Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-12 e-packetSPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 MEETING WILL BE HELD AT: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE JULY 17, 2002 6:00 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on Wednesday, the 17t~ day of July, 2002, at 6:00 p.m., in the Municipal Service Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda 4. Study Session: Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting - Mission Road/Chestnut Avenue Study 5. Adjournment St ort DATE: July 17, 2002 TO: The Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission FROM: Director of Economic and Community Development SUBJECT: Joint Study Session: E1 Camino Real Corridor/Chestnut Avenue Land Use and Urban Design Plan RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council conduct a joint study session with the Planning Commission on the proposed E1 Camino Real Corridor/Chestnut Avenue Area Land Use and Urban Design Plan and provide comments as appropriate. BACKGROUND: The purpose of the joint study session is to review the proposed Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use and Urban Design Plan. The project was initiated in response to a number of factors affecting the E1 Camino Real Corridor area. The fragmented ownership and oddly-shaped parcels in the project area has limited development potential, and the area has been used for a wide-range of temporary uses during the construction period of the BART- San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Extension Right-Of-Way. The Land Use and Urban Design Plan is intended to provide a structure for development opportunities on properties in the study area. The Plan provides specific design and development standards for future projects in the area. The Plan, however, does not include any specific projects or development applications in the proposed area. Any future project or development applications would be subject to separate environmental review and City approvals. Project Location The study area is bounded by the Grand Avenue and Mission Road to the north, the Orange Memorial Park to the south, E1 Camino Real on the west side, and Mission Road on the east side (see Attachment 1: Location Map). The study area is located in the E1 Camino Real Corridor, which is South San Francisco's most diverse area in terms of land use. Reflecting the regional heritage of the corridor, commercial uses such as auto sales (Ron Price Motors), hotels, fast-food restaurants, and neighborhood shopping Staff Report To: From: Subject: Date: Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission Economic and Community Development Director Joint Study Session: E1 Camino Real Corridor/Chestnut Avenue Land Use and Urban Design Plan July 17, 2001 Page 2 centers predominate in the study area. Adjacent to the study area, Kaiser Hospital, one of the city's largest employers, is also operating a regional hospital. Residential uses are located in small pockets. Planning Context In October 1999, The City Council adopted the South San Francisco General Plan. The Plan presents a long-term, comprehensive plan to help the community understand the issues and find solutions for land use, housing, economic development, alternative transportation, and conservation needs for the various neighborhoods that make up our city. The Plan also reflects a pro-active community outreach which involved community and public meetings held by the City Council, the Planning Commission, other City commissions and boards, the Chamber of Commerce, and several community organizations over two years. The General Plan recognizes that the study area, while part of the larger E1 Camino Real corridor, will be undergoing changes to land use due to physical improvements to the local streets. The General Plan identifies a new street (Oak Avenue Extension), street improvements (the intersection of E1 Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue), and the creation of a new Linear Park along the BART- SFO ROW. In September 200t, the City Council approved the selection of the consulting firm of Van Meter Williams Pollack to assist City Staff to build consensus within the diverse opinions within the study area. City Staff and Van Meter Williams Pollack have met with community representatives, property owners, local business owners, and organizations to develop the framework for the Land Use and Urban Design Plan. City Staff and the Consultant have also accomplished the following: · Meetings with identified stakeholders, including Ron Price, the San Francisco-Public Utilities Commission and San Mateo County to discuss future plans and business objectives; · Several meetings with the Consultant and City staff to review alternative land use strategies and the Oak Avenue Extension; · Analysis of existing conditions, infrastructure and environmental constraints; · Analysis of Alternative Land Use strategies; and · Preparation of the Draft Land Use Plan. Staff Report To: From: Subject: Date: Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission Economic and Community Development Director Joint Study Session: E1 Camino Real Corridor/Chestnut Avenue Land Use and Urban Design Plan July 17, 2001 Page 3 DISCUSSION: The City desires to balance the expansion needs for the existing commercial and employment base in the study area as well as identify potential sites for mixed-use, multi-family housing. Currently, Ron Price Motors is interested in expanding the auto dealership in South San Francisco. Additionally, the San Francisco-Public Utilities Commission (SF-PUC) owns a several vacant sites, totaling over ten- acres, that are adjacent to the proposed Linear Park. The City is also interested in encouraging improvements to the Chestnut Avenue Shopping Center and the Bell Market shopping center. Draft Urban Design and Land Use Plan The major goals of the E1 Camino Real Corridor/Chestnut Avenue Land Use and Urban Design Plan include: 1) to improve circulation on Chestnut Avenue between Mission Road and E1 Camino Real, 2) to enhance the viability of commercial uses along the E1 Camino Corridor, such as Ron Price Motors, by reconfiguring and aggregating land ownership patterns, 3) to aggregate other small and oddly-shaped parcels, currently owned by the SF-PUC, into coherent, viable sites for residential and mixed-use infill development opportunities, and 4) to outline an implementation strategy wtfich connects public infrastructure improvements with private development. The draft Land Use improvements, land including: and Urban Design Plan makes recommendations tbr specific circulation use changes, development opportunities, and open space improvements · Work with property owners to aggregate properties tbr greater development potential; · Work with SF-PUC and Ron Price Motors to reorganize and aggregate parcels and promote development within the project area; · Amend the General Plan and rezone parcels tbr mixed-use commercial/residential development where appropriate; · Ensure dedication of land necessary tbr the Oak Avenue Extension Right-Ot:-Way; · Work with San Mateo County to extend Willow Avenue through the existing parking area from Grand Avenue to Mission Road and create a new development site; · Change access points to Chestnut Avenue to eliminate the signal at Antoinette Lane and make additional roadway improvements to improve traffic flow and streetscape quality; and · Extend Mission Road south of Chestnut Avenue to access Orange Park and the Chestnut Center site. The Land Use and Urban Design Plan includes a Traffic Study that analyzes the potential impacts from the proposed land use and street improvements. The Traffic Report concludes that the project will provide a positive benefit to traffic circulation in the study area. Staff Report To: From: Subject: Date: Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission Economic and Community Development Director Joint Study Session: E1 Camino Real Corridor/Chestnut Avenue Land Use and Urban Design Plan July 17, 2001 Page 4 Community Meeting Over the past eight months, the consultant and City Staffhave endeavored to create a collaborative process in which property owners, regional agencies, and residents to receive input and comments on the framework for the Land Use and Urban Design Plan. Following the Joint Study Session, the consultant and staff will sponsor a Community Meeting with property owners and residents from the surrounding neighborhoods. The Community Meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 23, 2002, at 6:00 PM at the Magnolia Senior Center. Notice of this Joint Study Session and the Community Meeting has been mailed to all property owners and interested residents. The Community Meeting has also been advertised in the introductory newsletter for the Linear Park Community Outreach program. CONCLUSION: City Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a joint study session with the Planning Commission on the proposed Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use and Urban Design Plan and provide comments as appropriate. By: ~i~Vr~n~om~'~ an4 Community Development ATTACHMENTS: Michael A. Wilson, C~y Manager Location Map Draft E1Camino Real Corridor/Chestnut Avenue Land Use and Urban Design Plan Traffic Study (Study Location Map El Camino Real Corridor/Chestnut Land Use and Urban Design Plan Study Area area parcels and new street are highlighted within the Circle) South San Francisco BART Transit Village ": ?>'!k Park California Golf and Country Club :YChest Prf{ .~:Mo t or s~;!!', El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Land Use and Urban Desi§n Plan South San Francisco, CA July 9, 2002 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BY VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture * Urban Design CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................. ii SECTION 1: EXISTING CONDITIONS Location and Context ......................................... 1.1 Study Goals ................................................ 1.1 Traffic & Circulation .......................................... 1.3 Land Use & Development Conditions ............................. 1.7 SECTION 2: PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES Preliminary Alternatives ....................................... 2.1 Preferred Alternative .......................................... 2.3 SECTION 3: CONCEPT PLAN Illustrative Concept Plan ....................................... 3.1 Development Sites ........................................... 3.4 Public Improvements ........................................ 3.11 SECTION 4: IMPLEMENTATION Phasing ................................................... 4.1 Traffic Impact Report ......................................... 4.3 Next Steps ................................................. 4.3 VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture * Urban Design EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The F.1 Camino Real/Chestnut Area Land Use and Urban Design Plan was intitiated in response to a number of factors affecting the E1 Camino Real/Chestnut Area of South San Francisco. The fragmented ownership of oddly-shaped parcels in the project area has limited development potential, and the area has been used for a wide range of temporary uses during the construction of the BART-SFO Extension. Chestnut Avenue is one of the City's most congested roads during peak periods due primarily to traffic from Downtown and Hillside Boulevard traversing to El Camino Real and 1-280. The City has targeted the E1 Camino Real/Chestnut Area for several major public improvements. The 1999 South San Francisco General Plan calls for an extension of Oak Avenue to relieve congestion on Chestnut Avenue and a major expansion of Orange Park. In addition, planning is underway for a bikeway on the BART Right-of-Way traversing the entire distance through the city. The proximity of the new South San Francisco BART Station will likely raise land values and create development pressures in the area, particularly for residential uses. There were four primary goals for the plan: (1) to improve circulation on Chestnut Avenue, (2) to enhance the viability of existing commercial uses in the area, such as Ron Price Motors, by reconfiguring and aggregating land ownership patterns, (3) to aggregate small and oddly-shaped parcels into coherent, viable sites for residential and mixed-use infill development opportunities, and (4) to outline an implementation strategy which connects public infrastructure improvements with private development. The R1 Camino Real/Chestnut Land Use and Urban Design Plan makes recommendations for specific circulation improvements, land use changes, development opportunities, and open space improvements including: · Work with property owners to aggregate properties per plan recommendations to create parcels of greater development potential; · Work with the San Francisco PUC and Ron Price Motors to reorganize and aggregate parcels and promote quality development within the project area and encourage BART/SamTrans and other private property owners to participate; · Amend General Plan and rezone parcels for mixed-use commercial/residential development when appropriate; · Ensure dedication of land necessary for Oak Avenue Extension Right-Of- Way and improvements in association with adjacent development; VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture * Urban Design EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT AREA LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN PLAN · Work with San Mateo County to extend Willow Avenue through the existing parking area from Grand Avenue to Mission Road to connect with the Oak Avenue Extension and create a new potential development site; · Change access points to Chestnut Avenue to eliminate the signal at Antoinette Lane and make additional roadway improvements to improve traffic flow and streetscape quality; · Extend Mission Road south of Chestnut Avenue to access Orange Park and the Chesnut Center site; · Signalize the intersection of El Camino Real and First Street and improve First Street and A Street to allow access to Peninsula Pines and the Chestnut Center; and · Complete the transportation improvements recommended in the Traffic Impact Report that accompanies this plan. The circulation improvements focus on improving traffic congestion while addressing pedestrian and bicycle connections. The land use and development recommendations strengthen the commercial viability and residential development potential of the area while concentrating on the character and quality of new development. Implementation is a key component of the plan. Strategies for making property ownership more efficient, especially between E1 Camino Real and Mission Road, are a central element, as are Zoning and General Plan changes. Design regulation for mixed-use commercial and residential development consistent with the South San Francisco Transit ~llage Plan will ensure new development is of a high quality and serves the surrounding neighborhood. VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture · Urban Design SECTION 1: EXISTING CONDITIONS LOCATION & CONTEXT The E1 Camino Real/Chestnut Area is located near the geographical center of the City, between the new South San Francisco BART Station and the Downtown. The Study Area is bounded by Grand Avenue to the North, Orange Park to the West, the E1 Camino Real corridor to the South, and the Kaiser Hospital to the East. The E1 Camino Real/Chestnut Area plays an important role in the city as a conduit of through traffic from surrounding neighborhoods to 1-280 and Hwy. 101. The role of the neighborhood will become more important as a link between the new BART Station and the South San Francisco Downtown. STUDY GOALS The recommendations of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Land Use and Urban Design Plan were developed with four central goals: 1) Improve traffic circluation on Chestnut Avenue, particularly between Mission Road and E1 Camino Real; 2) Maintain and enhance the viability of existing commercial businesses in the area (particularly Ron Price Motors auto dealership) by reconfiguring the land ownership pattern; 3) Improve the infill development potential of the area by aggregating small and oddly-shaped parcels into coherent residential and mixed-use infill development opportunity sites; and 4) Outline an implementation strategy which connects public infrastructure improvements with private development. These goals guided the development of the recommendations for traffic and circulation improvements and land use and development