HomeMy WebLinkAbout249 E Grand Partial Re Draft Focused EIR
COUNCIL
RESOLUTION
EXHIBIT A
PARTIAL REVISION OF THE DRAFT
FOCUSED ENVIRONMEN,TAL IMPACT REPORT
State Clearinghouse Number: 2005042121
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
PREPARED BY LAMPHIER - GREGORY
MARCH 2006
DATE
CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 PRDEIR Review and Final EIR Process .............. .................. ...................................................................................... 1-2
1.2 CEQA Requirements......................................................................................................................................... .............. 1-2
1.3 Project Description.................................. .... ........ .................... ..................................................................................... ... 1-3
1.4 Issues Requiring D EIR Revision and Recirculation...................... .................. ....... ....................... ................ ....... ....... 1-7
1.5 Summary of Revisions to the D EIR........ ........................... ............................... .......... ...... ........... .................... ............. 1-7
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARy......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 SUlnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures.................... ... .............. ...................... ................................................. 2-1
13. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (REVISED) .......................................................... 13-1
13.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... .......................... .... 13-1
13.2 Setting............................................................................................................... ............................................................. 13-1
13.3 Impact Analysis....................................................................................................................... ........................ ........... 13-43
17. REFERENCES................................................................................................................... 17-1
17.1 Report Preparers........................................................................................................................................................... 1 7-1
17.2 Bibliography................................................ .............................................................................. .................................... 17-1
18. APPEND ICES .................................................................................................................... 18-1
A: Caltrans Comment Letters ......... ......... .......... ............ .............. ................. ...... .............. ...... .................... ...... ............ ........ A-1
B: Traffic Tables..................................................................................................................................... ................................ B-1
FIGURES
1-1 Project Site Location ................................................................................... .............. .................... .................................... 1-4
1- 2 Proj ect Site Plan................................................................................................................................................................. 1- 5
1- 3 Project Building Perspectives............................................... ............................ ................................................................ 1-6
13-1 Existing Lane Geometries and Intersection Control.................................................................................................. 13-2
13-2 Existing AM Peak Hour V olulnes ................................................................................................................................. 13-7
13- 3 Existing PJ\tI Peak Hour V olulnes ................................................................................................................. ................13-8
13-4 Bus and Shuttle Routes................................................................................................................................................. 13-15
13-5 Year 2008 Lane Geometries and Intersection ControL........ ............. ............................ .......................... .... ........ ....13-22
13-6 2008 Base Case (Without Project) AM Peak Hour V olumes...................................................................................13-28
13-7 2008 Base Case (Without Project) PM Peak Hour Volumes ...................................................................................13-29
13-8 Year 2020 Lane Geometries and Intersection ControL.................... ........................................ ...... ......................... 13-33
13-9 Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes .........................................................................13-38
13-1 0 Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project) PM Peak Hour Volumes ..........................................................................13-39
13-11 AM Peak Hour Project Increment............................................................................................................................. 13-46
13-12 PM Peak Hour Project Increment.............................................................. .......................... ...................................... 13-47
13-13 2008 Base Case + Project AivI Peak Hour Volumes........... .............. .......................... ...... .............. ..... .......... ..........13-48
13-14 2008 Base Case + Project PM Peak Hour Volumes ................................................................................................13-49
13-15 Year 2020 (With Project) AM Peak Hour Volumes .......... ........ ..................................................... ................. .... .....13-50
13-16 Year 2020 (With Project) PM Peak Hour Volumes .................................................................................................13-51
TAB LES
2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................................................... .... ................................................... 2-2
13-1 Intersection Level of Service AM Peak Hour ..................................................................... .......................................13-1 0
13-2 Intersection Level of service PM Peak Hour ............................................................................................................. 13-11
13-3 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues: Existing and Year 2008.............................................................. ............................13-14
13-4 Freeway Operation AM Peak Hour .................................................................................................................. ..........13-19
13-5 Freeway Operation PM Peak Hour ...................................................................................... ............................. ..........13-20
13-6 Trip Generation of Approved Development within South San Francisco East of 101 Area .............................13-23
~ ~~~ ~r~~: ~~~t~~~~:::~~. .~.~~~..~~~~~.~~~~. :::::::::::: :::::::::: :::::: :::::: :::: :::::::::::::: ::: :::::::: :::::::::::::::: ::::::: :::: :::::::::::::::::::::: :::::: ~ ~~~~
13-9 South San Francisco Proposed and Potential Development Traffic Generation East of 101, 2000-2020........13-36
13-10 Brisbane Potential Development Traffic Generation ...............................................................................................13-3 7
13-11 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues: Year 2020.................... ............................... .................................. ...."........ ............ ..13-41
13-12 Proposed Project Trip Generation w/ 9.5% Peak Hour Trip Generation Reduction due to TDM Program 13-45
13-13 Previous 249 East Grand Avenue Site Development Trip Generation without TDM........................................13-45
13-14 Net Difference in Trip Generation Office/R&D Versus Manufacturing.............................................................. 13-4 5
1
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 13, Traffic and Circttlation of the October 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) for the proposed 249 East Grand Avenue Project (proposed Project) is being revised
and recirculated per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, which requires the lead agency to
recirculate an EIR if significant new information is added to the ErR after public notice is given
of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review, but before certification.
Evaluation was requested by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to determine 95th
percentile vehicle queuing on the approaches to three study intersections, including an off-ramp
from the D.S.l0l freeway. Caltrans' main concern was that off-ramp traffic does not queue
back onto the freeway mainline during peak traffic periods. To provide Caltrans the most
accurate queuing evaluation, a different software package was used to evaluate the three subject
intersections than had been used to evaluate all other intersections in the study. Thus, updated
levels of service using the new software have also been incorporated into the revised circulation
section. This resulted in the identification of one new intersection impact during the AM peak
hour (Impact 13-4).
This partial revision to the D EIR revises and replaces Chapter 13 in the D EIR, which was
circulated between October 6, 2005 and November 21, 2005 (SCH #2005042121). Interested
parties reviewing the revised chapter should limit comments to the revised portions of the
DEIR.
Comments should be submitted in writing during the March 28, 2006 to May 12, 2006 45-day
public review period to:
Susy I(alkin, Principal Planner
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, Ca. 94083
This introduction includes the following:
· A discussion of the Partial Revision of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (pRDEIR)
and Final EIR Process;
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR - PARTIAL REVISION
PAGE 1-1
CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION
. a description of CEQA requirements for recirculation and revision of a portion of a DEIR;
· review of issues raised in comments received on the DEIR that warrant partial EIR revision
and recirculation; and
. a summary of revisions made to the October 2005 249 East Grand Avenue Project DEIR
Chapter 13 Traffic and Circulation.
1.1 PRDEIR REVIEW AND FINAL EIR PROCESS
This PRDEIR is being circulated for public comment on the new and/or revised analysis of
traffic and circulation impacts addressed in this document. Upon completion of the public
review period, a Final EIR (FEIR) will be prepared that includes responses to comments
received on this PRDEIR and on the DEIR, except for those comments on the DEIR that
address topics discussed in this PRDEIR.
As allowed by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, comments received on the DEIR related to the
topics addressed in this PRDEIR are part of the administrative record and have been considered
when preparing this PRD EIR. However, these previously received comments will not be
responded to in the Final EIR related to the topics in this PRDEIR; only comments received on
this PRDEIR that address the topics included in this PRDEIR will be included and responded
to in the Final EIR.
The City of South San Francisco (City) will be responding in writing to comments submitted on
the October 2005 DEIR related to the analysis of all other subject areas covered in the DEIR
(e.g. issues other than traffic and circulation impacts) in the Final EIR for this project.
1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS
Relevant portions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 for this PRDEIR are as follows:
(a) A lead agenry is required to recirculate an EIR when significant nel:}J information is added to the EIR cifter
public notice is given if the availability if the drcift EIR for public reviel:}J tmder Section 15087 but bifore
certification. As used in this section) the te17n {~nfo17nation JJ can include changes in the prqject or environmental
setting as ~vell as additional data or other info17nation. New info171tation added to an EIR is not {~ignificantJJ
unless the EIR is changed in a l:}Jqy that deprives the public if a meaningful opp0J1tmity to comment upon a
substantial adverse enm'romnental effect if the prq/ect or a feasible wqy to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including
a feasible prq/ect alternative) that the prq/ect's proponents have declined to implement.
(~ignificant nelJJ info171tation JJ requiring recirculation includes) for example, a disclosure shOlving that:
(1) A nelJ) significant environmental impact l~vould result from the prqject or from a nelJJ mitigation measure
proposed to be implemented.
PAGE 1-2
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR - PARTIAL REVISION
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
(2) A substantial increase in the severity if an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are
adopted that reduce the impact to a level if insignificance.
(3) A feasible pro/ect alternative or mitigation measure considerablY different from others previouslY analYzed
lJJottld clearlY lessen the environmental impacts if the pro/eclj but the pro/ect's proponents decline to adopt it.
(b) Recirculation is not required where the new info17nation added to the EIR merelY clarifies or amplifies or
makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR
(c) If the revision is limited to a felJJ chapters or portions if the EIR) the lead agenry need onlY recirculate the
chapters or portions that have been modified
(/)(2) When the EIR is revised onlY in part and the lead agenry is recirculating onlY the revised chapters or
portions if the EIR, the lead agenry mq)! request that reviewers limit their comments to the revised chapters or
portions. The lead agenry need onlY respond to (z) comments received dun'ng the initial circulation period that relate
to chapters or portions if the document that were not revised and recirculated, and (ii) comments received during
the recirculation period that relate to the chapters or portions if the earlier EIR that were revised and recirculated
The lead agenry's request that reviewers limit the scope if their comments shall be included either within the text if
the revised EIR. or qy an attachment to the revised EIR
(g) When recirculating a revised EIR, either in whole or in parlj the lead agenry shal~ in the revised EIR or qy
an attachment to the revised EIR, summarize the revisions made to the previouslY circulated draft EIR
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project would involve development of four Class-A office/laboratory buildings,
ranging from three to five stories in height, totaling about 534,500 square feet, including 5,500
square feet of commercial space, and a four level parking structure providing 1,529 parking
spaces. Building elevations would be a combination of punched and ribbon-window systems in
conjunction with panels of glass-fiber reinforced or precast concrete.
The Project would include extensive landscaping and open space areas. The site plan features a
terraced landscape area between the buildings, visible from the main approach from East Grand
Avenue. The Project landscape includes several different zones: the site perimeter and parking
areas; the large public landscaped area between the buildings; and smaller sheltered landscaped
areas between the buildings (where the buildings serve as a barrier to the prevailing winds). The
site perimeter and parking landscape areas include plantings at the perimeters to screen parking
as well as to present a positive image of the Project as viewed from East Grand Avenue. The
surface parking areas would include tree plantings. From the street, a visitor would approach the
buildings from the main entry drive that provides a view of the large public landscape area
between the buildings. The Project site's location, Project Site Plan and Project Building
Perspectives are shown in Figures 1-1, 1-2 and 1-3.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR - PARTIAL REVISION
PAGE 1-3
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
o
-e
ro
:r:
Ave
OJ
>
<(
32
OJ
~
OJ
1!
...J
Figure 1-1
Project Site Location
r~. !,.'
~ !
SOURCE: Lamphier-Gregory I
~l"~
fi ~l~d "'....'.
I t ""'I ·
~ I;
6 g .~.
I 'f...~Iii,11
;N ~
II!
~it',~;:~
(fj
+'
U
~
;g
-<
t::
rtJ
8
8
C)
H
OJ
~
o
o
P:i
u
p,:;
::J
o
(J)
-~..~k
~
~
cd
0:::
N2
I .,..-1
~cn
OJ -l-'
~ u
::i .~
bOO
.,....j ;.......
~p..,
en
.....
u
CI)
~
-<
!::
ctl
S
::l
H
C)
H
CI)
~
o
o
ci:i
~
::J
o
CJl
e
)
~
W
C/)
C])
.~
-I-J
U
C])
P-<
C/)
l-!
C])
P-;
CO
~
~
.---l
rt') . S
~r:o
Q) t)
~ .~
.~ 8
~P-;
>
w
>
....
v
W
Q.
V)
'"
W
0..
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.4 ISSUES REQUIRING DEIR REVISION, RECIRCULATION
The Proposed Project was analyzed in an October 2005 DEIR that was circulated to local and
state agencies and made available to the public for a 45-day public review period between
October 6, 2005 and November 21, 2005.
A comment letter dated December 23, 2005 was submitted by Caltrans, wherein the agency
expressed concern about the proposed Project's potential vehicle queuing impacts at various
intersections studied in the DEIR. The DEIR did not include a queuing analysis for the study
intersections. In the course of preparing responses to comments on the DEIR and discussions
with Caltrans, it became apparent that it would be necessalY to conduct a queuing analysis for
several study intersections. Although Caltrans initially requested an analysis of eight
intersections, the agency and the City of South San Francisco later agreed that an analysis only of
intersections with Caltrans off-ramps (three in total) would be sufficient.
A Caltrans letter dated November 22, 2005 requested traffic operational analysis input data for
the Project. This information was subsequently provided to Caltrans by the City of South San
Francisco. That data request was fulfilled and is not the subject of this PRDEIR.
1.5 SUMMARY OF REVISIONS TO THE DEIR
The PRDEIR includes an evaluation of 95th percentile vehicle queuing at the following three
study intersections:
· Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp
· South Airport Boulevard/U.S.101 Northbound Hook Ramps/Wondercolor Lane
· Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 1 01 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
Inclusion of the queuing analysis into the revised traffic chapter necessitated the addition of
information pertaining to the queuing analysis methodology, queuing-associated impacts and
mitigation measures. Because a different software package was used to evaluate the three subject
intersections than had been used to evaluate all other intersections in the Draft EIR, updated
levels of service for all intersections using the new software have also been incorporated into the
revised circulation section.
