The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTB Final SEIR for Proposed TB Specific Plan 10-1996 Revised TI{ e ,. L A, FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED TERRABAY SPECIFIC PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION REVISED TRANSPORTATION IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON REVISED FINDINGS SCH Number: 95092027 Prepared for the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO by WAGSTAFF AND ASSOCIATES Urban and Environmental Planners in association with The Crane Transportation Group, Transportation Planners and Engineers October 1996 WP511548IFSE/RICOVER-3.548 Terrabay Phase II and III Environmental Impact Report Distribution Log Name Address Skid Hall Sam Herzberg San Mateo County 455 County Ctr, 2°d Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 Dan Shattuck 907 W. Cardinal Drive Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Celeste Langille 6544 Pineneedle Drive Oakland, CA 94611 Jim Sweenie Dennis Breen Tony Wong, Office of Congressman Tom Lantos 400 So. El Camino Real, Ste. 820 San Mateo, CA 94402 Lois Robin 607 Burns Aptos, CA 95003 Fred Smith City of Brisbane 50 Park Lane Brisbane, CA 94005 David Freyer Julia Bott Sierra Club 3921 East Bayshore Blvd. Palo Alto, CA 94303 Kathy Kay Grand Ave. Library History Room Brian Gaffney Law Offices of Brian Gaffney 370 Grand Ave., Ste. 5 Oakland, CA 94610 Victoria Harris Thomas Reid Associates P.O. Box 880 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Lynn Fritz, Co. Government Center 590 Hamilton St., 4"' Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 Vicky Graham San Bruno Mt. Watch Radford Hall Consultant w/developer Willard Chin U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Jan Pont 111 Belmont Ave., So. S.F. Doug Butler 133 Adrian Ave., So. S.F. Dana Dillworth 213 Alvarado, Brisbane 94005 Cynthia Marcopulos 106 Sutton Ave., So. S. F. Frank Scafani 540 Acacia, San Bruno Michelle Brewer 4141 Cowell Blvd. Apt. 76, Davis, CA 95616 Leland Behan 186 Huntington Dr., Daly City 94015 Kathryn Manus 824 Templeton Ave., Daly City 94014 Greg Freeman 1578 Innes Ave. S. F. David Betti 133 San Juan Ave., San Bruno Cliff Lentz 500 Sierra Pt. Rd., Brisbane 94005 Beth Grossman 715 Sierra Point Rd., Brisbane 94005 Carolyn Loomis 325 Mendocino St., Brisbane 94005 Susan Vigil Chatham Crystals 1135 Airport Blvd., SSF David Wright US Fish & Wildlife Svc. Ron Frazier 4101 2411' St., SF 94114 John Bell 1275 Heatherstone Way, Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Jerry Oborn 617 B Spruce Ave., SSF Ken McIntire 235 Old Ranch Rd., Redwood City, CA 94062 Robert Winthrop P.O. Box 401 Ashland, OR 97520 Steve Pels Sunchase (3) Mike Aronson CCS Planning & Engineering 1400 Broadway #402, Oakland 94612 Del Schembari 321 Alta Mesa Dr. So. San Francisco, CA 94080 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco Revised Transportation Section October 25, 1996 Page iii CONTENTS Page I. PREFACE A. One of Three Final SEIR Documents ................................ v B. Project Description and Background ................................. vi . C. Need for Recirculation of Transportation Findings .. : .................... vi -~- D. Summary of Significant Transportation Impact and Mitigation Recommendations .............................................vii II. REVISED AND RECIRCULATED DRAFT SEIR TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER C. Transportation 1. Setting 89 2. 1982 Impact and Mitigation Findings 109 3. Supplemental Impact Findings 112 4. Supplemental Mitigation Needs 135 III. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON REVISED TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER A. List of Commenters ............................................. 1 B. Index to Comments (List of Public Hearing and Written Comments) .......... 2 C. Responses to Public Hearing Comments .............................. 7 D. Responses to Written Comments .................................. 13 L/st of Figures 6. Local Roadway System Diagram ..................................... 91 7. Existing Traffic Volumes--PM Peak Hour (May 1993) ....................... 93 8. Year 2000 Base Case Traffic Volumes Without Project--AM Peak Hour ........ 102 9. Year 2000 Base Case Traffic Volumes Without Project--PM Peak Hour ........ 103 10. Year 2010 Base Case Traffic Volumes Without Project--AM Peak Hour ........ 104 11. Year 2010 Base Case Traffic Volumes Without Project--PM Peak Hoer ........ 105 12. Year 2000 and 2010 Base Case Intersection Geometrics Without Project ....... 107 13. Year 2010 Intersection Lane Geometrics With Project ..................... 121 14. Year 2000 Project Traffic Volume Increment--AM Peak Hour, Phase I Only ..... 122 15. Year 2000 Project Traffic Volume Increment--PM Peak Hour, Phase I Only ..... 123 WP511548IFSE/RIOON-TRAN.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page iv 16. Year 2010 Project Traffic Volume Increment--AM Peak Hour, Phases I, II, and III .......................................................... 124 17. Year 2010 Project Traffic Volume Increment--PM Peak Hour, Phases I, II, and III .......................................................... 125 18. Year 2010 Base Case Plus Project Traffic Volumes--AM Peak Hour, Phases I, Il,andlll ..................................................... 126 19. Year 2010 Base Case Plus Project Traffic Volumes--PM Peak Hour, Phases I, Il,andlll ..................................................... 127 20. Year 2000 Base Case Mitigation Needs Without Project ................... 137 21. Year 2010 Base Case Mitigation Needs Without and with Project Phase (-- WithoutFlyover ................................................ .138 22. Year 2010 Base Case Traffic Volumes Without Project, AM Peak Hour--With Flyover ...................................................... 142 23. Year 2010 Base Case Traffic Volumes Without Project, PM Peak Hour--With Flyover ...................................................... 143 24. Year 2010 Base Case Traffic Volumes Without and With Project Phase I--With Flyover ...................................................... 144 25. Year 2010 Base Case Plus Project Phases I, II, and III Mitigation Needs, PM Peak Hour--With Flyover ......................................... 151 26. Year 2010 Base Case Plus Project Phases I, II, and III Mitigation Needs, AM Peak Hour--With Flyover ......................................... 153 27. Year 2010 Base Case Plus Project Phases I, II, and III Traffic Volumes, PM Peak Hour--With Flyover ......................................... 154 Lisf of Tables 7. Existing and Base Case US 101 Freeway Operation--PM Peak Hour ........... 98 8. Project Area Local Bus Route Descriptions (SAMTRANS) ................... 99 9. Base Case Intersection Levels of Service--(AM) and PM Peak Hour Without the Project ...................................................... 108 10. Base Case US 101 Freeway Ramp Operation--(AM) and PM Peak Hour Without the Project ................................................... 110 11. Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Computations--1982 EIR ............ 111 12. 1982 EIR Transportation Impact and Mitigation Findings ................... 113 13. Project Daily and PM Peak Hour Trip Generation ........................ 117 14. Project AM Peak Hour Trip Generation ................................ 118 15. Project Trip Distribution--PM Peak Hour ............................... 120 16. Base Case Intersection Levels of Service--(AM} and PM Peak Hour, Without and With Project (Without Flyover) ..................................... 129 17. Project Traffic Impacts to US 101 Freeway Operation--PM Peak Hour ......... 132 18. Base Case US 101 Freeway Ramp Operation--(AM) and PM Peak Hour, Without and With Project ............................................... 133 19. Project Impacts to Colma Intersections ................................ 134 20. Intersection Levels of Service After Mitigation--(AM) and PM Peak Hour ........ 147 WP5115481 FSE/RI CON-TRAN. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, i 996 I. PREFACE Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section WP5115481 FSEI RI CO V-PGS. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section WP5115481FSE/R1 COV-PGS.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 PREFACE Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page v A. ONE OF THREE FINAL SEIR DOCUMENTS In conformance with Section 15132 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutes and Guidelines (1992), the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for the proposed Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension consists of three volumes: (1) the Draft SEIR (DSEIR), which was distributed for public review and comment on January 5, 1996; (2) a Final SEIR document, which includes responses to all public and Lead Agency comments received during the 75-day public review period on the Draft SEIR, plus a set of Draft SEIR errata incorporating all revisions made to the Draft SEIR in response to these comments; and (3) this revised Final SEIR Transportation Section, which includes a revised version of the DSEIR Transportation chapter that, because of the nature of the revisions, was distributed ("recirculated") for additional public review and comment on August 30, 1996, plus associated responses to all comments received on the revised draft Transportation chapter during the additional 45-day public review period. A revised DSEIR transportation analysis was performed in response to comments received during the 75-day public review period on the DSEIR. The revised traffic analysis identified one unavoidable significant adverse impact--i.e., an impact for which no mitigation is available--that was not identified in the DSEIR. In conformance with Section 15088.5 of the CEC~A Guidelines,' revised Transportation Chapter was recirculated fora 45-day public review and comment period on August 30, 1996. 'CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 requires recirculation of significant new information added after public distribution of the DSEIR including: • anew significant environmental impact not considered in the DSEIR; • a substantial increase in the severity of aDSEIR-identified environmental impact unless new mitigation measures are adopted; or • anew alternative or feasible mitigation measure considerably different from those previously analyzed in the DSEIR which has not been adopted in the revised plan. WP5115481 FSEIRI PREF.54B Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page vi Certification of the three-volume FSEIR by the city of South San Francisco must occur prior to any final action on the proposed project. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The Terrabay project is a phased residential and commercial development proposed for location on the lower slopes of San Bruno Mountain in the city of South San Francisco. In 1982, the City of South- San Francisco certified an environmental impact report (EIR) and adopted a specific plan for the Terrabay project. A development agreement for the project was executed by the city and applicant in 1988. The applicant is now requesting from the city a 10-year extension of the specific plan and development agreement entitlements, which are currently due to expire on February 14, 1997. For the requested entitlement extensions, the city has determined that compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) shall be achieved by preparation of a supplement to the certified 1982 EIR, i.e., a supplemental EIR, pursuant to CEQA Section 15163, which describes any substantive changes in the project environmental information which have occurred since preparation of the 1982 EIR. A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension was distributed for public review and comment (and public notice of the availability of the DSEIR was published) on January 5, 1996. Before the required 45-day public review period on the DSEIR ended, the South San Francisco City Council extended the public review period by 30 days to March 20, 1996. Comments on the DSEIR were received in the form of: (1) public testimony at a Planning Commission public hearing on the DSEIR held on February 1, 1996; and (2) letters and memoranda submitted to the city during the 75-day public review period. The Final SEIR for the Terrabay project is comprised of three documents: (1) the Draft SEIR; (2) the Response- to-Comments on the DSEIR, which includes responses to all substantive comments received by the city during the 75-day public review period on the DSEIR, and a set of DSEIR errata incorporating all revisions made to the DSEIR in response to comments received; and (3) this Revised SEIR Transportation Chapter. C. NEED FOR RECIRCULATION OF TRANSPORTATION FINDINGS Most of the responses in the Final SEIR Responses-to-Comments/Errata document merely clarify, amplify, or make insignificant changes to the January 1996 DSEIR. However, formulation of an adequate response to some of the comments pertaining to the DSEIR transportation chapter necessitated a revised analysis of certain traffic impacts. It has been determined by the city that some of these revised traffic analyses findings constitute the WP5115481 FSEIRI PREF 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page vii addition of significant new information to the SEIR--i.e., include new significant impacts and/or changes in the severity of certain SEIR-identified impacts. Section 15088.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines stipulates that, "A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review...but before certification." Significant new information requiring recirculation can include, for example: • anew significant impact not considered in the DSEIR; • a substantial increase in the severity of aDSEIR-identified environmental impact unless new mitigation measures or an alternative are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; or anew alternative or feasible mitigation measure considerably different from those previously analyzed in the DSEIR which has not been adopted by the project proponents. Therefore, in conformance with this section of the CEG~A Guidelines, the revised DSEIR transportation chapter included herein was separately recirculated on August 30, 1996 for an additional 45-day public review and comment period. Because those revisions involving significant new information are limited to the transportation chapter of the DSEIR, only the modified transportation chapter and supporting technical appendix have been recirculated (CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5(c)). The 45-day public review period for the revised DSEIR transportation chapter ended on October 14, 1996. D. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT AND MITIGATION REVISIONS 1. Revised Transportation Impact Analysis The revisions of the DSEIR transportation analysis that resulted in significant new information requiring recirculation of the transportation chapter were undertaken in response to comments on the DSEIR that questioned the year 2010 Base Case traffic projections used in the analysis. The comments noted that the East of 101 Area Plan EIR 2010 Base Case traffic projections upon which the Terrabay DSEIR traffic analysis was based assumed a 20 percent reduction in trip generation from the East of 101 planning area due to the Bay Area Air Oualiry Management District (BAAQMD) imposed employer-based trip reduction rule. The comments point out that this BAAQMD rule has since been invalidated by state legislative action and, consequently, the DSEIR 2010 traffic projections are low and the project transportation impacts understated. In response, the DSEIR 2010 traffic impact analysis has been revised herein to eliminate the BAAQMD trip reduction rule based 20 percent reduction in peak period trip generation assumed in the East of 101 Area Plan EIR 2010 traffic projections. (The East of 101 Area WP5115481FSEfRI PREF.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco Revised Transportation Section October 25, 1996 Page viii Plan EIR year 2000 projections used in the DSEIR traffic analysis did not include a 20 percent reduction for the BAAQMD trip reduction rule. Thus, there has been no change to the DSEIR analyses for year 2000 Base Case and year 2000 Base Case plus project Phase I scenarios.) In addition, based on additional considerations which are explained in the revised transportation section, including information provided by the Multi-City Transportation System Management (TSM) Agency, the DSEIR transportation impact mitigation section has been revised to include a 12 percent reduction in Base Case and Base Case Plus Project peak period trip generation through voluntary continuation of TSM measures to reduce auto use. Certain other changes in the DSEIR transportation section were also made in response to various public review period comments received (e.g., use of newly available more recent traffic counts for selected locations to supplement the base case traffic projections). These other changes, however, merely clarify or make what are ultimately insignificant changes in the transportation analysis conclusions. All text revisions to the transportation chapter made in response to public comments or as a result of the revised transportation analysis are indicated by an "r" in the left margin next to the revised line. 2. New Transportation Impact Findings Requiring Recirculation The revised transportation analysis identified the following new unavoidable significant adverse impact--i.e., an impact which cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level even after implementation of all feasible mitigation. It has been determined that this new unavoidable significant impact conclusion warrants recirculation of the DSEIR transportation chapter under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. This new unavoidable significant adverse impact is due to a substantial deterioration in projected 2010 Base Case traffic operations which it was determined could not be sufficiently offset (to less than significant levels) by the TSM mitigation measures identified in the analysis. (Caltrans has no plans to add additional travel lanes to the segment of US 101 through and just north of South San Francisco by the year 2010.) US 101 Freeway (Supplemental Impact T-15) Even with successful future implementation of TSM measures, full buildout of project Phases I, II and III would result in an approximately three to four percent increase in already unacceptable Base Case conditions (LOS F) on the mainline US 101 freeway segments north of Sierra Point and between the Oyster Point interchange and the South Airport Boulevard interchange. In addition to the new "unavoidable" significant adverse impact described above, the revised transportation analysis also identified the following three new significant project impacts, which could be reduced to less than significant levels by the recommended mitigations. However, since these impacts are mitigated, they do not in and of themselves require recirculation. WP5115481FSE1RI PREF.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page ix (1) Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (Supplemental Impact T-5). In the year 2010 AM peak hour, project Phase I traffic would result in more than a two percent increase in traffic volume at this intersection, which would already be experiencing unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation without the project, and thus would represent a significant adverse project impact. However, this impact could be reduced to a level of insignificance by SEIR-recommended mitigation, requiring project Phase (fair-share contribution towards the flyover off-ramp. (2) US 101 Southbound Off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard (Supplemental Impact T-16). In the year 2010 PM peak hour, traffic from buildout of Phases I, II and III would result in more than a two percent increase in traffic volume at this intersection, which would already be experiencing unacceptable LOS E Base Case operation without the project, and thus would represent a significant adverse project impact. However, this impact could be reduced to a level of insignificance by SEIR-recommended mitigation, requiring a fair-share contribution from each project phase towards signalization, widening the off- ramp to provide second approach and departure lanes, and widening Bayshore Boulevard to provide second northbound approach and departure lanes. With a flyover off-ramp in operation, only signalization and widening of the off-ramp to provide second approach and departure lanes would be required. (3) US 101 Northbound On-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard (Supplemental Impact T-18). In the year 2010 PM peak hour, traffic from full buildout of project Phases I, II and III would result in more than a two percent increase in traffic volume at this freeway ramp, which would already be over capacity under Base Case conditions without the project, and thus would represent a significant adverse project impact. However, this impact could be reduced to a level of insignificance by SEIR-recommended mitigation, requiring a fair-share contribution by each project phase towards the addition of a second lane to the on-ramp. WP5115481FSEIRI PREF.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, i 996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page x WP5115481 FSElR1 PREF. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section II. REVISED AND RECIRCULATED DRAFT SEIR TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER WP5115481 FSE/RI COV-PGS.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section WP5115481 FSEI R I COV-PGS. 548 Terrabay Project Revised Draft SEIR City of South San Francisco IV.C. Transportation October 25, 1996 Page 89 C. TRANSPORTATION This SEIR section reevaluates project impacts on traffic conditions on roadways in the project vicinity. Existing traffic conditions on the local roadway network and future conditions without the project are first described. The traffic impact and mitigation findings of the 1982 EIR are also summarized. The section then describes changes in existing and projected traffic conditions that have occurred since the 1982 EIR, including the recent construction of the Oyster Point interchange and other new roadway improvements, identifies impacts of the project and project-plus-cumulative development in the area on these current roadway system µ" conditions, and recommends roadway improvements necessary to mitigate these updated impact expectations. The findings in this section were developed by the SEIR traffic engineer, Crane Transportation Group. Local transportation system conditions are described for the following scenarios: • Existing (after construction of the new Oyster Point interchange); • year 2000 Base Case (anticipated year 2000 traffic conditions without the project); • year 2010 Base Case (anticipated year 2010 traffic conditions without the project);' • year 2000 Base Case plus Phase 1 (anticipated year 2000 traffic conditions with project Phase I; • year 2010 Base Case plus Phases 1, 11 and 111 (anticipated year 2010 conditions with project Phases I, II and III). SETTING a. Protect Area Circulation Network Substantial post-1982 changes have been made in the project area circulation network considered in the 1982 EIR. With respect to regional freeway access, the Oyster Point interchange has been recently reconstructed and the Sierra Point interchange and associated 'For the future year scenarios, the following conditions have also been assumed: • Wherever a new signal is warranted by projected traffic conditions at study intersections, it has been assumed in place. Roadway and intersection geometrics have been assumed to remain the same from 2000 to 2010 unless specifically stated otherwise. All specific future roadway improvements needed as a mitigation are listed in section 2.c, Changes in Mitigation Findings. WP5115481 FSE/RI IV-C-REV.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 90 Bayshore Boulevard connectors have been constructed. With respect to the local roadway network, several of the mitigations identified in the 1982 ElR and subsequently incorporated into the Terrabay Specific Plan and development agreement have been completed as part of the Phase I roadway improvements. Additional improvements were completed as part of the Oyster Point interchange reconstruction project or other projects in the vicinity. These roadway improvements and changes in traffic controls include: • construction of Sister Cities Boulevard (referred to as the Hillside Extension in the 1982 EIR) between its intersections with Hillside Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard; r widening of Hillside Boulevard (renamed Hillside Boulevard Extension) and creation of r local traffic lanes and a landscaped buffer separating local access movements (along r Hillside Boulevard) from higher speed through traffic along Hillside Boulevard Extension between Sister Cities Boulevard and Lincoln Street (the segment fronting the project site); • signalization of intersections at the new Oyster Point interchange and the Hillside r Boulevard Extension/Jefferson Street-South San Francisco Drive, Hillside Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard, Sister Cities Boulevard/South San Francisco Drive and Sister r Cities Boulevard/Airport Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard intersections; and r removal of the existing stop signs for Hillside Boulevard Extension traffic at the Hillside r Boulevard Extension/Kearny Street and Hillside Boulevard Extension/Irving Street intersections. Anew all-way stop sign was installed at the Hillside Boulevard/Lincoln Street intersection to permit vehicles to exit Lincoln Street under conditions of heavy r truck traffic, high speeds, and limited line-of-sight to the west along Hillside Boulevard at this location. In addition, existing and projected future traffic volumes in the vicinity of the project are higher than those in the 1982 EIR due primarily to greater than anticipated development in the East r of 101 area, and in Brisbane. Traffic analyses performed for other projects in the vicinity indicate increasing traffic volumes and worsening operations, with several intersections performing poorly. Future Base Case traffic volume projections used in this SEIR traffic analysis are based on traffic volume projections in the East of 101 Area Plan Draft EIR and Brisbane General Plan Circulation Element. The network of freeways, arterials, and local streets serving the project area is diagrammed on Figure 6 and described below. {1~ Regional Freeway Access U. S. Highway 101 (US 101) is the principal freeway providing access to the project area. US 101 has eight travel lanes through South San Francisco with auxiliary lanes provided between interchanges where the on-ramp and off-ramp have a common transition area. Access to US 101 in the project area is provided by the new Oyster Point interchange and by on- and off- ramps connecting to Bayshore Boulevard (to the north) and Airport Boulevard (to the south). WP5115481 FSE/RIl V-C-REV.548 ~ ~ C~ g, ~ •~ ~ GO •and anbgno ~ u: ~/ ~Q O r n ... O o ~ X10 ~~, O~ y m .