opportunities in this plan. Context Map VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture · Urban Design 1.1 u§!sao ueq~fl · a~nloal!ClO~V )13YIIOd Si~1¥1111N~ ~i3131/~1 008 001~ OOZ NV'Id N~DIS3Q NVg~Ifl QNV 3Sfl QNVI V3~IV IflNIS]HO/I¥3~] ONI~VO 13 SECTION 1: EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC & CIRCULATION Several major arterial streets characterize the E1 Camino Real/Chestnut Area. Generally, the area is heavily impacted by peak period automobile traffic. Chestnut Avenue and E1 Camino Real carry heavy traffic loads, and Grand Avenue, Mission Road, and Commercial Avenue all have significant amounts of traffic. Rush hour queues back up on Chestnut Avenue from E1 Camino Real to Mission Road, with substantial queues for left turn movements to the San Mateo County court complex on Mission Road during the morning commute. Currently, pedestrian circulation in the area is difficult and unpleasant due to the traffic barrier of El Camino Real, the poor condition of sidewalks along Chestnut Aveune, and physical barriers such as sound walls and fencing along Westborough Boulevard. Additionally, there are few pedestrian connections from the area north of Mission Road to E1 Camino Real. Pedestrian connections to Orange Park are adequate, but the connection to the neighborhood could be significantly improved with an access point from the west. The only current access to the western edge of the park is from the north, via Eucalyptus Ave. The planned bike path through the area would connect Orange Park to the South San Francisco BART Station, E1 Camino High School, and the Sunshine Garden Neighborhood. Improvements in the E1 Camino Real/Chestnut Area should seek to improve the circulation conditions by creating new connections, strengthening existing ones, and ensuring new development provides a pleasant and interesting street edge. The following is a discussion of several key circulation issues for the area: Oak Avenue Extension The 1999 General Plan calls for the extension of Oak Avenue from Mission Road to E1 Camino Real in order to relieve traffic congestion, particularly at the Chestnut/E1 Camino intersection. The extension of Oak Avenue from Mission Road to E1 Camino Real would provide a secondary outlet for traffic that currently uses Chestnut Avenue. A full extension of Oak Avenue to E1 Camino Real would be the most effective option for reducing traffic congestion on Chestnut Avenue. However, there are issues affecting the feasibility of the extension such as the grade change and the capacity of the BART infrastructure to support a roadway and possibly additional fill. The extension will require further study to assess precise alignment, construction parameters, and cost. Intersection o£ F-1 Camino Real and Chesntut Avenue. TratBc congestion on Chestnut is a key issue in the plan. Pedestrian conditions in the area are poor with £ew street trees, narrow sidewalks, and wide crossings. OAK AVENUE EXTENSION ALTERNATIVES · Furl extension from Mission Road to El Camino Real · Partial extension to BART ROW with pedestrian-only connection to El Camino Real · Minimal extension across Colma Creek to Antoinette Lane VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture * Urban Design 1.3 EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT AREA LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN PLAN The Oak/~ission intersection would be important link with the Oak Avenue F~xtension. GRAND-MISSION ROADWAY ALTERNATIVES · A redesigned perpendicular Oak/Grand intersection · An extension of Willow Avenue through San Mateo County property to Mission Road The extension of Willow Avenue to A4i~ion Road would a/Iow a cul-de-sac to be created at the unsa[e Oak/Crand intersection. CHESTNUT AVENUE ISSUES · New access from Mission Road across Colma Creek through Orange Park expansion · New access to Chestnut Center via First Street and A Street · Right-in/Right-out access only from Chestnut Avenue to adjacent properties · Efiminate traffic signal at Antoinette Lane The Oak Avenue Extension could also be phased over time, with an initial connection to Antoinette Lane followed by a second phase connection to E1 Camino Real. A partial extension of Oak Avenue as far as the BART Right-Of-Way (where the steep grade begins) with a pedestrian-only connection to E1 Camino Real would not relieve traffic on Chestnut Avenue, but would allow for site reconfiguration, parcel aggregation, and primarily residential infill development, which would achieve other goals of the plan. The Oak Avenue Extension would cause significantly higher volumes of traffic to be carried on Oak Avenue from Grand Avenue to Mission Avenue. The unsafe geometry of the Grand/Oak intersection and its close proximity to the Grand/Chestnut intersection requires the reconsideration of the circulation pattern. This could take the form of either a redesigned Grand/Oak intersection or the extension of Willow Avenue from Grand to Mission Road through the San Mateo County property. The Willow Avenue extension, while difficult to implement, would provide the greatest traffic safety and would more effectively relieve overall traffic congestion in the area. It would likely require signalization of the Grand/Willow intersection and would include the creation of a cul-de-sac on Oak Avenue at Grand Avenue. Neighborhood traffic calming along Willow Avenue above Grand Avenue would minimize cut-through traffic in the surrounding neighborhood. A redesigned Oak/Grand intersection with a perpendicular intersection could address safety concerns, but would be less effective in easing congestion on Chestnut Avenue. Chestnut Avenue The current traffic congestion on Chestnut Avenue must be addressed, especially from Mission Road to E1 Camino Real. Peak-period raffic queues from E1 Camino Real back through the Mission Road intersection, with additional delays caused by left turns onto Mission Road during the morning rush hour. Current traffic volumes require a new signal at Commercial Avenue which would have a significant impact on overall congestion levels on Chestnut Avenue. The Antoinette Lane signal causes additional queuing, but this signal is necessary to gain access to Chestnut Avenue from adjacent properties. One possible method to ease the traffic flow on Chestnut is removing all cross-flow access between E1 Camino Real and Mission Road including the signal at Antoinette Lane. This would potentially require a bridge over Colma Creek to connect to Mission Road and/or a new signalized intersection at First St. and E1 Camino Real. The removal of the Antoinette Lane signal will benefit traffic flow on Chesntut Avenue, and would probably mean a change to a mix of residential and commercial uses on the Chestnut Center site. 1.4 VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture · Urban Design SECTION 1: EXISTING CONDITIONS Tranxportation anoZ Circulation 200 400 800 feet VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture · Urban Design 1.5 EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT AREA LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN PLAN BIKE PATH ALTERNATIVES · Use the BART ROW or Antoinette Lane · Follow Co/ma Creek into Orange Park · Follow El Camino Real before connecting back to the BART ROW at Chestnut Ave. Existing infrastructure, such as this path along Mission Road, could be incorporated into the bike path. Bike Path Currently the City of South San Francisco, with assistance from an MTC Planning Grant, is developing plans for the BART Right~Of-Way to be used as a recreational bike path along the entire length of the Right-Of-Way through the City. There are several alternatives for the connection between the new BART Station and Orange Park. A connection along Colma Creek, utilizing the existing pedestrian and bike improvements along Mission Road and connecting into the possible Orange Park expansion would provide an excellent bicycle connection. Using the BART Right-of-Way and connecting via Antoinette Lane or E1 Camino Real would result in a difficult and potentially unsafe crossing at Chestnut Avenue and would prevent the aggregation of properties northwest of Chestnut Avenue into a coherent ownership pattern. A connection via El Camino Real could activate the street frontage, but the grade change from the BART Righ-Of- Way makes this option unfeasible. A Street Connection A possible method to reduce traffic congestion on Chestnut Avenue is the use of A Street and First Street as a new access point from E1 Camino Real, bypassing the busy El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue intersection. Current street conditions on A and First Streets are narrow, with approximately 45' Right-Of-Way and only 25' from curb to curb. This is enough for two driving lanes, but would necessitate reconfiguration of the on-street parking on these two blocks. Ultimately, this connection could be important for any redevelopment of the Chestnut Center, but it may be an expensive and difficult solution. Mission Road Extension Another possible method to reduce traffic congestion on Chestnut Avenue would be the extension of Mission Road and a connection across Colma Creek to Chestnut Center. This connection would allow for the removal of cross-flow traffic from Chestnut Avenue between Mission Road and E1 Camino Real, and would provide additional access to the existing retail center. This solution may be costly, as it would require a road extension and the construction of a new bridge over the creek, but it would benefit any proposed redevelopment of the Chestnut Center site. 1.6 VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture · Urban Design SECTION 1: EXISTING CONDITIONS LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS The core of the E1 Camino Real/Chestnut Area contains a mix of land uses, including single- and multi-family housing, a thriving auto dealership (Ron Price Motors), two neighborhood shopping centers with grocery stores, a San Mateo County court complex, several community-oriented uses, and auto-oriented uses such as several gas stations and a car wash. The surrounding land uses include the Kaiser Permanente hospital, the 23+ acre Orange Park and several low-density residential neighborhoods. There is also a significant amoun.t of undeveloped land owned by the California Water Service Company (CWSC) and currently maintained as agricultural uses. The City has been in discussion with the CWSC regarding the purchase of this property for park expansion. Commercial Uses With the exception of Ron Price Motors, the fourth largest sales tax contributor in the city, the commercial activity in the area generally does not appear to be particularly thriving. Changes to some of the commercial properties in the area might be a possibility. The existing Bell Markets and Safeway grocery stores, located in the Buri Burl Center and the Chesntut Center, respectively, are small for current grocery store standards. The small parcel sizes and the proximity of other more contemporary shopping centers and grocery stores of larger size would make expansion or redevelopment into a similar land use type unlikely. Residential Uses Several existing multi-family housing developments in the project area appear to be in relatively poor condition due to low-quality maintenance, and none of the denser housing addresses the street in a pedestrian-friendly manner. However, most of the housing seems relatively stable, and this use is unlikely to change in the near future. The City should review these properties for code enforcement and potential rehabilitation or acquisition programs. Several new residential developments are proposed or under construction currently. These developments are mostly at moderate densities. An affordable senior housing project is under construction at the intersection of Mission Road and Chestnut Avenue and a low-density small- lot residential project is being built at Oak Avenue and Grand Avenue. These two developments will reinforce the existing pattern of land use consisting of denser housing located near the core of the area and lower densities at the periphery. A small multi-family building has been proposed on Oak Avenue near Commercial Avenue as well. The Santo Christo Hall is among the community-oriented uses in the area. Existing multi-family residential developments, like this one on Mission Road, lack street entrances and a good relationship to the street. Some existing residential structures, such as these on Antoinette Lane, are poorly maintained. VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture · Urban Design 1.7 EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT AREA LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN PLAN Property Ownership Map 0 200 400 800 feet 1.8 VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture * Urban Design SECTION 1: EXISTING CONDITIONS Property Ownership Pattern In addition to the existing built uses, the E1 Camino Real/Chestnut Area has large areas of undeveloped or vacant lands, mostly in fragmented ownership patterns. BART Right-0£- Way Land The area is traversed by the BART-SFO extension. The BART Right-Of-Way (ROW) is a significant piece of land, and represents an important community land resource. Current plans, as outlined in the General Plan, are for the BART ROW to be used as a recreational path to the southeast of Chestnut Avenue. and to the north of Colma Creek. The connection between these two pieces will be a key element in the plan. BART prohibits the construction of any structures on its ROW, and any development must retain access for BART personnel to the ventilation and access structures along the ROW. BART has expressed interest in leasing portions of the ROW to provide additional income for the system. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Land A San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) property runs parallel to the BART ROW. It is a remnant of an old MUNI rail line, and does not have any major utilities underneath that would prohibit construction. The PUC additionally holds several large developable parcels on both sides of Colma Creek. While these PUC properties have some short-term leases, they are prime development sites that the PUC would like to sell where appropriate. These development sites are key opportunities for the City to achieve the goals and recommendations of this plan. Developing a strategy for development on the PUC properties will be crucial for realizing the City's objectives for the area. The BART and PUC properties are significant undeveloped parcels at the center of the study area. Private Owners Three privately-held properties front on El Camino Real (two parcels owned by the Petrocchi family and a parcel owned by Kaiser Permanente). Due to their shallow depth and grade changes, these properties have not been feasible development sites. However, with improved access from an Oak Avenue Extension and possible aggregation of the PUC and BART land, they could become feasible sites for new development. VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture * Urban Design EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT AREA LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN PLAN £xisting Zoning and General Plan Designations with Redevelopment Area Boundar7 Zoning & General Plan Designations Existing zoning in the study area is conducive to greater development intensities. The undeveloped lands at the core of the area are zoned P-C-L, allowing mixed-use development up to 30 units/acre. The San Mateo County lands are zoned R-3-L, which allows residential development up to 30 units/acre. Heights up to fi0 feet are permitted in both of these zones. The Chestnut Center is zoned C-1-H and the Bud Buff Center is zoned C-1. The C-1-H zone allows mixed-use developments with up to 1§ units/acre of residential use. Appropriate rezoning of the C-1 properties to allow more intense mixed-use commercial and residential development should be considered. These development levels, combined with available density bonuses for the provision of affordable housing, should allow for development that corresponds to the objectives of the City and land owners and at the same time fits the context of the area. The 1999 South San Francisco Gneeral Plan designations are genearlly consistent with the development potential of the area, but may need to be amended in order to allow for mixed-use infill development, especially in the area between Mission Road and El Camino Real. Redevelopment Area Much of the project area--including all of the prime development parcels--is within the E1 Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Area. The redevelopment project area was recently amended to include areas southwest of Chestnut Avenue including Chestnut Center, the California Water Service Company properties, and parcels fronting El Camino Real. The policies and land uses outlined in the Redevelopment Plan are consistent with the General Plan policies and designations for the area as well. The Redevelopment Area will be a useful tool in implementing the recommendations in this plan, by allowing the City to take a proactive approach to parcel aggregation, public improvements, and new private development. 