· Additional Impact during AM peak hour at the Oyster Point Boulevard/ Gateway
Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp intersection
The revised circulation section includes an additional impact during the AM peak hour at the
Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
intersection (Impact 13-4). Level of service findings at this intersection were also adjusted based
upon a City decision that widening the eastbound Oyster Point intersection approach to add one
additional lane is no longer feasible.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR - PARTIAL REVISION
PAGE 1-7
This page intentionally left blank.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR - PARTIAL REVISION
PAGE 1-8
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The impacts of the proposed Project, proposed mitigation, and significance conclusions for the
subjects analyzed in this PRDEIR are discussed in detail in the revised Chapter 13 in this
document. The following table summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and levels of
significance identified in revised Chapter 13.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR - PARTIAL REVISION
PAGE 2-1
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Potential Environmental Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact 13-1: Trip Generation Exceeds 100
Trips During Peak Hours. The project would
generate more than 100 net new trips during the
AM and PM peak hours (515 trips during the AM
peak hour and 485 trips during the PM peak hour,
if allowing for the reduction in traffic from the
former Georgia Pacific manufacturing use) or 756
trips during the AM peak hour and 729 trips during
the PM peak hour if assuming all site trip
generation is new (see Tables 13-12, 13-13 and
13-14). The San Mateo City/County Association
of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for
the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion
Management Program ("C/CAG Guidelines")
specify that local jurisdictions must ensure that the
developer and/ or tenants will mitigate all new peak
hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected
to be generated by the development.
Impact 13-2: Year 2008 U.S. 101 Freeway
Impacts. Tables 13-4 and 13-5 show that the
addition of traffic generated by approved
development in South San Francisco (year 2008
Base Case without project conditions) would cause
two freeway segments to operate at LOS F (both
during the AM peak hour). The project would
increase volumes by more than one percent on
both of these segments (AM peak hour-
southbound: north of the Oyster Point interchange
and northbound: south of the East Grand Avenue
off-ramp). In addition, project traffic would result
in one segment of the freeway changing from
LOS E to LOS F operation (PM peak hour-
northbound: north of the Oyster Point
interchange).
PAGE 2-2
Mitigation Measure 13-1: Transportation Demand
Management Program. The project applicant shall
implement a Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) program consistent with the City of South San
Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120
Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable
to C/CAG. These programs, once implemented,
must be ongoing for the occupied life of the
development. The C/CAG guidelines specify the
number of trips that may be credited for each TDM
measure. Appendix Table B-5 outlines TDM
programs that can generate trip credits to offset the
515 total AM peak hour and 485 PM peak hour trips
generated by the project.
This impact would be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Mitigation Measure 13-2: Transportation Demand
Management Plan. The project sponsors shall
implement a Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) program to minimize potential increases in
freeway traffic. The TDM plan shall contain all
Required Measures and Additional Measures required
by the City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance,
Schedule 20.120.030-B, in order to achieve a
minimum alternative mode use of 35 percent. The
project applicant shall submit a Preliminary TDM
Plan containing checklists of Required and Additional
Measures, along with a site plan indicating the
locations ofTDM elements such as preferential
parking areas and bicycle facilities. The project
applicant shall submit a Final TDM Plan
incorporating conditions imposed by the Planning
Commission.
The Project shall coordinate "with the City in an
annual survey of compliance with die TDM plan, ,vidi
a minimum required response rate of 75 percent of
employees at the project. The project shall also
submit a Tri-Annual report ofTDM effectiveness,
and be subject to penalties for non-compliance in
accordance with the City's TDM Ordinance. This
impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Less than
Significant
Significant and
Unavoidable
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR - PARTIAL REVISION
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Resulting
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of
Significance
Impact 13-3: Year 2008 Intersection Impacts. Mitigation Measure 13-3: Intersection Significant and
Year 2008 Base Case conditions have assumed Modifications. Modifications are recommended for Unavoidable
removal of the Georgia Pacific manufacturing the following intersections.
activity on the project site. These activities were East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue Intersection
included in the "Existing Conditions" evaluation,
as existing counts reflected the conservatively Prohibit left turns from Allerton A venue to East
higher volume levels found in 1999/2000. Grand A venue until the intersection is signalized-
Therefore, year 2008 Base Case + Project or-Cut back the hillside on the northeast corner of
evaluation evaluates the full impact of the currently the intersection to improve sight lines to/from tl1e
proposed project in relation to an empty site. east to at least 400 feet.
Stripe a left turn lane on the eastbound intersection
Tables 13-1 and 13-2 show that the proposed approach. This will require removal of parking on the
project would produce significant AM and/ or PM south side of East Grand Avenue.
peak hour level of service impacts at the following
intersections. Provide a fair share contribution towards having the
East Grand Avenue/Aile/ton Ave/we intersection signalized by the time of project
More than a two percent increase in traffic (2.1 % occupancy-or-provide signalization when
AM peak hour and 2.9% PM peak hour) at a construction is complete and receive paybacks from
location with a) unacceptable LOS F operation on other local developments as they are constructed.
the stop sign controlled Allerton A venue approach, (All needed for Base Case operation.)
b) botl1 AM and PM peak hour volumes exceeding
peak hour signal warrant criteria levels, c) volume
warrant criteria being exceeded for tl1e need of a Resultant Operation
left turn lane on tl1e eastbound East Grand Avenue
approach and d) less than acceptable sight lines AM Peak Hour: LOS B-13.2 seconds average vehicle
between traffic turning from Allerton A venue and delay
westbound drivers on East Grand Avenue.
PM Peak Hour: LOS C-25.6 seconds average vehicle
East Grand Avemle/ Littlifield Avenue delay
More tl1an a two percent increase in traffic during
the AM peak hour (2.9% increase) at a location This impact would be reduced to a less than
witl1 Base Case LOS F operation. significant level.
South Ai/jOlt Boulevard/ Utah Avenue East Grand A venue/Littlefield A venue
Change in AM peak hour operation from LOS D Intersection
to an unacceptable LOS E. Widen the northbound Littlefield A venue approach to
Forbes Boulevard/Aile/ton A/JemIe provide two intersection approach lanes. Stripe as one
exclusive right turn lane and a combined
Change in AM peak hour all-way-stop operation left/through/right turn lane (needed for Base Case
from LOS C to an unacceptable LOS E. operation) .
South Ai/jOlt Boulevard/ Gate/pc!)! Boulevard/Mitchell Resultant Operation
Avenue
More than a two percent increase in traffic during AM Peak Hour: LOS D-38.4 seconds average vehicle
the PM peak hour (8.6% increase) at a location delay
with Base Case LOS F operation. This impact would be reduced to a less than
Oyster Point Boulevard/ Gate/pq)' Boule/Jard/ U.S. 1 0 1 significant level.
Southbotmd Fh,over 01f-Ramp South Airport Boulevard/Utah A venue
More than a two percent increase in traffic during
the AM peak hour (5.8% increase) at a location Intersection
with Base Case LOS E operation. Restripe one of the northbound South Airport
Boulevard through lanes as a shared through/right
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR - PARTIAL REVISION
PAGE 2-3
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Resulting
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of
Significance
turn lane.
Resultant Operation
AM Peak Hour: LOS C-32.1 seconds average vehicle
delay
This impact would be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Forbes Boulevard/Allerton A venue Intersection
Sign the intersection as an all-way-stop.
Resultant Operation
AM Peak Hour: LOS B-14.1 seconds average vehicle
delay
This impact would be reduced to a less than
significant level.
South Airport Boulevard/Gateway
Mitchell/Mitchell Avenue Intersection
Add a second through lane on the westbound
Mitchell A venue approach (needed for acceptable
Base Case operation).
Add a second right turn lane on the southbound
Gateway Boulevard approach.
Resultant Operation
PM Peak Hour: LOS C-28.2 seconds average vehicle
delay
This impact would be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway
Boulevard/V.S.lOi Southbound Flyover Off
Ramp
There are no physical improvements considered
feasible by City of South San Francisco staff to
improve operation to Base Case conditions or better.
This impact would remain significant and
unavoidab Ie.
Impact 13-4: Year 2020 Intersection Impacts. Mitigation Measure 13-4 Significant and
Tables 13-1 and 13-2 show that Project traffic Unavoidable.
would produce a significant impact at the following Oyster Point Boulevard/ Gate\vay Boulevard/U.S. 1 01
intersection in 2020. Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway There are no physical improvements considered
PAGE 2-4
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR - PARTIAL REVISION
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Resulting
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of
Significance
Boulevard/U .S.l 01 Southbound FIyover Off- feasible by City of South San Francisco staff to
Ramp improve operation to Base Case conditions or better.
More than a two percent increase in traffic during This impact would remain significant and
the AM peak hour (a 5.3% increase) at a location unavoidable.
with Base Case LOS F operation, and more than a
two percent increase in traffic during the PM peak
hour (a 3.6% increase) at a location with Base Case
LOS F operation.
Impact 13-5: Year 2008 and 2020 Project Mitigation Measure 13-5: Signal Phasing Less than
Intersection Queuing Impacts. Table 13-3 Adjustment. The following adjustment is Significant
shows that the proposed Project would not recommended:
increase acceptable year 2008 95th percentile Base S. Ai/POlt Boulevard/U.S. tOt NOlthbOlmd
Case queuing at any of the three analyzed off-
ramps to unacceptable levels during either the AM Ramps / rWondercolor Lane
or PM peak hours. In addition, the proposed Signal phasing adjustments recommended to mitigate
project would not add any traffic to the left turn Base Case AM peak hour off-ramp queuing would
movements on the Oyster Point Boulevard also provide acceptable Base Case + Project 95th
eastbound approach during the AM peak hour percentile off-ramp queuing and intersection level of
which would have 95th percentile queuing just serVIce.
slightly exceeding available storage lengths. Resultant Operation:
This would be a less than significant impact in AM Peak Hour: LOS D - 48.5 seconds vehicle delay,
2008. 1,665 feet of 95th percentile off-ramp vehicle storage
demand (witl1 1,675 feet of available storage)
Table 13-10 shows that in the year 2020 the
proposed Project would not add any traffic to This would reduce tl1e impact to a level of less than
those left turn movements on the Oyster Point significant.
Boulevard east and westbound approaches during
the AM and/or PM peak hours which would have
95th percentile queuing exceeding available storage
lengths. While tl1e 50th percentile queue in the
westbound Oyster Point Boulevard left turn lane
would be within acceptable limits with or without
the project, the 50th percentile queue in the
eastbound left turn lane would still exceed available
storage during the AM peak hour. However, since
the proposed project would not add any traffic to
this movement, it would not be a significant impact
for this movement. The proposed Project would
also not increase acceptable year 2020 95th
percentile Base Case queuing at any of the three
analyzed off-ramps to unacceptable levels during
either tl1e AM or PM peak traffic hours. However,
the project would increase AM peak hour volumes
more tl1an two percent (2.2%) at the northbound
off-ramp intersection to South Airport
Boulevard/\'Vondercolor Lane, where 95th
percentile Base Case volumes would already be
exceeding available storage.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR - PARTIAL REVISION
PAGE 2-5
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Resulting
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of
Significance
Impact 13-6: Project Driveways. The Project will Mitigation Measure 13-6: Lane Extension. Extend Less than
be served by two driveways on East Grand Avenue the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Significant
and by one driveway on the Cabot Road cul-de-sac. Avenue approach to the Project's signalized entrance
The Cabot Road driveway connection would by 200 feet. There are about 200 feet of landscaped
connect to the cul-de-sac directly opposite the median in which to make this improvement (to the
extension of Cabot Road to the east. Driveways east of tl1e Roebling Road intersection).
from three otl1er businesses also connect to tl1e
cul-de-sac, and based upon volume levels at This would reduce the Project's impact to a level of
Allerton Avenue, have low traffic volumes. Sight less than significant.
lines should be acceptable to / from all driveways
connecting to the Cabot Road cul-de-sac (including
to/from the project driveway) allowing a "see and
be seen" flow of traffic through the cul-de-sac area.
The Project's easterly driveway connection to East
Grand A venue would be limited to right turns in
and out only by the raised median along East
Grand A venue. It will be located about 140 feet
west of the signalized Littlefield Avenue
intersection and about 600 feet east of tl1e
signalized main project access intersection. East
Grand A venue is level and straight in tl1e project
area and sight lines are excellent at both driveway
locations.
The westerly driveway intersection along East
Grand A venue is now signalized and also serves
the Britannia Point Grand parking lot on the south
side of East Grand Avenue. A 100-foot-Iong left
turn lane is provided in the median of East Grand
A venue on the eastbound approach to this project
entrance. As shown in Tables 13-1 and 13-2,
operation of this signalized intersection would be
acceptable during tl1e AM peak hours in 2008 or
2020 (at LOS C) and would be just acceptable
during the PM peak hours in 2008 or 2020 (at
LOS D). However, during the AM peak hour, the
95th percentile queue of inbound traffic using this
left turn lane could extend about 275 feet in both
2008 and 2020 (i.e. 11 vehicles at 25 feet per
vehicle). During the PM peak hour the 95th
percentile queue would be five cars in 2008 and six
cars in 2020. Inbound project vehicles frequently
extending out of the existing 1 OO-foot-Iong left
turn pocket and blocking the flow of eastbound
through traffic would be a significant operational
and safety concern.
Impact 13-7: Internal Circulation. A two-lane Mitigation Measure 13-7: The following actions are Less than
loop road would circle the proposed campus of recommended: Significant
PAGE 2-6
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR - PARTIAL REVISION
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Resulting
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of
Significance
four buildings. It would connect to the two
driveways providing access to East Grand Avenue . Eliminate parking stalls that will result in parking
as well as to the garage in the north section of the or backing maneuvers onto the project loop road;
site. and
All internal surface lot driveways would . Channelize 30- to 45-degree parking aisle
accommodate two-way traffic flow as would connections with the loop road to 80- or 90-
parking aisles in the garage. All parking aisles degree connections.
would be 25 feet wide, which would meet City
code and good traffic engineering practice criteria.
Parking stalls would be 90-degree throughout the
site. The Cabot Road cul-de-sac would access a
different level of the parking garage than would the
loop road circling the project office buildings.
One area of concern with the internal circulation
system layout is the eight parking aisle connections
to the loop road that intersect at 45 to 60 degrees
rather than a preferred 90 degrees. In addition,
parking and backing maneuvers to/from some of
the parking stalls near many of these 45- to 60-
degree connections could impact traffic flow on
the loop road.
Impact 13-8: Site Parking. The 540,000 square Mitigation Measure 13-8: No mitigation is required. No Impact
feet of office/R&D development would provide a
total of 1,529 parking spaces (404 surface spaces
and 1,125 garage spaces). This is 91.5% of the
1,670 spaces that would be required by City code.