-- .~ ` O Z ICI V ~•,~ tpi~~0 ioi •sn ~ o [w., •pnTg aiogs~Ceg ~ ~ m }~ --~~ ^~~t~~~ FnTH uoairo H (n ^ }" ^ Q~ n~ i_a~~ ; Q • ^~ O • ^ .~ ^-- ~ ~ r ~ ~ 1 ~ ^ ~~ V ~ ~ ~~, ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ o ~ o z ~ ^ a ^ Q ~ N ^ Z ~ ^ 0 C y CD ^ ~ ^ 7S aosia33a[ ~ ^ ^ U ~1 w ~ O •~ a ~~~ ~: o~ b Fula ~P14(i!H' ,'ysa2 ~ a ~ o C7 u o W t m t= ~a U w o O a~ v 3 Terrabay Project Revised Draft SEIR City of South San Francisco IV.C. Transportation October 25, 1996 Page 92 The new Oyster Point interchange was not considered in the 1982 EIR traffic analysis. The interchange provides on-ramp connections to both north and southbound US 101 as well as a northbound off-ramp. The northbound off-ramp and southbound on-ramp connect to a common signalized intersection with Dubuque Avenue on the east side of the freeway, just south of the Dubuque Avenue connection to Oyster Point Boulevard. The northbound on- ramp extends northerly as the fourth leg of the signalized Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue intersection. Southbound US 101 traffic accesses the project area via a stop sign- controlled off-ramp connecting to Bayshore Boulevard just north of the site. The southbound off-ramp is designed in a "scissors" configuration, including atwo-way stop with northbound Bayshore Boulevard (see Figures 6 and 7). Southbound Bayshore Boulevard traffic is not stop sign-controlled at this location; rather, it has a separate travel lane, as does off-ramp traffic departing the all-way stop intersection with northbound Bayshore Boulevard. A northbound US 101 off-ramp to northbound Bayshore Boulevard is provided north of the project area. U-turns back toward the project site are prohibited well into the city of Brisbane. Interstate 280 (I-280) provides secondary regional freeway access to the project area. To the north, the eight-lane freeway provides access to Daly City, San Francisco and points beyond (Bay Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge, etc.); to the south, I-280 provides access to the cities of San Bruno, Millbrae, Hillsborough, San Mateo, Redwood City and points beyond to San Jose. Local I-280 interchanges serving the project area are located at Hickey Boulevard, Westborough Boulevard, and Avalon Drive. (2) Local Roadway Network r Hillside Boulevard (Hillside Boulevard Extension) is a four-lane roadway in the project area along the base of San Bruno Mountain, extending north to Mission Street (i.e., to State Route 82, the northbound extension of EI Camino Real in Daly City) and southeast to the downtown r area of South San Francisco. The designation "Hillside Boulevard Extension" pertains to the r newly constructed segment of roadway between Lincoln Street and Sister Cities Boulevard. Traffic flows are predominantly north/westbound in the evening. r The Hillside Boulevard Extension extends along the southern project boundary at the western r end of the project site. This four-lane arterial facility with a raised median adjacent to the r project site intersects the recently completed Sister Cities Boulevard about one-third of the distance along the southern site boundary and then turns to the southeast and continues as a r two-lane roadway (designated Hillside Boulevard) towards downtown South San Francisco through the residential neighborhood just south of the project site. It ends at an intersection with Linden Avenue, which connects directly to Airport Boulevard. Hillside Boulevard r Extension has signalized intersections with Sister Cities Boulevard and Jefferson Street/South r San Francisco Drive (the Phase I project access), while Hillside Boulevard has signalized r intersections with Stonegate Drive and Linden Avenue. All-way stop sign control is provided at Lincoln Street. All other roadways (such as Chestnut Avenue and Evergreen Drive) are r stop sign controlled on their approaches to Hillside Boulevard or Hillside Boulevard Extension. WP5115481 FS El R I I V- C - RE V. 548 w~ ~ W W w ~ y. !-~, O ~, ~` ~"' '_ _ ~ V ~ qtr ^"~'~tr J w x ~~ u y ~+ I~ c ~ ~ I asy an agnQ ^ . • e ° r ~ Fnl f .. ° o. V ~: ~= z ~ io ~ ZO ~ ~ _ o. vl0 ~ ~ 8 ~~ w ~ u ~ ~ Q N O ~^/ _~ p~~g s:ogs~ag P~IQ iao l4V /'~ W L e ~ r ~~ _ .~1~. r~ _~~'-'ir '^ e - ~~ O ~b = e` U a° ~~~ _ Z;. y Ls 1 ~. r tr e ~ 35 ~o•,,~~a O e • ,^ L M e ~ ~ w ~ • .. ~' e e .~ r " _ - . ~ .~ t r. -- n e~ P"IY a!P~p!H ayJ o` e ~ Y ~ Y ,^ V C > ~ m l~ t G A A U w e U c it N L~ V 0 3 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 94 Evergreen Drive is a two-lane residential roadway that extends between Mission Road on the west and Hillside Boulevard on the east. The route runs along the southern border of EI Camino High School just east of Mission Road. Chestnut Avenue extends easterly from EI Camino Real to Hillside Boulevard. The route has four lanes near EI Camino Real and Hillside Boulevard, but narrows to two lanes in places where roadway widening has not yet occurred (i.e., east of Commercial Drive). Traffic flows are predominantly westbound in the evening. Sister Cities Boulevard is a four-lane divided arterial roadway running along the southern r project boundary. It extends from its signalized intersection with Hillside Boulevard Extension on the west to its signalized intersection with Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard- Bayshore Boulevard on the east. There is only one intersection along Sister Cities Boulevard--i.e., with South San Francisco Drive about halfway between Oyster Point Boulevard and Hillside Boulevard. This intersection is now signalized and will provide access into the Phase II area of the project. (South San Francisco Drive has been constructed as a paved construction vehicle roadway only between this intersection and the Phase I portion of the project--indicated by a dashed line on figures in this SEIR section--and to full city standards in the Phase I portion of the project.) Bayshore Boulevard is primarily afour-lane arterial roadway extending northerly from South San Francisco into the cities of Brisbane and San Francisco on the west of US 101. It continues southerly through South San Francisco as Airport Boulevard south of its intersection with Sister Cities Boulevard-Oyster Point Boulevard. Adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project, Bayshore Boulevard has two travel lanes in each direction, narrowing to single travel lanes near its intersection with the US 101 southbound off-ramp. Bayshore Boulevard is within the city limits of Brisbane and is thus within that city's jurisdiction. This includes the roadway right-of-way extending to the south and connecting with the city of South San Francisco, which is an incorporated "peninsula" of Brisbane, surrounded on the west, south and east by lands within the city of South San Francisco (see Figure 2). Airport Boulevard is a north/south arterial which parallels US 101. The arterial is four lanes wide except for a short, six-lane-wide section between Grand Avenue and the undercrossing at the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. Because of its close proximity to US 101, freeway connections are provided to Airport Boulevard at several locations. Oyster Point Boulevard is a major arterial roadway extending easterly from Bayshore Boulevard-Airport Boulevard across US 101 and the CalTrain rail line into the Oyster Point Business Park. It has been recently widened and realigned in the vicinity of the freeway as part of the Oyster Point interchange reconstruction. The freeway overpass has eight travel lanes and a narrow raised median. Dubuque Avenue is a frontage road running along the east side of US 101 from Oyster Point Boulevard southerly to East Grand Avenue. It has two travel lanes along its entire length WP5115481 FSEIRII V-C• REV.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 95 except from Oyster Point Boulevard to its intersection with the freeway northbound off-ramp and southbound on-ramp, where up to eight lanes and a narrow raised median are provided. It has signalized intersections with East Grand Avenue, the freeway ramps and Oyster Point Boulevard. b. Existing Traffic Conditions (1) Existing Intersection Operation (a) Study Intersections. Ten specific local road system locations have been identified by the city of South San Francisco staff as those most likely to be affected by the project. Seven are signalized intersections and three are stop sign-controlled intersections. These intersections were evaluated for Base Case PM peak hour conditions. In addition, at California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) request, all intersections within or in close proximity to the Oyster Point interchange were also evaluated for Base Case AM peak hour conditions. The locations of these intersections are shown on Figure 6; they include: r r Signalized: • Hillside Boulevard/Jefferson Street-South San Francisco Drive (project Phase I access); • Hillside Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard; • Sister Cities Boulevard/South San Francisco Drive (primary project Phase II access); • Sister Cities Boulevard-Oyster Point Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard-Airport Boulevard (AM and PM); ^ Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue-US 101 northbound on-ramp (AM and PM); • Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound off-ramp/US 101 southbound on-ramp (AM and PM); and • Bayshore Boulevard/project commercial access (Phase III)/Realigned US 101 southbound on- and off-ramps (for 2010 conditions only) (AM and PM). All-waY-stop-sign-controlled: • US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard (AM and PM). Side-street-stop-sign-controlled: • Hillside Boulevard/Evergreen Drive; and • Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. (b) Level of Service Scale. In order to understand the status of a local roadway network, a grading system called Level of Service (LOS) is commonly used by traffic engineers and planners. The LOS grading system typically used involves a rating scale which ranges from WP5115481FSE/RIIV-C-REV 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 96 LOS A, indicating uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers, down to LOS F, indicating significant congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. Tables B-1 and B-2 in Appendix B list the definitions of the LOS scales used in this analysis for local signalized intersections (based on volume-to-capacity ratios) and for local unsignalized intersections (based on delay in seconds). (c) Level of Service Methodology• Signalized intersections are evaluated in this study using the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Circular 212 planning methodology, adjusted as described in Appendix B for more accurate application to this project. The Circular 212 methodology is a standard level of service calculation method' and is appropriate for a planning analysis where future levels of service are to be projected. Unsignalized intersection operation was determined using the methodology outlined in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual, as described in Appendix B. Following the procedures used in the East of 101 Area Plan DEIR (1994) traffic analysis prepared by Barton-Aschman, Inc., and the Oyster Point Interchange Reconstruction and Grade Separation DEIR (1990) traffic analysis prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., lane capacity adjustments were incorporated into the analysis of intersections that would otherwise operate at LOS C or worse. (d) Level of Service Standards. Level of Service D is considered by the city of South San Francisco to be the poorest acceptable operation for signalized and all-way stop intersections; LOS E is considered to be the poorest acceptable operation for unsignalized intersection turn movements. r (e) Intersection Turning Movements. Figure 7 presents existing2 (June, 1996) AM and PM r peak hour turn movement volumes at major project area intersections. Ongoing construction r at the Grand Avenue freeway interchange (just south of the Oyster Point interchange) and the r construction period closure of the northbound freeway on-ramp from Grand Avenue during the r morning commute (and occasionally extending to the evening commute period) has resulted in r a temporary diversion of additional traffic through the Oyster Point interchange. The June, r 1996 counts at the Oyster Point interchange in Figure 7 reflect a closed Grand Avenue on- r ramp during the AM commute and an open ramp during the evening commute period. The r counts indicated that the peak afternoon traffic hour along Bayshore Boulevard was from 4:30 r to 5:30 PM, whereas the peak traffic hour along Hillside Boulevard was from 4:45 to 5:45 PM. (f) Existing Signalization Needs. Traffic signal "warrants" are conventional standards used to determine whether a traffic signal is needed. A traffic signal should not be installed if no 'It is one of the methods specifically identified in the state's Congestion Management Program (CMP) legislation and is, therefore, accepted by the regional planning agency, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2As explained in Appendix B, "existing" traffic volumes used as a basis for the year 2000 and 2010 base case traffic projections are 1996 volumes taken from the recent traffic counts in the project r vicinity. WP5115481 FSE/RII V-C-REV.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 97 warrants are met, since installation of traffic signals may increase delays for the majority of through traffic and increase some types of traffic accidents. If one or more warrants are met, a signal may be appropriate. A signal warrant analysis has been performed for the three unsignalized study intersections r for the 1996 PM peak hour, using Caltrans Warrant 11 criteria (see Appendix 6). Currently, r volumes at the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue and U.S. 101 Southbound Off- r Ramp/Northbound Bayshore Boulevard intersections exceed peak hour signal warrant criteria r Levels. (2) Existing Freeway Operation r Table 7 shows that 1994 PM peak hour peak direction (southbound) operation along US 101 in the project vicinity is LOS E at all locations. Level of Service E operation is the minimum acceptable condition for peak hour operation of US 101 in South San Francisco as set by the r San Mateo County Congestion Management Plan.' Criteria used to relate freeway level of service and volume to capacity ratio are presented in Appendix B. (3) Existing Transit Service (a) Local Bus Routes. Transit service is provided to the project area by the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans). Table 8 describes the SamTrans routes serving the project vicinity. Routes 76 and 246 travel along Bayshore Boulevard adjacent to the eastern project boundary while Route 26H travels along Hillside Boulevard west of Jefferson Street as well as along Jefferson Street. SamTrans service also provides/accepts inter-agency transfer passes to/from Santa Clara County Transit at shared bus stops, San Francisco Municipal Railway routes at selected points, and AC Transit routes at shared bus stops in Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. (b) BART. BART currently does not directly serve the city of South San Francisco; rather, BART currently provides direct (BART station) Peninsula service as far south as Daly City, although a new station has been constructed in Colma and will be opening for passenger service within the next year. (c) Caltrain. An existing CalTrain station is located in the city along Dubuque Avenue just north of East Grand Avenue. Service is provided seven days per week, extending from San Francisco to Gilroy. r ' 1995 Congestion Management Program; San Mateo County, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. WP5115481FSE/RIIV-C-REV 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 98 Table 7 EXISTING AND BASE CASE US 101 FREEWAY OPERATION--PM PEAK- HOUR One-Way r Hourly Existing (1994) Base Case (2000) Base Case (2010) Segment Capacity' Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS r North of Sierra 8,800 8,400 .95 E 9,050 1.03 F 12,470 1.42 F Point f Sierra Point to 9,300` 8,000 .86 E 8,530 .92 E 11,310 1.22 F Oyster Point f Oyster Point to 9,300` 8,400 .90 E 9,370 1.01 F 14,190 1.53 F Grand Avenue r Grand Avenue 8,800 7,100 .89 E 9,150 1.04 F 13,660 1.55 F to South Airport r SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group, East of 101 Area Plan DEIR, and City of Brisbane 1993 General r Plan DEIR, Volume III. a Peak direction capacity based on 2,200 vehicles per hour through lane and 500 vehicles per hour per auxiliary lane. Transportation Research Board, 1994 Highway Capacity Manual, Table 3-1, using 60 mph freeway design speed. b From Caltrans traffic volumes 1994 for peak hour with assumed 55/45 directional split peak. Peak direction southbound. ` On-ramp to auxiliary lane or off-ramp from auxiliary lane assigned increased capacity. WP5115481 FSEI RIlV-C-REV.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 99 Table 8 PROJECT AREA LOCAL BUS ROUTE DESCRIPTIONS (SAMTRANS) Route Description ST 246 Local service along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard between Daly City, Brisbane, South San Francisco and the San Francisco Airport. ST 76 Regional service along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard between downtown San Francisco (Transbay Terminal) and Redwood City. ST 26H Local service to Tanforan Shopping Center along Mission Road, Hillside Boulevard, Jefferson Street, Linden Avenue, and Airport Boulevard. All three bus routes pass within 500 feet of the South San Francisco CalTrain Station. SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group, Samtrans. WP5115481 FSE/RIl V-C-REV.548 Terrabay Project Revised Draft SEIR City of South San Francisco IV.C. Transportation October 25, i 996 Page 100 c. Base Case Traffic Conditions This section describes anticipated local traffic conditions in the future without the project. Two future years are included in this analysis: 2000 and 2010. These year 2000 and 2010 traffic conditions are the "base case" to which project traffic will be added and serve as a benchmark against which project impacts will be evaluated. (1) Planned Transportation System Improvements (a) Hickey Boulevard Extension. The proposed Hickey Boulevard extension will extend from EI Camino Real eastward to Hillside Boulevard. The segment of the extension between EI Camino Real and Mission Road will be constructed by the BART District as part of the new Hickey Boulevard station improvements; San Mateo County will construct the segment r between Mission Road and Hillside Boulevard, potentially about one to two years after r completion of the EI Camino Real to Mission segment.' The extension design includes four r lanes with separate turn lanes at intersections. Signalized intersections will be provided at Hillside Boulevard, Mission Road and EI Camino Real. The city of South San Francisco portion of the Hickey Boulevard Extension was included in the city's 1992 program of capital improvements and is expected to be constructed before the year 2000. The county's portion will be constructed after the city's portion has been completed. r (b) Oyster Point Interchange Reconstruction. As of this SEIR writing, this project is r complete, with the exception of the hook ramps and flyover. (c) Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue Intersection Signal. A signal is planned for the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection. No specific date has been determined, as funding is still needed. No other roadway improvements are programmed and funded by the city of South San Francisco in the immediate project vicinity.2 Likewise, no improvements are programmed or funded by Caltrans for the US 101 freeway between the South San Francisco city limits and -380.3 (d) BART Extension Plans. Plans are being formulated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and BART to extend BART from Colma to the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) via an alignment that would pass through the EI Camino Real corridor via the Southern Pacific Transportation Company railroad right-of-way. The extension plans also call for construction of a South San Francisco BART Station just south of the planned Hickey r 'Mr. Joe Lococo and Mr. Bob Cambron, Traffic Section, San Mateo County Public Works. ZMr. Richard Harmon, City of South San Francisco Public Works Department. 3Mr. John Low, Caltrans District 4. WP5115481 FSE1RIl V-C-REV 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 101 Boulevard Extension. EI Camino Real would border the BART site to the west, Mission Road to the east, and a new street to the south. (2) Base Case Traffic Assumptions. AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for project study intersections for year 2000 Base Case conditions are presented in Figures 8 and 9, respectively, while Figures 10 and 11 present AM and PM peak hour volumes, respectively, r for year 2010 Base Case conditions.' These traffic volumes are based on recently completed r traffic counts at the Oyster Point interchange and along Hillside Boulevard as well as future traffic projections contained in studies prepared for other projects in the area, adjusted to produce a coherent set of volumes for the project area circulation network (see Appendix 6). Figure 12 presents intersection geometries assumed for both year 2000 and 2010 background conditions without the project.2 r (3) Base Case Intersection Signalization Needs. The following year 2000 and year 2010 r Base Case signalization warrants have been identified (without the project): r (a) Year 2000. Two intersections would have volume levels exceeding peak hour signal r warrant criteria levels: r U. S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp/Northbound Bayshore Boulevard - AM peak hour r Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue - PM peak hour r (b) Year 2010. Two intersections would have volume levels exceeding peak hour signal r warrant criteria levels: r U. S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp/Northbound Bayshore Boulevard - AM and PM peak r hours r Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue - PM peak hour r (4) Base Case Intersection Level of Service. Table 9 presents year 2000 and 2010 Base Case (without project) AM and PM peak hour levels of service at study intersections. 'For purposes of this analysis, two existing unsignalized intersections were assumed to be signalized by either the year 2000 or 2010, since volumes at each would exceed peak hour signal warrant criteria: • Hillside Boulevard~Chestnut Avenue (by 2000 -however, volumes already exceed warrant levels); and • US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard (by 2000 for AM peak hour; by 2010 for PM peak hour). ZThe assumed geometries are those currently in place along Hillside Boulevard, Sister Cities Boulevard, Bayshore Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard, and Dubuque Avenue. «„ WP5115481 FSEIRII V-C-REV.548 1225 SB 101 ~/ Offramp l07o ~r 390 'v m Y .L A A L 180 \~ ~- 135 I30' 275 ~ 1 t I ~ 1205 -~ 120 810 275 ~ 30 / ~. Sister Cities Blvd ~ Oyster Point Blvd > ~ ~ ~ m ` 95 310 0 I 0 f- 0 760 110 0 I I t-~ `-- ~ 0 190 134 f- 80 ,. I ~ 65 ~ 865 ~ t~ I t i ' 4 * 0 -- 30 0 95 60 15 ~ 380 -> 10 30 10 ~ 220 SB 101 NB 101 Onramp Offramp ~Rh SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group NB 101 Onramp Figure 8 YEAR 2000 BASE CASE TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR Wagstaff and Associates ~~ w~~ ~ x 0 x ^, `_ ~' M `., /~ ~ ~ '~ u ~ .- 1 ~ ~ . ~~ ~ ~ H V ~~w/~ w spy an ogna VJ O v 6 n. ~ .~.~ ~ .~ ~ ~. V d C C ` O C O Z O ~ Z O o, W r d H O .. 6 ~` e ~ M~ A O C C h O ~ O w x 0 °e ~= o~ ~e o .~ l 1. r = cV ~ 'l 1 fN-i ee~ _ -, e ..„ ~ ~ i __ ~ :~ .'a c`~ " •s` `~~ -m ~ '~° 1 ~. r c i tr e e a ~s uo.:,~~, e Y Y ~ ~ • O ~~ O ~ ~-. ~ r _ .~ -~Tr _~ ~ e e ,,, ~ e ' e ~_ ez P~Ifl •!p~lt!H °Y,~ o` E c ~ Y Y ~ C a Q 5~`F ~o ~~- U r w U v d 3 i 950 US ~ 101 r 415 / s4s t- ao ~ 70 2790 ~- 120 r 90 90 J Y~ r 530 -~ 35 180 ~~ 205 ~ 245 / Sister Cities Blvd north SOURCE: Crane Trartsportatlon Group m 0 m NB 101 Onramp ster Point Blvd ~ I L 400\ ~--- las ~ ~ 4ss 210 ~ I r 3105 -~ 105 2330 185 ~ 30 i 0 \ 120 e <- 0 ' ~~ l ~ ~- ° US ~ 101 2400 J ` •~Tr t 0 -~ 40 0 60 -1 65 SB 101 Onram ~ I> NB 101 < Offramp ~ Figure 10 YEAR 2010 BASE CASE TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR Wagstaff and Associates .. ~~ \ /_ 'L ~ ~. .~ 1 ~. r -~Tr ~~ r u. ~_ °w .~ 1 ~.. r ~~~ir, \+~z ~ ~/` / v s 6 0 i ^ d c o 6 ~ ~ Z O a e Z O w0 ° s c 6 ` „ e ... w ` vi 0 _~ P~16 s~oyu~g YNx ~.......~ e ~ g ° ` ^e ~'- w .~1~. r= =-~ ~ t r _ -. ° --~ - i ~ ° - ~a - ~. V . ~° `~. ': °-~ ~ t y ~ Ls °° s: ° -~ ° 1 ~. r .~ °_ rr N s ~ s w o ° L• •-- - ° ^ s ;, ~ ° r ~ '~G ~ _ ,~ 1 ~. r ~ ,~ '~ °z ~ .?