1.10 VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture · Urban Design SECTION 1: EXISTING CONDITIONS Grade & Land Form Colma Creek is the topographic low point of the area and has been channel/zed for flood control. Land on both sides of the creek slope towards the creek bed. In some areas, there is a substantial grade differential between E1 Cam/no Real and the adjacent parcels, with a steep slope dropping off from E1 Cam/no Real before leveling out towards the creek. The grade change ranges from over 20 feet near the Kaiser Hospital to just a few feet at Chestnut Avenue. This grade will impact both roadway design and new development. New developr~ent may be able to incorporate the slope into the design of a project, such as utilizing the grade change to provide access to a lower level parking podium. The parcels fronting El Cam/no Real (a former nursery, now vacant, and a small real estate office, a gas station and a car wash) will need to be aggregated with the PUC property in order to create developable sites. The frontage near the Kaiser Hospital currently has a large billboard, but no existing structures. There are no significant grades in the study area other than the slope adjacent to E1 Cam/no Real that will impact development. Key Sites The following is a discussion of key development sites in the study area: Ron Price Motors Ron Price Motors is a key commercial use in the study area and in the City as a whole. While the dealership is a thriving business, there is pressure to expand auto storage and service operations despite the space constraints of the current circulation and property ownership pattern. The dealership currently has two separate leases with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to lease 1.9 acres of land on both sides of the BART R.O.W. northwest of Chestnut Ave. The dealership desires a total of approximately 3.0-3.5 acres of land for auto storage. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Properties The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) owns a significant amount of land in the area including several large undeveloped parcels. The PUC has shown interest in selling its properties. It is important for the City to take a pro-active approach to the eventual development of the PUC properties so the development can help achieve the goals and recommendations of this plan. The PUC could assist in aggregation and disposition of the parcels, as well as clearly defining improvements to the area required by the City as part of a public Request for Proposals (RFP) for future development. The steep grade adjacent to E1 Camino Real can be incorporated into the design o£ new development. Antoinette Lane and auto storage for Ron Price Motors. The dealership currently uses land inettlciently due to fragmented property ownership. The San Francisco PUC properties have been used for construction staging for the BART extension, but are prime development sites. VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture * Urban Design 1.11 EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT AREA LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN PLAN Chestnut Center is an outdated shopping center and is a potential mixed-use commercial and residential develpment site. Burl Buri Center, shown here looking towards ~,l Camino Real, is a potential mixed-use commercial and residential development site. BART Right-Of- Way & Ventilation Sha£ts Although no structures can be built on the BART Right-Of-Way, the land is important for access to adjacent develoment sites. BART must retain vehicular access to the ventilation structures al along the Right-Of-Way, including the structure near Colma Creek. Long-term leases could incorporate portions of the Right-Of-Way into development opportunity sites while still retaining necessary access easements. Chestnut Center The Chestnut Center shopping center, located at Chestnut Avenue and Antoinette Lane, is anchored by a small Safeway. It contains a Wells Fargo Bank, a Post Office, a Skyline College Extension Center, and several small retail uses. The Safeway is small by current grocery standards (approximately 25,000 sq. ft.--compared to a typical contemporary standard of approximately 50-60,000 sq. ft.). The small size of the site (approximately 4.5 acres) and the proximity of other, larger grocery stores gives little incentive to improve the site with the existing land use. However, the retail presence in the area is important, and should be retained and improved with uses that are viable and local-serving if possible. Elimination of cross-access traffic and the Antoinette Lane traffic signal makes the long-term viability of a retail center in this location highly unlikely. Bud Burl Center The Buri Buri Center, at E1 Camino Real and Westborough is anchored by a small Bell Markets supermarket (similar in size to the Safeway), and also contains a Kragen Auto Parts store, a Blockbuster Video store, and a collection of small retail and commercial uses. The Buri Bud Center has three separate land owners, and the Kragen store has a long-term lease on the property, both of which make redevelopment difficult. Even if a major redevelopment of the property is not achievable, improving the visual appearance, retail mix, and individual store quality and service is important for revitalizing the center and strengthening its role in the area. This site's location, visibility, and access are assets that make improvements to the center more feasible and appealing. 1.12 VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture · Urban Design SECTION 2: PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES The first step in the planning process was the development of preliminary land use and circulation alternatives for the area, incorporating various approaches to the issues and opportunities discussed in the previous section. Each alternative is a comprehensive and feasible plan for the area, outlining different but acceptable approaches. The following is a brief discussion of each alternative, with a diagram highlighting the main features. Alternative 1: General Plan Implementation This alternative is based on the General Plan designations for the Area. Oak Avenue is extended to E1 Camino Real, and the Antoinette Lane Right-Of-Way is preserved. A mix of commercial and residential uses faces onto the Oak Avenue Extension, with greater commercial and retail emphasis on El Camino Real. This alternative proposes the full expansion of Orange Park onto the Water District properties, adding nearly twelve acres to the 23+ acre park. The park expansion is coupled with the creation of a new Civic Center on the Chestnut Center site, moving and expanding the functions of the existing Municipal Services Building and creating a larger mixed-use development site on the Buri Buri Center site. Alternative 1: General Plan Implementation Alternative 2: Pedestrian and Circulation Improvements This alternative represents an approach that emphasizes improving pedestrian circulation. To this end, Oak Avenue is extended as far as the BART Right-of-Way, with a pedestrian-only connection to E1 Camino Real. Commercial and retail development focuses on improving the pedestrian condition of El Camino Real and backs up onto the bike trail and linear park. Antoinette Lane continues only as far as the existing residential developments and terminates in a cul-de-sac. Most of the auto storage is moved to the Antoinette right-of-way and the area southeast of Chestnut Avenue. The residential presence on Oak Avenue is increased with several new multi-family residential developments. Without the Oak Avenue Extension, the area between Mission Road and E1 Camino Real Alternative 2: Pedestrian and Circulation Improvements VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture · Urban Design 2.1 EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT AREA LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN PLAN Alternative $: Oak Avenue F~xtension Alternative 4:E1 Camino Real Focused Redevelopment becomes predominantly high density housing, with less retail and mixed-use opportunities. The overall level of commercial development is roughly the same as in Alternative 1. The Water District properties are preserved as agricultural lands, and Orange Park is not expanded. Alternative 3: Oak Avenue Extension The third alternative proposes the most significant changes to circulation in the area. Oak Avenue is extended to El Camino Real and the alignment north of Mission Road is altered to connect to Willow Avenue. Antoinette Lane is shortened to a cul-de-sac with no access to Chestnut Avenue. This alteration of the circulation network is used as the impetus for a major change in use along Oak Avenue with a large mixed-use commercial and residential development at Oak and Grand Avenues, and a smaller multi-family residential development at Oak and Mission. The bike path is removed from the BART Right-of-Way entirely, and continues along Colma Creek into Orange Park. The path connects into a 6.5+ acre first phase extension of Orange Park. Subsequent phases could expand the park all the way out to Chestnut Avenue. Mixed- use development parcels front the Oak Avenue extension and an improved commercial frontage along El Camino Real. Alternative 4: El Camino Real Focused Redevelopment The fourth alternative proposes the most new housing development of any of the alternatives. Oak Avenue connects only to Antoinette Lane, except for access to the BART vent structure. Development in this scenario is focused on Chestnut Avenue, with a complete redevelopment of the Chestnut Center. The first phase of park expansion is limited here to only a 2.§+ acre expansion, with the majority of the Water District properties left undeveloped for continued agricultrual use. The bike path in this alternative is moved to E1 Camino Real before swinging back to the BART Right- of-Way southeast of Chestnut Avenue. In this scenario, all auto storage for Ron Price Motors is accommodated on the northeast side of Chestnut Avenue. 2.2 VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture * Urban Design SECTION 2: PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE After the four base alternative approaches were outlined, the City, following meetings with key stakeholders including the San Francisco PUC and Ron Price Motors compiled features of several alternatives into a preferred alternative. The Preferred Alternative calls for the extension of Oak Avenue to El Camino Real and the extension of Willow Avenue to Mission Road to handle traffic from Grand Avenue. Antoinette Lane is reconfigured into a cul-de-sac accessed from Oak Avenue and cross-flow access across Chestnut Avenue is eliminated. The Preferred Alternative creates commercial and mixed-use development sites with retail frontages along Oak and Chestnut Avenues, as well as several multi-family residential development sites north of Oak Avenue and south of Chestnut. Orange Park is expanded to include all of the current Water District properties. The Ron Price Motors auto dealership would be reconfigured with a new showroom fronting on El Camino Real and either a parking structure or surface parking to fill the auto storage needs. Some sites have the several potential development outcomes under the rcommendations of the Preferred Alternative. Chestnut Center is redeveloped as a retail center retaining and expanding the existing Safeway and joining several surrounding parcels. The preferred alternative allows several potential outcomes for the Burl Burl Center and the frontage along the Oak Avenue Extension. The preferred alternative proposes a new zoning designation of Mixed-Use Commercial. This designation is intended to preserve the commercial viability of the area by requiring a minimum commercial Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for new development of 0.25 while allowing an additional 0.25 FAR of commercial development or residential development up to 25 dwelling units/acre. These development standards will ensure new development in the area creates a mixed-use, walkable neighborhood, with a variety of uses and a productive tax base. The improvements of the Preferred Alternative can be phased. Parcel aggregation and development on the north side of Chestnut Avenue, together with the Oak Avenue Extension can take place independent of actions south of Chestnut Avenue. The redevelopment of the Chestnut Center and the Orange Park Expansion may include the need for a First Street/E1 Camino Real signal and connection, and/or a Mission Road/Colma Creek bridge and connection to mitigate the removal of the Antoinette Lane signal. The Preferred Alternative is the basis for the refined land use and circulation recommendations and overall vision for the area outlined in the Illustrative Concept Plan. VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture · Urban Design 2.3 EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT AREA LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN PLAN 5>, ~ OW Preferred Alternative 200 400 800 feet 2.4 VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture · Urban Design SECTION 3: CONCEPT PLAN ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPT PLAN The Illustrative Concept Plan for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area, developed from the Preferred Alternative, envisions a vibrant medium-density residential neighborhood with enhanced circulation which allows for improved auto access and quality bicycle and pedestrian circulation. High quality developments that aggregate oddly-shaped, inefficient, and undevelopable parcelization into a cohesive property ownership and development pattern are essential to achieving this vision. Improvements to the El Camino Real and Chesntut Avenue frontages will create strong visual gateways into South San F~ancisco from 1-280 and Colma and the commercial vitality of the area will be enhanced by providing Ron Price Motors with efficient property usage for long-term investment, improving the Chestnut Avenue frontage of the dealership, and providing a desirable E1 Camino Real address. Central to this vision is new residential and mixed-use development on previously vacant or underdeveloped land, with the re-organization of key commercial uses in the area into more viable configurations. New streets will improve circulation in the area, supplemented with additional improvements to existing streets. An expansion of Orange Park with a community center will allow new residents to connect with existing ones. A variety of new uses and activities will energize the area. The Illustrative Concept Plan was developed through cooperation between City staff, Van Meter Williams Pollack, and local property owners, including the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and Ron Price Motors. The overall illustrative concept plan is followed by a discussion of the key development sites and public improvements in the area. For several sites, including the Mixed-Use Commercial sites, two development scenarios-one commercial-only and one mixed-use with residential-are shown. Implementation recommendations for these opportunities follow in the final section of this document. VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture * Urban Design 3.1 EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT AREA LAND USE AND URBAN DESI(~N PLAN ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPT PLAN 200 400 800 feet 3.2 VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture · Urban Design SECTION 3: CONCEPT PLAN KEY PLAN DEVELOPMENT SITES 1. PUC Property - North 2, El Camino Real Frontage 3. PUC Property - South 4. Oak Avenue Frontage 5. Santo Christo Hall 6. San Mateo County Property 7A. Ron Price Auto Dealership 7B. Chestnut Avenue Frontage SA, Chestnut Center Redevelopment 8B, El Camino Real/Chestnut Frontages 8C. Chestnut Center Redevelopment 9, First/A Streets Development Site 10. Bud Burl Center Redevelopment PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS A. Oak Avenue Extension B, Willow Avenue Extension C. Chestnut Avenue D. First Street/A Street Improvements Orange Park Expansion 2OO 400 VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture * Urban Design 800 feet 3.3 EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT AREA LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN PLAN Linear Park/ ; Bikeway: Potential Site ] Development Potential Site ] Prototype Residential over Parkin9 Podium Ground Floor Retail BART Access Ground Floor ECR Retail Potential Sites 2 & $ Development ""--' Li I lidh Site Sect/on showing potential parking configuration Potential Sites 2 & 3 Prototype DEVELOPMENT SITES QThe large vacant PUC property north of Colma Creek has previously been designated for medium-density townhouse development as part of the South San Francisco BART Transit ~llage Plan. This prime 4+ acre site should accommodate between 75 and 100 units at densities proposed in the plan. A townhouse prototype, with rear parking access and connections to the linear park bikeway is illustrated. This site should be combined with Site 3 to form one development parcel in order to ensure the integration of Colma Creek and appropriate infrastructure improvements (i.e. the construction of the Oak Avenue Extension). This site would also be an appropriate location for a day care center for the project area. QSite 2 is composed of a sliver of PUC property and land owned by Kaiser Permanente. The Oak Avenue Extension minimizes the need to access the site from El Camino Real and makes use of the BART ROW for vehicular access to a parking podium. The steep grade up to El Camino Real can be utilized to gain an extra level of podium parking, with access from both upper and lower elevations. This site is small (1.76 acres) and the difficulty of assembling the land may justify higher development intensities. 