The City of South San Francisco promotes
reduction in parking from City zoning standards as
a way to support trip reduction goals required per
the City's TDM ordinance and supported by
various policies in the General Plan (G.P. Policies
4.3-1-8, 11 and 12).
Impact 13-9: On-Site Pedestrian and Bicycle Mitigation Measure 13-9: System Improvements. Less than
Circulation. Sidewalks will be maintained along Provide a sidewalk connecting Cabot Way \vith the Significant
the project's East Grand Avenue and Cabot Road internal campus sidewalk system, or to a garage
cul-de-sac frontages. Sidewalks will also be elevator which will provide access to the internal
provided along the interior of the project's internal campus sidewalk system.
lop road as well as through the office campus.
One sidewalk connection will be made from the
office campus to the sidewalk along East Grand
Avenue near the southeast corner of the site, while
no sidewalk connection is proposed from the site
to the Cabot Road sidewalk. Pedestrians accessing
the Cabot Road sidewalk would need to use the
garage driveway. The East Grand Avenue
pedestrian access would be provided by both stairs
and a ramp and would be a potential location for a
shuttle stop. The lack of a defined sidewalk
connection from the project site to Cabot Road
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PARTIAL REVISION
PAGE 2-7
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Resulting
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of
Significance
would produce safety concerns.
PAGE 2-8
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR PARTIAL REVISION
13
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
13.1 INTRODUCTION
Crane Transportation Group (CTG) performed a traffic and circulation study for the proposed
Project which was subsequently incorporated into the October 2005 DEIR. Caltrans submitted
two comment letters related to the DEIR, one of which expressed concern about the Project's
effect on various U.S. 101 off-ramp intersections in the vicinity of the Project site. Caltrans
requested that a queuing analysis be performed in order to clearly determine what effect the
Project would have on vehicle queuing times at these off-ramp intersections.
CTG performed the queuing analysis and revised their original traffic and circulation study to
include the results of the queuing analysis. CTG's revised traffic study was then incorporated
into this PRDEIR traffic chapter.
This chapter describes the transportation conditions in the study area in terms of existing roads
and traffic operations, transit service and pedestrian and bicycle conditions. Where appropriate,
excerpts from the following EIRs or initial studies/negative declarations have been included in
this writeup: 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D project Draft and Final EIRs (Morehouse
Associates and Dowling Associates, September 2004 and February 2005) and East Jamie Court
Office R&D Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Morehouse Associates and
Dowling Associates, September 2002).
13.2 SETTING
ROADWAYS
The 249 East Grand project site is served directly by East Grand Avenue and the Cabot Road
cul-de-sac, while regional access is provided by the U.S. 101 freeway. The two driveway
connections to East Grand Avenue and the single driveway connection to Cabot Road will be
connected via internal parking aisles. Access to the U.S. 101 freeway is provided by a variety of
major streets with several route options available to the three interchanges that could potentially
be used by project traffic. Each is briefly described below while a schematic presentation of
existing intersection approach lanes and control are presented in Figure 13-1.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR - PARTIAL REVISION
PAGE 13-1
~~ it(l)
Miller SB 101
Off ramp
oJ ~t
):. -L flf\
) H~l.. if=" \JV
Grand r
.4 ~ tt~t
T
):. -L flf\
) U l.. i~\JV
r
J
.4 ~~tt~t
---. Q.
T 2
~ ~ I1fi\
)~l.. ~ r\JV
Mitchell
~~~t~
J
-V
T
o
:::t.
) Ul.. -L (I)
Y
US 101 . Wonder-
NB Ramp. Color
J \J)
.4 ~~ttt
T :::t.
)~
J
---.
---.
---.
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
~ ~ ~ I1tt\ + ~ I1fi\
~ ~ ~ ~ '-\.W r- \JV
"'''If""t "'..... C E Grand ,.
E Grand A
~ ~~ ~ ~+
-V -V ~
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
:=(1)
r
=; ~~ t
C/)
. = Project
Site
~ ~ l.. .f: (I)
Orivewa ~tah
.4 ~~ttt
l ::;.
o
:::t.
~~(I)
C/)
f; Grand
~~~t
o
...,
+
CJ(I)
~.
Ci5 ~::
~.- ,,$
"'r
~~~
C = Stop Sign
(I) = Signal
....,. = Free Right Turn
~~C
+!~
......
Forbes
.4 ~..L+
-V~
::J
+ftll
Cabot
+~+
~
......
~. LJ
~~
::J .-
E Grand
.4
---.
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13-1
Existing Lane Geometries
and Intersection Control
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Freeways
U.S. 1 01 is an eight-lane freeway that provides access to the project area. It extends from
downtown San Francisco and northern California to Los Angeles and southern California.
Within the study area, U.S.l0l has northbound on-ramps at Grand Avenue, South Airport
Boulevard (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue) and at Oyster Point Boulevard;
northbound off-ramps are provided at East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive, South Airport
Boulevard (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue) and at Dubuque Avenue Gust south of
Oyster Point Boulevard). Southbound on-ramps are provided from Dubuque Avenue Gust
south of Oyster Point Boulevard) and at Produce Avenue; southbound off-ramps are provided
at Produce Avenue, Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue and at Bayshore Boulevard Gust north of
Oyster Point Boulevard). There are auxiliary lanes on northbound U.S.101 both north and south
of Oyster Point Boulevard and on southbound U.S.l01 south of Oyster Point Boulevard.
U.S.101 carries an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 237,000 vehicles south of Produce
Avenue, 226,000 vehicles south of Oyster Point Boulevard and 212,000 vehicles north of Oyster
Point Boulevard.
Streets
East Grand A venue is a major arterial street and a central access route serving the industrial/
office areas east of the U.S.101 freeway. It has six travel lanes in the vicinity of the freeway and
narrows to four travel lanes east of the Forbes Boulevard/Harbor Way intersection. In the
project vicinity it has two travel lanes in each direction separated by a raised median, with no on-
street parking allowed along either the north or south sides of the street (i.e. there is no room for
on-street parking on either side of East Grand Avenue in the project vicinity). The posted speed
limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). The roadway traverses a sharp horizontal curve just east of the
Allerton Avenue intersection and ends about a half mile east of the project site.
Allerton Avenue is a two-lane local street extending northeasterly from East Grand Avenue to
Forbes Boulevard. It has a gradual south-to-north uphill grade and a posted speed limit of 30
mph. On-street parking is prohibited along both sides of the street and its curb-to-curb width is
40 feet. Allerton Avenue is stop sign controlled on its approaches to East Grand Avenue and
Forbes Boulevard. A sidewalk is provided along the west side of the street.
Cabot Road is a wide, two-lane roadway extending westerly from Grandview Drive to west of
Allerton Avenue, where it ends in a cul-de-sac adjacent to the project site. There is no posted
speed limit and on-street parking is prohibited. Sidewalks are provided around the cul-de-sac
and along the north side of the street to Allerton Avenue. However, the sidewalk on the south
side of the street only extends about half-way to Allerton Avenue.
Airport Boulevard is a four- to six-lane, north-south arterial street that parallels the west side
of the U.S.l01 freeway.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR - PARTIAL REVISION
PAGE 13-3
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Gateway Boulevard is a four-lane street connecting East Grand Avenue with South Airport
Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard.
Harbor Way is a two-lane street serving existing and planned industrial/office uses south of
East Grand Avenue. Harbor Way provides access to South Airport Boulevard and several
U.S.l0l freeway ramps via Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue.
Forbes Boulevard is a four-lane collector street connecting the San Bruno Point Genentech
area with East Grand Avenue.
Littlefield A venue is a 40-foot-wide, two-lane north-south street connecting East Grand
Avenue with Utah Avenue.
Utah Avenue is a four-lane east-west street connecting Littlefield Avenue with South Airport
Boulevard.
Oyster Point Boulevard is one of the primary arterial access routes serving the "East of 101
area" of South San Francisco. It has six travel lanes near its interchange with the U.S.l0l
freeway, four lanes east of Veterans Boulevard and two lanes near Gull Road.
Volumes
Weekday AM and PM peak hour analysis was requested by City staff at the following 17 major
intersections serving the project site.
. Airport Boulevard & Miller Avenue/U.S.l0l Southbound Off-Ramp
. Airport Boulevard & Grand Avenue
. East Grand Avenue/Dubuque Avenue
. East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard
. East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard
. East Grand Avenue/249 East Grand Signalized Entrance
. East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue
. East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue
. Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard
. South Airport Boulevard/ Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue
. South Airport Boulevard/U.S. 1 01 Northbound Hook Ramps
. South Airport Boulevard/Utah Avenue
. Allerton Avenue/Cabot Road
. Allerton Avenue/Forbes Boulevard
. Oyster Point Boulevard/ Gateway Boulevard & U .S.l 01 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue
. Oyster Point Boulevard/ Gull Drive
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR - PARTIAL REVISION
PAGE 13-4
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Existing counts were obtained for most locations from either the 333 Oyster Point Boulevard
Draft EIR (September 2004), the East Jamie Court Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative
Declaration (September 2002) or the Proposed Costco Gas Station Along South Airport
Boulevard Traffic Study Gune 2004). These counts were conducted from 1999 to 2003. In
addition, AM and PM peak period counts were conducted by Crane Transportation Group in
April 2005 at the following six locations:
· Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-
Ramp
. East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard
· East Grand Avenue/249 East Grand Avenue/Britannia Point Grand Parking Lot
Driveway Entrance
. East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue
. Allerton Avenue/Cabot Road
· Airport Boulevard/ Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue
Past counts in the East of 101 area between 1999 and 2004 have indicated a measurable drop in
volumes starting in the year 2000 (due to the recession in the high tech/biotech industry), which
then continued after the September 11, 2001 terrorist incidents, which significantly reduced air
travel, and as a result related activities in the airport service industries in the East of 101 area.
Recent ErRs and other traffic analysis in the area have utilized the older counts as a basis for
near term evaluation as they are higher than counts from the past few years.
The 2005 counts by Crane Transportation Group showed a significant increase in AM peak hour
volumes along Oyster Point Boulevard compared to past studies, primarily due to the recent
opening of the U.S.101 southbound flyover off-ramp connection to the Gateway intersection
and the increased ease for southbound freeway traffic to enter the East of 101 area via this new
ramp. New PM peak hour volumes along Oyster Point Boulevard were a little lower than
previous counts as there is little traffic entering the East of 101 area during the evening
commute and the flyover off-ramp does nothing to facilitate the heavy outbound traffic flow
headed westbound towards the freeway during this period. The 2005 counts along the East
Grand Avenue corridor were 10 to more than 20 percent lower than past counts in the AM
(possibly due to the diversion of some inbound traffic to Oyster Point Boulevard and away from
East Grand Avenue (accessed via the Airport/Miller southbound freeway off-ramp). During the
PM peak hour, the 2005 counts long East Grand Avenue were about the same as older counts.
Likewise, at the Airport/ Gateway/Mitchell intersection, 2005 AM peak hour counts were about
15 percent lower than older volumes, while PM volumes were similar.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR - PARTIAL REVISION
PAGE 13-5
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
In order to provide a conservative evaluation, the 2005 AM counts were used at the Oyster
Point Boulevard/Gateway / flyover off-ramp intersection along with required adjustments to
older AM counts at the two other intersections evaluated along Oyster Point Boulevard.
However, the older PM counts along Oyster Point Boulevard (with new PM volumes from the
flyover off-ramp) along with the older AM and PM peak hour counts along the East Grand
Avenue and Airport/South Airport corridors were still used to reflect existing conditions. Use
of the older counts in these remaining corridors required that traffic activity associated with the
former Georgia Pacific manufacturing operation on the 249 East Grand Avenue site be included
in the existing system counts, as was some activity associated with the now mostly empty
Britannia Pointe Grand parking area on the south side of East Grand Avenue opposite the 249
East Grand Avenue parcel. The older AM peak hour counts along East Grand Avenue and at
the Airport intersections with Grand Avenue and the U.S.101 southbound off-ramp did,
however, receive a reduction in southbound off-ramp and then eastbound flow along East
Grand Avenue to reflect the impact of the recently opened southbound flyover off-ramp
connecting to Oyster Point Boulevard. Figures 13-2 and 13-3 present existing AM and PM
peak hour volumes at the 17 analysis intersections.
INTERSECTION OPERATION
Analysis Methodology
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 an
average vehicle delay tabulation (1994 Highu)qy Capacity Manual [HCM] operations method) at
each intersection. The vehicle delay designation allows a more detailed examination of the
impacts of a particular project. Greater detail regarding the LOS/delay relationship is provided
in Appendix Table B-1.
Un signalized 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 1994 update of the Highwqy Capacity Manual (TRB Circular
209). Under this methodology, all-way stop intersections receive one LOS designation reflecting
operation of the entire intersection. Average vehicle delay values are also calculated.
Intersections with side streets only stop sign controlled are also evaluated using the LOS and
delay scales using a methodology outlined in the 1994 HighJvqy Capacity Manual. However, unlike
signalized or all-way stop analysis where the LOS and delay designations pertain to the entire
intersection, in side street stop sign control analysis LOS and delay designations are computed
for stop sign controlled approaches or individual turn and through movements rather than for
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR - PARTIAL REVISION
PAGE 13-6
365 ~ -L 5
75 :::;.
.J ~ o -+- 205
::::. .- 600
Miller S8 101
Offramp
110 t ~ t
50 110
400 ~ -L 80
5 ~ t5 i-+- 115
Grand .- 275
155 J
225 ~
90 t
~ t ~
30 285 215
875 ~ -L 140
1~0 I 280 i -+- 320
+' t ~ .- 235
J ~~ t ~
C3
~ g.210 200 36
C)
t CD
~ -L 15
q) -+- 120
~
Q) .- 35
Mitchell
105 J
285 ~
o
465 t ::::.