° ~ Q w ~ x w ~~ w~ ~~ ~H ~""' V wW O V~ rrW^ VJ O 0 x ~ E,,,, N ~"~ ~~ U W c ~" m 0 3 Terrabay Project Revised Draft SEIR City of South San Francisco IV.C. Transportation October 25, 1996 Page 106 (a) Year 2000. All analyzed study intersections would operate acceptably during the AM peak hour, with one exception: the US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard intersection. Even if signalized, this intersection would operate at LOS E during the year 2000 AM peak hour. All study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service during the 2000 PM peak r hour with one exception: Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue if it remains unsignalized. The stop sign-controlled left turn movement from Chestnut Avenue to Hillside Boulevard would operate at LOS F. Significant extended delay would be experienced by drivers attempting this r movement. PM peak hour volumes at this location would be exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. fib) Year 2010. Three intersections would experience unacceptable operation during the AM peak hour: • Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (LOS F signalized operation); • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound on-ramp (LOS F signalized operation); and r US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard (LOS F - if signalized but r without additional intersection approach lanes). r Five intersections would experience unacceptable operation during the PM peak hour: ^ Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (LOS E signalized operation); r Dyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U. S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp (LOS F r signalized operation); • Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound off-ramp--southbound on-ramp (LOS E signalized operation); • Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue (if this intersection remains unsignalized, the stop sign-controlled left turn movement from Chestnut Avenue to Hillside Boulevard would be operating at LOS F); and ^ US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard (This all-way stop intersection would be operating at LOS F. If signalized, but without additional intersection approach lanes, operation would be an unacceptable LOS E). r {5) Base Case Freeway Operation. Table 7 also presents year 2000 and 2010 Base Case PM peak hour operation for US 101 in the project vicinity. WP51 t5481FSE/Rll V-C-REV.548 ~wH _~ ~ w u4 ~ ~--~ -~ ~ ~ V r ~ c asy an ngnQ --~ 11~-.~.. ~ ~ x 1 2 C JI ~' E '1`l T ~r ~ r Z `s ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ 6 .. E Ny V -~ pslg a+oycarg Ps19 t'+o V trl L ~ F L ~TTr °" ' -Z N m Y .~ 11 ~ ~,,a z y 1~v ,_ ~ --~ T T ~,,• o N m ~ 11 ~.. r N N N N II II ~1 ~- • T T r w I~ cca»V i~a,o+d ,e ~S uoc+a;;a ~- m +~ Y - ~ _ .~ 11 ~ -~- .~ ~~y~ -~ f°Y J o e ~n Y S Y Z Y Lv A F U r W rn 0 3 -~. Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, t 996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 108 Table 9 BASE CASE INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE--(AM) AND PM PEAK HOUR Year 2000 Year 2010 Intersection Base Case Base Case r (without flyover) Signalized r Hillside Blvd/Jefferson St/ A - .36' A - .42 South San Francisco Drive (Phase I Access) ' r Hillside Blvd/Sister Cities A - .43' A - .48 Blvd Sister Cities Blvd/South San N/A N/A Francisco Drive/(Phase II Access) r Sister Cities Blvd/Oyster (D - .72)' (F - 1.27) r Point Blvd/Bayshore Blvd/ C - .59' E - .87 Airport Blvd r Oyster Point Blvd/Dubuque (B - .52)' (F - 1.58) r Ave/US 101 NB on-ramp C - .67' F - 1.22 r Dubuque Ave/US 101 NB (A - .35)' (D - .82) r off-ramp/US 101 SB on-ramp A - .43' E - .92 Bayshore Blvd/US 101 SB ramps/Project Commercial N/A N/A Access (Phase III) Unsignalized r Hillside Blvd/Evergreen Dr D - 20.9" C - 13.1 r Hillside Blvd/Chestnut Ave F"• F"' r A-.44 r US 101 SB off-ramp/NB (F)"" (F)"" r Bayshore Blvd (All-Way Stop) (E - .897)' (F - 1.60)' r C - 14.4"" F"" r A/B-.50' E-.96' SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group. ' Signalized level of service -volume/capacity ratio. Unsignalized level of service/average vehicle delay (in seconds) -eastbound Left turn from Evergreen Drive. r "' Unsignalized level of service/average vehicle delay (in seconds) -eastbound left turn from Chestnut r Avenue. r "" All-way stop Level of Service -average vehicle delay in seconds (overall intersection). WPS115481FSE/RIIV-C-REV 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 109 (a) Year 2000. All segments of US 101 would have peak direction (southbound) traffic r operating at unacceptable LOS F conditions during the PM peak hour with one exception: the r segment from Sierra Point to Oyster Point would be in the acceptable LOS E range. (b) Year 2010. All freeway segments near the project would be experiencing unacceptable LOS F PM peak hour operation for peak direction (southbound) traffic flow. Demand would be from 20 to more than 50 percent greater than capacity, depending upon the freeway segment. r ~6) Base Case Freeway Ramp Operation. Table 10 presents year 2000 and 2010 Base Case AM and PM peak hour operation for US 101 ramps included in this study. (a) Year 2000. Year 2000 AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at all three US 101 freeway ramps at the Oyster Point interchange (northbound on and off, as well as southbound on) and the southbound off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard would be well under capacity. Although the southbound off-ramp would have volumes well within the acceptable range, the r off-ramp intersection with northbound Bayshore Boulevard would be operating at an unacceptable AM peak hour LOS E with existing geometrics and with signalization. It would be expected that off-ramp traffic would back up to the southbound freeway mainline unless additional lanes were provided on the intersection approach or unless off-ramp detectors would control signal operation and allow off-ramp traffic to clear whenever backups approached the freeway mainline. (b) Year 2010. During the 2010 AM peak hour, traffic volumes would exceed capacity at the r southbound off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard and the northbound off-ramp to Dubuque r Avenue. As a result, southbound off-ramp traffic could be expected to back up well into the freeway main line. Northbound off-ramp traffic would back up well into the auxiliary lane extending from the Grand Avenue on-ramp. r Year 2010 PM peak hour traffic volumes at two of the three freeway ramps at the Oyster Point r interchange (northbound off and southbound on), as well as the southbound off-ramp to r Bayshore Boulevard, would be under capacity. r The two-lane southbound on-ramp would be operating at 90 percent of capacity with a r demand of almost 2,900 PM peak hour vehicles. The northbound on-ramp at the Oyster Point r interchange would, however, be operating at capacity. 2. 1982 EIR IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS The 1982 EIR traffic analysis was based on the conservative ("worst case") assumption that construction of all project phases would be completed by 1990. Table 11 presents 1982 and estimated 1990 traffic conditions without the project, Hillside Boulevard Extension (Sister Cities Boulevard) or the Oyster Point interchange project, and estimated 1990 and 2000 traffic WP5115481 FSEIRII V-C-REV. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 110 Table 10 BASE CASE US 101 FREEWAY RAMP OPERATION--(AM) AND PM PEAK HOUR WITHOUT THE PROJECT US 101 Ramp r SB off-ramp to Bayshore Blvd r r NB on-ramp from Oyster Point Blvd r r NB off-ramp to Dubuque Ave r r SB on-ramp from Dubuque Ave r Base Case (2000) Base Case (2010) Capacity' Volume Operation Volume Operation 1,800 (1,225) (under (2,455) (over capacity) capacity) 520 under 1,160 under capacity capacity 2,000" (485) (under (640) (under capacity) capacity) 1,340 under 1,995 at capacity capacity 2,000" (880) (under (2,460) (over capacity) capacity) 590 under 995 under capacity capacity 3,200 (340) (under (560) (under capacity) capacity) 1,325 under 2,880 under capacity capacity SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group, TRB Special Report 209, 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. r 'Passenger cars per hour. On-ramp to auxiliary lane or off-ramp from auxiliary lane assigned r increased capacity. r "Although the southbound off-ramp would have volumes well within the acceptable range, the off•ramp r intersection with northbound Bayshore Boulevard would be operating at an unacceptable PM peak hour r LOS E with existing geometrics and with signalization. r "' On-ramp to auxiliary lane. It would be expected that off-ramp traffic would back up to the r southbound freeway mainline unless additional lanes were provided on the intersection approach or r unless off-ramp detectors would control signal operation and allow off-ramp traffic to clear whenever r backups approached the freeway mainline. WP5115481 FSE/RII V-C-REV.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 111 Table 11 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE COMPUTATIONS--1982 EIR With Project Without Project With Project and Mitigations Existing 1982 1990 1990 2000 1990 2000 Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue Hillside Boulevard/Kearny Street Hillside Boulevard/Irving Street Hillside Boulevard/Jefferson Avenue Hillside Boulevard/Randolph Avenue Linden Avenue/Airport Boulevard Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue US 101 Southbound Off-ramp/Bayshore Boulevard Sister Cities Boulevard/Airport Boulevard A A A C/D A B/C A A/B' A/B' C/D' A' A' A A/B' C' E/F' A' B' -- -- A C A B A B B/C E/F A/B C C F F F E5 E/FS B F2 F2 F2 - 6 - 6 B FZ E° F° _ s _ s B F E° E° A/B B -- -- --3 F - B - 8 SOURCE: EIP Corporation 1982. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay Development Project. San Mateo County, California. ' Assumes removal of stop signs on Hillside Boulevard from existing 3-way stops. 2 Assumes existing interchange still in place. 3 Depends on intersection configuration and Oyster Point grade separation. ° Assumes off-ramp widened to two lanes s Can be improved by two service levels if Oyster Point interchange includes southbound on-ramp. s Depends on design of Oyster Point interchange and Sister Cities Boulevard. WP5115481FSE/RIIV-C-REV 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 112 conditions with the project at the key project vicinity intersections. Associated traffic impact findings and mitigation measures identified in the 1982 EIR are summarized in Table 12. 3. SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS r The Terrabay project will be adding incrementally to cumulative (Base Case) traffic impacts in the project vicinity. Traffic analyses performed for other projects in the vicinity indicate increasing traffic volumes and worsening operations. As a result, several of the study r intersections would already be operating poorly under Base Case conditions without the r project. In fact, with only three exceptions,' all intersections, freeway ramps and freeway r segments for which significant adverse project impacts have been identified would r already be experiencing unacceptable Base Case operation (i.e., significant impacts) r without the project. r This section presents the potential transportation impacts of the project for the years 2000 and r 2010. The year 2000 analysis assumes only Phase 1 of the project will be built, occupied and r adding traffic to the local road network by that time. For the year 2010, two possible impact r scenarios are evaluated: completion and occupancy of Phase I only, and completion and r occupancy of Phases I, II, and III. This SEIR analysis has been designed to conform with CEQA, city of South San Francisco, and San Mateo County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) traffic impact analysis requirements. Impacts identified in this SEIR are generally similar to those identified in the 1982 EIR. The project trip generation estimate prepared for this SEIR is substantially similar to that estimated in the 1982 EIR (see Table 12). Intersection operation impacts were also identified at the same general locations: the Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard intersection, the US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard intersection, and the US 101 ramps at Dubuque Avenue (although these ramps have been reconstructed as part of the Oyster Point interchange project). The 1982 EIR also identified intersection operation impacts at the intersections of Linden Avenue with Hillside Boulevard and Airport Boulevard. These intersections were not included in this analysis, primarily because construction of Sister Cities Boulevard has diverted a substantial amount of traffic from this route. r 'The three exceptions include year 2010 Phase I, II and III AM and PM peak hour impacts at the r Bayshore Boulevard~US 101 southbound on- and off-ramp~project commercial access drive (a proposed r new intersection to be constructed with the project) and the PM peak hour impact at the Serramonte r Boulevard/Hillside Boulevard intersection (for which Base Case conditions were not available and the r project impact is based on an increase in traffic volumes rather than a change in operating conditions). M, WP5115481 FSEIRIlV-C-REV.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 113 Table 12 1982 EIR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT AND MITIGATION FINDINGS Impact Summary The proposed project would be expected to generate approximately 16,570 daily trips on an average weekday following full occupancy (85 percent for the hotel): 6,100 (37 percent) by the residential areas and 10,470 (63 percent) by the commercial area. Approximately 1,710 pm peak hour trips would be generated. Approximately 15 percent of these trips would occur between different on-site activities and would be entirely onsite or would only affect roadways fronting the site. The project would result in increased peak period traffic congestion at the tollowing key intersections in the project vicinity: ^ Hillside Boulevard/Linden Avenue • Airport Boulevard/Linden Avenue • Airport Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard • Oyster Point interchange ramps (Dubuque) • US 101 southbound off-ramp/Bayshore Boulevard The project would increase peak hour traffic volumes on the US 101 main line (on which traffic volumes would already be at capacity) by approximately four percent in 1990 and by a greater amount in 2000 contributing to a significant cumulative impact. The project would increase traffic volumes on Hillside Boulevard between Chestnut Avenue and Randolph Avenue to levels requiring traffic controls. The project would increase traffic volumes along Hillside Boulevard between Lincoln Avenue and Randolph Avenue by 100 percent in 1990 and 180 percent in 2000, which would significantly impact residents along that segment of Hillside Boulevard. Mitigation Summary Construction of the Oyster Point Interchange, before completion of the proposed project. Construction of the Sierra Point interchange and Bayshore Boulevard connectors to intercept traffic bound for the Linden Avenue US 101 southbound on-ramp via Bayshore Boulevard-Airport Boulevard. Redesign of the US 101 southbound "scissors" off-ramp, before hotel occupancy, including relocation of Bayshore Boulevard slightly west into the project property to accommodate a redesigned hook off-ramp and new hook on- ramp, and signalization of the new project commercial access/US t 01 ramps intersection. Project sponsor fair share contribution to traffic signals at the following intersections before 1990: • Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Street • Hillside Boulevard/Hillside Extension ^ Hillside Boulevard/Airport Boulevard • Oyster Point interchange (at one or more locations depending on final design) ^ US 101 southbound "scissors" off-ramp • Hillside Boulevard/Jefferson Street ^ Terrabay commercial access Removal of the existing all-way stop signs on Hillside Boulevard/Kearny Street and Hillside Boulevard/Irving Street intersections in conjunction with installation of traffic signals along Hillside Boulevard. Create a frontage road or traffic free zone with landscaped buffer separating local access movements from higher speed traffic along Hillside Boulevard. WP5115481FSEIRIIV-C-REV 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 The project would generate an additional approximately 400 daily transit trips and contribute to a cumulative increase in demand for transit of at least 2,000 daily trips. Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 114 Implementation of the following transportation system management (TSM) measures, primarily in conjunction with development of the office condominium/health club/restaurant complex: • limousine service from the airport to the hotel/tech trade center; • bus pullouts and shelters along Bayshore Boulevard and Hillside Boulevard; ^ Preferential carpool parking in the commercial area; ^ Encouragement of staggered work hours; • Encouragement of vanpooling/carpooling through the homeowners association; and • Encouragement of expanded transit service. SOURCE: EIP Corporation, 1982. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay Development rp oject. San Mateo County, California. WP5115481 FSE/R11 V-C-REV. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 115 Freeway link impacts were also similar to those identified in the 1982 EIR. However, freeway ramp impact findings in this SEIR are different than the 1982 EIR due to the reconstruction of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange. a. Significance Criteria The following criteria have been used to evaluate the significance of identified transportation impacts: • If a signalized or aN-way stop intersection with Base Case (without project) volumes is operating at LOS A, B, C, or D and deteriorates to LOS E operation (or worse) with the addition of project traffic, the impact is considered to be significant and will require mitigation. If a Base Case stop sign-controlled turn movement deteriorates to LOS F operation with the addition of project traffic, the impact is considered to be significant. • If the Base Case LOS at a signalized or all-way stop intersection is already at LOS E or r F, or the Base Case LOS of a stop sign-controlled turn movement is already LOS F, a r two percent or more increase in total traffic entering the intersection due to the project is r considered to be significant.' • If traffic volume levels at an unsignalized intersection increase above Caltrans Peak Hour Warrant 11 criteria levels with the addition of project traffic, the impact is considered to be significant. ^ If Base Case traffic volume levels at an unsignalized intersection already exceed signal r warrant criteria levels, an increase in traffic of two percent or more due to the project is r considered to be significant.2 • If, in the opinion of the SEIR traffic engineer, certain project-related traffic changes will significantly increase safety concerns, the impact is considered to be significant. r 'Twenty-five Bay Area cities, counties and congestion management agencies were surveyed for the r traffic impact significance criteria they use in preparing planning and CEQA environmental documents r where a facility is projected to already experience unacceptable operation without the addition of project r traffic. None of the jurisdictions surveyed use V/C ratio impact criteria for freeway ramp, freeway main r line segment, or unsignalized intersection operation, or for intersection signal warrant analysis. A few r of the jurisdictions surveyed have adopted criteria for signalized intersections: both the Town of Corte r Madera and the City of Mountain View use a change in V/C ratio of .01; other jurisdictions vary the r threshold depending on the project and its location. Surveyed jurisdictions that have segments of the r congestion management program (CMP) freeway network within their boundaries typically specify a r minimum acceptable freeway ramp intersection operation the same as that of the associated freeway r link. Although the 1995 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program specifies a minimum r acceptable operation for US 101 through South San Francisco of LOS E, all ramp intersections at the r Oyster Point interchange have been evaluated in this EIR using the city's more stringent criterion of r LOS D. r Zlbid. WP5115481FSEIRII V-C-REV.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 116 • If freeway link operation is currently at LOS A, B, C, D, or E, and changes to LOS F with the addition of project traffic, the impact is considered significant and will require mitigation. • If freeway link operation with Base Case volumes is already LOS F, an increase in peak r direction traffic of two percent or more due to the project is considered significant.' r If acceptable freeway on- or off-ramp operation changes to unacceptable levels (based r on the capacity of the ramp, as presented in Table 10) with the addition of project traffic, r or if project traffic increases Base Case volumes by two percent or more when operation r is already unacceptable, the impact is considered significant.2 b. Protect Trip Generation Tables 13 and 14 present updated trip generation projections for each of the three project phases based on current Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates. Trip rates from the 1991 and 1995 ITE Trip Generation manual, 5th Edition, were used to update trip rates used in the 1982 EIR. Phase I (293 single family residential and townhouse units) would be expected to generate about 2,700 daily two-way trips with 70 inbound and 160 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 185 inbound and 110 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. About 80 percent of the total AM and PM peak hour trip generation would be associated with residential uses. All Phase I traffic would access Hillside Boulevard via South San Francisco Drive at the Jefferson Street intersection. A small proportion of generated trips would be expected to be internal within the site (trips back and forth to the recreation center as well as drop off and pick up trips at the day care center by project residents). Phase 1! (428 townhouse and condominium units) would be expected to generate about 2,600 daily two-way trips with 30 inbound and 160 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 155 inbound and 85 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. Phase II traffic would access Hillside Boulevard via South San Francisco Drive at the Jefferson Street intersection, and Sister Cities Boulevard via South San Francisco Drive. Phase 111 development of office, restaurant, health club, hotel and trade center commercial uses would be expected to generate about 10,600 daily two-way trips with 920 inbound and 180 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 385 inbound and 920 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. The commercial area trip generation projections assume full use of the hotel's proposed 600-seat seminar center and the tech trade center's 240,900-square-foot showroom. Commercial area trip generation would decrease by more than 30 percent with no r 'Ibid. r 21bid. WP5115481 FSEIRII V-C-REV.548 Terrabay Project Revised Draft SEIR City of South San Francisco IV.C. Transportation October 25, 1996 Page 117 Table 13 PROJECT DAILY AND PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION No. of Daily Two-Way PM Peak Hour Tri ps Units or Trips In Out Phase Use Size Rate Volume Rate Volume Rate Volume I Residential-Single 125 units 9.55 1,200 .65 85 .36 45 Family Residential- 168 units 6.01 1,010 .37 65 .20 35 Townhouse Childcare Center 2,880 ft.2 79.3 230 6.40 20 7.22 20 Recreation Center .40 200 .024 15 .016 10 Phase 1 Total 2,640 185 110 II Residential- 428 5.90 2,530 .36 155 .19 85 Townhouse! Condo/Terraced Units Phase 2 Total 2,530 155 85 III Office 57,500 ft.2 930 20 105 Quality 150 seats 2.86 430 .16 25 .08 15 Restaurant Health Club 600 members .40 240 .024 15 0.16 10 Hotel 400 rooms"' 8.70 2,960 .41 140 .35 120 Seminar Center 600 seats 2.40 1,440 .11 65 .50 300 Restaurants 500 seats 2.86 1,430 .16 80 .08 40 Tech. Trade Center Office 27,800 ft.Z 520 15 55 Showroom 240,900 ft.Z 11.0 2,650 .10 25 1.15 275 Phase 3 Total 10,600 385 920 Total Project 15,770 725 1,115 SOURCE: Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991 and 1995 Update. ' Ln(T) _ .756 Ln(x) + 3.765 Ln(T) _ .737 Ln(x) + 1.831 "' 85 percent occupancy assumed WP5115481 FSE/RII V-C-REV.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Table 14 PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 118 No. of AM Peak Hour Trips Units or In Out Phase Use Size Rate Volume Rate Volume I Residential-Single 125 units .19 25 .55 70 Family Residential- 168 units .07 15 .37 65 Townhouse Childcare Center 2,880 ft.2 8.20 25 7.00 20 Recreation Center 500 members 5 5 Phase I Total 70 160 II Residential- 428 units .07 30 .37 160 Townhouse/ Condo/Terraced Units Phase II Total 30 160 III Office 57,500 ft.z 110 15 Quality 150 seats .028 5 .002 0 Restaurant Health Club 600 members .015 10 .005 5 Hotel 400 rooms" .40 140 .27 95 Seminar Center 600 seats .50 300 .05 30 Restaurants 500 seats .028 15 .002 5 Tech. Trade Center Office 27,800 ft.2 65 5 Showroom 240,900 ft.2 1.15 275 .10 25 Phase III Total 920 180 Total Project 1,020 500 SOURCE: Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991 and 1995 Update. ' Ln(T) _ .777 Ln(x) + (89% in/11% out) T = Trips, X =size in 1,000 sq. ft. 85 percent occupancy assumed WPS i 15481 FSEfRII V-C-REV.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 119 activity at the hotel seminar center and minimal activity at the trade center showroom. It would be expected that about five percent of the total commercial area AM peak hour trip generation and 10 percent of the total commercial area PM peak hour trip generation would remain internal to the site (back and forth trips between the hotel, restaurant, office, trade center and health club uses). Phase III traffic would access the west side of Bayshore Boulevard at three locations to the north of the Oyster Point interchange; two right-turn in and out driveways and one new signalized intersection. Figure 13 presents the lane striping assumed for analysis purposes at this new intersection along Bayshore Boulevard. Total project gross trip generation would be 15,770 daily two-way trips with 1,020 inbound and 500 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 725 inbound and 1,115 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. It should be noted that other than the internal trip capture described r above, no other specific reductions in trip generation due to increased transit use, r carpooling, etc., were factored into the project trip generation projections. c. Protect Trip Distribution Table 15 presents the estimated PM peak hour in and outbound distribution of project residential and commercial traffic. AM distribution would be expected to be approximately the reverse of PM distribution. Distribution projections are based upon input from both the East of 101 Area Plan DEIR and EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Program DEIR traffic analyses. Figures 14 and 15 present the AM and PM peak hour volume increments, respectively, for project Phase I while Figures 16 and 17 present AM and PM peak hour volume increments, respectively, for all project phases (Phases I, II and III), distributed to the local roadway network. Figures 18 and 19 present the sum of the 2010 Base Case plus the project incremental traffic volumes for AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions, respectively. d. Proiect Signalization Needs Impacts r Year 2000 -Phase 1. Year 2000 Base Case volumes at the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut r Avenue intersection (PM peak hour) and the US 101 Southbound Off Ramp/Northbound r Bayshore Boulevard intersection (AM peak hour) would exceed peak hour signal warrant r criteria levels. Phase I traffic would further increase year 2000 Base Case volumes above r signal warrant criteria levels. This would be considered a significant impact at r Hillside/Chestnut as the project volume increase would be greater than two percent, but not a r significant impact at the Southbound Off-Ramp/Northbound Bayshore Boulevard intersection, r as the volume increase would be less than two percent. (Supplemental Impact T-1) r Year 2010 -Phase 1. Phase I traffic would also aggravate the Year 2010 Base Case signal warrant criteria need for signals at the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue and US 101 r southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard intersections. The impact would be r considered significant at Hillside/Chestnut as the project volume increase would be greater r than two percent, but not significant at the Southbound Off-Ramp/Northbound Bayshore WPS 115481 FSEI R.i I V- C- RE V. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Table 15 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION--PM PEAK HOUR Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 120 Residential Commercial Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound North (Daly City/San Francisco, 35% 20% 35% 30% North Bay, Bay Bridge via 101/ Bayshore Blvd./I-280, EI Camino Real & Hillside Blvd. South (cities south of SSF 40% 25% 40% 50% via 101/1-280/EI Camino Real) Local (Brisbane/South San 25% 55% 25% 20% Francisco) SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group; East of 101 Area Plan DEIR Traffic Analysis, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1994; ABAG, 1994; San Mateo County CMP. WP5115481 FSEI R I l V-C- RE V. 548 V V w ~ O W ~ 0 ~- ~~ o s ;J I l~I ~ \ m `e r ~ aey anongna H~ y C ~~~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ O Z O 4 z ~ ~~ r ~ ~ o o Z h o l--l d -3 H 6~ [ ) Pe[9 atout~sg Pelfl Tao v `~ ~ L W Ofi ~, ~ L '~- m ~ fi ~- N _ ~ ~~ ~.~. 00 ~ ~ ZZ ~. ~TTr ~ (~ ssa»r lsttuapcpsag ~ ~ f..l d < ~ ~ I I 3aa,otd -~ I ~o -- 0 -' Y * _ + ~ ~ ~ N 0 0 .~ 11 ~ ~, ~ ~a v H ,a6 W o ~ ~ T T ~.~• ,~ U L c .e -~ 0o r a ~ ~u :o o N N O ~ jTr u n u m '~ i ~ * ~' ssa~od lspuap~psag »a.otd ~ ~§ uosta;;a ~- m ~- '° f~~ y ~ z .~ 11 ~. --~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~T~ ry J O ~ c Y Y Tz~ V m l0 ~0 C U LLJ c n~ v n 3 5 SB 101 Offramp 0 r 10 ~ ster Point Blvd 25 J ~ I ~ it zo ~ to o 30 "~ 0 j ~o eo 0 n m Sister Cities Blvd Lo ~ ° 5 ° ~ 0 0 ° ~ ~ 0 0 i ' 4 5 0 ~' 15 E~ ~ y ~ 0 30 ~ I t 0 -- 0 0 * J ~ ~ ~ 0 0 10 ~ 75 -'- 0 0 ~ 5 ~ 0 ~notth SOURCE: Crane Transportation Cxoup L ° ~`~ ~-- S ~ ~ o '~ NB 101 Onramp / ~ v SB 101 NB 101 ~ Onramp Offramp ~ Figure 14 YEAR 2000 PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME INCREMENTS AM PEAK HOUR PHASE I ONLY Wagstaff and Associates I z u`'WO _ "' ~-.~ ~ ~ ~~ z x ~'~ L e a ~ ~ 0 6 ~ Z O aey an ngnQ~ ~/ v ,~ 0 1--^ m o e e ~_ ~: O M o 4 ~ ^_: ~ e err ^E _~ ~~ vii O ~ O ~' ~ n ° ° vii O ~ Vw -+ P~tfl aJOKa.efl Pe[fl JJO W 3 L ~~ „ ° A/ /1 . t- a 1~1 F~ °e~ ~ r r V n e ~Z ~ w ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~~ m `+`D~ O .j.` ~ 1 N ~ e e ~ e 1 ~. ~ ~ ~ V Tr w two n 7 G~ to to ~ ~ JS 1[OCJi)ja m Y ~ e ~ e _ ~ 1 ' ~ o N = ~ V O O O ~r P~Ifl aP!~il!H °¢J O e c Y I^ w A 0 V l0 m=oaf C 10 A U r W U IA (Qx~~ V 0 3 20 35 1 SB 101 Offramp Commercial Access LO 20 J 1 Z ~ ` s- 190 r lp 1 Y s -- 35 J I r SO -~ 61S O ` 35 ~ / 20 lp IS i ~20 SB 101 Onramp Lo ~- 60 r 0 65 -- 40S 0 65 ~ 20 / ter Cities Blvd S ~ 410 ~-- 25 13~.. ~ 0 19S ~ ~ I I lso ---- o 0 30 10 ~, ~o NB 101 Onramp Point Blvd / ~ 0 \ 15 F- 0 ~1~-~0 3a5 ~ `-l T r p ---- 0 0 20 ° Z ,• Y north SOURCE: Crane TrarBpoAation Group SB 101 NB 101 Onramp Offramp Figure 16 YEAR 2010 PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME INCREMENTS AM PEAK HOUR PHASES I, II AND III --~ Wagstaff and Associates n (n ~~ L ~ ~~ =zQ w ~_, ~--~ ~i ~ V ~--~ z~ ~ e y ~' W ~ e \ ~ asy anongn~ W ~ ~ w = ~, Z o a o e s e --~ ,~ r ~ ~- ° ° ~ x _ .~. C p e o ~_ r c 6 /1 _ To c ~ 1 1~°I NO in0 a ~ ~ ~ e ~ i 4 ~1e ZC hO~ ~ Y n e J ~ 1 r O C ~~ ° o V ~ -~ w MM~~'~ r : ~ r ~ P~lfl aJO>icasg P~lfl ;IU w hil ~~ `' „ ~ 'e^ = ~ pT.j O 6 V e~~ ~_ O^ ^ O ~_ ~ °~'~tr ~ ~=~ ~Tr V5 n '-~ ~ p ~°.~ Sii»y lT~uai ti e ^ „ ° -Tl /~~--1~ Y O 0 Ia ~ ~ Y ..~ 1 ~ ~`''a O " H Ln H~ ^ r „ _ I 1 ~. r' ^ If~'~/1 ~o Tr w N '~ ~ i u „ „ O i ^ O ~ Tn a. tcaa~y ispaatpiag ~ a,old ~ ~g uosaaj~a m N Y t~ ~ O M O _ ,~ 1 ~.. r-- e e ~ r / ~y ~ -~ ~n o e e ~ -, - ~ \ O .0 ~ ^ l~~ P~ifl aP4ilf!H f'j A Y Y Y ~ ~ U L W U N rye V b a 3 -~- ~a9o L 20 ~ Project Commercial 25 60 ~--- 190 Access i ~ tr 246~si 35 ~ 'Y I r I 50 --'- 645 40 35 ~ 435 / ~ 520 S50 ~_ 145 90 276 a ..~1~. X90 m 3°s ~ ~ ; r `o 660 -~ 40 160 s a 220 '""~ 295 c' ~ v a7 Sister Cities Blvd / ~ 400 •• ~--- 245 r-- 455 2ao J 3170 -- 510 2330 130 ~ 30 NB 101 v ,Onramp ster Point Blvd i t ~ 130 ° 455 II0 ~ 0 4 ~ 0 US 101 SB 101 Onram ~Ah SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group z7as ~ p --- 40 0 60 ~ a5 NB 101 ~ Offramp ~ Figure 18 YEAR 2010 BASE CASE PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES AM PEAK HOUR-- PHASES I, II AND III Wagsto2f and Associates ~~~ ~W~ ~~ Q ~~~ ~ ~ __~ '- W sir ~ '~ ~x -/ ~~' ~ ~ ~, V ~ e s.y aeongna W ° ~ `° _ ° ~1 v O ~, . ~ ~ ~ ~ O ` e N ~ N ~ Z Q C i ~ ~x O s !,vim, p.IQ uoy...a P~19 1io }V ~ ~1 es~ = t~ ~ ~ - L~- 1w~1 ~ V< =~'~tr °-~'~tr V - --- rra~a r[ ua [ra = -~ a o _ Y D i N !~~ 0 r~ * `~~ .^. ~ D° m .j.` s~ ~ _ N ~~ 1 ~. r ^ ~ H y ~- 1r ~~ w e. _ `/~, V) " ~ I naaaY trpvap[ra~ ~ !5 uo.~atta 0 4 ~ L ~ ~ ' ~ r - ,/~e ~ = - = -- _ ~ _ .~ 1 ~. r- -~ --- '1 r' '`~ _ ~ ~~.~ir. ~~ ~7 P~I(i aP!ril!H °Yj D ~ e o ~ C7 C O i d = W H l0 U ILI v b 0 3 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 128 r Boulevard intersection as the volume increase would be less than two percent. (Supplemental Impact T-2) Year 2010 -Phases 1, ll and 111. Signals would be provided by the project at the reconstructed Bayshore Boulevard/US 101 southbound hook ramps/project commercial access intersection. r However, the cumulative traffic from Phases I, II and III would further aggravate the Year 2010 Base Case warrant criteria need for signals at the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue r intersection, resulting in a significant adverse impact. (Supplemental Impact T-3) e. Protect Level of Service Impacts--Study Intersections Table 16 presents AM and PM peak hour intersection level of service. r Year 2000 -Phase 1. No significant impacts were identified during the AM peak hour. Project r volume increases would be less than two percent during the AM peak hour at the U. S. 101 r Southbound Off-Ramp/Northbound Bayshore Boulevard intersection, which would already be r experiencing Base Case LOS F operation if remaining an all-way-stop. During the PM peak hour, aft intersections would be operating acceptably with the addition of project Phase I traffic with one exception: Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. The project would increase PM r peak hour volumes by more than two percent at this intersection, which would already be experiencing unacceptable (LOS F) operation with Base Case volumes for the stop sign- controlled left turn movement from Chestnut Avenue. This would be a significant adverse impact. (Supplemental Impact T-4) r Year 2010 -Phase 1. During the AM peak hour, Phase I traffic would result in significant r adverse impacts at the following location, which would already be experiencing unacceptable r operation with Base Case volumes: • Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard r (more than a two percent increase in traffic added to Base Case LOS F signalized operation.) (Supplemental Impact T-5) r During the PM peak hour, Phase I traffic would result in significant adverse impacts at the r following locations, which would already be experiencing unacceptable operation without the r project: r Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard r (more than a two percent increase in traffic added to Base Case LOS F signalized r operation.) (Supplemental Impact T-6) r Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue (If this intersection remains unsignalized, more than r a two percent increase in traffic volumes would be added to Base Case LOS F operation r for the stop sign-controlled left turn movement from Chestnut Avenue.) (Supplemenfal r Impacf T-7) r WP5115481 FSEIRIlV-C-REV.548 Terrabay Project Revised Draft SEIR City of South San Francisco IV.C. Transportation October 25, 1996 Page 129 Table 16 BASE CASE INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE--(AM) AND PM PEAK HOUR, WITHOUT r AND WITH PROJECT (WITHOUT FLYOVERI Year 2000 Year 2010 Year 2010 Base Case Base Case Base Case & Year 2000 & Project Year 2010 & Project Total Project Intersection Base Case Phase I Base Case Phase I (Phases I, II, III) Signalized r Hillside Blvd/Jefferson St/ A - .36' South San Francisco Drive (Phase I Access) r Hillside Blvd/Sister Cities A - .43' Blvd Sister Cities Blvd/South San N/A Francisco Drive/(Phase II Access) r Sister Cities Blvd/Oyster (D - .72)' r Point Blvd/Bayshore Blvd/ C - .59' Airport Blvd r Oyster Point Blvd/Dubuque (B - .52)' r Ave/US 101 NB on-ramp C - .67' r Dubuque Ave/US 101 NB (A - .35)' r off-ramp/US 101 SB on-ramp A - .43' r Bayshore Blvd/US 101 SB r ramps/Project Commercial N/A Access (Phase III) Unsignalized A-.42 A-.42 A-.48 B-.54 A-.47 A-.48 B-.51 B-.57 N/A N/A N/A A - .42' (D-.74) (F-1.27) (F-1.29) (F-1.60) C-.61 E-.87 E-.89 E-.92 (B-.52) (F-1.59) (F-1.59) (F-1.61) C-.68 F-1.22 F-1.22 F-1.21 (A - .35) (D - .82) (D - .83) (E - .95) A-.44 E-.92 E-.92 D-.78 (F - 1.51)' N/A N/A N/A F - 1.17' r Hillside Blvd/Evergreen Dr D - 20.92 D - 22.3 C - 13.1 C - 13.2 C - 14.7 r Hillside Blvd/Chestnut Ave F3 F F F F r A-.41' A-.44' A-.44 A-.46 B-.54 r US 101 SB off-ramp/NB (F)` (F) (F) r Bayshore Blvd (All-Way Stop) (E - .897)' (E - .906) (F - 1.60) (F - 1.60) r C-14.4` C-15.8 F N/A r A/B-.50' B-.52 E-.96' E-.98 SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group. ' Signalized level of service -volume/capacity ratio. 2 Unsignalized level of service/average vehicle delay (in seconds) -eastbound left turn from Evergreen Drive. r 3 Unsignalized level of service -average vehicle delay (in seconds) -eastbound left turn from Chestnut r Avenue. r ° All way stop level of service -average vehicle delay in seconds. WP5115481FSE/RIl V-C-REV 548 Terrabay Project Revised Draft SEIR City of South San Francisco IV.C. Transportation October 25, 1996 Page 130 r Year 2010 -Phases 1, 11 and 111. Phase III of the project would include construction of new US 101 southbound on and off hook ramps connecting to Bayshore Boulevard at a signalized intersection that would also serve as the primary access to the project's commercial portion. These ramps would be located at about the same location as the existing southbound off- r ramp connection to Bayshore Boulevard. Provision of a new southbound hook on-ramp along r Bayshore Boulevard as part of project Phase III would remove a substantial amount of Brisbane traffic bound for southbound US 101 that previously would have travelled through the Oyster Point interchange to access the southbound on-ramp at Dubuque Avenue. Thus, r during the PM peak hour, even with the addition of traffic from full Terrabay r development, operation at two of the three intersections within the Oyster Point r interchange (i.e., the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound on- r ramp and Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound off-ramp/US 101 southbound on-ramp r intersections) would be better with project Phases I, II and III (and the new southbound r hook on-ramp along Bayshore Boulevard) than without the project' r As shown in Table 16, due to the new southbound hook on-ramp to be installed as part of r project Phase III, the project would reduce unacceptable year 2010 PM peak hour operating r conditions (i.e., a beneficial effect) at: (1) the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/US 101 r northbound ramps intersection from a Base Case 1.22 V/C ratio without the project to a 1.21 r V/C ratio with the project, and (2) the Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound off- r ramp/southbound on-ramp intersection from a .92 V/C ratio (LOS E) without the project to a r .78 V/C ratio (LOS D) with the project. During the AM peak hour, traffic from Phases I, II and III would result in significant adverse impacts at the following locations: • Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard r (more than a two percent increase in volume added to Base Case LOS F operation.) r (Supplemental Impact T-8) r Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound on-ramp (more than a two r percent increase in traffic added to Base Case LOS F operation.) (Supplemental r Impact T-9) r Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound off-ramp/US 101 southbound on-ramp (acceptable r base case LOS D operation is changed to unacceptable LOS E operation with the r addition of project traffic) (Supplemental Impact T-10) • Bayshore Boulevard/US 101 southbound on- and off-ramps/project commercial access r (LOS F operation and lack of sufficient turning lane vehicle storage for this new r intersection). (Supplemental Impact T-11) 'The project commercial area would also be accessed via two right turn in/right turn out driveways along Bayshore Boulevard, one north and one south of the commercial area's signalized access. WP5115481FSEIRtIV-C-REV 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 131 r During the PM peak hour, traffic from the total project would result in significant adverse r impacts at the following locations: r Sister Cities Boulevard/Dysfer Point Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard r (more than a two percent increase in volume added to Base Case LOS E operation, r resulting in a change to LOS F operation). (Supplemental Impact T-12) • Bayshore Boulevard/US 101 southbound on- and off-ramps/project commercial access r (LOS F operation for this new intersection). (Supplemental Impact T-13) • Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue (If this intersection remains unsignalized, more than r a two percent increase in traffic volumes would be added to the Base Case LOS F operation for the stop sign-controlled left turn movement from Chestnut Avenue.) r (Supplemental Impact T-14) f. Proiect Freeway Link Impacts Table 17 presents year 2000 and 2010 PM peak hour project traffic impacts on US 101 freeway link operation. Year 2000 -Phase 1. Phase I traffic would not significantly affect PM peak hour operation of US 101 in 2000. Project traffic would not change level of service of any analyzed freeway r segment and would not increase volumes by two percent or more along the three segments r (north of Sierra Point and south of Oyster Point) projected to experience LOS F Base Case r operation in 2000. Year 2010 -Phase 1. Phase I traffic would not significantly affect PM peak hour operation of r US 101 in 2010. Project traffic would not increase volumes by two percent or more along r analyzed segments, which are all projected to experience LOS F Base Case operation in r 2010. Year 2010 -Phases 1, ll and Ill. Traffic from Phases I, II and III would increase PM peak hour r peak direction Base Case V/C ratios by more than two percent along the US 101 freeway r segments between the Oyster Point interchange and the South Airport Boulevard interchange, r locations which are projected to already experience LOS F Base Case operation in 2010 r without the project. This would represent a significant adverse project impact. r (Supplemenfal Impact T-15) g. Proiect Freeway Ramp Impacts Table 18 presents project impacts on year 2000 and 2010 AM and PM peak hour operation of the Oyster Point interchange ramps and the southbound off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard. WP5115481 FSE/ R 1 ! V- C - RE V. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 O O N fd d } O Y Q w Z O } Q W W tr LL O T ~ U T w ~~ ~ a _ cn y -O OJ l1 LL LL LL ~ 7 C M a ~ _ N > I ~ _ f`') lA l0 C ~ f4 - ~ .- r r r U ti d O E ~ O ~ 1 A N ~ ~ ~~ pp IA ~ IMA }~ aa O m ~ ma >° ~ ~ _ ~ ~ o °° ~ L U c~ U m N I OJ LL LL LL LL y ~ O a N >I ~ N ~ ~ _ ~ o ~ E ~ o 0 0 n tN4 L O ~ M N t 0 O . c na > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o v c ~ ~ ~ I o, ~ ~ ~ LL LL LL LL a ~ o _ a N N >I V N In ~ ~ ~ C .X O U a> E O O O O ~ ~ ~ Y CO > N V ('~ ~ d ro ~ o a L ~ ~ y ~ ~, OJI LL w LL LL 'ca a a ~ = a N U ~ c~ O N M _ O a O ~ _ ~ ~ a ,. ~ N U j- O ~ r r y cC > C a G> vOi ~ I ~ M ~ cOD O O ~ U N L ~ O ~ M ~ ~ U U ~ 7] LL > 01 00 O O~ y ~ _ N V1 f0 ~ fp O ~ ~ ~ d p ~ ~ ~ a ~ I . N~ J LL W LL LL ~[ t ~ U UJ rnc~ m ~rna~c ' N > c~ O N 01 O v O 0 c N E .~ y O RS r r ~ C f0 Y N T H lC U O ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ uo> coy row vo> ~ m r 3 N ~ o o of ~ ao c~ of of a~ ` ~ ~; m > ¢ n.: >' ~ m O ~ N L O L ~ ~E ~ ~ ~ ~ w w w w ° ~~ m E U ~ o o rn ca w o Sao o.c o': > 01 00 ~ OD a N 7 d ~ E N C O ~ O _ C~O~ ~ ~ 0 X O '7 O `7 C ~ y y r ~~ o m c _.-. ~ (A U ~ 7 T U ~ O O O O tC0 > d lC4 c~0 f0 ~ j C O N GD D ('~ f`7 i CD O ~ ~ A U ~ •x 0 2 U o M O C c W ~ ~' c t00 p cp O O ~ ~ y N ~ . - - U co f0 O U ~ ~~ U~ d~R ~, ~ .i= .o ~ .o m d Q a a 'v U U E o no. a d Q Q~ U -Ya c>a ~ d E s c R m m~ ~ ~ o ~ a= m ~ c c ~ C ciLU.O ° ~ ~ ~ ~ cii z a in O O t7 C7 ~ cn C7 S o O O O N ca m Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 132 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 U v ~. ~ ~ v >. ~. >. T >. _ ~ ~~ va ~ad`~ ~~ vn ~na1°a ~`a~`a y . C S C fC v ~9 ~ W . 0~ C ffl v !0 C R1 v ffl C f0 ~ ~. V 7 U U O U ~. V 7 U U 7 U U 7 U d U ~ N d ~ O W Ua` E o o rn N ~ ~ ;n ~ 0 0 m ~ N m ~ in ~ C ~ .: ~ v ~ co m F-' ~ N ~ N N ~ N v . .. a -~ . fb ~ ~ U ~ y ~U U ~ V (3' m ~ • ~ ~~ va a ~ ,V a~va ~ ~ ~ ava ¢ ~ ~, ~ am0 . C~ c m ..v ~ o ~ . v R «. t0 v~ v p ~0 c ea ..u ~ ~ S v cQ c <a U~ ~ z Q ya R ~ U ~ m l °' °' ~ o in ca °° ~ ~ ° o o o r` 0 ,n rn °° 0D Q Z ~ o ~ ~ o. a ~ O m d~ ~ N N ~ N . .. N C ~ iv R d V ~ ~9 N U U N R ~ °' ~ a -oa N 14 ~ co. ci f 0 aO.~a ~ l 9 ~a~a ¢ ~ O .~.c~i~o ~c~i ou °c~i~c`0i ~c`~i~ct°i Z O o °7 Y N V~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ Q Q ~ N ~ I ~ _ ~ Q~ ~ O~ v CO Z W ~ m~ N .- ~ v N c ~ O >. >. ~ ~. >. >. >. >. N 7 R 6 U gy A ~ i N U U d - ~ m ~ m ) ~ c a~ ~ ~ N - p ~Q~a ~ v Sava c ~ f 0 0 ~a~a Q a~ 0 ~ v~ o ~ ~p c <o v~ U v ro c ca ~~ ~ v <o c m ~~ o z ~ ~ n. Q U V~ O ~ p ~ p N ~ ~ Q °' °' ~ ~° N ~ ~ ch = ~ ~ v ch Z Z o ma> . ~ Q ~ O ~+ T ?. >. ~. >. !. >. ~~iv~ ~ ~ mm _ ~ ~ma`~ ~ a`~~ °' W y c C c o c C c o C c pc - v c o ~ a Q O` O ~ ~ A ~ U ~ U t0 A ~ U ~ U ca ca ~ U 7 U t t 0 ~ U ~ U Z O d d c O N ~ V E ~ N l!') ~ O ~ O N Q Q ~ N ~ N in ~ ch ~ to v c? Z ~ r m ° > } °o °o °o W a0 O O N t7D W ~ ~ O O ~ U N N LL .- m m 0 ~ m ff D L H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. O ~ m H W o o fl o o (A .. .~ .. .~ a .~ ~ (¢j E ~ E E~ E E E °~ f4 f0 > (0 f0 (0 O ° (A o~ om o o `o~ cC Q cn m? m'o m > m > m> ~ CD ~ cn m Z d Z Q to Q rn m Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 133 m Q. ~U ~ ~ a ~, U ca 3 aNi m C U N ~ Q ~ '7 ~ C ~ E~ d E c ~ E .~ '~ U ~ ~ T ~ a~ ~ c _ ~ m N ~ ~ ~ f0 U _ 0- ~ 7 ~ l0 n = m o _ m .~ a 0 a L 'o ~ m ~ C ~ ~ ~ O QR am ~+ L ~ ~ N `~~° a ~ `0 N C ~)C C U ~ t6 ~ O J ~ ~~ E ~ ~ N ~ :J H 3 ~ az0 . . Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Table 19 PROJECT IMPACTS TO COLMA INTERSECTIONS Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 134 Traffic Added by Terrabay Total Existing' PM Phase I (2000) Phases I, II and III (2010) Peak Hour Volumes % Added % Added Intersection Entering Intersection Volume to Existing Volume to Existing Serramonte Blvd/ 1,197 20 1.7% 50 4.2% Hillside Blvd Serramonte Blvd/EI 3,043 15 .5% 40 Camino Real Serramonte Blvd/ ~ 3,463 10 .3% 25 Junipero Serra Blvd/ I-280 northbound onramp SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group and the city's Cypress Hills DEIR, May 1994. ' 1992 and 1993 volumes, Cypress Hills DEIR, May 1994. 1.3% 7% WP5115481 FSEIRII V-C-REV.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 135 Year 2000 -Phase 1. Phase I AM or PM peak hour traffic would not significantly affect any of the four US 101 freeway ramps in the year 2000. Year 2010 -Phase 1. Phase I AM or PM peak hour traffic would not significantly affect any of the four US 101 freeway ramps in 2010. Year 2010 -Phases 1, ll and Ill. During the 2010 AM peak hour, total project traffic would r result in significant adverse impacts (more than a two percent increase in volume to over r capacity Base Case operation) at two ramp locations: the southbound off-ramp to Bayshore r Boulevard and the northbound off-ramp to Dubuque Avenue. (Supplemental Impact T-16 r and Supplemental Impact T-17) During the 2010 PM peak hour, traffic from Phases I, II and III would not increase traffic volumes at any ramp above capacity. The addition of project vehicles would, however, r increase volumes by more than two percent at the already over capacity northbound on-ramp r from Oyster Point Boulevard. (Supplemental Impact T-18) h. Protect Impacts on Colma Intersections The city of Colma has expressed concern regarding project traffic impacts at three intersections along Serramonte Boulevard: at Hillside Boulevard, EI Camino Real and Junipero Serra Boulevard--I-280 northbound on-ramp. Projections were made as to the likely amount of PM peak hour Phase I and Phases I, II and III traffic that would likely travel through each of these intersections. Table 19 presents the total amount of traffic' passing through each of these intersections, the amount of project traffic expected to pass through each intersection and the percent traffic added by the project. The percentages shown in Table 19 attributable to project traffic would be 10 to 20 percent lower if an approximately one percent per year growth in traffic volumes were added to the existing traffic volume base to the years 2000 and 2010. No significant impacts were identified for year 2000 or 2010 Base Case plus Phase I traffic conditions. However, in 2010 with Phases I, II and III, the Serramonte Boulevard/Hillside Boulevard intersection would be expected to experience an approximately four percent increase in traffic volumes, which would be considered a significant adverse impact. r (Supplemental Impact T-19) 4. SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATION NEEDS Transportation impact mitigation needs have changed from those identified in the 1982 EIR r (see Table 12). Several of the mitigations identified in the 1982 EIR were subsequently '1992 and 1993 traffic volumes from the Cypress Hills DEIR, May, 1994. WP5115481FSE/RIl V-C-REV 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 136 incorporated into the specific plan and development agreement and have been completed as part of Phase I roadway improvements. These completed mitigations include: • construction of Sister Cities Boulevard (referred to as the Hillside Extension in the 1982 EIR) between its intersections with Hillside Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard; r widening of Hillside Boulevard (renamed Hillside Boulevard Extension) and creation of r local traffic lanes and a landscaped buffer separating local access movements (along r Hillside Boulevard) from higher speed traffic along Hillside Boulevard Extension between Sister Cities Boulevard and Lincoln Street (the segment fronting the project site); • signalization of intersections at the new Oyster Point interchange and the Hillside r Boulevard Extension/Jefferson Street, Hillside Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard, Sister Cities Boulevard/South San Francisco Drive and Sister Cities Boulevard/Airport r Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard intersections; and r removal of the existing stop signs for Hillside Boulevard Extension traffic at the Hillside r Boulevard Extension/Kearny Street and Hillside Boulevard Extension/Irving Street intersections. (A new all-way stop sign was installed at the Hillside Boulevard/Lincoln Street intersection to permit vehicles to exit Lincoln Street under conditions of heavy r truck traffic, high speeds, and limited line-of-sight to the west along Hillside Boulevard at this location.) Mitigations recommended in the 1982 EIR that are still proposed in this SEIR include: • reconstruction of the US 101 southbound "scissors" off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard as a hook off-ramp (however, the recommended lane geometrics at this location have changed due to changes in projected traffic volumes) and construction of a new hook on- ramp for southbound traffic, both in conjunction with project Phase III; • signalization of the Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue and US 101 southbound off- ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard intersections; and r implementation of transportation system management (TSM) measures. Additional mitigations have also been recommended in this SEIR for identified significant impacts at the Serramonte Boulevard/Hillside Boulevard intersection in Colma and at the northbound off-ramp from US 101 to Dubuque Avenue. These remaining 1982 EIR and new SEIR mitigation needs are described below. a. Base Case Mitigation Needs Without Proiect Figure 20 presents Year 2000 Base Case mitigation needs without the project. Figure 21 r presents Year 2010 Base Case mitigation needs without the project and without a southbound r to eastbound flyover offramp. WP51 i5481FSElRIIV-C-REV 548 o ~ ~w w "~zo z~ 1 O L ~ ~' '~ ~1 T ~' ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ w any as ngnp o : ° r~1 ~ o ~ 6 r as e` ~ e s Z O a Z O W .°. 6 ~ e y O e ~ ,~ O w O ~~ ---- Pa16 a~oy~~ay Pala y~o ily O ~ N ~~~~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~Tjr ~ ~----- - w I o ~ ~ ~ I °' I u ~+ yD ar ~ ~~ Z ° w .Da ~ ~ _ '`~~ eo o ~ .j. ~ •N 3 OP ~ c ° 11 ~.. r Z ` M ~ n ~ -~ ~ T I r ,e ~S aoual~a ._ 0 ~- Y '°y O c C7 O v F a) U w z U v 5 b 3 "~- N ~yi "y 3 O ~~ 'w' O ~w --~ A /,. L .~ W ~~! l~.~ ~- * z -~ O ~ E--~ ,.v sn ngn4 ~ w o. a` °; o c C o. ZO o ZO /^~~~ • ~ a ~+ 1~ r. ~ .°. r - fn O ~ L f~ O H O r~//~~ L ~~ _~ ~ P~IY sioyu~p Pali »o ny VJ W o E ~ V O a o ~~ .