80-100 units with commercial space on the ground floor (10-16,000 sq. ft.) would be possible on four floors above the parking podium. The commercial uses would also be more viable with the completion of the Oak Avenue Extension. QSite' 3 is composed almost entirely of undeveloped PUC land. The Preferred Alternative designates the site as a combination of mixed-use commercial and residential high- density development. The total site area is approximately 3.1 acres. This site should be combined with Site 1 with a required contribution to the Oak Ave. Extension to make commercial uses viable. The Concept Plan shows a mixed-use structure fronting on the Oak Avenue Extension, with residential to the rear of the 3.4 VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture * Urban Design SECTION 3: CONCEPT PLAN site. A parking podium under the entire site would accommodate the required parking, with approximately 90-100 residential units and 15,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. QSite 4 is another difficult site to develop due to the fragmentation of land ownership. The site straddles four different properties (two owned by the PUC). The Concept Plan illustrates a commercial-only development with 0.25 FAR (26,000 sq. ft.) on the 2.4+ acre site with surface parking behind. This option provides an active street front on the Oak Avenue Extension, with landscaping improvements along E1 Camino Real. The BART ROW would be maintained as an access road/easement. Potential Site 4 Development New Retail Development BART Access Surface Parking Landscape Buffer on El Camino Real Another possibile development scenario for this site would result in two mixed-use commercial and residential structures, each with a ground-floor parking podium. The structure fronting on E1 Camino Real could take advantage of the grade change with a two-level parking podium, like Site 2. This scenario would have the minimum of 0.25 Floor-Area Ratio (FAR)of commercial space (26,000 sq. ft.)and could have up to 25 residential units/acre (61 units). Ground Floor Retail Residential over Parking Podium BART Access Ground Floor ECR Retail Potential Alternative Development Configuration VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture * Urban Desi§n 3.5 EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT AREA LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN PLAN Potential Sites 5 & 6 Development QSite fi is currently the Santo Christo Hall, a long-standing religious and community center. The Concept Plan calls for it to be rehabilitated and expanded as a community resource. This small site is at the corner of Mission and the proposed Willow Avenue Extension and would serve as an important gateway and community resource. Existing uses on the site should preserved while encouraging improvements and expansion with similar community-oriented uses, possibly including a day care. QThe northern half of this site, owned by San Mateo County, is currently used as parking for the County Court complex. A portion is undeveloped and the county is considering the possiblity of developing affordable housing on this portion. The other half is owned by private parties, with two small apartment buildings and a small church. The Concept Plan calls for a variety of housing types to be developed on the site. A combination of townhouses and small apartment buildings with parking podiums would enhance the street character of both Oak Avenue. and the proposed Willow Avenue Extension. A mixed-use element at the corner of Oak and Grand would provide a small amount of commercial space (1,500-3,000 sq. ft.)to the neighborhood, while the various housing developments would result in approximately 90-100 residential units. This site would probably not develop in the short-term due to the difficulty of assembling the property and compl.eting the Willow Avenue Extension. The City and County should participate in an additional study effort to determine the feasibility of aggregating these parcels as part of a Joint Development opportunity with present development interests. Ron Price Motors is a crucial commercial use for the health of 3.6 VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture · Urban Design SECTION 3: CONCEPT PLAN Qthe area and the City as a whole. This thriving auto dealership generates much of the non-local commercial activity in the neighborhood. The dealership's current auto storage operations are inefficient and expansion is difficult due to the fragmented nature of the leaseholds and easements in the area. One goal of the Concept Plan has been to make the dealership more efficient by aggregating parcels and consolidating operations. The Concept Plan shows the dealership occupying the former Antoinette Lane Right-of-Way, along with the Chestnut/El Camino corner. A new 10-15,000 sq. ft. showroom on the corner would vastly improve the visual character of the El Camino Real corridor and provide increased visibility for the dealership. The proposed site plan can be configured either with a structured auto storage facility with a small retail frontage on Chestnut Avenue or as surface parking with landscaping along Chestnut Avenue along with an expanded service area (approx. 10- 15,000 sq. ft.) within the existing building. The new showroom at the E1 Camino Real/Chestnut intersection should be a high priority for the City in conjunction with providing an efficiently aggregated redevelopment parcel. The Oak Avenue Extension and a bridge over Colma Creek from Mission Road to Antoinette Lane is crucial for the re-organization of Ron Price Motors' property into a more efficient configuration. The improvements to the site could happen in phases, with interim auto storage areas including Site 4, with subsequent storage restricted to Site 7a. QSite 7b is currently a small auto body shop. The concept plan shows a small mixed-use structure with approximately 14 residential units on .38 acres above 2,000 sq. ft. of commercial space and a parking podium. A new retail building at the rear and open to Chestnut is an alternate smaller scale development if the more intense recommendation is not desired by the property owner or developer. Potential Sites ?a & b Development Potential Alternate Development Configuration Ron Price Motors Development Proto(ype Structured Auto Storage 8, New Service Area Surface Auto Storage Ground Floor Retail New Access from ECR New Showroom at El Camino Real Renovated Service Area Commercial-Only Alternate Development Surface Auto Storage New Access from ECR New Showroom at El Camino Real VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture · Urban Desi§n 3.7 EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT AREA LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN PLAN Potential Sites Sa, b, & c £)evelopment Reconfigured Access (~) (~ (~ Sites Sa, b, and c are composed of the Chestnut Center and the properties at the northeast corner of Chestnut Avenue and E1 Camino Real which include a gas station and a carwash. The Preferred Alternative designates these fairly large parcels (7+ acres) as both Mixed-Use Commercial and Mixed-Use Commercial w/Residential. The Concept Plan shows a retail center, retaining and expanding the existing Safeway supermarket as well as modernizing and expanding commercial uses on Chestnut Avenue. This center would include approximately 80,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, with no residential units and surface-only parking. New vehicular connections to the site would be made from Mission Road, with a new bridge over Colma Creek, and from an extension of A Street. This enables all left turns to be removed from Chestnut Avenue between El Camino Real and Mission Road, easing traffic congestion. However, without left turn access at Antoinette Lane, these may not be viable as retail-only sites in the future. The Mission Road and First/A Street signals as the only signalized access may not be appropriate for retail access requirements. An alternate configuration of the site could result in a commercial mixed-use frontage along E1 Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue, with residential uses behind. This configuration would result in approximately 130 residential units and nearly §1,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. Potential Alternate Oevelopment Configuration 3.8 VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture · Urban Design SECTION 3: CONCEPT PLAN (~Site 9 is at the corner of A Street and First Street. Although it is a small site--just under 1.25 acres--a new residential structure over a parking podium could provide a good infill housing opportunity, be a new gateway to the Chestnut Center site, and include the A/First St. connection to E1 Camino Real. The site could reasonably accommodate 40-55 residential units. QThe Bud Bud Center, like the Chestnut Center, is a shopping center anchored by a grocery store that is too small to compete in today's market. The Bell Market in the Burl Bud Center is already looking at the possibility of relocating. This shopping center may be considerably harder to redevelop than the Chestnut Center, because of ownership by three separate property owners as well as some long-term leases and its location outside of the E1 Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Area. The Concept Plan shows an expanded and rehabilited grocery store as part of a commercial-only shopping center with a better relationship to the El Camino Real frontage and 60,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. Any major changes to the Bud Burl Center site, like the Chestnut Center site, are probably only viable as long term goals. An alternative scenario for the Bud Bud Center site would feature an intense mixed-use commercial and residential development with a large parking podium at the core and several large commercial spaces retained on the ground floor. The 4.25 acre site would have over 60,000 sq. ft. of commercial space (0.34 FAR) with just over 100 residential units. Potential Site 9 [)evelopment Potential Site !0 l~evelolament New access to Chestnut Center and reconfigured access to Peninsula Pines Residential development over parking podium Expanded and ronvated market site Reorganized, more efficient parking layout Ground floor commercial uses along El Camino Real Residential development over 2-level parking podium Potential Alternative Development Configuration VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture * Urban Design 3.9 EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT AREA LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN PLAN DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Use/Prototype Residential/Townhouses Use/Prototype Auto Dealership Land Area 4.19 acres Land Area 0.99 acres Residential 77 Units 18.4 d.u./acre Commercial Area 26,000 Total sq. ft. Auto Storage 146,600 sq. ft. Use/Prototype Land Area Residential Commercial Use/Prototype Land Area Residential Commercial Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential 1.76 acres 97 Units 55.0 d.u./acre 16,400 sq. ft. 0.21 FAR Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential 2.10 acres 96 Units 30.2 d.u./acre 15,000 sq. ft. 0.16 FAR 0.60 FAR Use/Prototype Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential Land Area 0.38 acres Residential 14 Units 37.0 d.u./acre Commercial 2,000 sq. ft. 0.12 FAR Use/Prototype Mixed-Use Commercial Land Area 6.33 acres Residential 0 Units 0.0 d,u./acre Commercial 80,000 sq. ft. 0.29 FAR Use/Prototype Mixed-Use Commercial Land Area 2.42 acres Use/Prototype Multi-Family Residential Residential 0 Units 0.0 d,u,/acre Land Area 1.24 acres Commercial 26,300 sq. ft. 0.25 FAR Residential 55 Units 44.5 d.u./acre Use/Prototype Civic Use/Prototype Mixed-Use Commercial Land Area 0.87 acres Land Area 4.26 acres Expansion 3,600 sq. ft. Residential 0 Units 0.0 d.u./acre Overall Area 8,S00 sq. ft. Commercial 60,000 sq. ft. 0.32 FAR Use/Prototype Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential Land Area 30.16 acres Land Area 3.46 acres Residential 624 Units 20.7 d.u./acre Residential 98 Units 39.5 d.u./acre Commercial 228,700 sq. ft. 0.28 FAR Commercial 3,000 sq. ft. 0.02 FAR ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS Use/Prototype Mixed-Use Commercial Land Area 2.42 acres Residential 61 Units 25.0 d.u./acre Commercial 26,300 sq. ft. 0.25 FAR Use/Prototype Mixed-Use Commercial Land Area 365 acres Residential 35 Units 10.0 d.u./acre Commercial 51,000 sq. ft. 0.32 FAR Use/Prototype Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential Land Area 2.68 acres Residential 95 Units 35.4 d.u./acre Commercial 3,000 sq. ft. 0.05 FAR Use/Prototype Mixed-Use Commercial Land Area 4.26 acres Residential 107 Units 25.0 d.u./acre Commercial 63,600 sq. ft. 0.34 FAR Land Area 30.16 acres Residential 735 Units 24.4 d.u./acre Commercial 206,300 sq. fi. 0.25 FAR 3.10 VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture · Urban Design SECTION 3: CONCEPT PLAN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ()Oak Avenue Extension: The Oak Avenue Extension is crucial for the feasibility of the recommendations of the Concept Plan. Although the 25' grade change from the BART R.O.W. to E1 Camino Real presents a serious obstacle, the extension of the roadway will achieve the goals of alleviating vehicular congestion on Chestnut Avenue and increasing pedestrian connections in the area. The connection will also encourage a greater mixture of uses in the area, as commercial uses could only exist on Oak Avenue if a full extension to El Camino Real were constructed. The benefits to adjacent property holders could be translated into an joint implementation strategy with both public and private funds. ()Willow Avenue Extension: The extension of Willow Avenue from Grand Avenue to Mission Road would make the Oak Avenue Extension more effective in relieving traffic congestion on Chestnut Avenue. Due to the proximity of the Oak/Grand intersection to the Grand/Chestnut intersection and the awkward geometry of the intersection, utilizing Oak Avenue as the primary means for accessing Mission Road and the Oak Avenue Extension would not be an adequate alternative for achieving the goals of the plan. The extension of Willow Avenue should be designed to relieve traffic congestion on Chestnut Avenue without encouraging additional cut-through traffic to use Willow Avenue north of Grand Avenue. Traffic calming measures in the surrounding neighborhood may be required as well. QChestnut Avenue: The traffic congestion on Chestnut Avenue is compounded by the signal at Antoinette Lane and its proximity to E1 Camino Real. Removing cross-flow access on Chestnut Avenuebetween Mission Road and El Camino Real would aid in reducing this congestion. In order to remove the Antoinette Lane signal and cross-flow access, however, a new access point to the Chestnut Center site must be provided. The Concept Plan calls for the a new connection from Mission Road Section o£ proposed Oak Avenue ~xtension ~K ' ~ ~ ~ J Section of proposed Willow Avenue F~xtension 1~2TAIL VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture * Urban Design 3.11 ..