475 t.. 15
105 I 25 -+- 5
.J t ~ .- 25
US 101 . Wonder-
NB Ramp. Color
765 J ~ ~ t ~
50 ~ :::;. 75 5
320 t 3. 215
t:J 80 t.. 45 45 ..,., t.. 25 o & ~ t.. 20 t..O
g. t.. 45 20 ~ 130 -+- 365 125 ~ 45 0 ...., 0
20 45 .J ~ ~ .- 310 45 11 ~ ~..- 280 0 0 .- 270
.J ~ ~ -+- 635 .- 85 .J ~ CJl .- 35 .J ~ ~~ S4 .. 20 .J~~ .. 100
E Grand E Grand E Grand E Grand E Grand
55 J 630 J :r:~ t ~ 165 J ~ t ~ oj r-~t~
Q)
1195 ~ a- 60 55 900 ~ 50 0 5 850~ ~ 60 0 310
1 000 ~ 0 70
""' ~
210 t 120 t 100 t is:
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
-+- 280 1 &t..6
5 1 Ci5
.. 20 .J ~ ~ ~.- 150
Oster '" .. 20
~ rn~ ~ Point J ~~ t ~
100 Q 95 55 100
CD 670 ~ ::::: 210 30
CJl 10
365 t
. = Project
Site
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
t:J t..8
0 ~.
3 0 "
CD .- 135
.J ~ ~ ~ .. 55
Forbes
16 J ~~ t ~
590 ~ af25 o 45
~
35 t 0
::J
30 ~ t.. 20
13 CD
40 @-.- 10
.J ~ ~ ::J.. 7
Cabot
3 J ~ t ~
8 ~ 20 55 20
7 t
~
af t.. 20
85 20 @-
.J ~ ::J .- 280
E Grand
190 J
970~
305
5 I 510
.J t ~
t.. 90
.- 3
.. 195
Utah
Orivewa
5t
Figure 13-2
Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
-....
335 p -L 5
55 :=;.
~ ~ o ...-- 300
~ .. 360
Miller S8 101
Offramp
140 -,. ~ t
110 240
505 },. -L 170
110 I 220~'...-- 250
~t~~..790
Grand
150 J
75 ~
100 -,.
~ t ~
95 465 100
985 },. -L 295
90 I 150~'...-- 335
~ t ~ ~.. 635
J IJ~ t ~
~ ~ 125225180
C)
-,. CD
~ -L 20
CD ...-- 335
~
tl) .. 75
Mitchell
60 J
95
355 -,.
490 -L 25
255 I 25 ...-- 15
~ t ~ .. 25
US 101 . Wonder-
NB Ramp. Color
465 J ~ ~ t ~
40 ~ :=;'265305 20
200 -,. 2.
60 20
~ ~
tJ
6- -L 80
t:::
a5 ...-- 1650
E Grand
40 J
355 ~
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
...-- 1095 75 0 3 &-L1
~
.. 40 ~ ~ ~ ~...-- 590
tl)
'" .. 15
Oster
rn ~ ~ poi~t J G)~ t ,.
8. 440 25 t:::
CD 170 ~ :::: 315 25
C/) 1
215 -,.
. = Project
Site
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
tJ -L7
~.
11 2 ~ ...-- 500
~ ~ ~ ~ ..45
Forbes
3 J p~ t ~
210 ~ &=55 o 65
2}
30 -,. :J
60 },. -L 30
40 &=
5 2}"'-- 1 0
~ ~ ~ :J .. 25
Cabot
10J ~ t ~
10 ~ 10 25 25
30-,.
510 -L 255 },.
5 ~ ~5
~ ...-- 5 &= -L 15
.. 820 170 20 2}
Orivewa Utah ~ ~ :J...-- 865
t E Grand
5 J CJ)~ ~
~ 16 170 80 J
o 325 250~
16 -,. ~
235
210 I 60
~ t ~
-L 120 80 ..,., -L 30 o ~ IJ -L 20 0 -Lo
505 ~ 15 0 125 30~' d. ...-- 800 0 0 ...-- 755
...-- 1175 a- ...-- 920
~ ~ CD ~ ~ CD ~~~
.. 330 C/) .. 80 ~ ~~ Q. .. 10 .. 270
E Grand E Grand E Grand E Grand
t ~ 185 J :r:~ t ~ 69 J ~ t ~ oj r-~t~
70 tl) 25 100 0 20 ~ 75 0 55
335 ~ a- 200 300 ~ 280~
90 0 50
..... ~
75 -,. 10 -,. 90 -,. Q:
95
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13-3
Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
the entire intersection. Appendix Table B-2 provides greater detail about unsignalized analysis
methodologies.
Standards
The City of South San Francisco considers Level of Service D (LOS D) to be the poorest
acceptable operation for signalized and all-way-stop intersections and LOS E to be the poorest
acceptable operation for unsignalized city street intersection turn movements. The City has no
standards for turn movements from private driveways.
Existing Intersection Operating Conditions
Tables 13-1 and 13-2 show that all 17 analyzed intersections are operating at good to acceptable
(LOS D or better) levels of service during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours.
Although the Allerton Avenue/East Grand Avenue intersection is projected to be operating at
an acceptable level of service, it has two existing operational and safety problems. The lack of a
left turn lane on the eastbound intersection approach creates occasional extended queues behind
a stopped vehicle waiting for a gap in the westbound traffic flow to make a left turn to Allerton
Avenue. Drivers in the queue then begin pulling around the stopped vehicle and interrupt the
flow of eastbound traffic in the curb (outside) travel lane. This is an existing safety and
operational problem. Based upon Warrants for Provision of Left Turn Lanes in the
Transportation Research Board Report #279 (November 1985, see Appendix Table B-3), the
eastbound East Grand Avenue approach to Allerton Avenue now warrants provision of a left
turn lane with existing peak hour volumes. In addition, the sight line from Allerton Avenue
to/from the east along East Grand Avenue is limited to about 200 feet due to the curvature in
East Grand Avenue just east of the intersection and a hillside on the northeast corner of the
intersection. Although East Grand Avenue has a posted speed limit of 35 mph, some westbound
vehicles were observed to travel as high as 40 to 45 mph through the curve. At 45 miles per
hour, a lninimum safe stopping sight distance is 360 feet. (At the posted speed limit the
minimum stopping sight distance is 250 feet.) 1
INTERSECTION SIGNALIZATION REQUIREMENTS
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
1 A Poliq on Geometric Design ofHighu}C!)IS and Streets, 2004, Fifth Edition, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR - PARTIAL REVISION
PAGE 13-9
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
TABLE 13-1
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: AM PEAK HOUR
YEAR 2008 YEAR 2020
Intersection Existing W/O Project + Project W/O Project + Project
AirporUMiller/95 101 S8 Off-Ramp (Signal) C-23.5(1) 0-36.7 0-38.1 0-51.6 0-53.2
AirporUGrand (Signal) C-28.8(1) 0-48.8 0-51.7 0-38.5 0-39.7
Oubuque/E. Grand (Signal) A-5.7(1) A-5.7 A-5.7 A-6.3 A-6.3
Gateway/E.Grand/E.Grand Overcrossing C-25.4(1} C-28.1 0-37.4 C-26.9 C-33.7
(Signal)
Harbor/E.Grand/Forbes (Signal) 8-13.7(1} C-29.1 0-50.2 0-36.5 0-41.7
Project Oriveway@ E.Grand (Signal) 8-10.7(1) A-6.7 8-17.2 A-4.5 8-14.2
Littlefield/E. Grand (Signal) 8-17.4(1) F-87.2 F-106.4 C-28.4 C-30.1
S.AirporUU.S.101 N&S Hooks Ramps (Signal) C-27.1 (1) C-27.0 C-27.3 0-37.2 0-37.2
Utah/S.Airport (Signal) C-29.6(1} 0-50.9 E-59.2 C-24.1 C-25.2
Oyster Point/Gateway/Flyover (Signal) C-23.3(1) E-62.4 E-78.4 F-111.4 F-148.0
Oyster Point/Eccles (Signal) A-8.1 (1) 8-10.5 8-12.1 8-11.0 8-14.7
Oyster Point/Gull (Signal) 8-14.9(1} 8-15.2 8-15.2 8-15.8 8-15.8
Gateway/S.AirporUMitchell (Signal) 8-16.4(1) C-20.0 C-20.2 C-34.5 0-35.6
AirporUSan Mateo/Produce (Signal) C-20.9(1) C-26.6 C-27.1 C-27.1 C-27.4
Allerton/E.Grand (Allerton Stop Sign Control) C-15.6(2) F-57.9 F-94.5 8-14.6(1) 8-15.8(1}
Cabot/Allerton (Cabot Stop Sign Control) 8-1 0.1 / 8-10.5/ 8-13.5/ 8-10.7/ 8-13.9/
A-9.9(3) 8-10.1 8-11.9 8-10.5 8-13.0
Forbes/Allerton Allerton Stop Sign Control) C-16.8(4) C-18.6 E-49.7 C-23.6 F-90.9
(1) Signalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds.
(2) Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton southbound stop sign controlled approach to
E. Grand Ave.
(3) Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton northbound stop sign controlled approach to
Forbes Ave.
(4) Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Cabot eastbound stop sign controlled approach to
Allerton/Cabot westbound stop sign controlled approach to Allerton.
Year 2000 Higbu}qy Capacity Manual AnalYsis Metbodology
Souree: Cram T ransportatioll Group
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR - PARTIAL REVISION
PAGE 13-10
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
TABLE 13-2
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: PM PEAK HOUR
YEAR 2008 YEAR 2020
Intersection Existing W/O Project + Project W/O Project + Project
AirporUMiller/95 101 S8 Off-Ramp (Signal) C-20.1 (1) C-21.9 C-21.9 C-23.2 C-23.2
AirporUGrand (Signal) 0-36.5(1) 0-38.9 0-39.6 C-34.2 C-34.6
Oubuque/E Grand (Signal) A-4.2(1) A-6.2 A-6.4 A-6.9 A-7.2
Gateway/E.Grand/E./E.Grand Overcrossing 8-19.7(1) C-24.0 C-26.7 C-28.6 C-29.4
(Signal)
Harbor/EGrand/Forbes (Signal) C-22.1 (1) 0-37.0 0-53.4 0-40.1 0-45.5
Project Oriveway@ EGrand (Signal) 8-16.0(1) A-8.5 0-49.4 A-7.8 0-47.8
Littlefield/E.Grand (Signal) 8-11.5(1} 8-12.8 8-13.6 C-23.4 C-24.0
S.AirporUU.S.101 N&S Hooks Ramps (Signal) C-24.0(1) C-24.2 C-24.3 C-31 .4 C-31.6
Utah/S.Airport (Signal) 8-17.9(1) C-20.4 C-20.9 C-23.3 C-23.7
Oyster Point/Gateway/Flyover (Signal) 8-17.1(1) C-34.6 0-38.5 F-83.7 F-93.4
Oyster Point/Eccles (Signal) 8-17.7(1) C-23.7 C-26.0 C-20.6 C-22.9
Oyster Point/Gull (Signal) 8-16.7(1} 8-19.8 C-21.0 C-24.5 C-25.7
Gateway/S.AirporUMitchell (Signal) C-25.0(1) F-81.1 F-133.0 C-28.0 C-31.4
AirporUSan Mateo/Produce (Signal) C-24.6(1) 0-37.8 0-52.1 0-36.1 0-42.1
Allerton/E.Grand (Allerton Stop Sign Control) C-20.4(2} F-522 F-835 8-15.1(1} 8-19.6(1)
Cabot/Allerton (Cabot Stop Sign Control) A-9.8/ A-9.9/ 8-14.0/ A-10.0/ 8-14.6/
8-1 0.1 (3) 8-10.2 8-10.8 8-10.3 8-11.0
Forbes/Allerton Allerton Stop Sign Control) 8-14.3(4) 8-14.4 C-19.8 C-16.6 C-24.2
(1) Signalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds.
(2) Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton southbound stop sign controlled approach to
E. Grand Ave.
(3) Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Allerton northbound stop sign controlled approach to
Forbes Ave.
(4) Unsignalized level of service-vehicle delay in seconds/Cabot eastbound stop sign controlled approach to
Allerton/ Cabot westbound stop sign controlled approach to Allerton.
Year 2000 HigbJ1Jq)I Capacity ]Ylamtal AnalYsis lvletbodology
Souree: Crane Tra11Spoltation Group
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR - PARTIAL REVISION
PAGE 13-11
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
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 eight 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 #3) has been applied. When Warrant 3 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 4 of the year 2003 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices2, while
Warrant 3 is presented in Appendix Table B-4 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.
Currently, the Allerton Avenue/East Grand Avenue, Allerton Avenue/Cabot Road and Allerton
Avenue/Forbes Boulevard intersections all have AM and PM peak hour volumes below signal
warrant criteria levels, although both AM and particularly PM peak hour volumes at Allerton
Avenue/East Grand Avenue are approaching warrant criteria levels.
VEHICLE QUEUING
Analysis Methodology
The Synchro software program has determined estimates of vehicle queuing on the critical
approaches to the three Caltrans off-ramp intersections evaluated in this study:
. Airport Boulevard/Miller A venue/U.S.1 01 Southbound Off-Ramp
. South Airport Boulevard/U.S. 1 01 Northbound Hook Ramps/Wondercolor Lane
. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-
Ramp
2 Federal Highway Administration.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR - PARTIAL REVISION
PAGE 13-12
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Projections are provided for each off-ramp as well as for turn lanes and other surface street
approaches that have nearby adjacent intersections.
Queuing Standards
The City of South San Francisco standard is that the 50th percentile vehicle queue must be
accommodated within available storage, while the Caltrans standard is that the 95th percentile
vehicle queue must be accommodated within available storage.
Existing Queuing Conditions
Results are presented in this report for the 95th percentile vehicle queue. For City surface street
intersection approaches where 95th percentile queues are exceeding available storage, 50th
percentile queues are listed in the text. Table 13-3 shows that the three analyzed intersections
all have 95th percentile queue lengths less than available storage distances during both the AM
and PM peak hours. Less than half the available storage is being used at the Miller Avenue and
W ondercolor Lane off-ramps, with less than 10 percent of available storage being used at the
southbound flyover off-ramp.
TRANSIT
Transit service in the study area includes local bus service, shuttle service and regional rail
service. Figure 13-4 shows bus/shuttle service east of the U.S.101 freeway in the project
vicini ty.
Bus Service
The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service to South San Francisco.
However, currently there is no SamTrans service east of the U.S.101 freeway. Bus service
running just west of the freeway is as follows.
Route 34: Tanforan Shopping Center-Geneva operates along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport
Boulevard between Brisbane and the San Bruno BART station in the study area. This route
operates during midday only on weekdays with headways of about two hours.
