 (12)
")r%08
(5)8J "l t ('
~ ~~
(12) 19.. N~
::,01
~
"-"
3
cD
a
::
a
~
, r 57 (35)
Chc,;lrul
.... t (' /',""8
(58) 95 .. ~ ~oo
~ ~~
~~
~
'"
2
C;
~.
N
~
,
co, Arrc/(
1;
s! (23) 38.. "l t
.,,: co a
>j N ~
" C0t:::'
'I' e::::
')
q
~
D
TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS
o
MOO
~~
-~
M~~
P.
n2zel:ccd
\. 57 (35)
\. 19 (12)
.,JI\.,
~, ~,JrUC8
t
Ln
t
(12) 19J
a
~
a
a
N
00'
N
cD
a
::
6
7
8
Jill:
8TJc.
9
Sr88th
LEGEND
M
M
::
o
,
\. 19 (12)
-3']U\,".I6
FaTT'
t
Vi
n'
'"
EI
,::
~
a
,
(12) 19J
t
N
~
c;
e,
r 13(17)
('
o
c;
'-J['
o Signalized Intersection
xx (xx) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
7
,JJ
CDuntrJ
(78) 146 J
(168) 192")
5
,JII.,
F\ndcr
(46) 257 J
(33) 197-
(198) 801 ")
4
,JJI.,
")r%08
(149)181 J
(102) 128-
(97) 105 ")
3
.,JII.,
(247) 569 J
(620) 951-
(660) 1,053 ")
2
.,J.
~ Arrc/(
s!
,,,:
>j
,
'f'
')
q
~
(212) 366 J
(210) 363 ")
D
TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS
""It
1--1'-
,,~
~~,
,~
"
<:c
'-171 (92)
_ 21 (11)
r228 (82)
"ltt'
'- 412 (255)
_ 189 (79)
r 298 (282)
"ltt'
'- 322 (305)
_ 985 (944)
r 906 (599)
Chc,;lrul
""I t t' A,"
~
::;
co
') t
WM
ro ~
N W,
o
co
~
<J
ro
~
N
'- 173 (305)
_ 192 (474)
r 409 (481)
'- 288 (503)
_ 87 (127)
r 84 7 \4~2)
~, ~,JU"b
'- 1,235 (1 ,967)
r 202 (190)
-3']U\,",16
FaTT'
.,J P.
n2zel:ccd
t
,
(132) 70 J
(73) 74-
(116) 138 ")
Ln
(753) 1,061 J
(395) 646-
(299) 592 ")
,~
W
~,
""It('
""Itt'
t
O~~
~w~
...-n.""
6
131
'"
rn
''c
7
8
co
;:0'
,~
ro
co
~
0;
t
Jill:
8TJc.
t
(128) 275 J
(796) 304 ")
'"
N
M
~
ro
~
9
o~~
'- 1 (0)
- 453 (1 ,497)
r 70 (506)
J.I.,
Sr88th
(3) 1QJ
(994) 1,711-
(95) 464 ")
"ltt'
N,"
rn
LEGEND
o Signalized Intersection
xx (xx) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
7 MITIGATION 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.
7.1 Intersection Mitigation Measures
7.1.1 EI Camino Real at Westborough Boulevard
Under the 2030 Cumulative with Project Alternative Conditionr the delay at this intersection
during the AM Peak Hour would increase from 172.6 seconds in the "without project" condition
to 209.5 seconds in the "with project alternative" condition. For the PM peak hourr the delay
would increase from 83.3 seconds to 107.9 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 improvementsr the intersection
would operate at LOS D during both peak periods and experience 52.9 and 41.7 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 c1earr overall public benefit" then LOS E or F is acceptable. As this
is the case with the mixed-use developmentr the project would not result in a significant impact
at this intersection.