~ A - -' ~~TT m~ ~ I ~ ~ O y ~' u I e Q m~ ; ~ ox~ a~ v_ v °C Loo I u CV C-' ~ ~ ~ .. s v m ~ o ° o e~° ~/ M2~1 0 ~ '° E ° g~ `• L w A ~ w a` Z ~ ~ 0 p~J `n s 0 1 I* a, h 1T r ,, +s oo.,~j,, .-- o •- • ''v~ O ° c C7 ~_ Y ~ d A U t W N N Q~ d v 0 3 Terrabay Project Revised Draft SEIR City of South San Francisco IV.C. Transportation October 25, 1996 Page 139 (1) Intersection Signalization r The following Base Case physical mitigations should be implemented by the city to reduce significant impacts identified for anticipated Base Case future traffic conditions (without the project) to less than significant levels, with fair share contributions from all Base Case developments: (a) Year 2000: r Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. Signalize. Coordinate (sequence) this signalization with the nearby Hillside Boulevard/Stonegate Drive signal. Resultant PM r peak hour operation: LOS A r Note: Alternatively, associated engineering evaluation may also indicate that the Stonegate Drive signal (and associated sequencing) is no longer needed and that instead of signal sequencing, the Stonegate signal can be replaced with a stop sign on the Stonegate approach only (i. e., if the new Chestnut Avenue signal will provide sufficient gaps in eastbound Hillside Boulevard traffic flow to allow safe stop sign- r controlled turn movements from Stonegate Drive). Monitoring/evaluation may or may not also indicate that a change in the nearby all-way-stop-sign-controlled Hillside Boulevard/ Lincoln Street intersection--i.e., removal of stop signs on the Hillside Boulevard r approaches, along with restrictions allowing inbound right turns to Lincoln Street only-- r may be possible. • US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard. Signalize when warranted and add second off-ramp intersection approach and departure lanes. r Resultant peak hour operation: LOS B in the AM peak hour; LOS A in the PM peak hour. (b) Year 2010: r Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. Signalize. Resultant PM peak hour operation: LOS A • US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard. Signalize when r warranted and add second off-ramp intersection approach and departure lanes, as well r as second northbound Bayshore Boulevard approach and departure lanes. Resultant r peak hour operation: LOS D in the AM peak hour; LOS A in the PM peak hour. (2) Intersection Geometric Improvements (Base Case without Project) (a) Year 2000: • US 101 southbound off-ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard. Add a second lane to the southbound off-ramp and signalize the intersection. Resultant peak hour r operation: LOS B in the AM peak hour; LOS A in the PM peak hour. WP5115481FSEIRIlV-C-REV 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 140 (b) Year 2010: • Sister Cities Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard/Oyster Point r Boulevard. Implement both of the following improvements: r (1) Complete Maximum Practical Intersection Lane Addition Improvements. Complete r the following: r Airport Boulevard northbound - restripe and provide 1left-turn/2 through/1 right-turn lane r Oyster Point Boulevard westbound - add a second through lane (this would require r widening the freeway overpass) r Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound - add a second left-turn lane r Resultant peak hour operation: LOS F in the AM peak hour; LOS C in the PM peak r hour; i.e., these maximum practical intersection lane improvements would improve peak r hour operation, but would not provide acceptable AM peak hour operation (see Figure r 21). r (2) Construct Southbound to Eastbound Flyover Off-ramp. Construct a southbound to r eastbound flyover ramp as described above in order to provide acceptable AM peak hour r operation. r A US 101 southbound flyover off-ramp would connect with eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard to the east of the Dubuque Avenue intersection.' (Figures 22 and 23 present 2010 AM and PM peak hour Base Case traffic volumes, respectively, without the project and with the flyover. Figure 24 presents 2010 Base Case intersection approach lane needs with the flyover.) r No additional approach widening (such as the measure listed above) would be required r with the flyover. r Resultant peak hour operation: LOS B in the AM peak hour; LOS C in the PM peak hour. Note: As can be seen by comparing Figures 21 and 24, provision of the southbound off- ramp flyover significantly reduces the level of improvement (i.e., number of new lanes) r needed for the year 2010 Base Case conditions at the Sister Cities Boulevard/Bayshore r Boulevard/Airport Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard intersection. 'Such a southbound off-ramp flyover was proposed and approved as part of the recently completed Oyster Point interchange reconstruction project, but was not constructed due to cost reduction measures. The flyover has been identified as an "ultimate" mitigation need for the traffic impacts of r cumulative development in the vicinity, with or without the Terrabay project. WP5115481 FSE1RIl V-C-REV.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 14t r Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound on-ramp. Implement r both of the following improvements: r (1) Complete Maximum Practical Intersection Lane Addition Improvements. Complete the following: r Oyster Point Boulevard westbound - add a second right-turn lane (this would require r widening the Oyster Point Boulevard bridge across the railroad) r Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound -add one additional through lane (this would require r widening the freeway overpass) r Resultant peak hour operation: LOS F in the AM peak hour; LOS F in the PM peak r hour; i.e., these maximum practical intersection lane improvements would improve AM r and PM peak hour operation, but not to acceptable LOS levels (see Figure 21). r (2) Construct Southbound to Eastbound Flyover Off-ramp. Construct a southbound to r eastbound flyover offramp. r Resultant peak hour operation: LOS D in the AM peak hour; LOS F in the PM peak r hour; i.e., this measure would provide acceptable AM peak hour operation, but would not r provide acceptable PM peak hour operation, even with the lane addition improvements r listed above (see Figure 24). • US 101 Southbound Off•Ramp/Northbound Bayshore Boulevard. Implement one of the following alternative mitigations: (1) Complete Intersection Improvements. Add a second lane to the southbound off- r ramp approach and a second lane to the northbound Bayshore Boulevard approach. r Signalize the intersection (see Figure 21). r Resultant peak hour operation: LOS D in the AM peak hour; LOS A in the PM peak hour. r (2) Construct Southbound Flyover Off-ramp. Provide a southbound to eastbound r flyover off-ramp as described above (see Figure 24). In addition, provide a second off- r ramp approach lane and signalize the intersection. r Resultant peak hour operation: LOS A in the AM peak hour; LOS C in the PM peak hour. • Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound off-ramp' -southbound on-ramp. Add a second left-turn lane to the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach (see Figure 21). WP5115481 FSE/RIl V-C-REV.548 950 ~ 350 I -/ ,/ 15 I I I I 101 2105 ~ 545 ~ 60 ~ ~- 120 70 685 ~1~. x-90 ~. 90 --? I r I \ 530 -- 35 180 215 ~ 245 / L 400\ ~- 195 r- 455 210 ~ I I > is 1000 -~ 105 2330 ' NB 101 ias -~ 30 ~ d Onramp / 0 n ea ~ O ater Point vd ' L ° ,~ 120 ~ F- o m U S ~ 1~. ~° ., 101 2400 -~ ~ 1 r Y ~ 0 -- 60 ~ 40 0 65 Sister Cities Blvd ~noAh SOURCE: Crane TrarBportalion Group Y NB 101 Offramp ~ SB 101 0~ a Onramp ~ O Figure 22 YEAR 2010 BASE CASE TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR--WITH FLYOVER Wagstaff and Associates N 00 w ~ ~ O Ow -~ ~~ ~ H .~ 1 ~. r ~ -' 1~ ~-- ~ __~ ~~ - ~ ~ 6 rT, O aay an6aga4 rw^ ~Wr1 o as `e ~ v J = v N > ~~ =o V w L W ~ cn a. ~ ~ __ PaIY asoquap P•IQ }ao i}y w- o Q ~~ ~+ .'. !~ - + 0 _- =`° ~" N ..._ W .-~ 1 ~. r ~ ~ ,.._, ~~~ir ~~ ^_-= Y ~ 7 r ~ aL~r• a7 O u era •-1l D 0 H ~ L - ~ - I~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ `~- e G ~ ~ O Y1 ~ i ~ I( 7 L O • n O! ~ n 4 1S YOa77))i as - C - ~ h --, P•IY +P!alilH yJ D p C c 0 Y l0 O A !"' A U IJ.t Q H N y~ 4 .d N 0 3 NF"y'~j 7 O I ~ ~ O 1~1 ~w t a Q ~~_ ~ N ( + ~ _ OD ~ _ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ - ~ - Zw ~' ~. o ~ ~ Q! x P~Ifl aaogc~sg P~IH ~1O S .'s~ L "~ H V 0 ~ ~lrTr ~ ~ e sra» c~ ua isa -i ~ 3aa,oid -s s . d c ~ V L o O ~ ~T~ h^~ __ o h+r Y 'w O Y Y ~ ~ u a 7. ~ Y ~ ~` u ~ : ~ J y d : d !~ ~ ° 6 0. N ~ :° ~ c 11 ~. ~ ° C N = ~"'~~ ~ z ~ 'O O ~ t ~ Y • ° t V ~ ~ y ~' r T, O y ssa»y !s!~aap!cay w~.l 7C ~ ~g uosaa~~a s -/ m i Y i ~ ~•~ P~[fl aP!ctl!H yj o` s: Y Y V m V O l0 A U t U N Q~ n~ 4 b 0 3 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 145 Resultant PM peak hour operation: LOS E; i.e., these maximum practical lane addition improvements would not provide acceptable PM peak hour operation. r The southbound flyover off-ramp mitigation would not significantly affect (mitigate) r operation at this intersection. r (3) Freeway Link Improvements (Base Case without Proiect) (a) Year 2000: • Caltrans does not plan to add additional travel lanes to the segment of US 101 through and just north of South San Francisco by the year 2000. Therefore, mitigation of projected unacceptable commute peak period operational impacts would require r voluntary implementation of a combination of transportation demand management (TDM) r and transportation system management (TSM) measures to reduce peak hour demand. Such measures should include incentives to car/vanpool, increased transit availability, provision of flex time working hours for employees, expansion of telecommuting, etc. r The city shall continue to cooperate with MTSMA in its efforts to encourage and foster r voluntary TDM and TSM measures in the Terrabay, East-of-101, and other employment- r intensive development areas in order to reduce commute peak hour automobile travel on r the local freeway network. Bus/shuttle access to CalTrain and BART shall be promoted. (b) Year 2010: • Same mitigation as for year 2000 Base Case without Project, above. Freeway Ramp Improvements (Base Case without Proiect) (a) Year 2000: No significant impacts identified; no mitigation measures are required. (b) Year 2010: • Southbound Off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard. Add a second off-ramp lane connection to the southbound freeway mainline and an extended deceleration lane along the freeway mainline. Resultant AM peak hour operation: Under Capacity. • Northbound Off-ramp to Dubuque Avenue. Add a second off-ramp lane connection to the northbound freeway mainline. Resultant AM peak hour operation: Under Capacity. r Northbound On-ramp from Oyster Pofnt Boulevard. No freeway ramp improvements r would be necessary, assuming implementation of the TSM measures described below r under section a(5). Implementation of the TSM measures alone would be expected to r reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Resultant PM peak hour operation: r Under capacity. WP5115481 FSEI RIlV-C-REV.548 Terrabay Project Revised Draft SEIR City of South San Francisco IV.C. Transportation October 25, i 996 Page 146 r (5) Transportation System Management Measures r Maximum allowable levels of service after mitigation at those intersections for which significant r Base Case impacts have been identified are presented in Table 20. As shown by these r exhibits, the maximum practical physical mitigations shown for the year 2010 Base Case r (without project) would still not provide acceptable operation for Base Case (without project) r volumes at two intersections: the Dyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/US 101 r northbound on-ramp and Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound off-ramp/southbound on-ramp r intersections. However, the analysis does indicate that the year 2010 Base Case impacts of r these two intersections can be further reduced to less than significant levels through r implementation of voluntary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures for r future new employment intensive uses developed in the East-of-101 vicinity. r A recent state legislative action invalidated Bay Area Air Quality Management District r (BAAQMD) Regulation 13, Rule 1, which had mandated employer-based average vehicle r ridership reductions in the air basin, and which provided the basis for local imposition of TSM r requirements, including the city's TSM ordinance. With the invalidation of BAAQMD r Regulation 13, Rule 1, future TSM-based vehicular trip reductions in the air basin can no r longer be mandated; rather, they must now be achieved on a voluntary, individual employer r basis. r The Multi-City TSM Agency (MTSMA) is a Joint Powers Authority created in 1991 between the r cities of Brisbane, Colma, Daly City, Half Moon Bay, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno, and South r San Francisco. The mission of the MTSMA is to reduce traffic congestion and improve air r quality through use of TSM strategies that reduce automobile commute trips. Based on recent r surveys of employers and commuters in the CMA region following the invalidation of r Regulation 13, Rule 1, including a 1996 telephone survey of commuters by RIDES for Bay r Area Commuters, Inc.,' the MTSMA believes that voluntary TSM efforts can be expected to r have a continuing substantial effect in reducing future peak period vehicular use on the study r area roadway system.2 r The EIR authors and the EIR transportation engineer have determined that, in addition to the r TSM-based vehicular trip reductions already reflected in the case study based trip generation r rates used in this traffic analysis (approximately 6 percent), an additional vehicular trip r reduction of at least 12 percent can be anticipated in the project/East-of-101 vicinity due to r continued voluntary TSM activity in the future. This assumption is based upon discussions r 'RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, Inc., Commute Profile '96, July 1996, MTSMA Region r Supplement ,based on an April 1996 telephone survey of commuters. r 2Telephone conversation with Angela Rae, Executive Administrator, MTSMA; August 16 and 19, r 1996. WP5115481FSEIRIIV-C-REV 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 147 Table 20 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE AFTER MITIGATION--(AM) AND PM PEAK HOUR Year 2000 Year Base Case 2010 Base Year 2010 Year 2000 & Project Year 2010 Case plus Base Case plus Intersection Base Case Phase I Base Case Phase I Phases I, II, III r Supplemental Impact T-2 r SB US 101 off-ramp/ (B - .56)' (B - .56)' (D - .80)2 (D - .80)2 r NB Bayshore Blvd A - .482 A - .492 r (A - .43)F (A - .43)F r (C - 65.)F (C - .67)F r Supplemental Impact T-5/T-6/T-8/T-12 r Sister Cities Blvd/ r Bayshore Blvd/Airport Blvd/Oyster Point Blvd r Supplemental Impact T-9 r Oyster Point Blvd/ r Dubuque Ave/US 101 NB on-ramp r Supplemental Impact T-10 r Dubuque Ave/US 101 r NB off-ramp/US 101 SB on-ramp r Supplemental Impact T-11/T-13 r Bayshore Blvd/US 101 r SB ramps/Project Commercial Access (Phase III) r With Voluntary TDM' r Supplemental Impact T-9 r Oyster Point Blvd/ r Dubuque Ave/US 101 NB on-ramp (B - .57)3F (C - .59~3F (D - .81~3F C - .703E D - .723 D - .833 (D - .85)4F (D - .85)4F (E - .86)aF F - 1.084E F - 1.084E E - 1.004E (E-.94)5/(D-.80)6F E-.875 E-.885 D-.785 (D - .80~'F D-.85' (D - .81)aF (D - .82)aF (D - .82~4F F - 1.034E F - 1.034F E - .954 r Supplemental Impact T-10 r Dubuque Ave/US 101 r NB off-ramp/US 101 SB on-ramp (D - .78)5 (D - .78)5 (E - .89)5 E-.865 E-.865 D-.715 r SUUhiGt: Crane I ransportaUOn Group, Wagstaff and Associates. r "Note. For Supplemental Impacts T-9 and T-10, the peak hour LOS (V/C) figures in Table 20 indicate r that the recommended maximum practical physical improvements alone will not reduce the peak hour r LOS (V/C) figure to less than significant levels. However, the analysis does indicate that the year 2010 r Base Case plus Project effects on these two intersections can be reduced to less than significant levels r through implementation of voluntary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures for the WP5115481 FSElR I I V-C-RE V. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, ~ 996 Table 20 (cont.) Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 148 r project and other future new employment intensive uses developed in the area. The V/C ratios and r LOS figures in this table for the "with TDM" mitigation scenario include a 12 percent reduction in year r 2010 peak period trips for future new employment intensive uses due to anticipated voluntary TDM r measures to reduce auto use. For more explanation, see Appendix C. ' Add 2nd southbound lane to off-ramp/signalization and extended deceleration lane on freeway. r z Add 2nd southbound lane to off-ramp/second northbound lane to Bayshore Boulevard/signalization. r F With flyover off-ramp. r 3 Restripe the NB Airport Boulevard approach to provide 1 left, 2 through and 1 right turn lane. r ° Add 1 through lane on EB Oyster Point approach and a second right turn lane on WB Oyster Point r approach. r 5 Add 2nd lest turn lane on northbound Dubuque approach with or without flyover mitigation. r s Restripe northbound off-ramp intersection approach to provide two exclusive left turn lanes and one r combined left/through/right turn lane. Sign off-ramp to inform drivers which left turn lane to use r depending upon desired turn movement at Oyster Point Boulevard. r ' Add second through lane on project driveway EB approach. Second NB and SB left turn lanes also r recommended due to heavy left turn movements on both approaches. EB =Eastbound WB =Westbound NB =Northbound L =left turn lane T =through lane R =right turn lane SB =Southbound F =with flyover TR =combined through/right turn lane WP5115481 FSElRII V-C-REV.548 Terrabay Project Revised Draft SEIR City of South San Francisco IV.C. Transportation October 25, 1996 Page 149 r with MTSMA staff,' consideration of the 1996 telephone survey by RIDES for Bay Area and r San Mateo County commuters, and consideration of local project area and East-of-101 vicinity r conditions with respect to land use mix, employer characteristics (the mix of large and small r employers), transit provision, BART proximity, and CalTrain proximity. (See Appendix C for r the specific rationale for this TSM-based additional 12 percent peak period automobile use r reduction assumption.) r Therefore, the city shall continue to cooperate with MTSMA in its efforts to foster continued, r voluntary TSM measures in the East-of-101, and other employment-intensive development r areas of the city as a mitigation measure for all Year 2010 Base Case peak period roadway r system operational impacts identified in this E/R. r Assumed Mitigation Result: a 12 percent reduction in anticipated peak period automobile use r by future new employment intensive development in the East-of-101 area for the Year 2010 r Base Case (see Appendix C herein). b. Base Case Plus Protect Mitigation Needs (1) Intersection signalization (a) Year 2000 -Phase I: (Supplemental Impact T-1) Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. With project Phase I, r signalize this intersection. The Terrabay Development Agreement assigns complete r responsibility to the project for signalization of this intersection. Resultant PM peak hour operation: LOS A. (b) Year 2010 -Phase I: r (Supplemental Impact T-2) Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. With project Phase I, r signalize this intersection. Resultant PM peak hour operation: LOS A. US 101 Southbound Off ramp/Northbound Bayshore Boulevard. Provide afair-share r contribution towards signalization, widening the off-ramp to provide second approach and r departure lanes, and widening Bayshore Boulevard to provide second northbound approach r and departure lanes (with Phase I, or Phases I and II). Resultant peak hour operation: LOS r Din the AM peak hour; LOS A in the PM peak hour. With a flyover off-ramp in operation, r only signalization and widening of the off-ramp to provide second approach and departure r lanes would be required. r 'Ibid. WP5115481 FSEI RI I V-C-RE V. 548 Terrabay Project Ciry of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 150 Note: Bayshore Boulevard is within the Brisbane city limits. Mitigations involving improvements to Bayshore Boulevard must be coordinated with the city of Brisbane. (c) Year 2010 -Phases I, II and III: (Supplemental Impact T-3) Hillside Bou/evard/ChestnutRvenue. Same mitigation as r Supplemental Impact T-1. Resultant PM peak hour operation: LOS B. (2) Intersection Geometric Improvements (a) Year 2000 -Phase I: • (Supplemental Impact T-4) Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. Same mitigation as Supplemental Impact T-1. (b) Year 2010 -Phase I: r (Supplemental Impacfs T-5 and T-6) Sister Cities Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard. r The southbound to eastbound flyover off-ramp mitigation only, as recommended for 2010 Base Case (without project) conditions, would also provide acceptable operation for 2010 Base Case with proiect Phase I conditions. Project Phase I should provide a fair share r contribution towards the flyover. r Resultant peak hour operation: LOS C in the AM peak hour; LOS D in the PM peak hour. r (Supplemental Impact T-7) Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. Implement mitigation recommended for Supplemental Impact T-1. (c) Year 2010 -Phase I, II and III: r Year 2010 Base Case plus project Phases I, II and III mitigation needs with the r southbound off-ramp flyover are diagrammed in Figure 25. r (Supplemental Impacts T-8 and T-12) Sister Cities Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard. r Construct Southbound Flyover Off-ramp. With a southbound to eastbound flyover off- ramp, the geometrics recommended at this intersection for the 2010 Base Case r conditions with the flyover and without the project would not provide acceptable operation r with full project development. WP5115481FSEIRII V-C-REV.548 ~+ ~ t'^ ~~O O w ^, ~ ~ . L \ o_ a / L ° ~ a•W anbngn~ ~ 2 6 1~ ~~ T1'~'r ~ ~ ~' r u w ,~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ z ~~ ~ ~~ o ~ ,~z r r P•Ifl atogs ag P•Ifl ilo 3.~ O ~`O '- E- Y N ~~h 6 u ~~ 44 ~ * * ~ ~ 44 ~ V o: u<i f ** -~ ~ r sn» i, ns rss ~ ~ tt I , w ~ ---- 1 Y laa,oig _, , /'' C v c ~ 0° h~ Y Y ~ Y z ,_~ ~ .~ 11 ~ ~.aD z ~ m u ``Y, ao w G C ~ Y ~ J ~ ~ ~ w '~~~', ~j ° ,~ ~ r-i y 4a ~~ ll~r a ~ ~ (ppp°ypp a ~ Y 7 ~~ ~ 4 y z ~' ~~ aCv~ ~V I l r w • ~ ~r ~ ,x, saa~ap Isliaapltag ~g aosaa;;a '° x m •/ Y f- I ~ ., P•lfl aP!ali!H ~'J .. 0 e Y w Y r Y C W Z U r w U N V d 3 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 152 r To mitigate this deficiency, restripe the northerly Airport Boulevard approach to include r one left, two through, and one right-turn lane, with afair-share cost contribution from r each project phase (i.e., no lane additions or approach restriping). r Figures 26 and 27 present AM and PM peak hour Base Case plus Total Project (Phases I, II and III) traffic volumes, respectively, with the proposed flyover mitigation. r Resultant peak hour operation: LOS D in the AM peak hour; LOS D in the PM peak hour. r (Supp/emenfal Impact T-9) Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/US 101 r northbound on-ramp. Provision of the southbound to eastbound flyover off-ramp, an r additional right-turn lane on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard intersection approach, r and an additional eastbound through lane, could not improve either AM or PM peak hour r operation at this intersection to acceptable levels. r Resultant peak hour operation with geometric improvements but without increased TDM r measures: LOSE (unacceptable) in the AM peak hour; LOS F (unacceptable) in the PM r peak hour. r As explained previously, the project would not contribute to but rather would slightly r improve Base Case unacceptable (LOS F) PM peak hour operation at this intersection r due to diversion of traffic to the new southbound hook on-ramp to be installed as part of r project Phase III. However, PM peak hour operation would remain unacceptable with or r without the project (a 1.22 V/C ratio without the project versus a 1.21 V/C ratio with the r project). In the AM peak hour, the intersection level of service at this intersection, after r these geometric improvements but without significantly increased TDM measures, would r be LOSE (a .86 V/C ratio), versus LOS D (.85 V/C ratio) without the project. With r increased TDM measures, the AM peak hour level of service would be an acceptable r LOS D (a .82 V/C ratio). r (Supplemental Impact T-10) Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound off ramp/US 101 r southbound on-ramp. A fair-share contribution should be provided from each project phase towards recommended Base Case improvements (addition of a second left turn r lane to the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach.) However, this lane addition would r not provide acceptable AM peak hour operation with the project. r The recommended mitigation would reduce the V/C ratio from .95 to .94 in the AM peak r hour without significantly increased TDM measures, and down to .89 (LOS D) with r increased TDM measures. r Provision of the flyover off-ramp would have no mitigating impact at this location. WP5115481 FSEI RI I V-C-RE V. 548 L 20 \~ 690 ~- 190 ~l~ r34G 35 ~ 'Y I r I SO -- 645 40 435 ~ 35 ~ L 520` sso 90 655 ~"- 145 r 90 305 J I 1 I 660 --- 40 160 ~ 220 ~, 295 / Sister Cities Blvd ~..1` ~ I I I of 2105 1~ 400 •-- 24s ~ 4ss 260 ~ I r ~ 1065 -~ 510 2330 . m NB_ 101 130 ~ 30 ' , m Blvd US 101 101 ~noAh SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group SB 101 ~ Onramp Lp~ 130 F-- 0 X51 ~.. ~ ° 2785 -~ ~ r r 0 -i 40 0 60 ~ 85 Y i Y 7 Figure 26 YEAR 2010 BASE CASE PLUS PROJECT PHASES I, II AND III TRAFFIC VOLUMES, AM PEAK HOUR-- WITH FLYOVER Wagstaff and Associates N ~ °!~W .~. O ~w e t „ ~ ~ G!1 [-~ ~,rr °1'~Tr ~~ g~e s ~~_ s~ ~~ 6 O ~ saY anbngap r , h7~1 $ tf `a = ~ VrT, w 2 .e .. . !~ N .7 A O O ~a a 8 o :. ~a PaIY uotp fq PaIY i~ ] Y w S a -~ $ ~ f»a] t tli fa ~ w ~ w w v f 1 w° V ~ 1 ~' ~ ~'' e. w ~ ~ ~y1~i t--+ I ,Da _ JO `° O ..~ ~ „ ~ t N e l~..r~ N ~~ V ~ ~' [Q~i .. e : 7'~ rspaY pltuspFwg ~ ;g uofas;;a e ~ • $ t ~~ r~ ~ r= ~~ _ ..