Route 130: Daly City/Colma BART-South San Francisco operates along Linden Avenue and
Grand Avenue in the study area. It connects central South San Francisco with the Colma BART
station and Daly City. It operates with 20-minute peak period headways and 30- to 60-minute
non-peak headways on weekdays, 30-minute headways on Saturdays and 60-minute headways on
Sundays.
Route 132: Airport/Linden-Arroyo/El Camino operates along Hillside Avenue and Grand
Avenue connecting to the South San Francisco BART station. It operates on 30-minute peak
period headways and 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 60-minute headways on
Saturdays.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR - PARTIAL REVISION
PAGE 13-13
z
0
1=
<(
.....J
::>
u
~
U
0
z
<(
z
0
1=
<(
I-
~
0
Cl..
t/)
Z
<(
~
I- w w
(.)
("'Ij x :;:
I-
>- 0:::
~ en w
u.J en
I- co C LL
Cl.. 0 W 0
<( 0 l-
I N (.) ....J
U 0::: c:( w
c:( a.. >
~ W
W ....J
>- >- C
~ ....J W
e> ....J N
:z c:( :E
i= i= i=
:z
en w a..
X I- 0
W 0 0:::
I a.. 0
M oJ< en LL
en
M w :z e>
~ ::> 0 :z
w w i= :E
....J ::> (.)
en 0 w i=
c:( w en ....J
I- ....J 0::: c:(
(.) W :z
5: l- e>
W ~ U5
> a.. x
w :2E I-
....J ~ 3:
i=
:z U. I-
W LL (.)
(.) 0 w
0::: >- ...,
W 0
a.. c:( 0:::
X 3: a..
w c
I- W
10 0::: :z
en LL ~
~ e>
0
~ u..i
en en
::i "<:t
N
Cll t)
m
1'0 .S?
U 0
Cll a.
.... m CJ.? ("I') L()
::l 1'0 + ..,f cO
0 OJ ..-
:J: 0 N L() L() N L() 0 0 ("I')
~ -.::;:t 0 co 0 0 Q') 0 ..- 0 co 0
1'0 -.::;:t ("I') N N N ..- r-- N
Cll f---
c..
:2
c..
Cll Cll
m m CJ.? N CD
1'0 1'0
OJ U ..- ..,f ..,f
0 N 0 L() N L() 0 0 ("I')
co -.::;:t 0 co 0 0 -.::;:t 0 0 L() L() 0
0 -.::;:t ("I') N N N ..- CD N
0
N
....
1'0
Cll
>- Cll
m t) '"
1'0 .~ LD
u LD
Cll 0 ("I')
m a. ..- ("I') ~ ..- -.::;:t
.... 1'0 + cO r---: 0 L() cO
::l OJ 0 ("I') L() N r-- 0 0 ("I') r--
0 r-- 0 N 0 0 -.::;:t L() ("I') N ("I') ill
:J: co r-- Q') ..- ..- ..- N
..loI::
1'0-
Cll
D..
:lE
<C
Cll Cll
m m
1'0 1'0 r-- 0 -.::;:t
OJ U
cD r---: 0 L() N
L() ("I') 0 N co 0 0 ("I') CD
-.::;:t 0 co 0 0 N L() N ..- N ill
co CD Q') ..- ..- ..- N N
:lE ..loI:: ::;
1'0
c.. Cll 0 0
D.. :J: ..- ..-
c:> ..,f r---:
0 N L() L() N 0 L() ..-
g 0 0 CD 0 0 N L() L() N cO
-.::;:t ("I') N ..- N -.::;:t 0 ..-
~
.x
w CI)
CI)
..loI:: .... LU
:lE 1'0 ::l 0
<C Cll 0
D.. :J: L() ..- 0 ("I')
c0 r---: <:::( c0
L() N L() N -.I 0 0 N
l0 0 l0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0
LU r-- :s -.::;:t Q') -.::;:t 0 L()
<: 0
<:::( 8J
-.I
a::: ~
Cll "" 0 ~
Cll -.I 0
C) U
1'0 s::: 0 0
(5 1'0 0 Q:
en iii a:::
Ci LU ~
L() a 0 ~ 0 L()
N L() 0 0 0 L() 0 r--
N <: ("I') ~ CD CD N 0 -.::;:t
..- 0 ..- tf: L() ("I') ..- N N
~ ~ 0
Q CQ
<:::( ~ CI)
a::: ~ ~
u.. a
~
lL. :2: uj cu
0 0 ~ -0
CQ a cu t:..
CI) -0 g
~ <: c
a <:::( t:.. :s
~ cu u.. 1:: -.I I-
CQ
uj -0 lL. 0) >- 1::
s::: ~ t:.. 0 ii: ~ 0)
0 ..c CQ ::c c ii:
~ ~ 0) <: 0) ~ :s c ::c
Cll :::l :::l Q) :s 0)
~ cu c I-
m <:::( 0 a e E <:::( eu I- :::l
Q; 8J l: ~ ..c :::l ~ -0 ---1 4::: 4::: e
:E I- uj l- I- t:.. c Q) Q) ..c
E c 4::: g :s ---1 ---1 I-
-.I ~
-.I :s Q) ..c C.Q C.Q C.Q
~ :::l ---1 -.I 0) l- S ill
I- g I- :::l 1:: ill
4::: 4::: C.Q CQ 0 -0 -0 -0
g Z I- l: 0)
Q) -.I Q) ii: > > >
---1 CQ ---1 -0 <: I- 05 05 co
-.I CL I- CL > 0 CL CL
CQ E a::: E co Q E E C C C
I- eu 0 eu 1::: eu eu '0 '0 '0
a::: 0::: 0::: a::: 0::: 0::: 0.. 0.. 0..
0 ~ Q ~ 0 ~ ~ ~
a::: e- m m m
Q 0 (f) ~ 0 <( (f) ~ 0 0 115 115 115 (f)
a::: C.Q 0 C.Q 0 C.Q C.Q >> >> >> 0
~ (f) ---1 uj Z uj ---1 0 (f) (f) 0 0 0 ---1
II) 'U
13~
13 0
'~ ~
CfJ
l-l
CfJ II)
II) ,l:;
t:: l-l
~'U
4-l II)
o tJ
0... A
g ~
tb..g
cI:1 cI:1
l-l 8
t.8 0...
,~ ~
II) t::
b.O 0
cI:1 '4:J
l-l U
o II)
4-l CfJ
CfJ l-l
t:: II)
II) 4-l
A ,fl
~ 0...
II) S
~ El
R:ti1
cI:1 0
] ~
o t::
r 0
II)
E ]
Jj
t::
II) l-l
A B
~ l-l
o
~Th
4-l ~
cI:1 0
U l-l
~13
,fl II)
CfJ t::
cI:1 0
II) t::
t:: cI:1
~13
t:: II)
l-l l-l
B 0
l-l S
II) 4-l
0... 0
l-l
o 0... ~
~ II)
o 'U
l-l l-l
b.O 0
cI:1 b.O
t::
'8
II)
~
0'
CfJ 4-l
CfJ t::
II) II)
tj 'u
cI:1 l:E
II)
4-l
CfJ
o
S
II)
13
j::~
u
cI:1
o
l-l
0... l-l
~t.8
l-l
o
l-l
o
0...
~
o
l-l
b.O
II)
t::
~
~
g,
II)
~ II)
B ~
A
l-l
II) CfJ .fl
~tJ
t) po ~
~~~
~...c..g
'1 ] as
CfJ ~ CfJ
~ B 63
II) tj
~ ~ cI:1
0' II) 0
1J 8 4-l
cI:1 II) 'lj
po Jj
II) 0 U
~ 8 tt
B II) ~
C/) ~ II)
* CfJ...o
v
~
II)
~
0'
II)
:p
t::
II)
u
tJ
0...
~
l='
(5
~
.~
I:::i
1"
~
f},
~
~
""
~
\]
...c
(:)
If)
II
~
<;:,
V:i
"""
.--
I
("'Ij
u.J
LJ
<(
0..
I-
U
u.J
6'
~
0..
u.J
::>
z
u.J
>0:::::
<(
o
z
<(
~
lJ
l-
t/)
<(
LJ..J
O"l
"""
N
LJ..J
o
u.J
t/)
::>
u
o
w-
I-
LJ..
<(
~
o
"'.
"
?--::~i/~:-L.'-"~ ~
.............-
........................... ....
-............--... ..-"
.--'
"~
. .'
. : I ...'
'"
o;....P
": <' ..~~ o. l.~~ ~
! .: :"~I. .:'7':
'~-"
'":. . ...
....::::::::::::
,"
...~----- ----.----...-...----.. .........--..- ._--.....
..- ------..--------.....---......--...-----...........-
.- ,.
.
.
.
.~...,;;.....
. .
.
.
.--
San
Fratlcisco
Bay
~.:;:i~f;::.'f? -=---;;;'7:
..--------..---. -.. -_...:------ --....
SA:! Fil..\tlCI5CO
fNT!:.1l tJ.q'(oN~ L
01RI'UHT
............... Caltrain Sh u ttle
BART Shuttle
.. ........ Bicyle Paths and Routes
, ,. t] 1 I Caltraih
V Existing CalTrain Station
EB
49 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
.Figure 13-4
Bus and Shuttle Routes
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Route 292: San Francisco-SF Airport-Hillsdale Shopping Center operates along Airport
Boulevard. It operates with 20- to 30-minute peak headways and 25- to 60-minute non-peak
headways on weekdays and 30- to 60- minute headways on Saturdays and Sundays.
Caltrain
Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose and San Francisco. There is a station
located on the corner of Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue in South San Francisco. Trains
operate every 15 to 20 minutes during commute periods and hourly during midday.
Caltrain/BART Shuttles
Van shuttles are provided between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and employment
centers east of U.S.l0l during commute hours. Separate shuttles provide service to/from the
Colma BART station. Shuttle stops are provided along East Grand Avenue in the project
vicinity.
The Gateway Area/ Genentech Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) provides service on Gateway
Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard, Forbes Boulevard, Grandview Drive and East Grand
Avenue. There are 15 morning trips and 15 afternoon trips on the BART shuttle, and six
morning trips and five afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle.
The Utah-Grand Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) serves over 20 employers in the
Utah/Grand/Littlefield area. It provides service on Harbor Way, East Grand Avenue, Cabot
Court, Grandview Avenue, Littlefield Avenue, Haskin Way and Utah Avenue. There are six trips
in the morning and six trips in the afternoon on the BART shuttle, with seven morning and
seven afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle.
Shuttle service is fixed-route, fixed-schedule and is provided on weekdays during the commute
periods. The shuttles are free to riders. The operating costs are borne by the Joint Powers Board
aPB), SamTrans, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the City / County
Association of Governments (75 percent) and sponsoring employers (25 percent).
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
Sidewalks are in place along both sides of East Grand Avenue in the project vicinity. Allerton
Avenue has a sidewalk along the west side of the street but not along the east side of the street.
Cabot Road has sidewalks around its cul-de-sac adjacent to the project site. The sidewalk on the
north side of the street extends to Allerton Avenue, while the sidewalk on the south side of the
street extends only half-way to Allerton Avenue. There are no bicycle lanes striped or posted
along East Grand Avenue, Cabot Road or Allerton Avenue in the Project area.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-16
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
FREEWAY OPERATION
Analysis Methodology
Freeway segments are evaluated based on the Year 2000 Highwq)! Capacity Manual as specified by
the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Planning level lane capacities
have been determined based on a theoretical maximum of 2,350 vehicles per lane per hour along
sections with no auxiliary lanes. Based upon a 2005 count of the U.S.l0l freeway by Crane
Transportation Group at the Oyster Point interchange, where peak hour factor and truck
percentages were obtained, the capacity of a four-lane one-way segment of U.S.l 01 during peak
commute hours in South San Francisco is considered to be 8,880 vehicles per hour (2,220
vehicles per lane per hour), with LOS E for volumes between 7,900 and 8,880 vehicles, LOS D
for volumes between 6,340 and 7,899 vehicles, and LOS C for volumes below 6,340 vehicles.
The hourly capacity of a segment with four lanes plus a 1,500-foot auxiliary lane is considered to
be 9,750 vehicles, while the capacity of a segment with four lanes plus a 2,000-foot auxiliary lane
is considered to be 10,170 vehicles.
San Mateo eMP Standards for Regional Roads and Local Streets
The LOS standards established for roads and intersections in the San Mateo County CMP street
network vary based on geographic differences. For roadway segments and intersections near the
county boarder, the LOS standard was set as E in order to be consistent with the
recommendations in the neighboring counties. If the existing level of service in 1990/91 was F,
the standard was set to LOS F. If the existing or future LOS was or will be E, the standard was
set to E. For the remaining roadways and intersections, the standard was set to be one letter
designation worse than the projected LOS in the year 2000.
If a proposed land use change would either cause a deficiency (to operate below the standard
LOS) on a CMP-designated roadway system facility, or would significantly affect (by using
LOS F in the 1991 CMP baseline LOS, mitigation measures are to be developed so that LOS
standards are maintained on the CMP-designated roadway system. If mitigation measures are not
feasible (due to financial, environmental or other factors), a Deficiency Plan must be prepared
for the deficient facility. The Deficiency Plan must indicate the land use and infrastructure action
items to be implemented by the local agency to eliminate the deficient conditions.
A Deficiency Plan may not be required if the deficiency would not occur if traffic originating
outside the County were excluded from the determination of conformance.
Existing Freeway Operation
Existing levels of service on the freeway segments in South San Francisco were based upon
Crane Transportation Group's 2005 AM and PM peak period counts of the U.S.l0l freeway at
the Oyster Point interchange and from Caltrans' February and August 2004 counts of the
U.S.l0l freeway in South San Francisco. Year 2005 interchange ramp counts were used to derive
volumes for freeway segments lacking current counts.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-1 7
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Tables 13-4 and 13-5 show existing freeway level of service results based on the 2004/2005
traffic counts when compared to the standard capacity of a four-lane segment or segments with
auxiliary lanes. Results are summarized below.