--,,-,, - ~iagram of new conn~tions to Chesntut Center site Pomible Orange Park Expansion EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT AREA LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN PLAN 3.12 -- Community Center Orange Park Expansion -- Linear Park/ Bikeway across Colma Creek from the north, as well as a new access point to El Camino Real via A Street and First Street to the south. A reconfiguration of the access to the Chestnut Center site would not take place until any new development took place on the site. ()First Street/A Street Improvements: The connection to Chesntut Center from E1 Camino Real would require improvements to First and A Streets. The existing Righ-Of-Way is approximately 45' wide and could make these improvements difficult to implement. However, several options exist. Removing all on-street parking would allow the existing 10' sidewalks to remain with two 12' travel lanes Alternatively, on-street parking could remain on the residential side of the street if the curb were moved 5' on the non-residential side of the street. This option would still allow for two travel lanes, while preserving the exisiting residential conditions. These options, however, require additional study, including an accurate understanding of existing property and road conditions. QOrange Park Expansion: The City is currently discussing the purchase of Water Service Company land for an expansion of Orange Park. This expansion could include a community center structure, as well as recreation/open spaces. A pedestrian and bicycle connection to the existing portion of the park along Colma Creek would be an essential element of the expansion. A portion of the site would also be used to provide signalized vehicular and pedestrian connection to the park at Mission Road with a vehicular and pedestrian bridge to the Chestnut Center site. If the Chestnut Center Site is redeveloped as a Civic Center, the a new Community Center on Orange Park could be part of this larger civic complex. VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture * Urban Design SECTION 4: IMPLEMENTATION The final section of this report deals with the implementation of the Concept Plan, including phasing, public improvements, and private actions. In addition there is a brief discussion of strategies available for the completion of the identified projects. PHASING The Concept Plan breaks into three general phases. For each phase, there are recommended public and private actions. The following phasing diagrams show each phase of project implementation. Plan Implementation 1. Adopt General Plan Amendment based on recommendations from this plan 2. Develop new zoning designations where necessary and rezone parcels as appropriate Phase 1 Public Actions 1. Assist in consolidation of properties 2. Abandon Antoinette Lane connection to Chestnut Avenue 3. Construct bridge over Colma Creek connecting Antoinette Lane with Mission Road (Could be a condition of a private development) 4. Construct Bikeway along Colma Creek 5. Negotiate with San Mateo County over County lands Private Actions A Reconfigure Ron Price Motors with new showroom on corner of E1 Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue (Site 7a) B Initial phase of development on PUC Lands (Site 1) *Note: While the development of Site 1 could occur before Site 3, the two sites should part of the same development in order to ensure the dedication of land and the construction of the Oak Avenue Extension and other improvements. Phase 1 Diagram VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture · Urban Design 4.1 Phase 2 Diagram Phase 3 Diagram 4.2 EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT AREA LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN PLAN Phase 2 Public Actions 1. Construct Oak Avenue Extension from Mission Road to E1 Camino Real (Could be a condition of a private development) 2. Construct Willow Avenue Extension from Grand Avenue to Mission Road 3. Construct Orange Park Expansion with associated community uses Private Actions A Phase II of development on PUC lands (Sites 2 and 3) B Phase II development on Ron Price Motors site (expanded service area (Site ?a) C New Development on County Lands (Site 6) D Rehabilitation and expansion of Santo Christo Hall community center (Site 5) E New Development on Chestnut Avenue (Site 7b) Phase 3 Public Actions 1. Construct Bridge across Colma Creek from Mission Road into Chestnut Center site (Could be a condition of a private development) 2. Construct new signallized intersection at First Street and E1 Camino Real 3. Remove Antoinette Lane Signal with Improvements to Chestnut Avenue between E1 Camino Real and Mission Road Private Actions A New Development at Oak Avenue Extension (Site 4) B Redevelopment of Chesntut Center and El Camino Real corner site (Sites 8a, 8b, 8c) C New Development at A Street and First Street (Site 9) D Redevelopment of Buri Burl Center (Site 10) VAN MEIER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture * Urban Design SECTION 4: IMPLEMENTATION TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT The traffic impacts of the recommendations of this plan have been analyzed as part of a concurrent study. The analysis, carried out by the Crane Transportation Group, used the traffic study for the amended E1 Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Area completed in early 2000. The development levels and roadway projects proposed in this plan in excess of those part of the Redevelopment Plan were analyzed. The key findings of the study are as follows: 1) A signal is required at Commercial Avenue and Chestnut Avenue. This signal is necessary even without the development recommendations of this plan; 2) The Oak Avenue Extension would require a new traffic signal at Arroyo Drive and Camaritas Avenue; 3) Removing the Antoinette intersection and signal from Chestnut Avenue will improve peak hour circulation on Chestnut Avenue; and 4) The Level of Service (LOS) at all intersections in the study area would be acceptable with the proposed signalization projects. With the proposed signals at the Commercial/Chestnut and Arroyo/Camaritas intersections, Chestnut Avenue at Commercial Avenue would be improved from the existing PM Peak Hour LOS of F with an average delay of over 51 seconds to an LOS of B with a delay of just over 11 seconds. NEXT STEPS In order to implement the recommendations outlined in this plan, both the public and private sectors must act in concert. Several clear next steps can be outlined here, with the key actors for each: 1) Rezone of the area following the recommendations of this plan. While, the new zoning can largely be adapted from the South San Francisco BART Station Transit ~llage Plan, the Mixed-Use Commercial designation will require addtional study in order to ensure new development is consistent with the plan recommendations. VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture * Urban Design 4.3 EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT AREA LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN PLAN 2) Use of Redevelopment Agency powers. The E1 Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Area provides an important resource for the implementation of the plan, as only a few sites studied in this plan fall outside of its boundaries. Strategic use of redevelopment funding and powers will be crucial in achieving these recommendations. 3) Ongoing work with individual property owners. The City must continue to work with area property owners to implement the recommendations of the plan. This includes structuring public infrastructure investments into new development projects and working with private and public owners to aggregate and reorganize fragmented ownership patterns. These next steps will allow the vision of the E1 Camino Real/Chestnut Area Land Use and Urban Design Plan to become a reality. 4.4 VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK Architecture * Urban Design CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT CHESTNUT/MISSION AREA LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN PLAN July 5, 2002 Prepared For: City of South San Francisco Van Meter Williams Pollack Prepared By: Crane Transportation Group 545 Burnett Avenue, Suite 101 San Francisco, California 94131 (415) 282-9656 545 BURNFTT AVE . SUITE 101 . SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94131 · 415/282-9656 I. INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared at the request of the City of South San Francisco and Van Meter Williams Pollack to detail the circulation impacts due to three alternative roadway extension/local area development plans proposed to reduce traffic along the Chestnut Avenue corridor (see area map in Figure 1). Specifically, project phases evaluated were: Phase 1: The extension of Oak Avenue between Mission Road and E1 Camino Real (Oak Avenue Extension) and elimination of Antoinette Lane just north of Chestnut Avenue. Phase 2: The westerly extension of Willow Avenue from Grand Avenue to Oak Avenue near Mission Road (Willow Avenue Extension). This extension would only be built after completion of Phase 1. Phase 3: Several roadway extensions south of Chestnut Avenue including the extension of Mission Road south of Chestnut Avenue, the northerly extension of A Street to Antoinette Lane in conjunction with signalizing the E1 Camino Real/1 st Street intersection and eliminating the signal (and left turn movements) at the Chestnut Avenue/Antoinette Lane intersection. Phase 3 would only be considered after completion of Phase 2. Year 2010 AM and PM peak hour traffic projections have been obtained from the 1999 E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan EIR for the Amended Plan proposal and have been used as a base for determination of traffic reassignment with each of the project phases. After reassignment of Amended Redevelopment Plan volumes due to the new or revised roadway connections, projections were then developed of the additional traffic that could be expected on the revised local roadway system due to increased development potential that is also considered part of each phase. Evaluation was then conducted of the change in AM and PM commute peak hour operating conditions at up to 11 major intersections in the project area for each of the three phases with improvements recommended for those locations not meeting minimum city standards. II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Currently, all major intersections within the study area are operating at acceptable levels of service during the weekday AM and PM commute peak traffic hours with one exception: the Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue all-way-stop intersection is now operating unacceptably at LOS E during the PM peak hour. In addition, both AM and PM peak hour volumes at this intersection now exceed signal warrant criteria levels. o With year 2010 Amended Redevelopment Plan traffic volumes, all major intersections within the study area would be operating at acceptable levels of service with two exceptions. The all-way-stop Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue intersection would be operating unacceptably at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours and would have volumes exceeding signal warrant criteria levels during both time periods. In 7/5/02 CTG Page 1 Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan o addition, the southbound left tum movement from E1 Camino Real to 1 st Street would be operating at LOS E during the PM peak hour. An Oak Avenue extension (Phase 1 of the proposed project) would ultimately accommodate from about 30 to 40 percent of the east-west traffic traveling between E1 Camino Real and Mission Road that would otherwise use Chestnut Avenue should there be no extension. From a diversion standpoint, by 2010 this would equal 965 and 1,120 vehicle trips per hour removed from the most congested section of Chestnut Avenue during the morning and evening commute peak traffic hours, respectively. Phase 2 of the proposed project, the Willow Avenue extension, would not significantly change volumes along Chestnut Avenue near E1 Camino Real, but could greatly reduce volumes along the east end of Oak Avenue near Grand Avenue. Phase 3 of the proposed project, roadway extensions south of Chestnut Avenue including a connection from Antoinette Lane to a signalized E1 Camino Real/1 st Street signalized intersection via A Street, while adding very little new traffic to the Oak Avenue extension, would further decrease traffic along Chestnut Avenue near E1 Camino Real by 150 and 105 vehicle trips per hour during the morning and evening commute peak traffic hours, respectively. With the Oak Avenue Extension (Phase 1) and year 2010 volumes, all analyzed intersections would be operating at acceptable levels of service with two exceptions. The all-way-stop Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue intersection would be operating unacceptably at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours and would have volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels during both time periods. In addition, the all-way-stop Arroyo Drive/Camaritas Avenue intersection would be operating unacceptably at LOS E during the PM peak hour and would have volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels during both the AM and PM peak hours. With the Willow Avenue and Oak Avenue Extensions (Phase 2) and year 2010 volumes, all analyzed intersections would be operating at acceptable levels of service with two exceptions. The all-way-stop Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue intersection would be operating unacceptably at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours and would have volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels during both time periods. In addition, the all-way-stop Arroyo Drive/Camaritas Avenue intersection would be operating unacceptably at LOS E during the PM peak hour and would have volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels during both the AM and PM peak hours. With Phase 3 and year 2010 volumes, all analyzed intersections would be operating at acceptable levels of service with two exceptions. The all-way-stop Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue intersection would be operating unacceptably at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours and would have volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels during both time periods. In addition, the all-way-stop Arroyo Drive/Camaritas Avenue intersection would be operating unacceptably at LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hours and would have volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels during both time periods. Also, the narrow widths of 1st Street and A Street in combination with on-street parking allowed along both sides of 7/5/02 CTG Page2 ChestnuffMission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan each street would not permit acceptable two-way traffic flow w~th volume increases expected due to the connection of A Street to Antoinette Lane. None of the three project phases would be expected to add a significant amount of traffic to Baden Avenue to the south of Chestnut Avenue. Recommended improvements are as follows: · Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue Amended Plan w/o Project Amended Plan + Project Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Signalize the intersection + approach restriping or turn prohibitions. Yes Yes Yes Yes · Arroyo Drive/Camaritas Avenue Amended Plan w/o Project Amended Plan + Project Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Signalize the intersection + through traffic informational signing. Not Required Yes Yes Yes · A Street (north of 1st Street) and 1st Street (El Camino Real to A Street) Amended Plan w/o Project Amended Plan + Project Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Provide two 12-foot wide travel lanes and an additional 8 feet of width for on-street parking (along each side of the street). This could be accomplished within each street's 60-foot right-of-way. Not Not Not Required Required Required Yes El Camino Real/1't Street-Southwood Drive (If Signalized) Limit time for northbound left turn signal phase. Amended