~1~. r= =z P~IY aPpiliH yJ e M~ Y ~ M Y Y m U r N d 3 Terrabay Project Ciry of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 155 r Resultant peak hour operation: LOS D in the AM peak hour; LOS D in the PM peak r hour. r An additional potential improvement would be the restriping of the northbound off-ramp r intersection approach to provide two exclusive left turn lanes and a combined left/ r through/right turn lane. Signing would need to be provided for off-ramp vehicles r identifying which left turn lane to occupy in order to be directed to the appropriate turn r lane on Dubuque Avenue at Oyster Point Boulevard. No second left turn lane would be r needed at the northbound Dubuque intersection approach. r Resultant AM peak hour operation: LOS D with a .80 V/C ratio (with no increased TDM r measures). r (Supplemental Impacts T-11 and T-13) Bayshore Boulevard/US i 01 southbound r ramps/project commercial access: r With the southbound to eastbound flyover off-ramp, also add the lanes listed below to the r base geometrics presented in Figure 13, with afair-share cost contribution from each r project phase: r Add a second eastbound through lane; and r Adding a second southbound left turn lane and a second northbound left turn lane on the r Bayshore Boulevard approaches is also recommended to reduce vehicle storage queue r lengths due to heavy left turn volumes in both directions. r In addition, provide a channelized median opening at the north driveway to the project r commercial areas along Bayshore Boulevard to allow left-turn inbound movements (in r addition to proposed right-turn in and outbound movements). r Resultant peak hour operation: LOS D in the AM peak hour; LOS D in the PM peak r hour. r (Supplemental Impacf T-14) Hillside Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue. Implement mitigation recommended for Supplemental Impact T-1. r (3) Freeway Link Improvements (a) Year 2000: No significant impacts identified; no mitigation required. WP5115481 FSEIRII V-C-REV.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 (b) Year 2010: Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 156 r (Supplemental Impact T-15) Year 2010 -Phases 1, 11 and Ill. Caltrans does not plan to add additional travel lanes along the segment of US 101 between the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange and South Airport Boulevard interchange undercrossing by the yeaf 2010. r Projected unacceptable commute peak period operational impacts would warrant continued r voluntary implementation of a combination of transportation demand management (TDM) (see r mitigation (5) Transportation System Management Measures, below) to reduce peak r automobile use. Such measures include incentives to car/vanpool, increased transit availability, provision of flex time working hours for employees, expansion of employee r telecommuting, etc. The project Phase III commercial area would be responsible for the r majority of the project-related impacts to US 101. r The city shall continue to cooperate with MTSMA in its efforts to encourage and foster r voluntary TDM measures in the East-of-101 and other employment intensive development r areas in order to reduce commute peak hour travel on the local freeway network. r This TDM program would have the potential to reduce traffic volumes by at least 12 percent r (see Appendix C). Nevertheless, even with the 12 percent reduction in peak period auto use, r it is extremely unlikely that this measure would reduce project related freeway link impacts to r a level of insignificance; i.e., this impact would be considered a significant unavoidable r Impact. (4) Freeway Ramp Improvements (a) Year 2000: No significant impacts identified; no mitigation required. (b) Year 2010: r (Supplemental Impact T-i6) Year 2010 -Phases 1, 11 and Ill: US i01 Southbound off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard. Each phase of the project should provide a fair share contribution towards recommended Base Case improvements. This would reduce impacts at this location to a less than significant level. r (Supplemental Impact T-17) Year 2010 -Phases 1, l/ and Ill: US 101 Northbound off-ramp to Dubuque Avenue. Each phase of the project should provide a fair share contribution towards recommended Base Case improvements. This would reduce impacts at this location to a less than significant level. r (Supplemental Impact T-)8) Year 2010 -Phases 1, 11 and Ill: US 101 Northbound on-ramp r from Oyster Point Boulevard. The TSM measure described above under mitigation sections r a(1) and b(1 ), i.e., and the resultant 12 percent additional peak period reduction in automobile WP51 l5481FSEIRIIV-C-REV.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 157 r use, will reduce this impact to less than significant levels. No additional mitigation would be r necessary. Resultant PM peak hour operation: Under capacity. r (5) Transportation System Management Measures. Year 2010 Base Case mitigation needs r without the project identified above represent the maximum practical mitigations at those r intersections for which significant project impacts have been identified. Implementation of the r year 2010 Base Case mitigations recommended above would also mitigate the rp oiect impacts r to less-than-significant levels, with three exceptions: Supplemental Impacts T-9, T-10 and T- r 15. No feas(ble additional geometric mitigations beyond the year 2010 Base Case r mitigation needs have been Identified for these two impacts. Therefore, implement the r voluntary TSM program described in section 4.a(5) herein--see pages 146 and 149, for Base r Case Mitigation Needs Without Project and include project phases II, III, and IV in the r program. r General Mitigation Result: a 12 percent reduction in anticipated peak period trip generation r for Base Case plus Project employment-intensive uses (see Appendix C). r Associated Specific Results: mitigation of Supplemental Impacts T-9 and T-10 to a less than r significant level (see Table 20). Project impact on the US 101 freeway segment north of r Sierra Point and south of Oyster Point would remain unavoidable (projected to operate at LOS r F with or without project, even with successful continuation of TSM). r 16) Colma Intersection Improvements (a) Year 2000: No significant impacts identified; no mitigation required. (b) Year 2010: (Supplemental Impact T-19) Year 2010 -Phases 1, 11 and Ill: Hillside Boulevard/Serramonte Boulevard. Require that project phases II and/or III provide a reasonable fair share contribution towards improvements needed at this intersection by 2010 if it is operating unacceptably during the peak hour. The contribution should be in proportion to the volume of project traffic passing through the intersection in relation to the total traffic volume. In addition, any major new development projects in the town of Colma located along or in close proximity to Hillside Boulevard should be required to provide their fair share contribution towards needed improvements along Hillside Boulevard in South San Francisco. WP5115481FSEIRIIV-C-REV 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Revised Draft SEIR IV.C. Transportation Page 158 WP5115481FSEIRIIV-C-REV 548 TPrrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section III. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON REVISED TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER WP5115481 FSEIRI COV-PGS. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco Octot~er 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section WP5115481 FSEI R I CO V-PGS. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page 1 III. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON REVISED TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER A. LIST OF COMMENTERS The public agencies, organizations, and individuals who commented on the recirculated DSEIR transportation section during the public review period (August 30, 1996 to October 13, 1996) are listed below: 1. City of South San Francisco Planning Commission Chairman Warren (1.01) Planning Commission Vice-Chairman Romero (1.02) 2. Other Public Agencies Carole Nelson, Planning Director, City of Brisbane (4) Phillip Badal, District Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation (5) 3. Organizations San Bruno Mountain Watch (6) 4. Individuals Josephine Coffey, 248 Dublin, San Francisco (2) Jan Pont, 111 Belmont Avenue and Don Shattuc, 907 W. Cardinal Drive, Sunnyvale (3) WP5115481 FSEIRI IRAN-COM.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page 2 B. INDEX TO COMMENTS (LIST OF PUBLIC HEARING AND WRITTEN COMMENTS) Response Name/Agency Code' Issues and Concerns Public Hearing Testimony September 19, 1996 Planning Commission Meeting Chairman Warren 1.01 Concerned about traffic through the Oyster Point interchange, especially during the AM commute period. Backups already occur under existing conditions. Vice-Chairman Romero 1.02 Comrpents Received in Writing 2. Josephine Coffey, 248 2.01 Dublin, San Francisco; 10-11-96 Can Daly City and Colma traffic be mitigated at the city limits to reduce traffic on Hillside Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard? The comment reiterates comment 20.01 on the DSEIR, noting that roadway improvements identified in the DSEIR and the recirculated DSEIR transportation section may endanger site CA-SMa-40. 3. Jan Pont, 111 Belmont 3.01 Traffic from Terrabay and development in the East of Avenue and Don 101 area will exceed the capacity of the local freeway Shattuc, 907 W. Cardinal and streets, and make the current bad conditions Drive, Sunnyvale; worse. 10-11-96 3.02 The Base Case traffic volumes are still low. No new counts were taken. The figures in the recirculated DSEIR transportation section are the same as those in the DSEIR. 3.03 Opposed to the flyover. The flyover will just shift the problem from the west side of US 101 to the east side. 3.04 The freeway mainline is already at capacity. There are no plans to widen the freeway and widening would 'See sections C and D of this chapter for responses to comments which correspond to each of these comment codes. WP5115481 FSE/RI TRAN-COM.548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco Revised Transportation Section October 25, 1996 Page 3 be very difficult. Continuing development in surrounding communities must be considered in the analysis. 3.05 Would the flyover interfere with the US 101 northbound off-ramp and southbound on-ramp, or restrict future freeway widening? What improvements would be needed east of the freeway with the flyover, how much would they cost, and how would they be paid for? 3.06 Recommended mitigation for Supplemental Impact T- 18would add a second lane to the on-ramp. How can two cars merge with freeway mainline traffic at the same time? Would this restrict future freeway widening? 3.07 Traffic volumes on the Oyster Point Boulevard crossing of US 101 already exceed capacity, especially in the AM peak hour, even without Terrabay. 3.08 The recently-approved elimination of the Child Care Center from Phase I will increase the number of Phase I residential units and worsen traffic impacts. 3.09 Despite the recently-approved elimination of the Child Care Center from Phase I, child care will still be needed. For what will the $700,000 in-lieu payment from the developer be used. 3.10 Noise abatement needs due to traffic increases along Hillside Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard are not discussed in the DSEIR. 3.11 A local feeder bus system should be established for Terrabay and adjacent neighborhoods, where current bus service is inadequate. 3.12 The DSEIR states that Terrabay will only worsen already unacceptable traffic conditions. The massive roadway improvements that will be necessary will worsen our quality of life. Please don't allow it. WP5115481 FSEI RI IRAN-COM. 548 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco Revised Transportation Section October 25, 1996 Page 4 3.13 These "prior comments submitted on Terrabay DSEIR" are from the commentors' April 7, 1996 comment letter on the DSEIR (comment letter 38 in section II herein). The comments, which pertain to traffic issues, are responded to as comments 38.07 and 38.08 in section II herein. 4. Carole Nelson, Planning 4.01 Figure 6 should make clear that not all of the Director, City of roadways affected by the project are within South San Brisbane; 10-15-96 Francisco; some are within Brisbane city limits. 4.02 The recirculated DSEIR transportation section fails to note that the hook ramps and flyover were essential parts of the Oyster Point interchange project and the existing and future traffic problems are due to their not having been built. The hook ramp and flyover are essential for the local roadway system to handle Terrabay. 4.03 It is not made clear whether the 1982 EIR level of service computations and mitigations summarized in the recirculated DSEIR transportation section include the hook ramp and flyover. 4.04 The recirculated DSEIR transportation section fails to describe the effects of the missing flyover or hook ramps on the existing roadway system. 4.05 The recirculated DSEIR transportation section fails to identify the responsible parry for Base Case mitigations. 4.06 Does the replacement of the scissors ramp with the hook ramps assume construction of the flyover. 4.07 The recommended mitigation approach of requiring fair-share cost contributions by phase will not work if Phase II and III do not proceed as planned. Phase I must provide for all mitigations needed for Phase I impacts. WP5115481 FSEIRI TRAN-COM.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page 5 5. Phillip Badal, District 5.01 Please reevaluate the proposed geometrics at the Branch Chief, California Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection. Department of Transportation; 10-16-96 5.02 Please reevaluate whether a single left-turn lane from Bayshore Boulevard into the Phase III portion of the project will be adequate to handle projected AM peak period traffic. 5.03 Please explain the significant drop in right-turn movement from Oyster Point Boulevard to Dubuque Avenue. Also, the northbound Dubuque Avenue traffic between the US 101 ramps and Oyster Point Boulevard does not add up. 5.04 Please reevaluate the mitigation needs for westbound Oyster Point Boulevard at Bayshore Boulevard. 5.05 The "maximum practical mitigations which may not produce acceptable operation" are identified for the Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue, and Dubuque Avenue/US 101 ramps intersections. Please evaluate whether these mitigations would compromise traffic safety. Is there enough space? Are there any other alternatives? 6. San Bruno Mountain 6.01 The roadway improvements recommended as Watch; 10-14-96 mitigation for Base Case and project traffic impacts may themselves result in significant environmental impacts, including along Bayshore Boulevard in the vicinity of Phase III, and in the area of the proposed hook ramps and flyover improvements. These potential secondary impacts are not discussed in the recirculated DSEIR transportation section. 6.02 The Phase III portion of the project contains three Ohlone shell mounds, including the largest on San Bruno Mountain. Most other shell middens in the region have been destroyed. The shell mounds are likely to be burial sites. The Phase III area is also endangered butterfly habitat. 6.03 Consider an alternative that allows the Phase III portion of the project to remain undeveloped and thus WP5115481FSEIRI TRAN-COM.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page 6 preserves the historical remains and natural environment. WP5115481 FSEIRI IRAN-COM.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page 7 C. RESPONSES TO PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS WP5115481 FSEIRI IRAN-COM.54B Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page 8 WP5115481 FSEIRI IRAN-COM.548 PUBLIC HEARING -AGENDA ITEMS 216 Mosswood Way, HealthSouth, UP-96-078; Cat. Ez. Class 3 Section 15303(c). Use Permit to allow the second floor to be utilized for commercial recreation in the C-1 Commercial Zone in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.22.040(c). Chairman Warren opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Carlson presented staff report. He noted that the lease with the dance studio use is limited to a maximum of 30 persons, no added persons to the dance studio, hours of operation are after 3:00 PM except Saturdays, and there is a condition fora 6 month & 1 year review period. He stated that the Police Department requested the Deletion of Police Dept. Conditions S 1. L 1) and S 1. L Chairman Warren closed the public hearing. Commissioner Masuda asked the applicant if they had any problems with Police Department's conditions. They responded "No". Commissioner Lucchesi asked for the Building Division's comments. Mr. Carlson noted they would be working with the applicant at the Building Permit level and recommended the addition of the following condition of approval: The project shall be required to noel the Uniform Building Code to the satisjaetion ojthe Fire Prevention/BuiJding Division. Motion-Romero/Second-Masuda: To approval UP-96-078 subject to findings contained in staff report and amended conditions of approval. It was unanimously approved by voice vote. Hillside/Sister Cities Blvds. and Bayshore Blvd., SunChase G. A. California I, Inc. , Terrabay Draft Supplemental EIR-96-012 • Revised Transportation Section of the Draft Supplemental E1R for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension. The revised transportation section of the Draft Supplemental E1R _ is being re-circulated due to new information related to traffic impacts, in accordance with CEQA - Guidelines Section 15088.5(x). Chairman Warren opened the public hearing. Lida Budko, Project Planner, presented the staff report. She noted that the revised impact analysis identified one new unavoidable significant adverse impact for a segment on US 101 freeway; and three new significant adverse impacts which all can be mitigated to less than significant levels. Ms. Budko introduced Mr. Breen representing the applicant and Mr. Bressanutti of Wagstaff and Associates, the preparers of the Supplemental ElR They are present to answer any questions. No one from the public spoke on the item. Chairman Warren closed the public hearing. Page 2 of 5 Pages PC Mtg. of 9/19/96 Commissioner Lucchesi asked that some mitigating measures be clarified. Ms. Budko and Mr. Bressanutti responded. Commissioner Barnett questioned City Engineer Wong regarding the hook- ramps and the flyover. Mr. Bressanutti further explained the proposed mitigations that would reduce to less than significant levels the additional new impacts. He also discussed the new unavoidable significant impact (T-15) and stated that since CalTrans does not plan to widen the roadway the only feasible mitigation would be to apply voluntary TDM measures (i.e.: carpooling, incentives, using bikes, and so on.) The TDM measures could reduce vehicular trips up to 12%, but that would not be enough to reduce the impact to insignificant levels. Commissioner Lucchesi asked about the proposed hook-ramps, and how they connect with Bayshore Bivd. Mr. Bressanutti explained that the hook-ramps would connect near the existing off-ramp and that Bayshore Blvd. would need to be realigned slightly to the west. City Engineer Wong described the location where the flyover connected with the Oyster Point Blvd., near the Gateway. Commissioner Barnett asked about the ramp connection to the Oyster Point Project; he asked where local traffic competes with the flyover traffic at Gateway Blvd. fuming right going towards the south side of the Industrial Park. He asked at what point does the flyover traffic come into local streets? City Engineer Wong explained that the flyover would connect at the intersection of Gateway and Oyster Point Blvds. with controlled traffic signals. Discussion continued with the description of the height and length of the flyover. Commissioner Barnett inquired about the eastern view from Sister Cities Blvd., and how will the flyover connection be effected when the former Shearwater project area is developed? City Engineer Wong noted that this project area was taken into consideration in a prior ElR In response to Commissioner Barnett's question if mitigations measures proposed are actually required to be developed? Chairman Warren noted that she understood that in order for the project to proceed the mitigation measure have to be carried out. Assistant City Attorney Seto noted that an EIR if approved with mitigations, the mitigations have to be implemented. In a situation where a condition cannot be mitigated, she indicated that then a statement of overriding considerations may be adopted by the City. Commissioner Masuda expressed concern that southbound traffic on Bayshore Blvd., entering to Northbound 101 (NB 101) or Southbound 101 (SB 101), has to go on Oyster Point overpass to enter the on-ramps. City Engineer Wong noted that the hook-ramps would resolve that issue. Chairman Warren recalled absent Commissioner Padreddii's previously stated concern regarding traffic on Sister Cities Blvd., crossing the congested intersection at Oyster Point/Airport Blvd. to get to 101 Freeway. She recently noted the traffic stacking up, half way from South San Francisco Drive, on Sister Cities Blvd. due to traffic making a left turn to NB 101. Discussion continued concerning large trucks and large amounts of traffic at peak commute hours. ~ . O' City Engineer Wong explained present traffic conditions; such as, CalTrans has a repair project at the NB 101 on-ramp at E. Grand Avenue overpass and that traffic is going to Oyster Point overpass; hook- Page 3 of 5 Pages GO~t1T. PC Mtg. of 9/19/96 ramps should alleviate Brisbane traffic. Further discussion continued on the traffic congestion at Oyster Point overpass during peak commute hours. Chairman Warren wanted the issue of traffic congestion on Sister Cities Blvd. going to NB 101 addressed. Commissioner Barnett noted that the new Sister Cities Blvd. does not have new traffic yet and it does need to be addressed with new traffic coming from Terrabay project. Mr. Bressanutti noted that Sister Cities Blvd. will be operating at the morning peak hour at Level of Service "C", and will be at "D" in the evening. Ms. Budko added that there is a City policy which states that Level of Service "D" is acceptable. City Engineer Wong confirmed. Discussion continued on the possible traffic impact due to fully development Terrabay and Shearwater sites. Assistant City Attorney Seto noted that the EIR does look to futwe conditions, but that you cannot require an individual project to meet the needs of future projects. Chairman Warren recognized that future projects would need to mitigate their traffic. Vice-Chairman Romero noted the Daly City and Colma traffic should some how be mitigated at the City's limits, for example by delaying traffic at Evergreen and ITillside. Chairman Warren noted that all comments will be addressed in the Final SEIR. Chairman Warren noted the letter received from Mr. Fred Matthews regarding his wishes to preserve the archeaological site, the shell mounds, in the Terrabay project. Motion-Masuda/Second-Lucchesi: To direct staff to have responses to the comments prepared. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Items from Stag: Assistant City Attorney Seto introduced Wayne Snodgrass who will be taking care of the Planning Commission's items, any questions should be directed to him, although she will be subbing for him. Chairman Warren welcomed Mr. Snodgrass and thanked Ms. Seto for a yeoman's job and for alway being very pragmatic in answers to their concerns. Items from Commission: Chairman Warren explained the concerns of the letter received from the residents, Jce and Nancy Wood, and her own concerns on the starting time and the changes to the Robson/Heather Heights project. She asked Planning staff to contact the developer and remind him of the conditions of approval. Assistant City Attorney Seto explained what the City could do to enforce the conditions. Senior Planner Carlson stated that Planning will contact developer, and noted that staff has contacted him periodically when calls/correspondence are received. Engineering and Fire PreventionBuilding Divisions will also be advised to monitor the project for compliance with conditions. Chairman Warren noted that any changes to this project should come back to the Planning Commission. Assistant City Attorney Seto clarified what types of changes the Planning Commission may wish to see again, such as any inconsistencies between the approved project and what is actually being built in the field. Senior Planner Carlson advised that Chairman Warren meet with Economic & Community Development Director to see how these changes could be addressed. The Commission agreed. ~~ I.d~ 1 ~,oZ Page .4 of S Pages PC Mtg. of 9/19/96 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Chairman Warren Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page 12 1.01 Existing traffic flow through the recently completed Oyster Point interchange, and the existing observed AM commute period congestion referred to in the comment, have been continually influenced during the course of this SEIR preparation program by the part-time closure of the Grand Avenue interchange northbound US 101 on-ramp. All traffic from industrial areas east and residential areas west of the freeway that formerly used the Grand Avenue northbound on-ramp has had to travel through the Oyster Point interchange to access northbound US 101. The extra signal time allocated for these (temporarily) added vehicles tends to produce longer than normal back-ups during the AM commute in the peak travel direction from US 101 into employment areas east of the freeway. It should also be noted that Caltrans has done minimal signal coordination between the Oyster Point/Dubuque and Dubuque/US 101 northbound off-ramp/southbound on-ramp intersections. Existing operation (level of service) with a fully operational Grand Avenue interchange (and resulting lower traffic volumes at the Oyster Point interchange) is expected to be acceptable. Vice-Chairman Romero 1.02 As indicated by Table 16 in the revised and recirculated DSEIR transportation chapter in section II herein, these intersections are projected to experience acceptable operation in the year 2000 in both the AM and PM peak hours with or without the project. Therefore, efforts to delay traffic at Evergreen or Hillside as suggested in the comment, or any other attempts to divert traffic away from Sister Cities Boulevard and Hillside Boulevard, would be expected to have the undesirable effect of diverting traffic to Evergreen Drive, Chestnut Avenue and other surrounding residential streets. WP5115481 FSEIRI TRAN-COM.