AM PEAK. HOUR
Southbound LOS E
LOSD
Northbound LOS E
LOSD
PM PEAI< HOUR
Southbound LOS D
Northbound LOS D
LOSE
North of the Bayshore Boulevard Southbound off-ramp
From Oyster Point Boulevard to south of the Produce/
Airport off-ramp
South of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp
From the East Grand Avenue off-ramp to north of the
Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
All locations
From south of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp to the
Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
The San Mateo County Congestion Management Program 2003 Monito17"ng Report (Fehr and Peers,
July 29, 2003), identified AM peak period LOS D operations in 2003 for U.S.10l between the
San Francisco County Line and 1-380 based on travel time surveys. The 2001 LOS for this
segment was measured at E and the 1999 LOS was F. This indicates that traffic congestion has
lessened somewhat over the past several years, most likely due to employment reductions in San
Francisco and the Peninsula.
FUTURE BASE CASE (WITHOUT PROJECT) CONDITIONS
The proposed project's traffic impacts have been evaluated in relation to year 2008 and year
2020 Base Case conditions. Year 2008 reflects the first year the 249 East Grand Avenue project
could be completely constructed and fully occupied, while 2020 represents the City's General
Plan horizon. This section details the process to determine Base Case traffic operating
conditions for both horizon years.
Year 2008 Base Case
The year 2008 baseline conditions include traffic generated by approved development in the
study area, as well as traffic generated by projects that are under construction. Based on recent
observed construction and occupancy schedules in South San Francisco, it may be assumed that
these approved development projects will be completed and occupied within the next three
years.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-18
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
TABLE 13.4
FREEWAY OPERATION
AM PEAK HOUR
Year 2008
Existi ng Base Case Base Case + Project
Vol. LOS Vol. LOS Project Percent Total LOS
Increment Increase Vol.
SOUTHBOUND
North of SB Off-Ramp to 8350 E 9392 F 191 2.04% 9583 F
Bayshore Blvd./Oyster
Point Blvd.
(San Mateo Origins Only) (188) (A) (192) (A)
Between Oyster Point SB 7970 D 8683 D 20 0.2% 8703 E
On-Ramp and Grand/Miller
SB Off-Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (174) (A) (174) (A)
Between Grand/Miller SB 7160 D 7604 D 0 0% 7604 D
Off-Ramp and
Produce/Airport SB Off-
Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (152) (A) (152) (A)
South of Produce/ 6460 D 6904 D 0 0% 6904 D
Airport Off-Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (138) (A) ( 138) (A)
NORTHBOUND
South of East Grand Off- 9050 E 10,424 F 237 2.3% 10,661 F
Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (7401 ) (D) (7569) (D)
South of Grand Ave On- 7650 D 8761 E 0 0% 8761 E
Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (6220) (C) (6220) (C)
Between Grand Ave. On- 8195 D 9349 E 15 0.2% 9364 E
Ramp and Oyster Point
Off-Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (6638) (C) (6648) (C)
North of Oyster Point On- 8065 D 8517 D 30 0.4% 8547 D
Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (6047) (C) (6068) (C)
Year 2000 HighuJqJ Capacity il/Janual Analysis Methodology
ComPiled 0': Crane Transportation Group
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-19
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
TABLE 13.5
FREEWAY OPERATION
PM PEAK HOUR
Year 2008
Existing Base Case Base Case + Project
Vol. LOS Vol. LOS Project Percent Total Vol. LOS
Increment Increase
SOUTHBOUND
North of SB Off-Ramp to 6965 D 7389 D 36 0.5% 7425 D
Bayshore Blvd./Oyster
Point Blvd.
(San Mateo Origins Only) (296) (A) (297) (A)
Between Oyster Point SB 7990 D 8947 E 4 0.1% 8951 E
On-Ramp and Grand/Miller
SB Off-Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (358) (A) (358) (A)
Between Grand/Miller SB 7320 D 8212 E 0 0% 8212 E
Off-Ramp and
Produce/Airport SB Off-
Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (328) (A) (328) (A)
South of Produce/ 6870 D 7762 D 0 0% 7762 D
Airport Off-Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (310) (A) (310) (A)
NORTHBOUND
South of East Grand Off- 8100 D 8936 D 44 0.5% 8980 D
Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (7685) (D) (7723) (D)
South of Grand Ave On- 7345 D 7825 D 0 0% 7825 D
Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (6730) (D) (6730) (D)
Between Grand Ave. On- 8280 D 9045 D 102 1.1% 9147 E
Ramp and Oyster Point Off-
Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (7779) (D) (7866) (D)
North of Oyster Point On- 9060 E 10,071 E 204 2.03% 10,275 F
Ramp
(San Mateo Origins Only) (8661 ) (D) (8837) (D)
Year 2000 HighJJltl)I Capacity Manual AnalYsis NIethodology
Compiled 0': Crane Transportation Group
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-20
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Committed Road Improvements (to be in place by 2008)
The City of South San Francisco is currently completing construction on the final ramp
improvement project at the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange. The "hook ramps" project is
replacing the existing "scissors" off-ramp from southbound U.S.l0l to Bayshore Boulevard with
a more conventional hook ramp terminating at a signalized intersection. A new on-ramp is
being constructed from Bayshore Boulevard to southbound U.S.101 from the same intersection.
The hook ramps will significantly improve access to and from southern Brisbane, and will divert
additional traffic from Bayshore Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard.
Additionally, intersection improvements are committed by the approved Bay West Cove
development project for the intersections of Bayshore Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard
(change the existing second westbound left turn lane to a through lane and re-stripe the
westbound through/right lane to a right turn lane), Veterans Road and Oyster Point Boulevard
(widen southbound Veterans Road to add a right turn lane and re-stripe the optional through/
left lane to an optional right/through/left lane), and Gateway Boulevard and East Grand
Avenue (re-stripe the existing northbound Gateway Boulevard shared through/right turn lane to
a right turn lane and re-stripe the existing eastbound Grand . Avenue approach to provide a
separate right turn lane).
Based upon direction from the South San Francisco Public Works Department, these were the
only improvements to be assumed in place at study intersections by 2008. Figure 13-5 presents
year 2008 intersection geometrics and control.
Approved Development Trip Generation
South San Francisco
Trip generation was estimated for approved developments in the project area (see Table
13-6). Information on approved developlnents was obtained from City of South San
Francisco staff. In addition, traffic from both Home Depot and Lowe's stores recently
proposed along Dubuque Avenue just south of the Oyster Point interchange was also
included in the analysis at direction of South San Francisco staff (see Table 13-7).
The traffic generation rates for approved development are based on the analysis
conducted for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the South San Francisco
General Plan Amendment and Transp011ation Demand Management Ordinance (April 2001).
Traffic counts were conducted at existing office, R&D and hotel uses in the East of 101
area. The resulting peak hour traffic generation rates were somewhat lower than the
standard national averages reported in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation reference. In addition, all recently approved development in the East of 101
area is required to implement transportation demand managelnent (TDM) measures to
reduce vehicle traffic. The analysis for the General Plan Amendment assumes that a
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-21
~H ;1 (I)
Miller S8 101
Offramp
oJ ~t
~ -L 111\
)~~~ ir-\W
Grand r
-4 ~tt"t
,.
~ -L 111\
)H~ i~\W
r
J
-4 ~~ tt"t
-. Q.
,. 2
) ~~ I~(I)
Mitchell
~ ~~~t~
,. ~
)H~ L (I)
Y
US 101 . Wonder-
N8 Ramp. Color
J (J)
-4 ~~ttt
,.~
)~
J
-.
-.
-.
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
& "U ~ flt\ ~ 111\
_J~! ~--\JW + ~ \W
~t "..... C E Grand ,.
E Grand i
~ ~~ ~ ~+
-V -V i
:::(])
r
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
. = Project
Site
~~~ .f- (])
Orivewa ~tah
-4 ~~ttt
,. ~.
o
~
~~(I)
(1J
'fi Grand
~~~t
o
-.
+
~~~.'
~ \J!V
OJ .--
"r
~~~
C = Stop Sign
(]) = Signal
~ = Free Right Turn
&~C
+i~
-.-
Forbes
-4 ..L
~~+
,. @-
::J
~~[]
+g~
Cabot
+~+
~
-.-
t~u
::J .--
E Grand
-4
-.
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13-5
Year 2008 Lane Geometries
and I nterseetion Control
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
TABLE 13.6 (PAGE 1 OF 2)
TRIP GENERATION OF APPROVED DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EAST OF 101 AREA
EXPECTED TO BE BUILT AND OCCUPIED BY 2008
(See References on the following page for the List of Studies
Providin Traffic Projections for Each Project)
RESULTANT PEAK HOUR TRIPS
Project Size AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1. 333 Oyster Point Blvd.
Office/R&D 315,444 SQ.FT. 445 426
(replacing light industrial) (-94,990 SQ. FT.) (- 46) (- 52)
Net 399 374
2. East Jamie Court
Office/R&D 133,000 SQ. FT. 188 180
3. Britannia East Grand
Office/R&D 783,530 SQ.FT. 1,207 1,201
Retail 8,000 SQ.FT.
Child Care 8,000 SQ. FT.
Fitness Center 5,000 SQ. FT.
(replacing light industrial) (-354,880 SQ.FTt LJl.Ql L:..1ill1
Net 1,037 1,010
4. Genentech Building 5
33 R&D and 37 garage 125,000 SQ.FT. 61 131
5. Genentech Building 31
Office/R&D 150,972 SQ.FT. 234 225
6. Bay West Cove (part already
constructed)
Offi ce 600,000 SQ. FT. 1,623 1,636
Retail 10,000 SQ. FT.
Restaurant 10,000 SQ. FT.
Hotel 350 Rooms
7.180 Oyster Point
Office 105,000 SQ.FT. 100 90
8. 200 Oyster Point
Office 155,000 SQ. FT. 147 133
9. 345 East Grand
R&D 210,560 SQ. FT. 124 115
(replacing warehouse uses) .l:.l1l (- 45)
Net 93 Net 70
10.285 East Grand Ave.!
349 Allerton Ave. 122 111
Office/R&D
(replacing existing site uses) (- 38) i:1m
Net 84 Net 83
Source: Crane Transportation Group.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-23
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
TABLE 13.6 (PAGE 2 OF 2)
REFERENCES
1. 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D Project
Draft EIR (11orehouse Associates) September 2004
Final EIR (11orehouse Associates) February 2005
2. East Jamie Court Office R&D
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (11orehouse Associates) September 2002
3. Britannia East Grand Project (Fuller O'Brien Property)
Recirculation Draft EIR (11orehouse Associates) February 2002
4. Genentech Site Access-Buildings 33 & 37
Evaluation of Building 33 and Mid Campus Parking Garage (Building 37) (Fehr & Peers)
December 2003
5. Genentech Building 31-Administrative Draft
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Lamphier-GregoryjFehr & Peers) February
2005
6. Bay West Cove Commercial Report
Supplemental EIR (11orehouse Associates) October 2002
7., 8. 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard Office Projects
Draft Traffic Analysis Report (Hexagon Transportation Consultants) October 2001
9. Traffic Impact Report 345 East Grand Avenue
R&D Office Replacing Warehouse Use (Crane Transportation Group) November 2001
10. Traffic Impact Report 285 East Grand Avenue and 349 Allerton Avenue
R&D Office Replacing Existing Site Uses (Crane Transportation Group) July 2002
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EI R
PAGE 13-24
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
TABLE 13.7
HOME DEPOT TRIP GENERATION
DAILY AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
2-Wav Trips Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound
Use Size Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol
Home 125,794 29.8 3750 .65 82 .55 69 1.15 145 1.30 164
Depot SO.FT. (40)
+ 25% Safety Factor 940 21 17 36 41
TOTAL 4690 103 86 181 205
Trip Rate Source: Tlip Generation, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003.
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group.
LOWE'S PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
DAILY AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
2-Way Trips Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound
Use Size Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol
Lowe's 148,749 29.8 4434 .65 97 .55 82 1.15 171 1.30 193
SO.FT.
West 6,590 44.3 292 .72 5 .48 3 1.8 12 1.8 12
Marine SO.FT.
Bldg.-
North Area
Subtotal 4726 102 85 183 205
+ 25% Safety Factor 1182 26 21 46 51
Existing West Marine - NA* 2 0 14 12
Store (No Change)
TOTAL 5908** 130 106 243 268
* NA = Not surveyed for daily trip generation.
** Does not include existing West Marine store.
Trip Rate Source: Lowe's: Trip Generatiou, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003; Specialty retail: Traffic
Generators, San Diego Association of Governments, 2002.
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group.
LOWE'S SITE NET CHANGE IN TRIP GENERATION
LOWE'S & WEST MARINE BUILDING MINUS EXISTING SITE USES
AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
Use Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound
Lowe's and West Marine Bldg. 130 106 243 268
Existing Site Uses (including West Marine Bldg.) - 42 - 37 - 108 - 86
Net Change in Site Trip Generation +88 +69 +135 +182
Source: Crane Transportation Group.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-25
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
moderate TDM program will reduce peak hour traffic generation by an additional 9.5 percent
compared to existing traffic generation rates.
Brisbane
Traffic generated by development expected to be completed in Brisbane by the year
2008 was projected using a two percent per year growth rate in traffic accessing South
San Francisco via Bayshore Boulevard.
Regional Traffic Growth on US 101
North and southbound AM and PM peak hour traffic on the U.S.101 freeway not
associated with any on- or off-ramp in South San Francisco was projected to grow at a
straight line rate of one percent per year from 2005 to 2008.
Approved Development Trip Distribution
The estimated distribution of approved development traffic was based upon employee surveys
conducted for the East of 101 Area Plan Environmental Impact Report (Brady and Associates
with Barton Aschman Associates, January 1994). Inbound and outbound traffic generation from
each development was distributed according to the percentages shown in Table 13-8. Resultant
AM and PM peak hour year 2008 Base Case volumes are presented in Figures 13-6 and 13-7.
Year 2008 Base Case Intersection Operation
Table 13-1 shows that during the AM peak hour all analyzed intersections would be operating at
acceptable levels of service with year 2008 Base Case volumes, with three exceptions. The stop
sign controlled Allerton Avenue Approach to East Grand Avenue would be operating at LOS F
conditions. In addition, the signalized East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Road intersection would
be operating at LOS F conditions. Also, the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway
Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp intersection would be operating at LOS E.
Table 13-2 shows that during the PM peak hour all analyzed intersections would be operating
acceptably, with two exceptions. The stop sign controlled Allerton Avenue approach to East
Grand Avenue would be operating at LOS F conditions as would the signalized
Airport/ Gateway/Mitchell intersection.