Plan w/o Proiect Not Required Amended Plan + Project Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Not Not Required Required Yes 7/5/02 CTG Page3 Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan III. PROPOSED PROJECT The Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan is comprised of three project phases, each containing a combination of one or more new roadway extensions and additional land use development as compared to the Amended Redevelopment Plan proposals for the area. The roadway extensions are detailed first, followed by a description of the added development potential that is considered likely with each phase. Descriptions of existing area roadways are contained in the 1999 E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan EIR Circulation analysis while existing intersection approach lanes and control are presented in Figure 2. A. ROADWAY EXTENSIONS Phase 1 (Oak Avenue Extension-see Figure 3). Oak Avenue would be extended from Mission Road to E1 Camino Real as a four-lane roadway with a continuous two-way-left turn lane for driveways and the Antoinette Lane intersection. Oak Avenue would intersect E1 Camino Real as the fourth (easterly) leg of the Arroyo Drive intersection, which is already signalized. The Mission Road/Oak Avenue intersection would be signalized as part of the project. The existing section of Oak Avenue between Mission Road and Grand Avenue would be improved as a two-lane roadway with on-street parking. The Antoinette Lane connection to the north side of Chestnut Avenue would be eliminated, replaced by a driveway serving the Ron Price Auto dealership. The existing apartments at the north end of Antoinette Lane would gain access to the Oak Avenue extension. The Chestnut Avenue/Antoinette Lane (south) intersection would remain signalized. Phase 2 (Willow Avenue Extension + Phase 1-see Figure 4) would include all aspects of Phase 1 and would also extend Willow Avenue westerly of Grand Avenue (through the existing County Government Center parking lot) to a connection with Oak Avenue near Mission Road. The Willow extension would have two travel lanes. The Government Center parking lot would be reconfigured and would access onto the Willow Avenue extension while the Willow Avenue/Grand Avenue intersection would remain an all-way- stop. The Chestnut Avenue/Antoinette Lane intersection would remain signalized. Chestnut Avenue may or may not be cul-de-saced adjacent to Grand Avenue. For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that right tums only are allowed between Oak Avenue and Grand Avenue. o Phase 3 (extensions south of Chestnut Avenue + Phase 2-see Figure 5) would include all aspects of Phase 2 and would also provide the following changes. Mission Road would extend south of Chestnut Avenue for several hundred feet and then turn westerly and intersect Antoinette Lane; the Chestnut Avenue/Antoinette Lane signal would be removed and right turns only allowed at this intersection; a signal would be provided at the El Camino Real/1 st Street-Southwood Drive intersection; A Street would be extended northerly to Antoinette Lane; and parking would be eliminated along one or both sides of 1 st Street (El Camino Real to A Street) and along A Street (north of 1st Street) in order to allow safe two-way traffic flow. One of the main benefits of Phase 3 would be the 7/5/02 CTG Page4 Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan elimination of the s~gnalized Chestnut Avenue/Antoinette Lane intersection. The proximity of this intersection to the E1 Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue signalized intersection creates added congestion and delay at both locations. B. INCREASED DEVELOPMENT WITH EACH PHASE Table 1 lists the added development potential that City staff and Van Meter Williams Pollack consider possible with each project phase. Also listed in the Table is the weekday daily, AM and PM peak hour trip generation expected from each area of new development. The location of each new or expanded development area is presented in the Illustrative Concept Plan of the Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan. Overall, the project's three phases combined are proposing an additional 627 apartment or townhouse units and an additional 51,553 square feet of commercial development in the vicinity of Chestnut Avenue and Mission Road compared to the Amended Redevelopment Plan. IV. VOLUMES A. EXISTING CONDITIONS A series of AM and PM peak period (7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM) traffic counts were conducted by Crane Transportation Group in April 2002 at the following locations. · E1 Camino Real/Westborough Blvd./Chestnut Avenue intersection · Westborough Blvd./Camaritas Avenue/Orange Avenue intersection · Camaritas Avenue/Arroyo Drive intersection · Mission Road/Oak Avenue intersection~ · El Camino Real/lSt Street-Southwood Drive intersection · Ron Price Auto Dealership Driveways along Chestnut Avenue and Antoinette Lane · Antoinette Lane (north of Chestnut Avenue) vehicle assignment to Ron Price Auto, BART construction site and existing apartments Based upon these surveys, previous (fall 1999) traffic counts conducted by Crane Transportation Group as part of the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan EIR Circulation analysis at some of the same as well as at other nearby intersections were adjusted to reflect current volume trends. Overall, current AM and PM peak hour volume levels are lower than those in the fall of 1999 and are presented in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. YEAR 2010 WITH AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN (WITHOUT PROJECT) Year 2010 weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic projections were developed for most of the major intersections in the project area as part of the 1999 E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan EIR. Projections reflected the Amended Redevelopment Plan proposal. The interrelationship between existing volumes at adjacent or nearby intersections was used to These counts also included tabulation of County government office driveway traffic along Mission Road. 7/5/02 CTG Page 5 Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan develop 2010 Amended Plan projections for intersections that had not been analyzed in the 1999 study. Resultant Amended Plan 2010 volumes at all intersections being analyzed as part of the Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan are presented for AM and PM peak hour conditions in Figures 8 and 9, respectively. C. YEAR 2010 AMENDED PLAN + PROJECT PHASE 1 Project Phase 1 (Oak Avenue extension) year 2010 traffic volumes are presented in Figures 10 and 11 for weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions, respectively. Projections of traffic distribution and assigmnent from Phase 1 net new development were developed in the same manner as that for Amended Redevelopment Plan projects set forth in the 1999 E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan traffic analysis. Diversion of Amended Plan traffic from Chestnut Avenue to the Oak Avenue extension was based upon an evaluation of traffic flows along the E1 Camino Real, Mission Road, Westborough Boulevard, Arroyo Drive, Commercial Avenue and Grand Avenue corridors as well as turn movements at the Mission Road/Chestnut Avenue and E1 Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersections. Overall, the Oak Avenue Extension between E1 Camino Real and Mission Road would be likely to attract up to 965 two- way vehicles2 during the AM peak traffic, leaving 1,970 two-way vehicles along the parallel section of Chestnut Avenue. During the PM peak hour, the Oak Avenue extension from E1 Camino Real to Mission Road would be likely to attract about 1,120 two-way vehicles per hour, leaving about 1,820 two-way vehicles per hour along the parallel section of Chestnut Avenue (see Figure 3). Oak Avenue between Mission Road and Grand Avenue would be likely to attract up to 370 two-way vehicles during the AM peak hour and 475 two-way vehicles during the PM peak hour, while Arroyo Drive between E1 Camino Real and Camaritas Avenue would be likely to attract up to 1,025 two-way vehicles during the AM peak hour and up to 1,190 two-way vehicles during the PM peak hour. The parallel section of Westborough Boulevard between E1 Camino Real and Camaritas Avenue would be expected to have up to 2,660 two-way vehicles during the AM peak hour and up to 2,700 two-way vehicles during the PM peak hour. D. YEAR 2010 AMENDED PLAN + PROJECT PHASE 2 Project Phase 2 (Oak and Willow Avenue extensions) year 2010 traffic volumes are presented in Figures 12 and 13 for weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions, respectively. The Willow Avenue extension and its associated land use development would not be expected to produce major traffic increases on local roadways compared to Phase 1. Two-way volumes on the Oak Avenue extension between E1 Camino Real and Mission Road would be expected to increase about four percent with Phase 2, or about 30 to 40 more two-way vehicles during both the AM and PM peak hours (see Figure 4). Should Oak Avenue be cul-de-saced near Grand Avenue as part of this alternative, the vast majority of traffic shown on Figures 12 and 13 at the east end of Oak Avenue would transfer to the Willow Avenue extensior~ E. YEAR 2010 AMENDED PLAN + PROJECT PHASE 3 Project Phase 3 (Oak and Willow extensions + extensions south of Chestnut Avenue) year 2010 traffic volumes are presented in Figures 14 and 15 for weekday AM and PM peak hour 2 Two-way vehicles = the combined flow of traffic in both directions. 7/5/02 CTG Page 6 Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan conditions, respectively. Phase 3 would not be expected to produce major traffic increases on local roadways north of Chestnut Avenue. Two-way volumes on the Oak Avenue extension between El Camino Real and Mission Road would be expected to increase from two to four percent, for about 20 more two-way vehicles during the AM peak hour and 45 more two-way vehicles during the PM peak hour (see Figure 5). South of Chestnut Avenue, l~t Street just east of E1 Camino Real would be likely to have about 300 two-way vehicles during the AM peak hour (compared to 60 two-way vehicles per hour without Phase 3 during this same period) and 340 two-way vehicles during the PM peak hour (compared to 95 two-way vehicles per hour without Phase 3 during this same period). Two-way volumes on A Street north of 1 ~t Street with Phase 3 would likely be about 260 vehicles during both the AM and PM peak hours. Amended Plan (without project) volumes on this one-block- long cul-de-sac would likely be about 20 vehicles during either peak hour. Little or no project-related traffic would be expected to travel on Baden Avenue with any of the three project phases. In addition, because the project would lower traffic along Chestnut Avenue at the Baden Avenue intersection in relation to Amended Redevelopment Plan only conditions, mm movements to/from Baden Avenue would experience fewer delays. V. INTERSECTION OPERATION A. METHODOLOGY 1. Level of Service Signalized Intersections. Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersections, are almost always the capacity controlling locations for any circulation system. Signalized intersection operation is graded based upon two different scales. The first scale employs a grading system called Level of Service (LOS) which ranges from Level A, indicating uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers, down to Level F, indicating significant congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. The Level of Service scale is also associated with a control delay tabulation (year 2000 Transportation Research Board (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual [HCM] operations method) at each intersection. The control delay designation allows a more detailed examination of the impacts of a particular project. Greater detail regarding the LOS/control delay relationship is provided in the Appendix. Unsignalized Intersections. Unsignalized intersection operation is also typically graded using the Level of Service A through F scale. LOS ratings for all-way stop intersections are determined using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highway Capacity Manual. Under this methodology, all-way stop intersections receive one LOS designation reflecting operation of the entire intersection. Average control delay values are also calculated. Intersections with side streets only stop sign controlled (two-way stop control) are also evaluated using the LOS and average control delay scales using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highway Capacity Manual. However, unlike signalized or all-way stop analysis where the LOS and control delay designations only pertain to the entire intersection, in side street stop sign control analysis LOS and delay designations are computed for only the stop sign controlled 7/5/02 CTG Page7 Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan approaches or individual turn and through movements. The Appendix provides greater detail about unsignalized analysis methodologies. 2. Intersection Signalization Needs Traffic signals are used to provide an orderly flow of traffic through an intersection. Many times they are needed to offer side street traffic an opportunity to access a major road where high volumes and/or high vehicle speeds block crossing or turn movements. They do not, however, increase the capacity of an intersection (i.e., increase the overall intersection's ability to accommodate additional vehicles) and, in fact, often slightly reduce the number of total vehicles that can pass through an intersection in a given period of time. Signals can also cause an increase in traffic accidents if installed at inappropriate locations. There are 11 possible tests for determining whether a traffic signal should be considered for installation. These tests, called "warrants", consider criteria such as actual traffic volume, pedestrian volume, presence of school children, and accident history. Usually, two or more warrants must be met before a signal is installed. In this report, the test for Peak Hour Volumes (Warrant # 11) has been applied. When Warrant 11 is met there is a strong indication that a detailed signal warrant analysis covering all possible warrants is appropriate. These rigorous analyses are described in Chapter 9 of the Caltrans Traffic Manual while Warrant 11 is presented in the Appendix of this report. It is possible that an unsignalized intersection will not meet signal warrants, but will have one or more movements that experience LOS F operations. Level of service F can be indicated for a very low volume of vehicles at a stop sign. Although these stopped vehicles may experience long delays of one minute or more, there would not be an overall benefit if the higher numbers of vehicles on the major street are stopped in favor of the few vehicles on the minor street. The signal warrant considers a balance between major street and minor street delays, and may indicate that there is overall benefit if drivers for some turn movements from the minor street continue to experience long (LOS E or F) delays. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS Level of Service (LOS) D is considered by South San Francisco as the poorest acceptable operation for signalized and all-way stop intersections; LOS E is considered to be the poorest acceptable operation for side street stop sign controlled approaches or turn movements or yield controlled movements at unsignalized intersections. The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) Draft 1999 Congestion Management Plan (CMP) shows that E1 Camino Real through South San Francisco is a CMP monitored roadway segment. The CMP level of service standard for E1 Camino Real is LOS E. However, for this study, South San Francisco's more conservative LOS D minimum acceptable operation standard has been used for intersections along the roadway. 7/5/02 CTG Page 8 Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan Ce INTERSEC ~ iON LEVEL OF SERVICE AND SIGNALIZATION REQUIREMENTS 1. Existing Conditions Tables 2 and 3 show that currently, all major intersections within the study area are operating at acceptable levels of service during the weekday AM and PM commute peak traffic hours with one exception: the Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue all-way-stop intersection is now operating unacceptably at LOS E during the PM peak hour. In addition, both AM and PM peak hour volumes at this intersection now exceed signal warrant criteria levels (see Appendix). 