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
41
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
Table 19 - 2030 without Project Conditions Mitigation LOS
2030 without 2030 with Project 2030 without 2030 with Project
Project Alternative Project Alternative
No Intersection Location' Cond ition AM Cond ition AM Cond ition PM Cond ition PM
Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour
Delay' LOS b Delay' LOS b Delay' LOS b Delay LOS
1 EI Camino Reali Arroyo Dr 24.3 C 28.8 C 21.2 C 23.9 C
2 EI Camino Reali West borough Dr 172.6 F 209.5 F 83.3 F 107.9 F
3 EI Camino Reali W Orange Ave 180.9 F 220.3 F 94.6 F 118.2 F
4 EI Camino Reali Ponderosa Rd 256.3 F 277.5 F 56.2 E 71.8 E
5 EI Camino Reali Country Club Dr 110.2 F 123.1 F 17.4 B 20.0 B
6 EI Camino Reali S Spruce Ave 117.5 F 125.6 F 145.1 F 172.3 F
7 Sneath Ln I EI Camino Real 47.9 D 53.5 D 57.5 E 66.0 E
8 1-380 WB Off Ramp I EI Camino Real 39.9 D 45.3 D 115.3 F 125.2 F
9 1-380 EB Off Ramp I EI Camino Real 10.4 B 10.4 B 19.4 B 19.9 B
10 Sneath Lane 11-280 NB Off Ramp 17.0 B 17.5 B 29.3 C 29.6 C
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 EI Camino Real at Westborough Boulevard
ro t t
v ro 4
'" v
4 '" ~
0
Jll1LL~ ~ 0
c -+
-+ Jll111L~ -+
-+ -+
Westborough Blvd Westborough Blvd
...
t llnr t llnnr
~ ~
~ ~
-+ -+
-+
Existina Geometrv I I Mitigation Geometry I
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
42
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
7.1.2 EI Camino Real at West Orange Avenue
For the 2030 Cumulative with Project Conditionr the AM peak hour intersection delay would
increase from 180.9 seconds to 220.3 seconds during the respective without and with project
alternative conditions. For the PM peak hourr the respective without and with project alternative
intersection delay would increase from 94.6 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 improvementsr the intersection
would operate at LOS D during both peak periods and experience 37.7 and 24.1 seconds of
delay during the respective AM and PM peak hours.
Figure 10 - Intersection Geometry for EI Camino Real at West Orange Avenue
ro ro
Ii! v t
'"
0 0 t
c t
E c
~l1L ro ~111L E ~
u ~.. ro
u
'" '" ..
W Orange Ave W Orange Ave
----4 t
lnr t l nrnr
.. .
.
..
..
I Existinq Geometry I I Mitiqation Geometry I
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 c1earr overall public benefit" then LOS E or F is acceptable. As this
is the case with the mixed-use developmentr the project would not result in a significant impact
at this intersection.
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
43
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
7.1.3 EI Camino Real at Ponderosa Road
During the 2030 Cumulative with Project Conditionr the AM peak hour delay during the "without
project" condition would be 256.3 seconds and would increase to 277.5 seconds for the "with
project alternative" condition. For the PM peak hourr the delay would increase from 56.2
seconds to 71.8 seconds for 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 conditions.
Figure 11 shows the existing intersection geometry and the geometry needed to achieve LOS
D under the "with project" condition. With these intersection improvementsr the intersection
would operate at LOS D during both peak periods and respectively experience 35.5 and 16.9
seconds of delay during the AM and PM peak hours.
Figure 11 - Intersection Geometry for EI Camino Real at Ponderosa Road
ro ro
v
'" v
'"
0 0
c ~t
E c
~l1L ro +- J~l1111~
u ~
'"
Ponderosa Rd Ponderosa Rd
t lnr t II nrr
.. ..
..
I Existinq Geometry I I Mitiqation Geometry I
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 c1earr overall public benefit" then LOS E or F is acceptable. As this
is the case with the mixed-use developmentr the project would not result in a significant impact
at this intersection.
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
44
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
7.1.4 EI Camino Real at Country Club Drive
For the 2030 Cumulative with Project Conditionr delay at this intersection during the AM Peak
Hour would increase from 110.2 seconds during the "without project" condition to 123.1
seconds during the "with project alternative" condition. Table 19 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 improvementsr the intersection
would operate at LOS D during both peak periods and would experience 40.5 seconds of delay
during the AM peak hour.
Figure 12 - Intersection Geometry for EI Camino Real at Country Club Drive
'" '"
v v
'" '"
~11 0 ~111 0
c c
E E
ro ro
u u
'" '"
Country Club Dr Country Club Dr
t lnr t lrn
.. ..