The lack of a left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand Avenue approach to Allerton Avenue
would result in frequent extended queues behind a stopped vehicle waiting for a gap in
westbound traffic in order to make a left turn. Vehicles in the queue would then begin to pull
around the stopped vehicle. This would be a significant safety concern.
Year 2008 Base Case Intersection Signalization Needs
By 2008, both AM and PM peak hour Base Case volumes would be exceeding peak hour signal
warrant criteria levels at the Allerton Avenue/East Grand Avenue intersection.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-26
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
TABLE 13.8
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
Direction South San Francisco Development
Year 2005
US 101 North/San Francisco 29
US 101 South 48
South San Francisco (central area) 3
Daly City/Colma via Sister Cities Blvd. 8
Daly City/Colma via Guadalupe Parkway 0
Brisbane 7
Airport area via South Airport Blvd. 3
Local east of US 101 2
TOTAL 100%
Year 2020+
US 101 North/San Francisco 29
US 101 South 48
South San Francisco (central area) 2
Daly City/Colma via Sister Cities Blvd. 1
Daly City/Colma via Guadalupe Parkway 0
Daly City/Colma and South San Francisco (central area) 8
via Railroad Avenue Extension
Brisbane 7
Airport area via South Airport Blvd. 2
San Bruno/south via San Mateo Avenue 1
Local east of US 101 2
TOTAL 100%
Source: City of South San Francisco, Drift Supplemental Environmental Impact Rep01t, South San Francisco General Plan
Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-27
542 ~~ 5
80 :.:;.
~ t o ...- 205
4- ("" 869
Miller SB 101
Offramp
110 , ~ t
50 185
405 ~ ~ 111
J t 1t1 f...- 134
Grand ("" 281
195 J
299 -+-
90 ,
~ t ~
30 290 224
875 ~ ~ 140
140 t 280 ~'...- 335
~ ~ 4- ("" 320
J ~~ t ~
C3
-+- &210 200 36
()
, (I)
~ ~ 15
CD ...- 205
~
Q) ("" 35
Mitchell
140 J
295
465 ,
480
105 I 25
~ t ~
US 101
NB Ramp
790 J
50
520 ,
~ 15
...- 5
(""25
Wonder-
C%r
~~ t ~
~ 75 240 5
4-
...- 320 5 1 1 ~~6
~...- 155
("" 25 ~ t ~ Q)
Oster '" ("" 20
rn~ ~ Point J ~~ t ~
() 130 60 100
~ 675 -+- ::::: 240 30
C/) 10
485,
. = Project
Site
295
5 I 720
~ t ~
~ 90
...- 3
("" 205
Utah
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
CJ ~8
0 ~.
3 0 ~ ...- 140
~ t ~ ~ ("" 85
Forbes
16 J ~~ t ~
610 -+- af25 o 50
~
35 , ::J
45 ~~ 25
(I)
13 55 ~...- 10
~ + ~ ::J ("" 7
Cabot
3 J ~ t ~
8 -+- 20 60 20
7 ,
90 20
~ ~
~
af ~ 20
~
::J ...- 490
E Grand
Orivewa
7 J Cf)~ t ~
6 -+- ~ 10 590
o 230
5 , 4-
200 J
2115-+-
CJ 90 ~ 45 50 ." ~ 25 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 2 ~O
~~ 55 25 + 115 ...- 445 130 + 45 0 o ~. ~. ...- 490
39 53 t::: ~ ~ a. ...- 390 0 9 0 ...- 465
~ ~ (I) ~ + ~t~
~ ~ as ...- 715 ("" 90 C/) ("" 120 ~~ Q. ("" 20 (""120
E Grand E Grand E Grand E Grand E Grand
81 J 660 J ::r:~ t ~ o J ~ t ~ 35 J r-~t~
Q)
1955 -+- a. 60 75 1840 -+- 50 0 5 1755 -+- ~ 45 5 560
1483 -+- 0 70
105, -. af
210, 120, 90 , Q
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13-6
2008 Base Case (Without Project)
AM Peak Hour Volumes
416 ~-L5
60 :::;.
~ ~ o ..- 300
~ -t 424
Miller SB 101
Offramp
146 f ~ t
111 402
510 ~ -L 313
150 I 326~'..- 334
..J ... l. ~.L 801
Grand "
165 J
100 -.
100 f
~ t ~
95 470 106
985 ~ -L 295
95 I 150~'..- 380
..J ... l. ~ -t 1120
J -o~ t ~
-. ~ 125225180
(J
f (!)
~ -L 20
m ..- 715
~
tl:l -t 75
Mitchell
65 J
100
355 f
510
255 I 25
..J ... l.
US 101
NB Ramp
475 J
40
220 f
-L 25
..- 15
-t 25
Wonder-
C%r
~~ t ~
~'265 315 20
~
..- 1285 75 0 ~-L1
3 C13
-t 45 ..J ~ l. ~..- 595
'<::: -t 15
Oster
rn~ ~ pOi~t J G)~ t ~
8.. 465 25 c:
(!) 180 -. ::::: 465 25
C/) 1
250 f
. = Project
Site
Grand A v
530
5 I 255
..J ... l.
-L 255
-+- 5
-t 865
Utah
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
tJ -L7
~.
11 2 <::: -+- 525
(!)
..J ~ l. ~ -t 50
Forbes
3 J :t:.~ t ~
215 -. &55 o 95
~
30 f :::J
65 ~ -L 45
40 (!)
5 ~ -+- 10
..J ~ l. :::J -t 25
Cabot
10 J ~ t ~
10 -. 10 40 25
30f
:t:.
190 20 ~ -L 15
a
..J l. :::J -+- 1905
E Grand
85 J
525 -.
CJ 285 -L 115 115 ..,., -L 40 0 ~ \J -L 0 30 11 -Lo
5- -L 90 225 ~ 50 -+- 1615 50 ~ 15 a 0 o ~. ~. -+- 1815 1
a- -+- 1450 -+- 1745
120 25 c: ..J l. l. (!) ..J ~ ..J~l.
..J l. a5 ..- 2100 -t 450 C/) -t 445 l.~ Q. -t 10 -t 350
E Grand E Grand E Grand E Grand E Grand
72 J 85 J 190 J :J::~ t ~ 0 J ~ t ~ 5J r-~t~
tl:l
490 -. a- 200 35 520 -. 100 0 20 495 -. ~ 55 115
460 -. a 55 (!) 1
"""' :::!l
95 f 75 f 10 f 60 f (!)
Q
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
Orivewa
a
16 f ~
Figure 13-7
2008 Base Case (Without Project)
PM Peak Hour Volumes
l ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Year 2008 Base Case Vehide Queuing
Table 13-3 shows that by year 2008, all three analyzed off-ramp intersections would have 95th
percentile off-ramp queues less than available storage during both the AM and PM peak traffic
hours. Maximum demand would be about 70 percent of available storage at the Miller Avenue
off-ramp, about 50 percent of available storage at the W ondercolor Lane off-ramp and about 25
percent of available storage at the Oyster Point Boulevard southbound flyover off-ramp.
Maximum demand at all three locations would occur during the AM peak hour.
All other 95th percentile queuing at the three analysis intersections would be within available
storage with the exception of the left turn lane on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard
approach to Gateway Boulevard, which would have a demand 10 feet longer than available
storage during the AM peak hour. The 50th percentile queue for this turn . lane would be less
than the available 200-foot storage.
Year 2008 Base Case Freeway Operation
Tables 13-3 and 13-4 show that by 2008 with Base Case traffic the following freeway segments
would be experiencing LOS E or F operation.
AM PEAI< HOUR
Southbound
Northbound
LOSF
LOSF
LOSE
North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
South of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp
North of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp to the Oyster
Point Boulevard interchange
PM PEAI< HOUR
Southbound LOS E
South of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange to the
Produce/Airport off-ramp
North of Oyster Point Boulevard interchange
Northbound LOS E
Year 2008 Base Case (Without Project) Intersection Improvement Needs
East Grand A venue/Allerton A venue Intersection
. Prohibit left turns from Allerton Avenue to East Grand Avenue until the
intersection is signalized -or- cut back the hillside on the northeast corner of the
intersection to improve sight lines to/from the east to at least 400 feet.
. Stripe a left turn lane on the eastbound intersection approach. This will require
removal of parking on the south side of East Grand Avenue.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-30
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
· Signalize the intersection when warranted.
Resultant Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS B-12.1 seconds average vehicle delay
PM Peak Hour: LOS B-17.9 seconds average vehicle delay
East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue Intersection
· Widen the northbound Littlefield Avenue approach to provide two intersection
approach lanes. Stripe as one exclusive right turn lane and a combined left/ through/
right turn lane.
Resultant Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS C-33.1 seconds average vehicle delay
South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell A venue Intersection
· Add a second through lane to the westbound Mitchell Avenue approach.
Resultant Operation:
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-35.5 seconds average vehicle delay
Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U,S, 101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
· There is no practical way to mitigate the unacceptable level of service.
Year 2020 Base Case
The year 2020 Base Case (without project) conditions include traffic generated by approved
development in the study area, traffic generated by project which are completed or under
construction and were not yet fully occupied, traffic generated by proposed projects, and traffic
generated by potential development of vacant or underutilized land in the study area.
This evaluation of year 2020 + conditions is based upon the Drcift 5 ttpplemental Environmental
Impact Report (SEIR) for the Sottth San Francisco General Plan Amendment and T ransporlation Demand
Management Ordinance, April 2001 with updates to project descriptions and needed improvements
based upon a series of EIRs and traffic studies conducted over the past four years (see Table
13-5 reference list). The proposed project in the SEIR consists of a General Plan Amendment
and a Transportation Demand Management (TD:.M) Ordinance, and it includes a set of physical
street improvements as well as policies requiring TDM measures and traffic reduction at
employment sites. The program of street improvements and TDM measures is referred to
throughout this EIR chapter as the East of 101 Transporlation Improvements Plan (TIP).
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-31
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
General Plan Amendment Street Improvements
The East of 101 Transporlation Improvements Plan includes a series of physical improvements that
would be implemented along with a TDM program approved by the City in order to mitigate
traffic impacts of the potential development of the East of 101 area. General Plan Policy 4.2-1-6
is amended to read as follows:
"4.2-1-6 Incorporate as part of the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
needed intersection and roadway improvements to enhance mobility in
the East of 101 area."
The following improvements are included in the East of 101 TIP and are therefore assumed for
the Year 2020 + Baseline scenario (see Figure 13-8). In addition, supplemental mitigation needs
have been determined through more recent EIRs (listed in Table 13-5). South San Francisco
Planning staff have indicated that these supplemental measures have all been included as part of
Street Improvement program. Those measures are shown in italics in the following lists and have
been assumed in place for the year 2020 Base Case and Base Case + project evaluation.
. Airport Boulevard and Miller Avenue/V.S.IOl Southbound Off-Ramp: Widen
the off-ramp and reconstruct retaining wall to provide a second left turn lane. Re-
stripe the existing off-ramp combined left/ through/ right turn lane as a through/
right turn lane.
. Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue: Re-stripe the existing southbound Airport
Boulevard right turn lane as a shared through-right lane and re-stripe the southbound
shared through-left lane as a left turn lane. Widen eastbound Grand Avenue to add
two left turn lanes, re-stripe the eastbound shared through-left lane as a through lane
and the eastbound right turn lane as a shared through-right lane. Provide a third
westbound left turn lane.
. South Airport Boulevard and V.S.IOl Northbound Hook Ramps/Wondercolor
Lane: Widen the northbound off-ramp approach at South Airport Boulevard to
provide a second right turn lane.
. Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue: Add a second westbound left turn
lane on East Grand Avenue and a separate right turn lane on eastbound East Grand
Avenue. Re-stripe northbound Gateway Boulevard to provide one left, one through
and one right turn lane. J,f:7iden nOrlhbound Gateway Boulevard to provide a second right turn
lane.
. Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard and East Grand Avenue: Widen westbound
Grand Avenue to provide one additional through lane and one additional left turn
lane. Widen eastbound Grand Avenue to provide one additional through lane.
Widen southbound Forbes Boulevard to provide one additional through lane and
change the existing shared through-right lane to a right turn only lane. Widen
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-32
~~ ~;:-())
Miller -r;B 101
J
Offramp
o~ ~t
~+- f1fJ\
~~~ !f ~
Grand r
:1 ~ tt~t
--+
T
~H ~ i~())
~~tt~t
g.
(')
Q)
G) -L f1fJ\
~~~~ IE~
fMitchell
J
-+
~ 3.