2. Year 2010 Amended Plan (Without Project) Tables 2 and 3 show that with year 2010 Amended Redevelopment Plan traffic volumes, all major intersections within the study area would be operating at acceptable levels of service with one exception. The all-way-stop Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue intersection would be operating unacceptably at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours and would have volumes exceeding signal warrant criteria levels during both time periods (see Appendix). 3. Year 2010 Amended Plan + Project Phase 1 Tables 2 and 3 show that with the Oak Avenue Extension (Phase 1) and year 2010 volumes, all analyzed intersections would be operating at acceptable levels of service with two exceptions. The all-way-stop Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue intersection would be operating unacceptably at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours and would have volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels during both time periods. In addition, the all- way-stop Arroyo Drive/Camaritas Avenue intersection would be operating unacceptably at LOS E during the PM peak hour and would have volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels during both the AM and PM peak hours (see Appendix). The E1 Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection would be operating acceptably at LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. 4. Year 2010 Amended Plan + Project Phase 2 Tables 2 and 3 show that with the Willow Avenue and Oak Avenue Extensions (Phase 2) and year 2010 volumes, all analyzed intersections would be operating at acceptable levels of service with two exceptions. The all-way-stop Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue intersection would be operating unacceptably at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours and would have volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels during both time periods. In addition, the all-way-stop Arroyo Drive/Camaritas Avenue intersection would be operating unacceptably at LOS E during the PM peak hour and would have volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels during both the AM and PM peak hours (see Appendix). The E1 Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersections would be operating acceptably at LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. 7/5/02 CTG Page9 Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan 5_ Year 2010 Amended Plan + Project Phase 3 Tables 2 and 3 show that with Phase 3 and year 2010 volumes, all analyzed intersections would be operating at acceptable levels of service with two exceptions. The all-way-stop Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue intersection would be operating unacceptably at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours and would have volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels during both time periods. In addition, the all-way-stop Arroyo Drive/Camaritas Avenue intersection would be operating unacceptably at LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hours and would have volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels during both time periods (see Appendix). In addition, the narrow widths of 1 st Street and A Street in combination with on-street parking allowed along both sides of each street would not allow acceptable two-way traffic flow with volume increases expected due to the connection of A Street to Antoinette Lane. The El Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection would be operating acceptably at LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. VI. OPERATIONAL AND SAFETY CONCERNS A. PROJECT PHASE 3 The narrow widths of 1 st Street and A Street (north of 1 st Street) combined with heavy use of on-street parking along both sides of both streets leaves room for only a single travel lane, requiring alternating one-way traffic flow. The major increases in traffic that could be expected along both streets with Project Phase 3 would create significant congestion and safety problems and the potential for head-on collisions. It is also likely that some (minor level) of new traffic on A Street would travel to and from south of 1 st Street, creating added congestion and safety concerns on this segment of the street. Finally, it is probable that the South San Francisco Police and Fire departments would not approve of two-way traffic flow on either street given the projected volume levels (assuming on-street parking remains allowed on both sides of the street). The new signal at the E1 Camino Real/Pt Street/Southwood Drive intersection could facilitate northbound traffic on E1 Camino Real destined for Westborough Boulevard to use Southwood Drive and Orange Avenue as a bypass route around the El Camino/Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue intersection. 7/5/02 CTG Page 10 Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan VII. RECOMMENDED iMPROVEMENTS A. YEAR 2010 AMENDED PLAN (WITHOUT PROJECT) 1. Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue Intersection (see Table 4) · Signalize · Alternative suggestions regarding approach striping and signal phasing area as follows. Maintain the existing approach lanes and striping, but prohibit left tums on both Chestnut Avenue intersection approaches. Also, provide split signal phasing for the north and southbound Commercial Avenue intersection approaches. The vast majority of prohibited eastbound left tums from Chestnut Avenue would potentially take place at Mission Road, while prohibited westbound left tums would take place at Grand Avenue, Baden Avenue and 2nd Lane. b) Maintain the existing approach lanes and striping, but prohibit left tums on both Chestnut Avenue intersection approaches during peak commute traffic hours. In conjunction with this measure, also prohibit westbound left tums from Chestnut Avenue to Baden Avenue and 2nd Lane during peak commute traffic hours. c) Restripe the eastbound Chestnut Avenue approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane, an exclusive through lane and an exclusive right turn lane. Provide an exclusive left turn lane on the westbound Chestnut Avenue approach. Provide protected left turn phasing east-west (on Chestnut Avenue) and split signal phasing north-south. Resultant Operation: Alternative 1 AM Peak Hour: LOS B - 10.3 seconds vehicle delay PM Peak Hour: LOS B - 10.5 seconds vehicle delay Alternative 2 AM Peak Hour: LOS C - 24.1 seconds vehicle delay PM Peak Hour: LOS C - 20.2 seconds vehicle delay 7/5/02 CTG Page 11 Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan B. YEAR 2010 AMENDED PLAN + PROJECT PHASE 1 1. Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue Intersection (see Table 4) See altemative measures above in Section VII.A. 1. Resultant Operation: Altemative 1 AM Peak Hour: LOS B - 11.4 seconds vehicle delay PM Peak Hour: LOS B - 10.7 seconds vehicle delay Alternative 2 AM Peak Hour: LOS C - 21.3 seconds vehicle delay PM Peak Hour: LOS B - 17.8 seconds vehicle delay 2. Arroyo Drive/Camaritas Avenue · Signalize Provide split signal phasing for all four approaches with the following modifications. Restripe the northbound Camaritas Avenue approach to provide a combined left/through lane and an exclusive right turn lane; provide exclusive right turn signal arrows to allow northbound right tums to proceed at the same time as the westbound Arroyo Drive approach and to allow eastbound right tums to proceed at the same time as the northbound Camaritas Avenue approach. Post informational signing on the westbound Arroyo Avenue approach indicating vehicles should turn left for access to Westborough Boulevard and the 1-280 freeway. Also post an informational sign on the southbound Camaritas Avenue approach to Westborough Boulevard indicating vehicles should turn right to access 1-280. Provide traffic calming measures along Arroyo Avenue west of Camaritas Avenue with any significant increase in traffic after provision of signalization. Resultant Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS C - 26.3 seconds vehicle delay PM Peak Hour: LOS C - 20.6 seconds vehicle delay 7/5/02 CTG Page 12 Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan C. YEAR 2010 AMENDED PLAN + PROJECT PHAaE 2 1. Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue Intersection See alternative measures above in Section VII.A. 1. Resultant Operation: Altemative 1 AM Peak Hour: LOS B - 11.5 seconds vehicle delay PM Peak Hour: LOS B - 10.7 seconds vehicle delay Alternative 2 AM Peak Hour: LOS C - 21.0 seconds vehicle delay PM Peak Hour: LOS B - 17.6 seconds vehicle delay 2. Arroyo Drive/Camaritas Avenue · Signalize Provide split signal phasing for all four approaches with the following modifications. Restripe the northbound Camaritas Avenue approach to provide a combined left/through lane and an exclusive right turn lane; provide exclusive right tum signal arrows to allow northbound right tums to proceed at the same time as the westbound Arroyo Drive approach and to allow eastbound right tums to proceed at the same time as the northbound Camaritas Avenue approach. Post informational signing on the westbound Arroyo Avenue approach indicating vehicles should turn left for access to Westborough Boulevard and the 1-280 freeway. Also post an informational sign on the southbound Camaritas Avenue approach to Westborough Boulevard indicating vehicles should turn right to access 1-280. Provide traffic calming measures along Arroyo Avenue west of Camaritas Avenue with any significant increase in traffic after provision of signalization. Resultant Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS C - 26.3 seconds vehicle delay PM Peak Hour: LOS C - 20.5 seconds vehicle delay 7/5/02 CTG Page 13 Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan D. YEAR 2010 AMENDED PLAN + PROJECT PHASE 3 1. Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue Intersection See alternative measures above in Section VII.A. 1. Resultant Operation: Alternative 1 AM Peak Hour: LOS B - 11.5 seconds vehicle delay PM Peak Hour: LOS B - 11.2 seconds vehicle delay Alternative 2 AM Peak Hour: LOS C - 22.4 seconds vehicle delay PM Peak Hour: LOS B - 18.7 seconds vehicle delay 2. Arroyo Drive/Camaritas Avenue · Signalize Provide split signal phasing for all four approaches with the following modifications. Restripe the northbound Camaritas Avenue approach to provide a combined left/through lane and an exclusive right turn lane; provide exclusive right turn signal arrows to allow northbound right tums to proceed at the same time as the westbound Arroyo Drive approach and to allow eastbound right tums to proceed at the same time as the northbound Camaritas Avenue approach. Post informational signing on the westbound Arroyo Avenue approach indicating vehicles should turn left for access to Westborough Boulevard and the 1-280 freeway. Also post an informational sign on the southbound Camaritas Avenue approach to Westborough Boulevard indicating vehicles should turn right to access 1-280. Provide traffic calming measures along Arroyo Avenue west of Camaritas Avenue with any significant increase in traffic after provision of signalization. Resultant Operation: AM Peak Hour: LOS C - 26.2 seconds vehicle delay PM Peak Hour: LOS C - 20.7 seconds vehicle delay 7/5/02 CTG Page 14 Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan o 1st Street (El Camino Real to A Street) and A Street (North of 1st Stree0 Provide at least two 12-foot-wide travel lanes plus eight feet of additional pavement width for each row of on-street parking (or to criteria established by South San Francisco Public Works and Emergency Services departments). The existing 60-foot rights-of-way along both streets would allow provision of this widening. · Sign the southbound A Street approach to 1st Street indicating all but local traffic must turn right (to access E1 Camino Real). 4. El Camino Real/1't Street/Southwood Drive Intersection Limit signal phase time allocated to the protected northbound left turn movement from E1 Camino Real to Southwood Drive to minimize any use of Southwood Drive by traffic trying to bypass the northbound left turn movement from E1 Camino Real to Westborough Boulevard. 7/5/02 CTG Page 15 Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan Figures Not To Scale NORTH El Camino High School South San Francisco High School Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan Traffic Study CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Figure 1 Area Map Arro~vo Dr , ~) Westborou~Th 1st St Westborougl~' -Chestnut Not To Scale NORTH _j~ ",.~ Chestnut fC RA NE~~T RA NSPORTATION GROUP ~J=StopSign ~ =Signal Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use + Urban Design Plan Traffic Study Figure 2 Existing Intersection Geometrics and Controls Not To Scale NORTH 527A 623 P / Oak Avenue Extension 439 A 498 P 917 A 982 P 1054 A 836 P 't Ave 4th (south) leg added to intersection as part of Amended Plan 917 = Year 2010 Phase I Project Volumes ~ = Year 2010 Amended Plan (Without Project) Volumes A = AM Peak Hour p = PM Peak Hour  ] = Signal ......... Project Roadway Extension Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan Traffic Study fCRANE~TRANSPORTATION GROUP Figure 3 Project Phase 1 (Oak Avenue Extension) Not To Scale NORTH ~_- 546A 642 P Oak Avenue Extens/ 451 A 517 P 902 A 965 P 1044 A 821 P t Ave 917 = Year 2010 Phase 2 Project Volumes ~-~ = Year 2010 Amended Plan (Without Project) Volumes A = AM Peak Hour P = PM Peak Hour [ ~ = Signal ......... Project Roadway Extensions Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan Traffic Study Project Phase 2 fCRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Figure 4 (Oak Avenue and Willow Avenue Extensions) Not To Scale NORTH Arro~ ~ 559A 666 P Oak Avenue Extension 458 A 537 P 789 A 895 P Ave ]1302]P 1008 A 786 P 0 '' .· = Signal removed and · left turns prohibited 917 = Year 2010 Phase 3 Project Volumes ~ = Year 2010 Amended Plan (Without Project) Volumes A -- AM Peak Hour P = PM Peak Hour = Signal  )= New signal installed ......... Project Roadway Extensions Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan Traffic Study rCRA~NE T Figure 5 Project Phase 3 (Oak Avenue and Willow Avenue Extensions RANSPORTATION GROUP Extensions South of Chestnut Avenue) Not To Scale NORTH 817 45 Arroyo Dr ( ~o -~ .~. 666 131 ~ 43 ! 37 ~-- 75 / ~ t.~ ArroyoDr[ 4 .~ .~ '~ 167 1 155 ~ ~ 143 273 '-~ u ~L 239 ~ 766 ?e.,~westb°r°ugh 170 45 108 111215.~ 141 _~ i 1017 ---~- 232 '~ 1465 ~ ~_11 28 27 Southwood ( 0 ~ ~ 366 2 ~: ~¢-19 ,'~L Oak Ave 380 5 422 ~ ~--20 }/35~0 1200 ~.~ 1" 10 -- ~ ~ 39~ 195 46~?' ~E~2.3,(~'~e 1'6o 2 ~...,, ~ k,,, 17-- 70 % 3O5 75 1st St 1140 794 Q~ 42 256 Westborough(. 739 '--~ o 38O ~ · ~b 160 ~-- 670 ~- 355 Chestnut 358 349 1448 9O 35O 220 ..,2 2- \~ ~ 40 0 5~ ,~ 30 35 0 20~ 40 1194 ~ .~ k,,,110 -'~ .~ .~.~_~ 1¢040-' ¢' 5o Chestnut 345 45 '! , 345 .~ 9O5 ~ ~L 40 ~-- 757 Chestnut Ay Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan Traffic Study CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Figure 6 Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes 87o % 125 Arro~/oDr(~ !77_/ 65 J' 'i 145 200 --~ (~ I Not To Scale NORTH ~L17 `% 48 4 11 ~ 80 ~ ~ I'~(~)~-A171 rroyo Dr I ~1~~~. 93 ~ ~201 135 ~ 282 15563 154: ~ 1090 ,¢ ,I, ~-66 149 '-"~ t ¢ 985 ~ 145 k,~141 '--~ ~443 42138270 .¢ ,1, o  lst St Southwood ~ 2 k,. (~3-"~ '!11~19~63 ¢ 'F ~ 14 315 ¢ Oak- ~ 10 15 Oak Ave 1 741 ~ 172 . 232 Westborough~ 186 ~' .~ 605-~ ~ 394 '~. ~ 165 50\¢' ~ 1¢5'~e I~ 20( 30 ~ lOO ~ 285 195 5 285 ~ ~0 ~ 160 -~ / I1~~ ~~ ~o ~L 230 ~ 665 ~,- 331 Chestnut 65~ 90~407 Land Use & Urban Design Plan Traffic Study ~,~.. 15 42 0 13~ ~---999 1085 -' '~ 5 k,,..115 -'~ 5' 385 80 :~J ~-45 ~j i,~4--- 730 · ~ Chestnut Ave 349 .~ 749 ---~ ',,. j fCRANE~TRANSPORTATION GROUP Figure 7 Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes Not To Scale NORTH 1427 I 78 . ~1 140 --'~ .~1 60 308 ~ !1 I 140 180 -----~ ~ k,,.. 310 '-~ o ~ 50 ~'- 105 )~ Arro~/o 13O 115 230 200 _~ 375 ~ 325 '~ 270 950 ~ 7O We stborough 125 (~ lst St I Southwood ~ 10 J' .~1'~ 1' r" I ,, - ~115 ' 15 / '~ -"' _~1 1304 k,,.15 % '~1 .j · 449 ¢ ¢-~o ~o ;,'% %.~ 10'~ ~'- 33 0,~,~,., ~3..,,' ~ ~akAve 40 ~~ C '¢ ~ 6 o /449 ~¢ ~ 234.. 450 10 ~ .... 25~ 10 4 46~'"°¢~? ~ 87 ~ ~ 362 75 1316 110 288 Westborough~ 233 .~ 944 '--~ 385 -~ ~L 206 ~ 798 ~¢- 390 Chestnut 405 284 630 90 99 251 517 2O8 42275~ 40 / 209 ~ 3 ~k_ 18 497 98 37 0 18 .-1221.j / 67 ~ ~1' f ~ 1003 ~1 ~ 4 1330~ 136 0 40 ~ 119~ ~L71 .