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page 13 D. RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS WP5115481FSElRI TRAN-COM.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page 14 WP5115481 FSEIRI TRAN-COM.548 nECEIVED 0 C T 1 51996 PLANNING October 11, 1996 To: South San Francisco Planning Commission P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Subject: Comments on the Revised Draft Supplemental EIR for the Terrabay Specific ?Ian and Development Agreement Extension Project Last February, in comments on the original draft supplemental EIR for this project, I expressed my concem that traffic construction required by phases II and III of the project might endanger archaeological site CA-SMA-40 (letter attached). That concem still exists. This revised SEIR discusses construction on 101 and Bayshore Boulevard 2 .~ in the vicinity of the shell mound, but there is no detailed planning to show whether such construction would impinge on the shell mound site. I remain concerned that if detailed planning is put off until the later phases of the project, South San Francisco's interest in saving this 4,000 year old historical relic will be overwhelmed. -,~ ~~ C~~ Jose hine Coffe P Y 248 Dublin San Francisco, CA 94112 nECEIVED 0 CT 1 51996 PLANNING February 29, 1996 To: South San Francisco Planning Commission P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Subject: Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension Project 1,-One of the basic objectives of this project is to "Preserve archaeological site CA- SMa-40..." (p. 51 of the draft SEIR). I am concerned that this objective is jeopardized by the methodology followed in the SEIR, where a detailed report was prepared for Phase I ,but only conceptual planning done for Phases II and III. The shell mound, site CA-SMa-40, is in an area that will not be developed until Phase III. It is close to Bayshore Boulevard and US 101. The draft SEIR notes that traffic impacts of the later phases will require changes to these roadways. These changes may call for construction on the shelf mound site itself. This will not be known until detailed planning is done for Phase III. On the face of it, it would appear that this would be taken care of when the detailed EIR is done for Phase III. The City could at that point disapprove plans that threatened the integrity of CA-SMa-40. However, that assumes that the three phases are independent, which they are not. Phase I can be expected to be a financial burden on the City, a burden that will not be relieved until Phase III. Once Phase I is approved, the City will have a strong financial interest in approving the remaining phases, an interest that may well overwhelm its interest in preserving this cultural and historical site. The City should have the information it needs now so that it can know what it is approving with respect to this site. 2. The archeological review (in Section 7) is not complete. The previous owner of Terrabay, in order to fulfill a Caltrans requirement, commissioned what is the most extensive archaeological survey done of this site to date. This survey should have been reviewed for this SEIR, but was not. _'; Jose~hine Cofft3y ' San Bruno Mountain Watch PO Box AO Brisbane, CA 94005 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page 17 2. Josephine Coffey. 248 Dublin, San Francisco; October 11, 1996 2.01 The comment reiterates comment 20.01 on the DSEIR, noting that roadway improvements identified in the DSEIR and the recirculated DSEIR Transportation chapter may endanger site CA-SMa-40. The response to comment 1.02 in section II of the Final SEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR is reiterated below: As explained on DSEIR page 3, because the ultimate physical characteristics, . sequencing and timing of project Phases II and III are more conceptual, the environmental documentation for these subsequent phases has been prepared at the "program EIR" level under authority of section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. The DSEIR text indicates that "When subsequent project Phases II and III are to be developed and eventually come before the city for required approvals in the future, more specific information (precise plan, subdivision maps, etc., similar to what is now available for Phase I) would be submitted and additional, more detailed environmental review would be undertaken at that time." The program level assessment provided in the DSEIR for these subsequent phases, including the assessment of shell mound impacts and mitigation needs, is intended to, as indicated on DSEIR page 33, "provide the basis for focusing any future project-level environmental documentation needs on more direct impacts..." A further description of the "program EIR" intent, authority, and approach is included in Appendix A of this Final SEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR. The commentor asks how impacts on the shell mounds in the Phase III portion of the project can be determined if detailed traffic mitigations for Phase III are not clear. The detailed roadway improvements that will eventually be needed for Phase III are not yet certain because specific development plans have not yet been developed for this subsequent phase of the project. Table 12 (p. 112) of the DSEIR, which summarizes the 1982 EIR impact and mitigation findings, does note that redesign of the US 101 southbound "scissors" off-ramp would require relocation of Bayshore Boulevard slightly west onto the project property to accommodate a redesigned hook off-ramp and new hook on-ramp. The DSEIR findings also indicate that this realignment of Bayshore Boulevard would be necessary to accommodate improvements recommended at this location as mitigation for DSEIR Supplemental Impacts T-2, T-i0 and T-12. Based on this information, the DSEIR indicates at the "program EIR" level that the significant impacts on site CA-SMa-40 identified in the 1982 EIR would still occur, and identifies a mitigation approach. At this writing, the precise design of the hookramps and realignment of Bayshore Boulevard had not been determined. The City is currently conducting a feasibility study on the potential locations of the hookramps. Associated impact and mitigation details would be determined at the project-specific level when detailed development plans for Phase III of the project are submitted and associated project-specific environmental review is conducted. WP5115481 FSEIRI TRAN-COM.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page 18 The mitigation measure recommended in the 1982 EIR for the larger Indian shell mound, site CA-SMa-40, requires capping the site with sterile fill and sealing it under landscaping and/or parking areas. As noted in the 1982 EIR, the proposed capping may result in some damage to the resource--e.g., compaction from the weight of construction equipment. This potential for damage to CA-SMa-40 during construction was identified in the DSEIR as Supplemental Impact CR-2. In response, the DSEIR (pp. 246-247) recommends enhancing the capping mitigation measure by requiring that an engineering fabric be placed over the site before fill is placed. The fill shall be at a minimum of one foot deeper than the maximum depth of construction activities above or near the site; and the capping should be supervised by a qualified archaeologist with authority to recommend additional or different measures if necessary. These DSEIR changes to the mitigation contained in the previous 1982 EIR were recommended by staff at the State Historic Resource File System Northwest Information Center. Under the Terrabay Specific Plan, a precise plan must be approved before Phase II or III of the project may be built. When Phase III is to be developed and eventually comes before the city for required approvals in the future, more specific project description information (precise plans, subdivision maps, etc., similar to what is now available for Phase I) would be submitted and additional, and more detailed, "project-specific" environmental review would be conducted, including formulation of more detailed traffic and cultural resources mitigation particulars as necessary. The extent and nature of the precise plan's impacts on site CA-SMa-40 and associated mitigation details would be more precisely determined at that time, and the mitigation recommended in the DSEIR could be supplemented as necessary. Based on Appendix K of the CEG~A Guidelines ("Archaeological Impacts" mitigation standards), the DSEIR concludes and indicates on pages 39, 246, and 247 that the described capping measures would meet CEQA criteria for avoiding damaging effects on an archaeological resource where avoidance is determined to be infeasible. Based on CEQA Appendix K standards, the DSEIR indicates that the capping measures would reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. However, these DSEIR conclusions does not preclude development of a future project-specific mitigation that may involve excavation, or may involve avoidance if it is determined that Caltrans freeway improvement and project phase III precise plans can be formulated to provide for such avoidance. Any alternative mitigation measure proposed in the future must at least be an equivalent measure to that proposed in the EIR, would have to satisfy the standards of state law (CEQA Guidelines Appendix K), and would be subject'to approval by the City. WP5115481 FSEI RI IRAN-COM. 548 3 ~~ avt~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~n m; s s i cn- DC-~c ~n. l l I/ 9 `~ ~ `' ; p~ ~~7hsa'vl ~YtHnCtS CA" RECEIVED ~ OCT 1 6 1996 ~fc„~c~„~c~d~ c,~ z.,~.n- E8~CD DEPT. AM iofij l96 "~ ~~~~~ - f ran"'~'.~' "` ~~~~-v,.~. `~ ~ D SF = ~ ~- y ~~u 'Yn c~ ~~u:~ w--~ ~. a.~, Y '~ -}~.~c,~' flu: .h..z- r~.V~J . /~s ~~.t ~1'Q.ti .c~vrl. 0-Ci~ a'h. ~ ~ ~~ k s ,~-'~ III 7'Yl~t~.~j~ '/1,'l,tC Ll~it'~V~ /UZ~V i ~~ AM, ~ 71~('t'`"~~ V~.~it~tJ ~ _ ~- /~~ -~;~,,. ~ ~ ~ -~, ~1,~. D s ~~,. }moo ~ ~T ~- ~ ~ ~~~" ti~b~ -~ ~ Ce-~L~. °~. ~ ( btu e~.~~-, o..,, a ti CE-m ~~s And a.~-~-c,l..z ~ . ~/Z~ r,,,rt,~~ ~/au,+~ ~ . , l ~ ~ I ~ y~ i C,n~ C,t; a•. I i yam. wrL ./~0.~^'1~ 3 Pt ~ ~~~- ,~~~~1~ ~ ~.~ e Ce~-M.m.~,.~s To T-~n.a,b~ R ~ v ; s~ ~. Tr c,ri,,.r ~~.~~ ~•.- 5 ~c~ ~ c~ ~ 5 E 12 Dtd. 8/96 FF-C-n a 7a~ Po h,~ - ~~-~. S~ a~+u.c I / I ,~'3,~,""` ad~'d ~ t i ~ac.Q ~,e.L ~ 1N~ a~ P I La-~.~.~. ~o d,~_ ~w~. ticv; S ; or` . L 9 ~' Y~ Yl~v ~tiu~L .,-e~- a~ :ate-~ .~~ . ~~ ov~Z, -N~2 ~ o~,e_ ~ ~'~ D-~- .c.,-~ ~_ DSO 11Z . 7 fy,,~-~t,,~,, ,~,u.~ 5~,.,~ •S aaz.u-? z•a-F' ~ c~ ~ 7 ~~ o Seri. // ~ 7r ~~ iii ~ ~~'r`,~ u~ ~`/''~'-0~ ~" ~~ ,wz 7r~~ Sr~~• E' `" ~ ~ ~~ S~ ~ uS Ic I . ~ ~ C GC'~.e ~'u'-~- 3.oZ 3.0'3 C ~ ('~,~' ,~ o - ~ ~~ 1 ' -'' . us i 1 ~J-• c t ~ 4 1 ~, ~,~, ' Gnu-+~/ 3.af 3 ~~ -~ Vt~, Il ~ ~_ ~~ y ~ ~ti ~.~- ~ ~ S f~ ~~ -~ ~ ~ , ~.~...~ ~1~ie,~-e.. -~t~'y cw, w~.~.l ~~,C.~..a~-~q~Q._~ VAt(e '~ ~ 11.e ~ ~ t,J~¢.._ ~ ~ ~ a-.-~ w-~ t~1~ ~' ~A~1 r ~ ~Z ~o •'N'`C Y ~C ~ Y 6-c• ~S C~v. ~I~.c Coll /.k ~- ~ t o 1 . v~; I( -µ..e FIY o v.t.~ r~r; c.~ I-~c.~wu i o ~ w, ~.,~ J ~ ~ ~ y a~~, w ;~c ~o~~ -~ ~Y~S ~,.~. -~ ~ - ~~~~- ~,~.- -~..e ,-~~ ~...~.e.,~. to ~ ~ ~S. ~ , ~ W ~ ~ -~ p ~. w~f,~~ ,~. 2 ,~~ - ~ .. 7 ~-e U 5 f ?~ ~c ~~ ~~ ~ ,cam /~-c.~ ~ V, • l GvC ~ -itfc '~D '~'~vZ own /~.+ ~ ~ ~ l~l ~ S. J 0 I ~ A P~ 7r~~ ~ ~ ~tc.~" i].~ ~ ~ """'~/ 0.~L~.w-Q, Yv~ ~''~,•~-Q-- .. 1 ~ /; ~~~ ~ 7~,,u ef, ~- 'TY ~~,, 3.0~ 3 07 3 `~ ~ - 3 A s ~ ~ ~ c; ~ c~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ /~,c.~. .4~u~ n1 c3~r uM ; -ts w ~! ! b..z ccl~r'~-~/~ ~% {ze. ~ ~• ~.~-.. ~ cJG,.,Q~ w ~ i ~ s~; it ~ ~~~1. ~ 'a,I"`~ ~~ 3 '` ~ ._: ~W~c f . ~,r tn. Y16.1;o...e, /~(a ~- ~ s ~u,~~. ,~,-,, A~' t l ~ , l~ ~~ ~,l~s%d~ ~8lv~ ~~ .S~~~. c;~,~s ar~~ . 3.~0 A~ ~cM..a.,~ ~' "~ e ;iz. ~; icy k:-Cc's ~"~-~~ ~ ` r ate,, ~ SAS ~ ~-~, ~, ~~~~%~ l~.t~-~-.~ _ ~~ r~~ ~~~~- ~ ~ ~ ~"r1 ~ 0 7~L. 7r ~ ~ Sy.s~~- I SArn T,,.~. i ~~~. --~ 8~~ .,,~ ~~ "~ , . _ ~~ ~~ 7 ~ ,~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~3.~Z . ~~. ~~.-~ d.o ~ ~~ ~~ ~ . 7~ c ~~ ~- ~, - _ ,{ G~ _ r ~~-c, ~1 a~~ Y~~J ~~ a,,,~, ~ ~ 7'11 a~ ~ f V ~~ ~ c~ _ _ K~ ~~, r~ y°~, 3 ~~ 3.IZ 3 I ~ 1l1l L ' S Su~m~TT~~ ~1 fil/vi4O~J D.S~1 ~ ~r , ~°'~ Com / - - ----- - ---------- --- -- / ~ /Y - ---- -- - - --- --- -~---- - u d~ /// _ ~ .'7/~ - - ---, - ~ ~ ~ -,~.~. a,~..e.0. . - ~ - _ _ ~_ -- - _ ~,c,~~~_. tom. C % .rr--~ ~~.~ F - - -- ---- --- _ cv~.. a _ Wa~ ~~ -- -- itla~it_ - -- / 3 _- -- ~ ~~z ~' _ q_dn.u~yri. - ~ - -- ~c.e''~tiVQ-- ----- --~ --~ r -- - -. T~~aa~a - -- - - -- -- ~ - --~ -- --- - -- -- ----- - ~ ,~,;.,1 ~~` . ctn.. Q nc~.l~ ~-e ~'~- °~ ~ - ~ e~. f . I .1 ~-------- - --..--~f ~ ~ .~ 3.13 ~~ 3 °~ ~.~ a /~-eme. ,w, T.tv~ ~ ,~-. ~1orr Caav}- . ~ ~~-.,,~,,~,,~ W e~t w~k~~- ,w, -f~. ~~ ,9 Ni ~ ~ w,i~ d ~~ ~ . ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~~G ~ ~ GC~~y,~ ~r ,~c~y~' ,Dv d.C 4 4 t7,3 . ~ ~ s'~ C8-N/~Q,P fN / II 9 0 o '1~r J ,~ Saw" Y'tt S ~ ate/ _ ~ - -- G~ ~I --~ ~~~ ~ 7.~,.,.,~ L. Gam; ~~_ -- -•-- - -- -- - -- -1~- -- -- ----i ~~ - Fig ~ .b~~ ~ ~--1,~ ~~-~. ~-~ ,~~n cam,,.. 7~ ~yJ~~ ~Oa -~a` ~. ~-~- ,~ v s~~, Gum y a~.~y Y 8 -Q~-, -~f,< <.u ~ ~ ~ ~ /~r ~ T -~ . ~ ~c,~ ~, ~. - ~ ~o ~-~ cam. ~ , .. _,~, ~ ~ ~' V l/Wf ~ 7t Gl ~ 1-(/L ~~ u'c~Tc 5 ~ ~~ V^`~/ .a - - 6 d• 7 Cwt ,~, ~ . t cc~ ,~a,...~. ~ ~ ~~'1- ~ c~ ~~ ;.13 3 8 tom. ... _____ _ _ II^ ---- -- - - - - -~ - _ ; j., ~ -. ~ ~ 3 -S 7ruriks , ..Sa~~l~,~,~ ~~.~e. o~ ~.~. 0~-~6~.d~e, apt c~ ~;~..c.. ~,. ~ - ~YOMC.tSGO~. /kL.I-A- 7 - y"~~~~ ' LiOyvv-+NTi~C.~~ /~"u ~ 7~ ~~1-~/~"/~/e.'- a~/c .5~~ ~ '~r~~ ~ 1 ec'- . qyM,~,~, oc,(.a~ a~ Trur.!'~ Tra~~¢~-C. , l~cs~- U -~'~-~ ~i4 ~~ 0,~,a,..q~ yu.~,..~,~1. ~ /r~s C;o»~ir, ~,n~- ~,v~7~- a ~~,C_ 7!'`'"' -.-._. . y ~'~' -~ '~ _ _ ~1~~ ~" u~.~raw •_--- I ~w.~-w~. =N - ---- ~ f-° 1--~F-~ - - -------- ~ Ti~ oys~-/a° ~` - --- -- -- - --- - - ---- -- - sw ~- - -------- -... _ - - ---- - ----- ------ - - -S'~-- --- --- - - o bs ~a-c.(.~--~---- - -~=~'~c--- -- --=- -~ - ---- .~N~vG~. °`~~ .- - 7~~s ~2 ~. ,~ ~. ~~ 7`~ 7r ~wK Zr ~- l/a~.ueh ~a.a ~~ .Sri-. ~/~ - / p ~ )- ~~~5 ~ ~ ~ .l3 . -~~#: 3 V/ ----- --- ~; ~~ ~ ~~~ j !r ~1 ~ ~ 1 - - - - _ ~ ~ . ~+'r~.~r'~. o-~ / /,`~ ``•-~ /O 1. 7'~ ~,/~~. ~ ,6~e~.~ GtllO . ~ ~ ~ ~ Q. ~d i 7~i 4-c~q~ ~1-a~ I "~ L7~N2.'~ ~"~ - ----- :--- -- - ~ ~ . 7.- - ~ -------- - -~- ~Y~~--_~_ ---------- -- _ ~ ~M -. ,,~,ti -~-- --- - --- --- - ------ - -----sue-- - ~~~.d-- ~ -~~~~~ _ _ ~~ _ ~ _~ oys~- -- ~, _ ~ ~~~~ ~,,ctn.e 2 ~ a.~ -~c a~.l.a~_ ,~,.~ ~1.C~ arc.. T u~,,~ `~t o~ ~~ W IV, ~ I3.~3 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page 28 3 Jan Pont, 111 Belmont Avenue and Don Shattuc, 907 W. Cardinal Drive, Sunnyvale; October 11, 1996 3.01 The comment notes that traffic from Terrabay and development in the East of 101 area will exceed the capacity of the local freeway and streets, and make current bad conditions worse. Comment acknowledged. The transportation impacts of the project and of cumulative development in the vicinity are adequately explained in the recirculated DSEIR transportation chapter. 3.02 The comment states that the Base Case traffic volumes presented in the recirculated DSEIR transportation chapter are low and that no new traffic counts were taken. As noted on p. 101 of the recirculated DSEIR transportation chapter and explained in Appendix B of the DSEIR, the Base Case traffic volumes used in the recirculated DSEIR transportation chapter are based on recently completed traffic counts at the Oyster Point interchange and along Hillside Boulevard, as well as future traffic projections contained in the 1993 Brisbane General Plan Circulation Element, the East of 101 Area Plan EIR, and the EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Program EIR. The traffic counts and projections from previous studies were adjusted to produce a coherent set of volumes for the project area circulation network. The comment also mistakenly states that the figures in the recirculated DSEIR transportation chapter are the same as those in the DSEIR. The figures in the recirculated DSEIR transportation chapter present the revised Base Case traffic volumes, Base Case plus project traffic volumes, Base Case mitigation needs, and Base Case plus project mitigation needs. 3.03 The comment expresses opposition to the flyover, suggesting that the flyover will just shift the problem from the west side of US 101 to the east side. The recommended flyover off-ramp would carry US 101 southbound traffic to eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard east of the Dubuque Avenue intersection. The flyover would "touch down" at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection. The flyover would deliver the same volume of traffic at this intersection as would be there without the flyover; the only difference would be that this traffic would not have to travel through three major intersections within the Oyster Point interchange (US 101 southbound off- ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard, Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard, and Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound on-ramp) before arriving at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection. Therefore, by removing southbound US 101 traffic bound for eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard from these three intersections, construction of the flyover off-ramp would improve the operation of these intersections. Also, because the same volume of traffic would be arriving east of US 101 with or without the flyover, the flyover would not be expected to worsen traffic operations at any locations east of US 101. WP5115481 FSEIRI TRAN-COM. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page 29 3.04 The comment notes that the freeway mainline is already at capacity and that there are no plans to widen the freeway and widening would be very difficult. Comment acknowledged. The recirculated DSEIR transportation section adequately describes these freeway mainline conditions. The comment also notes that continuing development in surrounding communities must be considered in the analysis. As explained more fully in response to comment 33.12 in section II of the Final SEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR, the DSEIR transportation analysis adequately consider continuing cumulative development in surrounding communities; the analysis is based on projections of development and, in turn, traffic volumes in, the East of 101 Area Plan and the Brisbane General Plan Circulation Element. 3.05 The comment questions whether the flyover would interfere with the US 101 northbound off-ramp and southbound on-ramp, or restrict future freeway widening. The flyover would "touch down" at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection, east of Dubuque Avenue, and thus would not affect the US 101 northbound off-ramp and southbound on-ramp. The US 101 freeway mainline right-of- way is already constrained by adjacent land uses in the vicinity of the project and may " be difficult to widen with or without the flyover. Caltrans currently has no plans to widen these segments of the freeway. The effect of the flyover off-ramp on the ability of the freeway to be widened would depend on the actual location, alignment and design of the flyover, which has not yet been determined. The comment also questions what improvements would be needed east of the freeway with the flyover, how much they would cost, and how they would be paid for. Because the flyover off-ramp would reconnect with the surface street system at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection, the intersection would need to be reconfigured to include the off-ramp. The nature and cost of the required changes would depend on the final design of the flyover and would be included as part of the overall design and construction of the flyover. The cost of the flyover and of associated improvements to the surface street system to accommodate the off-ramp would be the fair-share cost responsibility of development in the East of 101 area, and other cumulative development in the vicinity, including the Terrabay project. 3.06 The comment notes that recommended mitigation for Supplemental Impact T-18 would add a second lane to the on-ramp and questions how two cars can merge with freeway mainline traffic at the same time. The comment also questions whether the second on- ramp lane would restrict future freeway widening. One of the on-ramp lanes would merge directly with freeway traffic; the second on-ramp lane would continue on to the northbound Bayshore Boulevard off-ramp as an auxiliary lane (i.e., a continuous extra lane between an on-ramp and the next off-ramp). To the extent that the auxiliary lane would leave less space for the provision of additional through-lanes on the freeway, it may make it more difficult to widen this segment of the freeway in the future. WP5115481 FSE/RI TRAN-COM. 548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page 30 3.07 The comment notes that traffic volumes on the Oyster Point Boulevard crossing of US 101 already exceed capacity, especially in the AM peak hour, even without Terrabay. Please also see response to comment 1.01, herein. The transportation impacts of the project and of cumulative development in the vicinity are adequately explained in the recirculated DSEIR transportation chapter. 3.08 The comment suggests that recently-approved elimination of the Child Care Center from Phase I will increase the number of Phase I residential units and worsen traffic impacts. As indicated by the trip generation projections in Tables 13 and 14 of the transportation chapter (pp. 117 and 118 in section II herein), the DSEIR traffic analysis assumed the development of 168 townhomes in Terrabay Village. The applicant's current plans, even after replacement of the child care center with six additional townhomes, is for 167 townhomes. Therefore, elimination of the child care center would not affect the transportation impact and mitigation findings of the DSEIR. 3.09 The comment correctly suggests that despite the recently-approved elimination of the Child Care Center from Phase I, child care will still be needed. The comment also asks how the $700,000 in-lieu payment from the developer will be used. The South San Francisco City Council approved the elimination of the child care center from Phase I of the project and the payment of a $700,000 in-lieu fee in its place. The ordinance specified that the $700,000 is to be used for child care/library improvements elsewhere in the city. The child care needs of future project residents could be met by existing child care services in the city and elsewhere and/or by any new child care services funded in whole or in part by the $700,000 payment. 3.10 The comment incorrectly suggests that noise abatement needs due to traffic increases along Hillside Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard are not discussed in the DSEIR. The DSEIR (p.222) notes that "...(Phase 1) continues to be affected primarily by traffic noise from Hillside Boulevard. Sister Cities Boulevard is a primary noise source for portions of project Phases 11 and 111 fronting this roadway... " and "Traffic noise from US i01 and, to a lesser degree, Bayshore Boulevard and other local streets; continues to be the primary noise factor affecting the eastern portion of the project site proposed for commercial uses." The future noise contours presented in Figure 32 result primarily from these noise sources. The compatibility of the project with the predicted future noise environment due to traffic noise from Hillside Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard is discussed on DSEIR pp. 225-227 and is identified as Supplemental Impact N-1. Mitigation for Supplemental Impact N-1 is identified on p. 228. 3.11 The comment suggests that a local feeder bus system should be established for Terrabay and adjacent neighborhoods, noting that current bus service is inadequate. Table 8 on p. 99 of the recirculated DSEIR transportation chapter describes project area local bus (Samtrans) routes. In addition, as indicated by Table 12 on p. 113 of the recirculated DSEIR transportation chapter, the transportation system management (TSM) measures recommended as mitigation for traffic impacts in the 1982 EIR WP5115481 FSEI RI IRAN-COM.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page 31 included installation of bus pullouts and shelters along Bayshore Boulevard and Hillside Boulevard, and encouragement of expanded transit service. 3.12 The comment opposes the project, noting that the DSEIR states that Terrabay will only worsen already unacceptable traffic conditions and suggesting that the roadway improvements that will be necessary will worsen the quality of life in the community. The comment pertains to the merits of the project, not the adequacy of the DSEIR. 3.13 These comments are resubmitted from the commentors' April 7, 1996 comment letter on the DSEIR (comment letter 38). The comments, which pertain to traffic issues, are responded to as comments 38.07 and 38.08 in section II of the Final SEIR Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR. Those responses are reiterated below: 38.07 The trip generation projections for each of the three project phases presented on DSEIR pp. 115-118 are based on trip generation rates from the 1991 and 1995 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual, 5th Edition. The trip generation projections represent a conservative, "worst case" scenario which assumes no use of transit by project residents, employees and visitors, and no application of transportation demand management measures to the project (e.g., the carpool, carpool preferential parking, flex-time, and limousine service provisions contained in the specific plan or other trip reduction measures). 