I Existina Geometrv I I Mitiqation Geometry I
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 c1earr overall public benefit" then LOS E or F is acceptable. As this is the case with
the mixed-use developmentr the project would not result in a significant impact at this
intersection.
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
45
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
7.1.5 EI Camino Real at South Spruce Avenue
At this intersectionr the delay for the AM Peak Hour would increase from 117.5 seconds to
125.6 seconds during 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 conditions. During the PM peak hourr the intersection delay would
increase from 145.1 seconds to 172.3 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 improvementsr the intersection
would operate at LOS D during both peak periods and respectively experience 39.4 and 49.0
seconds of delay during the AM and PM peak hours.
Figure 13 - Intersection Geometry for EI Camino Real at South Spruce Avenue
t
ro t ro t
v v
'" '" 4
0 4. 0 4.
~l1L c ~1111L~
E
ro . .
u
'"
S. Spruce Ave S. Spruce Ave
t~ t
-----.-. lnrr . lnnr
-----.-.
I Existinq Geometry I I Mitiqation Geometry I
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. Howeverr 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 c1earr overall public benefit" then LOS E or F is acceptable. As
this is the case with the mixed-use developmentr the project would not result in a significant
impact at this intersection.
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
46
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
7.1.6 EI Camino Real at Sneath Lane
At this intersectionr the delay for the PM Peak Hour would increase from 57.5 seconds to 66.0
seconds during 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 conditions.
Figure 14 shows the existing intersection geometry and the geometry needed to achieve LOS
D under the "with project" condition. With these intersection improvementsr the intersection
would operate at LOS D during the PM Peak Hour and respectively experience 54.8 seconds of
delay.
Figure 14 - Intersection Geometry for EI Camino Real at Sneath Lane
t
ro t ro ~t
v v
'" 4 '" 4
J lUll ~ 4 JJ lUll~ 4
.. ..
.. ..
Sneath Ln Sneath Ln
t t
t II in r . II in r
. .
. ..
.. ..
I Existinq Geometry I I Mitiqation Geometry I
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. Howeverr 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 c1earr overall public benefit" then LOS E or F is acceptable. As
this is the case with the mixed-use developmentr the project would not result in a significant
impact at this intersection.
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
47
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
7.1.7 EI Camino Real at 1-380 WB Off Ramp
Table 19 shows a comparison of the intersection's operation between the 2030 without project
and 2030 with project conditions. During the PM peak hourr the intersection delay would
increase from 115.3 seconds to 125.2 seconds for the respective "without project" and "with
project alternative" conditions.
Figure 15 shows the existing intersection geometry and the geometry needed to achieve LOS
D under the "with project" condition. With these intersection improvementsr the intersection
would operate at LOS D during the PM peak period and experience 47.9 seconds of delay.
Figure 15 - Intersection Geometry for EI Camino Real at 1-380 WB Off Ramp
t t
ro ro t
v t v
'" '"
0 0 t
111 c .. 111 c
E E ..
ro .. ro
u u
'" '" ..
WB 1-380 Off Ramp WB 1-380 Off Ramp
ni in
I Existinq Geometry I I Mitiqation Geometry I
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. Howeverr 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 c1earr overall public benefit" then LOS E or F is acceptable. As
this is the case with the mixed-use developmentr the project would not result in a significant
impact at this intersection.
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
48
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
7.2 Freeway Segment Mitigation Measures
7.2.1 1-280 from Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevard
One freeway segmentr 1-280 from Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevardr would be
significantly impacted by the proposed project for the 2030 Cumulative with Project for the PM
peak hour. For the without project conditionsr the segment would experience LOS E and a vlc
ratio of 0.91 while under the project conditionr the LOS would remain E but the vlc ratio would
increase to 0.92.
Although the increase in the vlc ratio would be minimalr the impacts would be significant and
unavoidable. Adding capacity to the roadway system is not a feasible mitigation measure and
the project would have to be reduced in size in order to lower the number of trips being
generated. Howeverr virtually any increase in trips on this roadway would trigger a significant
impact under the significance criteria. Thusr the impacts to roadway segments would remain
significant and unavoidable for the project.
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
49
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
8 POTENTIAL 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
extensionr the full extent of the TDM programr 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 extensionr TDMr and mixed-use
development.