~ 804 F3 Chestnut Av( Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan Traffic Study Not To Scale NORTH 1483 198 Arr°"v°Dr (l~l~65 ~71 157 -~ 1 1 246 --'~ 55 I ~ 25 15 I ~ 105 ~J ~ ~(~Arro~/oDr 105 ---~ 215 1 155 145 -'~ 495~_ 30 / / -i0 20 -X~ 30 ~: ~- 35 °e/~ 4ve · ~ · ~ 4 0 // ~F- '~ 20 ~ [255; 262 63~~ ~ 15~e ~ ' ~ ~~~ ~1'94 - 5~~1 336 ~ ~ 2~ / 127 552 65 139 [92 316 328 164 8 '- Oo~t..5 , .~ 898 70 ~-310 ~ 155 5 '~,'~ 35 175 160 ~ 1400 ~ - 180~ ~ t n 6~ib~22230-' 1048 ~ 195165 65 % 275 ~ ~ 1840 ~1 1138 ~ ~882 ; 17~ ~7 1 150 25 I 292 366 · ~ Chestnut ,~ Chestnut 343 ~ 546 ~E 671 I 390 1095~ 196; 26 % 4 ~/4 3 / ~1 2319 1268 141 ~ %15 ~ ~1 ¢ ~ 430 ~ ~ / % Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan Traffic Study fCRA NE~TRANSPORTATION GROUP Figure 9 Year 2010 Amended Plan PM Peak Hour Volumes Not To Scale NORTH ~L. 25 ~ '-' 317 433 ~ 256 . 12~ ~- 164 )a~r.4 ¢-'20 55 ?~. 7~, .... ( ~ I _C~v~ 136 ~'~ 5623610 ~ '~ 107 ~ 140 ~ ~ t ~ 62 ~ 5 ~ 205 ~ 0901103 ~ - 283 ~ ____ . 11076 222 ~ ~ %. 270 -~ u ,~-- 112 Arroyo Dr 35 266 135 146 ,~ ~65 160~ 296 _~ 269 ~ ,.325R, It:_ 71 -"% 218 76'~ 17 ~156 ~ ~ ~ _L ' 100 ~ 60 ~_V5 279 456 ~ ,j02071 '~  30°: lSou,hwood ~ o 0 '~ 15 -~ '~L15 ~---- 0 ¢-o 1st St 1405 122 133 Westbo~ugh~ 726 ~ u 1305 385 -~ · ~L 64 ~-- 552 ~- 301 Chestnut 405720195 10 4Z 925 k,,.120 '~ '"L14 o 5 ~ 771 ~ t..~ ~"-66 Chestnut 3 ~46 158 127 603 '~S ~stnut Ay 167 ~ ...... Proposed Roadway Extension ~_Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan Traffic Study [C~ Figure 10 Year 2010 Amended Plan + Project Phase 1 RANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP AM Peak Hour Volumes Not To Scale NORTH 235 .~ 245 385 .~ 285 31 ::)a~-,~. ~ 10 61 ~ ~ 126 275 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;0 .q~525 ~ ~ 0 A~o~oDr ~ h OakA~e 93 17~0 262 93~~ ~ 1~ 179 ~ 135 150 ~ . ~ 52 ~ ~ ~ 40 ~ ~ 189 ~ ~ ~ _239 ~ 5 32 I 372 e ~ rroyo Dr ~,~- ~ ~ 75 ~34 ~'~1~5 3~5 --- ~ ~20 % ~1 130 ~ -~0~ ~ ~2 ~ 125 / 87 ~-- 205 310 120: ~ 1268 p ~, ~-60 274__~~ t 5~0 954 ~ 182 ~.180-~ 1845 ~ ~ 10 5075 7 0 o o .~ 0 ~ 2329 ~15 %~ 1247 304 . 199 Westboro g 312 _.~ 366 ---~ ~ 430 R, ~L 103 ~-- 616 ~,- 263 Chestnut 1397' ~,~ ~ 5748 ' 385 \% 15 \~ ,.-" 35 49'~b ..~ ~9455 ~.. 247 ~ 59~'°= ~ 171 ~ ~14 153 3 1 . ~753 122 686 ~,..142 '-~ ~- 124 Chestnut 598 ~ ,,. 4 -I~ ...... Proposed Roadway Extension :hestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan Traffic Study cl Figure 11 / Year 2010 Amended Plan + Project Phase 1 RANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP PM Peak Hour Volumes Not To Scale NORTH 1295 A,Toyo Dr 140 .~ .:E 205 --~ ~, 283 -~ ~. /"-! 316 '~L. 27 h¢'~ 407¢ ..- 1254 I 14 '~L.-138/[.~,! .~ ~ -"'~-289l,I .... , ~ ll6~ ¢ 11911 210 _,~ ~ t r~-[/ ' ~lRCvl.7 ~o..-.,,T !80 ~ ~'~ ~'''7611 ),, _°= *.,v~ II .~98 _~ 56351/ * t r-~lL62-,~', 30 90111~; i ~. 216 ...)!k. *, , · %51 k,.. 7 110 #156 \~ ~ 300 i8329168~=.~ ~ 75 45 ~__~75 279 456 '~__ \ -'- 222 ~ ~ 270 ~ ~ 112 `C 275 Arroyo Dr 266 135 146 _~67 160~ 185 816 `C 55 296 ._~ 1270 ---~ 325 --~ t 135 2072 30 Southwood ~--0 ,C© 1st St 1306 1413 ~: 127 133 Westborough~ 721 o 385 ~ · ~b 64 ~ 544 `C 294 Chestnut 405 190 726 251 172 ~ 785 ,,.. 4 -~ 3 158 ~L14 lO o 5 ~ ~--756 Chestnut 4 ~ ~ 915.---~.~ 1~36~ 4~0 ~b 127 ~ 583 Chestnut Ave ...... Proposed Roadway Extensions Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan Traffic Study Not To S~le NORTH 337  /~ ~L 37 228 ~ 272 A~__ 198 1~7 ~ ~- 41 ~ 308 Oak Ave 239 ~ ~ Oak Ave ,~ 175 ~ ~ 37 158 157 _~ 188 ~ 64 -'"t \4 ,~,,.,. 61 265 63~c~ ,~ 98~e ~"-8 ~_.~.'~ 68336 1531 226 ~ 52 4O .~ ~ 32''~--189 t.~ ~'- 380 Arroyo Dr ¢ It.... 240 % \4 ~ 451 ~4315123\~ i¢' 65 84 J__\154 366 288 ~ \ --- 134 ~ 35 324 '-~ 12__0-~ _ ~ ~ "L205 -'" ~......,,__ ~ \%~ 693 : 87 ~'15385 \~,~'~ 36 i18 120~ ~ 1260 I.~ ~ ~"~',~",~""'"'"""~ K 1845 ~ 21~ % 1252 ~0 ~ 30~ . ~e~ ~604 e 0 ~1~60 / I~ / ,: ~ 3 / Westbo~ugh~chestnut ' ~ o,-,nu,//122 ~' /ChestnutAve~ ...... Proposed Roadway Extensions Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan Traffic Study Not To Scale NORTH 326 ~-- 185! --57 . 14 1305 .~L_ 147-''% ~ ~ 290 i Oak Ave 6~ 1~ 122 .... 215 A~oyoOr ( , OakAve 200 152 ~.:E ~ t ¢ ~62 ~ =1 ' 211~~ 3091~16 ~ 5 ~ ~----1322-- 111 ~ 113 ' 2 76 ~ 275 t 3os ~~ArroyoDr ~ ~ }5832916~% ¢ 75 222 ~ 13613¢84 F~ ~1~0 270 ~ /~ 45 ~_~0 279 148 ~b 188 276 163 ~ 839 '1271 ---~ 136 325 '-~ 1932 ~ Southwood ~ 5 o ~L 95 -'% ~---5 ~ 87 1st St 1242 1424 ~ 130 150 Westborough~' 272 _~ .~ 724 ~ ~ 385 -~ ~ '~L51 ~-- 511 ~ 227 ~,~Chestnut 464 134 748 ~L16 ~ 774 Chestnut 30 62 208 158 158 _.~ 791 ~ k,.,. 39 --'~. 127 529 74 ='~h~stnut A~ Proposed Roadway Extensions fC RAN E~TRA NSPORTATION GROUP Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan Traffic Study Figure 14 Year 2010 Amended Plan + Project Phase 3 AM Peak Hour Volumes Not To Scale NORTH 1378 'r,_ 203 ~-- 316 ,~.~j3 ~ ~r- 147 Oak Ave 170 _~ tI'~ 194 ---~ 170 1551 223 ~ 52 48 .,~j ~, 30'~-'-191 ~ 388 Arroyo Dr 134 144 344 137 127 -~ 91 ~_ 232 t24 125: ~-- 1270 970 : 186 180-'~ 1768 ~-J 56 40 82 I ~ 10 ~ 1st St Southwood ~ 11 ._~113' 94 2248 k. 15-~ aI ~ 249 246 ~ 181 62 ~,_ 37 ~ 274 ~- 50 Oak Ave 175 341 ¢ :)ax'4ve C12 34, %~,~. ~= 70 18 140'~.~ ~ !9( 265 63~~ .¢ 97/~_~e 3 ~~°'~ ~"~9 ~.~.'~ 68336 ,-,.,,- \~ .,~ 472 ~40~u123\~, E' 65 84 ..ff_\162 366 292 ~ 1264 ~. 308 216 Westborough~' 382 8 432 -~ · ~ 96 ~ 620 ~' 179 Chestnut r 697 188 1435 ~ J 38 '~' ~ 722 ~J 16 5 '~""( 36 % 258 ~ \ ~ 15 709 ~ { t15 .~ 880 Chestnut 21 58 141 164 ~L 171 ~ 656 ~ 117 Chestnut Ave ...... Proposed Roadway Extensions Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan Traffic Study fCRANE~IRA NSPORTATION GROUP Figure 15 Year 2010 Amended Plan + Project Phase 3 PM Peak Hour Volumes Tables Table 1 TRIP GENERATION NET NEW PROJECT DEVELOPMENT (BY PHASE) BEYOND THAT CONSIDERED IN AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS DAILY 2-WAY TRIPS INBOUND OUTBOUND INBOUND OUTBOUND SITE* USE SIZE OR RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL RATE VOL (PHASE) # OF UNITS I Townhouse 65 units 5.86 383 .07 5 .37 24 .36 23 .18 12 (Phase l) 2 Apartments 97 units 6.63 644 . .08 8 .43 42 .42 41 .20 19 (Phase 1) Commercial 16,400 S.F. 40 656 .72 12 .48 8 1.8 30 1.8 30 4 Apartments 53 units 6.63 352 .08 4 .43 23 .42 22 .20 I l (Phase 1) Commercial 26,354 S.F. 40 1054 .72 19 .48 13 1.8 47 1.8 47 6 Townhouse 22 units 5.86 130 .07 2 .37 8 36 8 .18 4 (Phase 2) Commercial 3,000 $.F. o) 716 (2) 12 ¢21 8 (3) 30 (3) 32 7B Apartments 14 units 6.63 94 .08 I .43 6 .42 6 .20 3 (Phase 3) Commercial 2,000 S.F. {~) 552 (2~ 10 {2) 6 (3) 23 (3) 25 8 Apartments 179 units 6.63 i 188 .08 14 .43 77 .42 75 .20 36 (Phase 3) Commercial (-9550 S.F.) (~) (564) (2> (-8) (2) (-5) (2) (-25) (3) (-28) Center reduction from 48,000 to 38,450 S.F. 9 Apartments 55 units 6.63 365 .08 4 .43 24 .42 23 .20 1 I (Phase 3) 10 Apartments 142 units 6.63 942 .08 11 .43 61 .42 60 .20 28 (Phase 3) Commercial Center expansion o) 582 (2) 8 (2) 5 {3) 26 (3) 29 from 57,000 to 70,349 S.F. * See Chestnut/Mission Area Land Use & Urban Design Plan Illustrative Concept Plan for site locations. Ln(T) = 0.643 Ln(X) + 5.866 Ln(T) = 0.596 Ln(X) + 2.329 (61% in/39% out) Ln(T) = 0.660 Ln(X) + 3.403 (48% in/52% out) Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation, 6th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Table 2 (page 1 of 2) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AM PEAK HOUR YEAR 2010 AMENDED PLAN + PROJECT PHASE 3 PHASE 2 (PHASE 2 + AMENDED PHASE I (OAK & EXTENSIONS REDEVELOPMENT (OAK WILLOW SOUTH OF INTERSECTION EXISTING PLAN ONLY EXTENSION) EXTENSIONS) CHESTNUT) Chestnut Ave./ C-21.2(~) C-24.5 C-24.0 C-23.6 C-24.5 Grand Ave. (Signal) Chestnut Ave./ F-60.7(:) F-94.8 F-52.8 E-47.3 F-53.4 Commercial Ave. (All-Way Stop) Chestnut Ave./ B-12.3(~) B-14.8 B-11.3 B-I 1.4 B-12.2 Mission Rd. (Signal) Chesmut Ave./ B-12.1(~) B-16.7 B-14.8 B-14.8 -- Antoinette Lane (Signal) Chestnut Ave./ D-30.3(~) D-38.5 C-33.7 C-33.7 C-33.8 Westborough Blvd./ El Camino Real (Signal) Westborough Blvd./ B-16.0m B-18.6 B-18.1 B-18.1 B-18.3 Camaritas Ave./ Orange Ave. (Signal) Arroyo Dr./ B~ 14.1 (2) C- 18.0 D-33.3 D-33.6 E-37.4 Camaritas Ave. (All-Way-Stop) Arroyo Dr./ B- 12.2o) B- 10.6 N/A N/A N/A E1 Camino Real (Signal) Arroyo Dr./El N/A* N/A C-26.8°) C-25.2 C-25.6 Camino Real/Oak Ave. Extension (Signal) Mission Rd./ B-12.3® B-14.6 N/A N/A N/A Oak Ave. (Oak Stop I Sign Control) Mission Rd./Oak N/A* N/A B- 17.5(~) B- 17.3 B- 17.7 Ave./Oak Ave. !Extension (Sil~nal) Table 2 (page 2 of 2) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AM PEAK HOUR YEAR 2010 AMENDED PLAN + PROJECT PHASE 3 PiIASE 2 (PHASE 2 + AMENDED PHASE I (OAK & EXTENSIONS REDEVELOPMENT (OAK WILLOW SOUTH OF INTERSECTION EXISTING PLAN ONLY EXTENSION) EXTENSIONS) CHESTNUT) Grand Ave./Willow C- 15.4(2) C- 18.9 -w- N/A N/A Ave. (All-Way Stop) Grand Ave./Willow N/A* N/A N/A C-17.5(2) C- 17.8 Ave./Willow Ave. Extension (All-Way- Stop) El Camino Real/lst B-13.8/B-I 1.5/ C-19.9/B-12.8/ -- -- B-12.7°) St./Southwood (1st E-41.9/B-I 1.1® B-14.9/B-I 1.7 St./Southwood Stop Sign Control) N/A = Intersection does not exist or was not requested for analysis by City staff for this project phase. Signalized level of service-control delay in seconds. (2) All way stop level of service-average control delay in seconds. (3) Unsignalized level of service-average control delay in seconds. Oak Avenue westbound stop sign controlled approach to Mission Road. (4) Unsignalized level of service-average control delay in seconds. Northbound El Camino Real left mm/southbound El Camino Real left mrn/Southwood eastbound stop sign controlled approach to El Camino Real/l st Street westbound stop sign controlled approach to El Camino Real. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group Table 3 (page 1 of 2) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE PM PEAK HOUR YEAR 2010 AMENDED PLAN + PROJECT " PHASE 3 PHASE 2 (PHASE 2 + AMENDED PHASE I (OAK & EXTENSIONS REDEVELOPMENT (OAK WILLOW SOUTH OF INTERSECTION EXISTING PLAN ONLY EXTENSION) EXTENSIONS) CHESTNUT) Chestnut Ave./ C-20.7°) C-32.1 C-26.1 C-24.7 C-25.5 Grand Ave. (Signal) Chestnut Ave./ F-51.2(:) F-192.8 F-116.9 F-106.3 F-121.3 Commercial Ave. (All-Way-Stop) Chestnut Ave./ B- 13.2(~) B~ 16.4 B- 11.1 B- 11.2 B- 12.0 Mission Rd. (Signal) Chestnut Ave./ B- 17.6(~) B_ 19.1 B- 18.4 B- 18.4 -- Antoinette Lane (Signal) Chestnut Ave./ C-31.0{~) D-53.9 D-43.8 D-43.6 D-47.4 Westborough Blvd./ El Camino Real (Signal) Westborough Blvd./ B-16.5(~) B-19.9 C-22.2 C-22.3 C-23.2 Camaritas Ave./ Orange Ave. (Signal) Arroyo Dr./ B-13.2(2) C- 16.5 E-37.4 E-40.8 E-48.7 Camaritas Ave. (All-Way-Stop) Arroyo Dr./ A-9.2(~) B-10.8 N/A N/A N/A El Camino Real (Signal) Arroyo Dr./El N/A* N/A C-28.6°) C-28.9 C-29.8 Camino Real/Oak Ave. Extension (Signal) Mission Rd./ B- 13.0(3) B- 14.2 N/A N/A N/A Oak Ave. (Oak Stop Sign Control) Mission Rd./Oak N/A* N/A B-I 9.9 (~) B-19.8 C-20.4 Ave./Oak Ave. Extension (Signal) Table 3 (page 2 of 2) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE PM PEAK HOUR YEAR 2010 AMENDED PLAN + PROJECT PHASE 3 PHASE 2 (PHASE 2 + AMENDED PHASE 1 (OAK & EXTENSIONS REDEVELOPMENT (OAK WILLOW SOUTH OF INTERSECTION EXISTING PLAN ONLY EXTENSION) EXTENSIONS) CHESTNUT) Grand Ave./ C- 18.3(2) D-27.5 -- N/A N/A Willow Ave. (All-Way-Stop) Grand Ave./Willow N/A* N/A N/A C-22.8 {2) C-23.8 Ave./Willow Ave. Extension (All-Way-Stop) El Camino Real/Is' B-13.1/C-23.4/ C-I 7.2/E-36.6/ -- -- B-13.0°) St./Southwood (1s' E-47.5/B-14.4® B-14.1/C-16.5 St./Southwood Stop Sil~n Control) N/A = Intersection does not exist or was not requested for analysis by City staff for this project phase. o) Signalized level of service-control delay in seconds. All way stop level of service-average control delay in seconds. (3) Unsignalized level of service-average control delay in seconds. Oak Avenue westbound stop sign controlled approach to Mission Road. (4) Unsignalized level of service-average control delay in seconds. Northbound El Camino Real left mm/southbound El Camino . Real left mrn/Southwood eastbound stop sign controlled approach to El Camino Real/1 st Street westbound stop sign controlled approach to El Camino Real. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group Table 4 YEAR 2010 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH MITIGATION AM PEAK HOUR AMENDED PLAN INTERSECTION MITIGATION (W/O PROJECT) PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 Arroyo Dr./Camaritas Ave. Signalize C-26.3(~) C-26.3 C-26.2 Chestnut Ave./Commercial Alternative I B-10.3(~) B-I 1.4 B-I 1.5 B-I 1.5 Ave. Signalize and prohibit left tums EB and WB Alternative 2 C-24.1(~) C-21.3 C-21.0 C~22.4 Signalize and provide left mm lanes EB and WB PM PEAK HOUR AMENDED PLAN INTERSECTION MITIGATION (W/O PROJECT) PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 Arro3)o Dr./Camaritas Ave. Signalize C-20.6(~) C-20.5 C-20.7 Chestnut Ave./Commercial Alternative I B-10.50) B-10.7 B-10.7 B-I 1.2 Ave. Signalize and prohibit left roms EB and WB Alternative 2 C-20.2(~) B-17.8 B-17.6 B-18.7 Signalize and provide left mm lanes EB and (~) Level of service-vehicle control delay in seconds. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology. Source: Crane Transportation Group Appendix LEVEL OF SERVICE - AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL (SIDE STREET STOP SIGN CONTROL) INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (in seconds) A 0-10 B > 10- 15 C > 15-25 D > 25 - 35 E > 35 - 50 F >50 Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move up time to first in line at the intersection, stopped delay as first car in queue, and final acceleration delay. Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board LEVEL OF SERVICE - CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR ALL-WAY STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (in seconds) A 0-10 B > 10- 15 C > 15-25 D > 25 - 35 E > 35 - 50 F >50 Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move up time to first in line at the intersection, stopped delay as fa'st' car in queue, and final acceleration delay. Source: Highway Capacity Mcinua12000, Transportation Research Board LEVEL OF SERVICE - CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Control Delay Per Vehicle (in seconds) A _<10 B > 10-20 C > 20 - 35 D > 35 - 55 E > 55 - 80 F > 80 Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move up time to first in line at the intersection, stopped delay as first car in queue, and final acceleration delay. Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board Appendix PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Urban Area) 600 >. 500 ~ ~ 400 ~ 300 >0 200 f 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) OR 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) I I I I I I I _ 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & I LANE (MINOR) %~ '~ OR I LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) I LANE (MAJOR) & I LANE (MINOR)---- ~ I I I I I 100 0 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH W NOTE 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE .Source: Caltrans Traffic Manual, July 1996 I~C Caltrans Urban Area Peak Hour Volume Warrant RANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Appendix SIGNAL WARRANT EVALUATION (CALTRANS PEAK HOUR WARRANT #11) CHESTNUT AVENUE/COMMERCIAL AVENUE AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR SUM OF HIGHEST SUM OF HIGHEST MAJOR ST. MINOR ST. MAJOR ST. MINOR ST. APPROACH APPROACH WARRANT APPROACH APPROACH WARRANT CONDITION VOLUMES VOLUME MET? VOLUMES VOLUME MET? Existing 1537 230 Yes 1449 215 Yes 2010 Amended 1788 271 Yes 1839 277 Yes Plan Phase 1 1521 273 Yes 1522 284 Yes Phase 2 1486 274 Yes 1478 287 Yes Phase 3 1547 280 Yes 1529 299 Yes ARROYO DRIVE/CAMARITAS AVENUE AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR SUM OF HIGHEST SUM OF HIGHEST MAJOR ST. MINOR ST. MAJOR ST. MINOR ST. CONDITION APPROACH APPROACH WARRANT APPROACH APPROACH WARRANT VOLUMES VOLUME MET? VOLUMES VOLUME MET? Existing 599 432 No 552 268 No 2010 Amended 702 495 No 640 350 No Plan Phase I 933 536 Yes 869 580 Yes Phase 2 935 536 Yes 977 589 Yes Phase 3 936 557 Yes 894 625 Yes Caltrans Warrant #11 Criteria Source: Crane Transportation Group This Report is intended for presentation and use in its entirety, together with all of its supporting exhibits, schedules, and appendices. Crane Transportation Group will have no liability for any use of the Report other than in its entirety, such as providing an excerpt to a third party or quoting a portion of the Report. If you provide a portion of the Report to a third party, you agree to hold CTG harmless against any liability to such third parties based upon their use of or reliance upon a less than complete version of the Report.