38.08 The future traffic projections used in the DSEIR traffic analysis, which are based on projections contained in the East of 101 Area Plan EIR, the 1993 Brisbane General Plan Circulation Element and the EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Program EIR, do take into account truck traffic. Also, as traffic volumes and related congestion on the project vicinity roadway network increase over time, truck trips will become a smaller component of the overall traffic volumes because trucks can be expected to change the time of their trips to not be delayed by the increased congestion. It is also worth noting that the congestion and a portion of the truck volumes observed in the recent additional traffic counts performed by the SEIR transportation planning consultant at the Oyster Point interchange are due to the construction period diversion to the Oyster Point interchange of Grand Avenue interchange traffic bound for northbound US 101. The Grand Avenue interchange US 101 northbound on-ramp has been closed most of the day and, in particular, during the AM peak commute traffic period due to construction. WP5115481 FSE/RI TRAN-COM.548 4 October 15, 1996 CITY OF BRISBANE r. E C E I V E D 50 PARK LANE Brisbane, California 94005 0 C T 1 51996 (415)467-1515 FAX (415) 467-4989 pLANNiNG City of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Attention: Marty Van Duyn, Secretary to the Planning Commission Re: Comments on the Revised Transportation Section of the Terrabay DSEIR Ladies and Gentlemen: The City of Brisbane appreciates the opportunity to comment on the revised transportation analysis of the Terrabay Project DEIR. As we suspected in our earlier comments, given the changes that have occurred to the roadway network since the 1982 EIR for this project and the East of l01 Plan analysis, most prominently the Oyster Point Interchange, traffic volumes in the vicinity of the project differed than previously stated, and further analysis was required. The following comments pertain to this new analysis and are submitted for your consideration and response. Our comments will primarily address segments of the local roadway system affected by the project within Brisbane's jurisdiction. 1. The Local Roadway System Diagram, p. 91, should show the respective municipal q'.O boundaries of the cities of Brisbane and South San Francisco. The diagram and caption leads readers to assume that the project area and the affected local roadways are all in the same jurisdiction, which is not the case. 2. On page 100, the Oyster Point Interchange is described as complete "with the exception of the hook ramps and flyover." The text fails to note that both the hook ramps and the ~•OZ flyover were considered essential parts of the Oyster Point Interchange Project and the difficulty the consultants have in this document comes from the unexamined fate of these ~~ 4 ~~ measures which, in fact, aze critical for the roadway system to accommodate the Terrabay ~ •O~ Project. ' 3. For example, what might be a simple comparison -- the 1982 Terrabay EIR and this new analysis -- is not cleaz due to inadequate description of the Oyster Point Project. For example, Table II, p. 1.11, sets forth the level of service computations from the 1982 EIR. It shows the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-rampBayshore Boulevard (`scissors ramp") at an LOS A/B in 1990 and B in 2000 "with project and mitigations." There is no footnote to describe what this means. We know that the Terrabay Project was projected to have build- ~ .~3 out by 1990 and that construction of the Oyster Point Interchange was to be completed before the completion of Terrabay. This is substantiated on page 113, Table 12. The first entry in the column summarizing the required mitigations is "conswction of the Oyster Point Interchange before completion of the proposed project." Dces this entry assume construction of the flyover and hook ramps? Apparently so, as further in the same table reference is made to a "redesign" of the hook-off ramp and the construction of new hook- on ramp. 4. When the analysis turns to the impacts of the project on the current roadway configuration, no attention is given to estimating the effect of the missing flyover or hook ramps on the existing roadway system. For example, on page 101, a footnote explains that the analysis assumes that the scissors ramps would be signalized by the year 2000 "since volumes would exceed peak hour wazrant criteria" without the Terrabay Project. Are the /~, ~, volumes affected by the unfinished Oyster Point Interchange? A footnote on page 140 ' acknowledges that the southbound off-ramp flyover was "proposed and approved" as part of the Oyster Point Project, but was not constructed "due to cost reduction measures." The report also identifies the flyover as an "ultimate mitigation" for the traffic impacts of cumulative development in the vicinity, with or without the Terrabay Project. . S. It appears that in order to deal with the Oyster Point problem, the consultant has introduced the concept of Base Case Mitigations as distinct from project mitigations, but ' does not identify the responsible party(s) since the base case does not include the project. ~.~ These "base case" mitigations include the signalization of the scissors ramp, the addition of a second off-ramp intersection approach and departure lanes and conswction of the flyover off-ramp. 6. The analysis comparing the 1982 EIR and thisSEIR identifies the reconstruction of the ~.0~ scissors ramp as a hook off-ramp (with changed geometries) and the construction of a new ~? GO~V'f. hook on-ramp for southbound traffic as mitigations associated with Phase III of the project ~. 06 in both documents. Does this assume conswction of the flyover? 7. The report characterizes the increased traffic from the project as adding "incrementally" to traffic impacts in the vicinity and therefore recommends afair-share contribution by Phase to a number of roadway improvements including the flyover ramp and the scissors ramp. However, the application before the Commission is to extend the development agreement to allow for completion of the Phase I development and "eventual development" of Phases II and III. If there is no plan in the immediate future to go forwazd with Phase II or III, the concept of incremental contributions by Phase does not work. In order to provide adequate mitigation, all measures necessary to accommodate the Phase I development should be required and installed in conjunction with that Phase for obvious reasons. _ This concludes our comments. Please note, for the record, that this letter is submitted on 10/15/96 due to the holiday on 10/14/96 and the closed South San Francisco City Offices. Sincer~y, -- - - ~/ -~ Carole G. Nelson Planning Director ~.D? Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page 35 4. Carole Nelson. Planning Director, Cltv of Brisbane; October 15, 1996 4.01 The comment suggests that Figure 6 should make clear that not all of the roadways affected by the project are within South San Francisco; some are within Brisbane city limits. Figure 6 does not show city limits. However, the fact that Bayshore Boulevard is within the Brisbane city limits is illustrated by Figures 2 and 5 of the DSEIR (pp. 46 and 69). Also, Chapter III of the DSEIR (Project Description) and p. 149 of the recirculated DSEIR transportation chapter explain that city of Brisbane approval would be required for implementation of any elements of the project or any mitigations for traffic impacts involving Bayshore Boulevard. 4.02 The comment suggests that the recirculated DSEIR transportation chapter fails to note that the hook ramps and flyover were essential parts of the Oyster Point interchange project, that the existing and future traffic problems are due to their not having been built, and that the hook ramps and flyover are essential for the local roadway system to handle Terrabay. The flyover and hook ramps are projected to be needed to accommodate traffic from future growth in South San Francisco as well as Brisbane. They are not needed to accommodate traffic at an acceptable -evel from existing development. Existing observed congestion at the newly opened Oyster Point interchange is due principally to the lack of full coordination between signals at the closely spaced intersections within the interchange as welt as the (temporarily) added increment of traffic using the interchange due to the frequent closure of the northbound freeway on-ramp at the adjacent Grand Avenue interchange. Terrabay Phase I traffic can be accommodated at the Oyster Point interchange without provision of either the flyover or the hook ramps. However, the recirculated DSEIR transportation chapter recommends that Terrabay Phase I provide a contribution towards the flyover, which will ultimately be needed to accommodate area buildout volumes. All local area development that will use the Oyster Point interchange, including projects in Brisbane, should contribute toward the ultimate improvement needs at the interchange. 4.03 The comment questions whether the 1982 EIR level of service computations and mitigations summarized in the recirculated DSEIR transportation chapter include the hook ramps and flyover. The 1982 EIR traffic analysis did not include the flyover off- ramp because the design of the Oyster Point interchange had not yet been determined. The primary design that was under consideration at the time the 1982 EIR was prepared was different from what was ultimately adopted and (partially) constructed. 4.04 The comment suggests that the recirculated DSEIR transportation section fails to describe the effects of the missing flyover or hook ramps on the existing roadway system. The DSEIR traffic analysis does not evaluate existing (1996) traffic conditions. The DSEIR analyzes future year 2000 and 2010 traffic conditions without (Base Case conditions) and with the Terrabay project. Year 2000 and 2010 Base Case (without project) conditions represent the effects of the missing flyover and hook ramps. Year 2000 and 2010 conditions with project Phases I, II and III represent conditions with the hook ramps, but without the flyover. One of the primary effects of the hook ramps WP5115481FSE/RI TRAN-COM.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page 36 would be to remove a substantial amount of Brisbane traffic bound for southbound US 101 that currently travels through the Oyster Point interchange to access the southbound on-ramp at Dubuque Avenue, thereby improving operations at three major intersections within the Oyster Point interchange (US 101 southbound off- ramp/northbound Bayshore Boulevard, Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Bayshore Boulevard/Airport Boulevard, and Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/US 101 northbound on-ramp). 4.05 The comment suggests that the recirculated DSEIR transportation section fails to identify the responsible party for Base Case mitigations. The Base Case analysis presented in the DSEIR provides a benchmark against which the impacts and mitigation needs of the project can be evaluated. The identified Base Case mitigations would be the fair-share responsibility of each contributing development project in the vicinity. 4.06 The comment questions whether the 1982 EIR mitigation requiring replacement of the existing scissors ramp with the hook ramps summarized in Table 12 of the recirculated DSEIR transportation chapter assumes construction of the flyover. The 1982 EIR traffic analysis did not include the flyover off-ramp because the design of the Oyster Point interchange had not yet been determined. The primary design that was under consideration at the time the 1982 EIR was prepared was different from what was ultimately adopted and (partially) constructed. 4.07 CEG~A authorizes a phased approach to impacts based on a phased development proposal. The comment notes that the recommended mitigation approach of requiring fair-share cost contributions by phase will not work if Phases II and III do not proceed as planned, and suggests that Phase I must provide for all mitigations needed for Phase I impacts. Comment acknowledged. The Phase I mitigations for which afair- share cost contribution was identified would become necessary and would be implemented at the time that cumulative development in the vicinity that would be contributing to the need for and fair-share funding of the improvements would occur. WP5115481 FSE/RI TRAN-COM.548 STATE OF GIIONNA-EUSlISS. iRAItSPOfTAT10N AID FiOUSIJG AGINCY rliT YMIISON. Gar~sr DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION soz ~.o o.nArw. a ~axsaeeu ~sTq ~w Too ~stq aa`.+4s4 October 16,1996 SM-101-23.39 SCI-I#95092027 SM101212-A Ms. Lida Budkb City of South San Francisco Planning Division 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Deaz Ms. Budko: Re: Revisions to the Deft Supplemental F,t~yironmental Impact Repast for . the Terrabap Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension - Revised Transportation Impact and Mitigation Findings Thank you for including the California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process. We have reviewed the above referenced document and forward the following comments: t) Based on the projected traffic volume indicated on Page 102, Figure 8, the northbo+:nd through traffic orn Airport Blvd. is more than the right-turn traffic at 5'0~ the Oyster Point Blvd. intersection. Please reev~uate ~ r Pointp /~ ~ rt $lv~d. (moo right-turn lanes and only one through lane) Oy ~Po intet~section as shown on page 107, Figure 12 2) On Page 121, Figure 13, please reevaluate if a single left-turn lane on Bayshore G .pZ Blvd. at the project commercial access will be adequate to handle the projected AM peak traffic of b~l5 vehicles indicated on page 124, Figure 16. 3) On Page 127, Figure 19, please explain the significant drnp (from 505 to 100) in C'vA right-tvm movement from eastbound Oyster Point Slvd. to Dubuque Ave. There is 7J no pattern change and the majority of traffic is from the north via Bayshore Blvd. (,Q~. ;,~~. $ydlcn /SM101212-A pctober 16,1996 page 2 A)so, the northbound Dubuq d Ave. traffic volume between $R10i ramps and Oyster Point Blvd. does not ad uP. Please clarify. tiara needs for westbound pyste~ Point Blvd 4) pn Page 137, Figure 20, the mitiga ~ situation. Since the at Bayshore Blvd- intersection as shown are for the exist a~ffi'c will be much higher projected volume for Year 2000 indicates that through than right-turn traffic, we suggest that the mitigation be reevaluatrci. rt Blvd., Opster 5) ~ paw 138, gigure 21, ln~e~O~ Qpster Point Blvd./Airpo Point Blvd./Dubuque Ave. and SR101 ramps/Dubuque Ave. are shown as havmg um radical mitigations which may not produce acceptable operation" the "maxim F miti ations will 6e practical m be installed without Please evaluate further if these g ace? What other alternatives ca cpmproniising traffic ~tY l ~ thfre adequate sp )- these intersectionsy be considered to mitigate the additional traffic a ~ I~afi~ 151 respecdverY. Safe ga,estions apply to Figures 24 and 25 on p geS We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on t3,is project and wish to continue close correspondence on its dev M pl~nda P g-a~du~adr- of yas~ at {510) Z~- regarding these commenl5, please contact 5544. Sincerely, Jo>i BROw-rr>r District Director ~'~~~~Q".b~C P1~,L1P BADAL District Branch Chief IGRICEC2A tour. ~s.n3 1s.oq- 5. cc: Angell Howell, SCH Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page 39 5. Phillip Badal, District Branch Chief. California Department of Transportation• 10-16-96 5.01 The Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection was analyzed with existin approach lane striping for all unmitigated level of service analysis. The SEIR transportation consultant agrees that the current striping for the Airport Boulevard approach is not the best to accommodate projected year 2000 AM peak hour volumes; it is the best to accommodate existing PM peak hour volumes (see Figure 7 of the recirculated DSEIR transportation chapter) and projected year 2000 PM peak hour volumes (see Figure 9). Over time, should monitoring indicate a need for the restriping of any approach to improve operation, then restriping should be considered at that time. Please note that the 2010 mitigation needs illustrated by Figure 26 include such a restriping of the Airport Boulevard intersection approach. 5.02 The intersection lane geometrics presented in Figure 13 were the minimum feasible tested to see if acceptable peak hour operation could be provided. However, the 2010 mitigation needs illustrated by Figure 26 indicate that provision of dual left turn lanes on the Bayshore Boulevard northbound approach to the project commercial access, and on the southbound approach to the new southbound hook on-ramp, are recommended to reduce vehicle queue storage lengths. It is usual Caltrans practice to consider provision of a second left turn lane when left turning volumes exceed 300 vehicles per hour. 5.03 The reason for the significant drop in the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard to southbound Dubuque Avenue PM peak hour traffic presented on Figure 19 is the provision of a new southbound hook on-ramp from Bayshore Boulevard as part of Phase III of the project. The vast majority of vehicles removed from this movement are from employment areas in Brisbane (to the north along Bayshore Boulevard), which are destined for southbound US 101 and would choose to use the new on-ramp rather than travel through three major intersections within the interchange to reach the existing southbound on-ramp from Dubuque Avenue. In Figure 19, the Dubuque Avenue northbound right turn movement at Oyster Point Boulevard should be 780 vehicles and not 650 vehicles. Northbound volumes along Dubuque Avenue will then add up between the freeway ramps and Oyster Point Boulevard intersections. The correct volume was used in the level of service calculations. 5.04 The year 2000 Base Case mitigation striping needs presented in Figure 20 for the Oyster Point/Bayshore intersection are the same as existing striping. No changes were recommended to existing striping, provided acceptable levels of service were achieved. While the SEIR transportation consultant agrees that westbound PM peak hour through volumes are much higher than right turning volumes, westbound AM peak hour volumes have a higher number of right turns than through vehicles. By 2010, with project Phase III, there would be a significantly higher number of westbound right turns WP5115481 FSEIRI TRAN-COM.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page 40 in the morning than through vehicles. AS with most intersections within the Oyster Point interchange, striping favorable for one commute time period is not necessarily the best for the other commute time period. Ongoing monitoring of peak traffic conditions will give guidance as to approach striping changes needed over time. 5.05 The year 2010 Base Case mitigation needs with or without project Phase I presented in Figure 21 will require widening the Oyster Point Boulevard overpass of the US 101 freeway (to provide one additional through lane in each direction) as well as widening of the Oyster Point Boulevard overpass of the Caltrain line (to provide a second westbound right turn lane and a third eastbound through lane). Widening will also be required on the Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound approach to Bayshore Boulevard (to provide a second left turn lane) and on the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach to the southbound on-ramp. In regard to other possible alternative mitigations, the proposed southbound to eastbound flyover off-ramp and the proposed hook ramps along Bayshore Boulevard would avoid the need for some of these improvements. The flyover off-ramp represents a possible alternative mitigation to some of the year 2010 Base Case mitigation needs with or without project Phase I presented in Figure 24. The flyover and the hook ramps represent possible alternative mitigations to the year 2010 Base Case plus project Phases I, II and III mitigation needs presented in Figure 25. WP5115481 FSE/RI TRAN-COM.548 6 t~ECEIVED 0 C T 1 61996 Transponation Impact Concerns PLANNING The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension revision on transportation impact and mitigation findings has brought to my attention some concerns about Phase Three of the Terrabay Project: • Through my understanding of the DSEIR revisions on transportation, the increased traffic resulting in necessary road upgrades and alterations would in return possibly have significant adverse effect upon the area it is in. • The diagrams do not provide realistic representation of the enlarged on-ramps and off- ramps between Bayshore Boulevard and Highway lOlthus making it difficult to assess their possible impacts upon potions of the area in question. • The proposed flyover ramp between Southbound 101 and Oyster Point Blvd. does not have a clear example of where the actual ramp would impact the ground and from what I know of the site rt is shown aS unrealistically fitting between Bayshore Blvd. and 101. • In addition the report revision states that there will be three access points between Bayshore Blvd. and the proposed Phase Three commercial project development on page 119 but makes no attempt to address the possible impacts of these access points or the signaled intersection. With these traffic and road upgrades occurring as a result of the Terrabay project I find it necessary to point out the significance of the areas which could potentially be impacted by transportation increases and road alterations. • Up to three shell mounds including the largest Ohlone shell midden found on San Bruno Mountain is located in the middle of the planned Phase Three development and is of extreme archaeological and cultural value. • Most of the hundreds of shell middens and thus historical village sites throughout the bay area have been lost due to urban expansion and development. • According to experts on the subject these shell mounds are likely to be burial grounds to ancient people and to allow the roads or parking lots to take precedence over these traditional cultural sites would deprive future generations of this important history. • This area of planned development is also habitat for the endangered Mission Blue and Callippe Silverspot butterfly's whose population has been decreasing already on the southeast ridge, according to the 1995 San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan Activities Report. • Further development would only lead to more loss of irreplaceable habitat for the butterfly's as well as the loss of a place where ancient historical sites could lay with the native Franciscan environment. By establishing these points I hope to show the potential dangers of the results that could be created as identified in the revised transportation impact and mitigation findings. I also encourage you to examine the possibility of creating a site where the historical remains of an ancient population exists in harmony with the natural environment as it has for thousands of years. This could be a potential alternative to the Phase Throe commercial development that would bring increased traffic and decreased awareness of natural environments and lost knowledge of ancient people. On Behalf of San Bruno Mountain Watch October 14th 1996 ~.o~ 6.oZ. 6.03 Terrabay Project Final SEIR City of South San Francisco Revised Transportation Section October 25, 1996 Page 42 6. San Bruno Mountain Watch: 10-14-96 6.01 The commentor appears to be concerned about potential impacts of the recommended roadway improvements along Bayshore Boulevard, and in the area of the proposed hook ramps and flyover improvements, on the natural environment (including endangered species habitat) and on identified cultural resources (CA-SMa-40 and CA- SMa-92) located in the Phase III portion of the project. Phase III of the project would include construction of new US 101 southbound on and off hook ramps connecting to Bayshore Boulevard at a signalized intersection that would also serve as the primary access to the project's commercial portion. As explained in the DSEIR, in order to fit the new hook ramps (as well as the southbound flyover off-ramp and the left-turn lanes) into the Phase III portion of the project, Bayshore Boulevard would need to be realigned slightly westward onto the project site. The exact new alignment of Bayshore Boulevard and the exact locations of the other needed roadway improvements (as well as the ultimate physical characteristics of the Phase III commercial portion of the project) have not yet been determined. The program-level assessment provided in the DSEIR for these subsequent phase actions also adequately considers the potential secondary impacts (e.g., vegetation and wildlife impacts, cultural resources impacts, etc.) of these roadway improvements. 6.02 The comment notes that the Phase tll portion of the project contains three Ohlone shell mounds, including the largest on San Bruno Mountain., that most other shell middens in the region have been destroyed, that the shell mounds are likely to be burial sites, and that the Phase III area is also endangered butterfly habitat. Comment acknowledged; the comment pertains to the merits of the project, not the adequacy of the DSEIR. 6.03 The comment suggests that an alternative be considered that allows the Phase III portion of the project to remain undeveloped and thus preserves the historical remains and natural environment. The Lead Agency has determined that the DSEIR already evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives. The alternatives reevaluated in the DSEIR (pp. 259-261) are the same as those considered in the 1982 EIR, which were determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives at the time the 1982 EIR was certified as adequate. In addition, the DSEIR reevaluates the four 1982 EIR alternatives under current (1996) conditions. The DSEIR alternatives section identifies any substantive changes in conditions since 1982 which may affect the findings of the 1982 EIR regarding the four identified alternatives to the proposed project. The Phase III open space alternative referred to in the comment is the same as the "no project" alternative evaluated in the DSEIR, which consists of no extension of the specific plan and development agreement and no development other than the limited portion of Phase I that would be completed under the existing entitlements. WP5115481FSEIRI TRAN-COM.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page 43 The comparative impact findings of this "no project" alternative are presented on DSEIR pp. 260-261. Implementation of the "no project" alternative, or of an alternative that preserves Phase III as open space, is not necessary to avoid most of the significant impacts identified in the DSEIR. All of the significant impacts identified in the DSEIR can be mitigated to aless-than-significant level by recommended mitigation measures with two exceptions: project impacts on the US 101 freeway mainline would remain significant and project impacts on regional air quality would remain significant even after implementation of recommended mitigations. WP5115481FSEIRI TRAN-COM.548 Terrabay Project City of South San Francisco October 25, 1996 Final SEIR Revised Transportation Section Page 44 WP5115481FSEIRI TRAN-COM.548