Mission Road Extension
Under the current City of South San Francisco General Plan (section 4.2-I-2)r 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 EI Camino Real. CurrentlYr Mission Road ends at Chestnut Avenue approximately
0.15 miles from the intersection of Westborough Boulevard and EI Camino Real.
The proposed 1.35 mile extension would run parallel to EI Camino Real and would operate with
two moving lanes in each direction. Constructed on the BART right-of-waYr the extension would
also include a bikeway and a linear park. From a traffic circulation standpointr the extension
would not only attract some traffic from EI Camino Realr alleviating some of the congestion
concerns on the roadwaYr but would also disperse project-related trips from the mixed-use
development. As a resultr it is possible that the traffic on EI 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
transportationr bicycle usager or walking. In the City of South San Franciscor a TDM Program is
required for all nonresidential development expected to generate one hundred or more average
daily trips. Howeverr some residential projects in South San Francisco have included TDM
measures such as shuttlesr bike parkingr direct route to transitr and passenger loading zoneSr
as part of their project approval.
Section 20.120 states that for sites generating more than 100 daily tripsr 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 spacer free parking for
carpools and vanpoolsr shuttle programsr and direct routes to transit.
Howeverr for the purposes of this analysisr 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 lr156 daily trips by
alternative modes of transportation under project conditions. Furtherr 133 and 118 trips would
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
50
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
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 travelr needs for parking and street wideningr 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 transitr walkingr and/or bicycling. In additionr mixed-
use development satisfies travel needs within an arear therefore reducing external travel and
the need for multiple vehicle trips. For exampler clustering of services such as dry c1eaningr day
carer restaurantsr 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 EI Camino Real would encourage more walking and bicycle
tripsr while also optimizing the use of existing transit along EI Camino Realr decreasing the need
for multiple vehicle trips.
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
51
October 28, 2009
OKS Associates
TRANS~ORTATION SOLUTIONS
9 CONCLUSION
The study determined the potential transportation impacts of the proposed General Plan
Amendment for the City of South San Francisco. Ten study intersections and nine roadway
segments were selected to evaluate their operating conditions under Existing Conditionr 2030
Cumulative without Project Conditionr 2030 Cumulative with Project Conditionr 2030 Cumulative
with Project Condition and 15% TDM reductionr and 2030 Cumulative with Project Alternative
Condition. The project trips generated by Centrum Distribution Center were estimated based on
the 8th edition of the ITE Trip Generation.
Following the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CA0 2007
Congestion Management Program (CMP) the study used several Measures of Effectiveness
(MaE) to evaluate the Level of Services (LOS) of the study intersections and roadway segments
under different study conditions.
The three project conditionsr 2030 Cumulative with Projectr 2030 Cumulative with Project and
15% TDM Reductionr and 2030 Cumulative with Alternative Projectr all yielded the same traffic
impacts. For the AM peak hourr the intersections of EI Camino Real at Westborough Driver West
Orange Avenuer Ponderosa Roadr Country Club Driver and South Spruce Avenue would all
operate at LOS F. For the 2030 Cumulative with Project Condition PM peak hourr LOS F
conditions would exist along EI Camino Real at Westborough Driver West Orange Avenuer South
Spruce Avenuer and 1-380 westbound off ramp. LOS E conditions would exist at EI Camino Real
at Ponderosa Road and Sneath Lane. To achieve LOS D at these intersections would require
widening most approaches and additional receiving lanesr which would require additional right-
of-waYr relocating utilitiesr possible relocation of buildings along EI Camino Realr and would
prove to be infeasible. AdditionallYr these intersections are within the jurisdiction of Caltrans.
Howeverr 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 EI Camino Real are of public
benefitr then LOS E or F is considered acceptable and any potential traffic impacts are not
significant.
One freeway segmentr 1-280 from Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevardr would be
impacted under the 2030 Cumulative with Project Alternative Conditions during the PM peak
hour.
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 EI Camino Real and would alleviate
some of the traffic concerns along EI Camino Real. AdditionallYr 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 transportationr bicyclesr and walking. Mixed-use development
would also encourage linked and alternative-mode trips and reduce the number of potential
vehicle trips.
City of South San Francisco GPA
Traffic Impact Study
ADMINISTRA lIVE DRAFT REPORT
52
October 28, 2009