~~
J
--+
--+
--+
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
~~ f ~~()) EG:t ~ ())
E Grand J
.::t ~.~ .::t ~+t
-+ If -+Cil
T T~
+-fIt\
+-~
r
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
. = Project
Site
~~~~ .f- ())
Drivewa . 'f;;tah
-:t f1t~t
o
~
-r, ~ ())
~+-
ffi C ,;c
E Grand
~~ tt t
'"'"'
+
CJ
~. ~ I1l\
~ ~
lli +-
""r
~~r'~
C = Stop Sign
()) = Signal
~ = Free Right Turn
~~c
+ ~'T
-.-
Forbes
-4 ~..L+
T~
::J
+ 'tll
Cabot
+~+
~
-.-
i~())
::J +-
E Grand
J
--+
--+
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13-8
Year 2020 Lane Geometries
and Intersection Control
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
TABLE 13-9
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PROPOSED AND POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
TRAFFIC GENERATION EAST OF 101 FREEWAY 2000-2020)
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Project Status Size Land Use Rate Trips Rate Trips
Gateway NE Potential 315,710 SF Office 0.95 300 0.86 271
Existing -140,760 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -67 0.54 -76
Trammel Crow Potential 273,580 SF Office 0.95 260 0.86 235
Potential 11,400 SF Commercial 0.93 10 3.39 39
Potential 65 Rooms Hotel 0.27 18 0.19 13
Existing -94,990 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -46 0.54 -52
Oyster Point Marina Potential 3,250 SF Commercial 0.93 3 3.39 11
Potential 78,090 SF Office 0.95 74 0.86 67
Potential 20 Rooms Hotel 0.27 5 0.19 4
pt. Grand Potential 2,110SF Commercial 0.93 2 3.39 7
Potential 15 Rooms Hotel 0.27 4 0.19 3
pt. Grand Harbor Way Potential 400,000 SF Office 0.95 380 0.86 344
Potential 23,750 SF Commercial 0.93 23 3.39 81
Potential 135 Rooms Hotel 0.27 36 0.19 26
Existing -197,880 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -95 0.54 -107
Forbes Area Potential 750,690 SF Office 0.95 713 0.86 645
Potential 279,790 SF R&D 0.59 165 0.54 151
Potential 10,590 SF Commercial 0.93 10 3.39 36
Potential 60 Rooms Hotel 0.27 16 0.19 11
Existing -366,300 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -176 0.54 -198
Eccles Area Potential 2,178,840 SF Office 0.95 2069 0.86 1874
Potential 90,790 SF Commercial 0.93 85 3.39 308
Potential 520 Rooms Hotel 0.27 140 0.19 99
Existing -799,410 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -384 0.54 -432
MRF Area Potential 35,130 SF R&D 0.59 21 0.54 19
Existing -17,570 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -8 0.54 -9
Genentech Potential 686,630 SF R&D 0.59 405 0.54 371
Grandview Area Potential 737,900 SF Offi ce 0.95 701 0.86 634
Potential 30,750 SF Commercial 0.93 29 3.39 104
Potential 175 Rooms Hotel 0.27 47 0.19 34
Existing -329,530 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -158 0.54 -178
Dubuque Area Potential 794,580 SF Office 0.95 755 0.86 683
Potential 36,100 SF Commercial 0.93 34 3.39 123
Potential 135 Rooms Hotel 0.27 36 0.19 26
Existing -21,830 SF Lt. Industrial 0.48 -10 0.54 -11
SUBTOTALS Proposed 0 0
Potential 6341 6215
Existing -944 -1 063
TOTAL 5397 5152
Note: Trip generation rates for proposed and potential projects were reduced by 19% to reflect a 45% alternative mode usage as
presented in the East of 101 Area Plan (April 2001).
Sources: City of South San Francisco, Drcift Sttpplel7le1ltal ElllJirolll7le1ltal JJ;tpact RepOlt, South San Francisco General Plan
Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-36
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
TABLE 13-10
BRISBANE
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC GENERATION
(2000-2020)
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Planning Subarea Size Land Use Rate Trips Rate Trips
1. Sierra Point 42,000 SF Retail 0.67 28 2.93 123
1,646,990 SF Office 1.56 2,569 1.49 2,454
1,100 Rooms Hotel 0.67 737 0.76 836
8,000 SF Restaurant 3.32 26 4.78 39
2. Southeast Bayshore N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0
3. Southwest Bayshore 35,000 SF Retail 0.67 23 2.93 102
3,500 SF Office 1.40 5 1.32 5
66,500 SF Trade Comm. 0.98 65 1.24 82
4. Brisbane Acres 210 Units SF Residential 0.74 156 1.01 213
5. Central Brisbane 139 Units SF Residential 0.74 102 1.01 140
16 Units Townhouse 0.44 7 0.55 9
6. Owl/Buckeye Canyons N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0
7. Quarry N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0
8. Crocker Park 2,500 SF Health Club 0.12 0 1.70 5
2,500 SF Retail Outlet 0.36 1 2.14 5
3,000 SF Restaurant 3.32 10 4.78 15
120,140 SF Trade Comm. 0.98 117 1.24 149
9. Northeast Ridge 87 Units SF Residential 0.74 65 1.01 88
268 Units Townhouse 0.44 118 0.55 147
214 Units Condo/Apts. 0.67 143 0.82 176
10. Northwest Bayshore 228,000 SF Trade Comm. 0.98 224 1.24 283
11. Northeast Bayshore N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0
12. Baylands(1) 2,000,000 SF Retail 0.77 1,540 3.34 6,680
500,000 SF Office 1.40 700 1.32 660
690,000 SF R&D/Educ. 1.07 738 0.94 649
75,000 SF Restaurant 3.32 250 4.78 359
2,000 Rooms Hotel 0.67 1,340 0.76 1,520
(app. 1 mil. SF)
SUBTOTAL 4,200,000 SF 4,568 9,868
13. Candlestick Cove N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0
TOTALS 8,964 14,739
N/ A = No net additional development planned.
(1) Baylands land uses shown are estimated land uses to match maximum high generating traffic increment reported in General
Plan EIR traffic analysis. The range of development currently considered feasible by the City of Brisbane would be one million
SF of high traffic generating uses to 4.2 million SF of low traffic generating uses.
Sources: City of Brisbane 1994 General Plan EIR; CCS Planning and Engineering, Ine.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-37
555 )::.L5
60 :::;.
~ t o +- 170
~ t 1514
Miller SB 101
Offramp
103 f ~ t
35 270
415 )::. L 106
~o t 1~9 "[+- 151
Grand t 276
530 J
395 ---+-
90 f
~ t ~
25 305 218
785 )::. L 255
~5 t 235"[+- 238
~ t 641
J ~~ t ~
C3
---+- g. 195 40 665
C)
f CD
~ L 40
CD +- 550
~
m t 40
Mitchell
129 J
513
o
420 f ~
605
120 I 30
~ t ~
US 101
NB Ramp
1685 J
55 ---+-
1304 f
L 16
+- 5
t 27
Wonder-
C%r
~~ t ~
~.100345 5
~
+- 611 50 1 ~L6
1 ~.
t 30 ~ t ~ ~ +- 225
Oster '"' t 22
rn~ ~ Point J ~~ t ,.
Q 171 65 335
CD 710 ---+- :::: 406 40
({) 10
550 f
. = Project
Site
510
6 1424
~ t ~
L 115
+- 5
t 204
Utah
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
tJ L 10
::!.
4 1 ~ +- 190
~ t ~ ~ t 88
Forbes
20 J )::.~ t ~
710 ---+- ~27 1 50
~
42 f ::J
50 ~ L 25
CD
15 55 ~ +- 16
~ t ~ ::J t 10
Cabot
7 J ~ t ~
1 0 ---+- 19 60 20
10 f
)::.
~ L 20
91 19 ~
..J ~ ::J +- 508
E Grand
204 J
261 0 ---+-
tJ 135 L 44 255 "11 L 19 0 Lo
g. L 65 55 t 70 +- 562 215 t 43 0 920
49 93 c:: ~ C3- +- 425 0 +- 608
~ ~ CD ~t ..Jt~
~ ~ ai +- 887 t 104 ({) t 264 t 76
E Grand E Grand E Grand E Grand
101 J 1385 J :r:~ t ~ oj ~ t ~ 35 J r-~t~
m
1706 ---+- C3- 70 299 1860 ---+- 50 0 5 17 0 0 ---+- ~ 12 5 1099
2074 ---+- 0 940
...... ::!'!
225 f 170 f 99 f CD
Q:
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
Drivewa
5 f
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13-9
Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project)
AM Peak Hour Volumes
536 ):,. -L 5
55 3l"
.J t o ..- 295
~ , 930
Miller SB 101
Offramp
136 f ~ t
105 401
505 ~ -L 231
560 I 537~"..- 392
.J .. ~ ~ 1:""" 797
Grand '"
455 J
127 -.
100 f
~ t ~
95 480 100
1085 ~ -L 410
105 I 180~"..- 233
.J .. ~ ~,2083
t ~
40 195
f
~ -L 90
CD ..- 1736
~
ll:l,80
Mitchell
74 J
159
375 f
550
145 I 27
.J .. ~
US 101
NB Ramp
686 J
40
547 f
-L 27
..- 16
, 27
Wonder-
C%r
~~ t ~
~"315 400 22
~
..- 1766 280 5 3 &-L1
~
, 45 .J t ~ ~ ..- 680
" , 25
Oster
rn ~ ~ Point J G)~ t ~
a 559 30 65 c::
Ct> 230 -. :::::741 33
C/) 3
345 f
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
t:J -L7
~.
11 2 ~ ..- 625
.J t ~ ~ , 55
Forbes
3 J ~~ t ~
255 -. af60 0 100
~
36 f :::J
65 ~ -L 50
Ct>
6 45 ~..- 10
.J t ~ :::J,25
Cabot
10 J ~ t ~
10 -. 11 45 25
34 f
):,.
af -L 20
190 14 ~
.J ~ :::J ..- 1949
E Grand
91 J
1090 -.
tJ 455 t.. 108 1065 "11 t.. 24 ~lJt..o 30 11 t..0
5- t.. 115 235 t 34 ..- 1685 ~5 t 14 0 o 0 o ~. d. ..- 1820 1
a-..- 1103 ..- 1719
145 40 c:: .J ~ ~ Ct> .Jt ~ Ct> .Jt~
.J ~ ai ..- 2270 , 480 C/) , 761 ~~ Q. , 15 , 370
E Grand E Grand E Grand E Grand E Grand
92 J 370 J :r:~ t ~ 0 J ~ t ~ 5J r-~t~
ll:l
574 -. a- 255 136 721 -. 100 0 25 686 -. ~ 59 1 495
672 -. 0 280
...., af
f 80 f 15 f 49 f Q:
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
. = Project
Site
660
5 I 457
.J .. ~
t.. 310
..- 5
, 859
Utah
Orivewa
20 f
Figure 13-10
Year 2020 Base Case (Without Project)
PM Peak Hour Volumes
I.... ~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Year 2020 Base Case Intersection Level of Service
Tables 13-1 and 13-2 show that with Base Case volumes and all programmed improvements, 16
of the 17 analyzed intersections would experience acceptable operation during both the AM and
PM peak hours. The same intersection would be experiencing unacceptable operation during
both time periods.
AM & PM Peak Hour
Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp:
LOSF
Year 2020 Base Case Intersection Signalization Needs
By 2020 no remaining unsignalized intersections evaluated in this study would have AM or PM
peak hour Base Case volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels.
Year 2020 Base Case Vehicle Queuing
Table 13-11 shows that by the year 2020, the 95th percentile off-ramp queue would exceed
available storage on the U.S.101 <northbound off-ramp approach to the South Airport
Boulevard/W ondercolor Lane intersection during the AM peak hour (with a demand about 360
feet greater than the available storage to be provided after planned improvements at this
location). This result assumes signal timing to optimal level of service at the intersection and not
to clear off-ramp traffic. Ninety-fifth percentile off-ramp queues at the Miller Avenue and
Oyster Point Boulevard intersections would be less than available storage during the AM and
PM peak hours for the 2020 horizon (using about 70 percent of storage on the Miller Avenue
southbound off-ramp and 30 percent of storage on the Oyster Point Boulevard southbound
flyover off-ramp).
All other 95th percentile queuing at the three analysis intersections would be within available
storage with the exceptions of the left turn lane on the City controlled eastbound Oyster Point
Boulevard approach to Gateway Boulevard (which would have a demand 150 feet longer than
available storage during the AM peak hour) and the left turn lane on the City controlled
westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to Gateway Boulevard (which would have a
demand 20 feet longer than available storage during the PM peak hour). The 50th percentile
queue for the eastbound left turn lane would also be longer than available storage (a 270-foot
AM peak hour queue in the 200-foot-long eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard left turn).
However, the 50th percentile queue in the westbound left turn lane during the PM peak hour
would be less than available storage (a 90-foot PM peak hour queue in the 125-foot-long
westbound Oyster Point Boulevard left turn lane).
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-40
z
0
~
<(
......J
::)
U
a:::
0
0
z
<(
z
0
~
<(
I-
a:::
0
0..
Vl
Z
<(
a:::
I- w w
U
M ::I: :>
I-
>- IX:
a::: IX) w
w en
l- e L.L.
0.. W 0
<( l-
I U ....J
U <( w
0 a.. >
N ~ W
0 ....J
N >- e
IX: ....J W
<( ....J N
W <( :E
>- i=
I z i=
>j( w a..
en I- 0
W 0 IX:
::>
w a.. 0
~ ::> en L.L.
~ 0 z e>
M w 0 ~
~ i=
w ....J 2
~ U
....J W i=
IX) ::I: en ....J
<( w IX: <(
I- > W Z
W l- e>
....J ~ en
i=
z a.. ::I:
w 2 I-
U t2 ;:
IX:
w U. I-
a.. L.L. u
::I: 0 W
--;)
I- ~ 0
LO
en IX:
a..
w e
w z
IX: t2
L.L.
~ e>
0
~ u.i
en
:::i en
-.::t
N
Q) u
If)
1'Q .~
U 0
Q) a:
If) LO
1'Q +
CJ N ~ ~
::; c-.? ...- ...- LO
0 LO N LO a (V) a 0 ~
:J: ~ 0 a cx::> 0 N LO 2;.- LO a
..::.:: c.o cx::> N r-- N ~ ...-
1'Q
Q)-
0-
:E
0-
Q) Q)
If) If)
1'Q 1'Q LO
!Xl U
N -.::J: ~
c-.? ...- ...- LO
a N a a (V) a 0 a
~ 0 a cx::> 0 r-- LO 2;.- LO a
c.o cx::> N c.o N ~ ...-
Q)
If) U
t3 .~ a
0
Q) .... a LO
If) 0- N Q) LO (V)
1'Q
CJ + c-.? <0 ...- 0 a
.... a a a
:] Q) LO LO LO (V) c.o a LD r-- ...-
0
:J: a 0 a LO 0 (V) c.o ~ ~ ~
...- N ...- N (V) N
..::.:: I----
1'Q
Q)
0-
:E CI)
<3: CI)
Q) Q) lLJ
If) If) <..:> a
1'Q 1'Q <..:> LO LO
!Xl U
~ N "( N (V)
r--.: ...-
a ~ LO -.I LO 0 a
r-- lLJ (V) LO (V) ~ (V) LO LD r-- r--
a 0 a LO 0 <..:> a N ~ ~ (V)
...- <: N ...- N (V) N
"( 0::
-.I lLJ
0:: ~
" 0 ~
Q) Q) -.I 0
Cl U 0 <..:>
1'Q r::
0 1'Q <..:> Q:
U5 1ii 0::
i5 LO lLJ LO ~ a LO
N a r-- a ~ a a LO a r--
LO <: c.o ...- c.o c.o N a ~
...- 0 ...- (V) tt LO (V) ...- N N
~ ~ 0
Q CO
~ ~ CI)
~ "t"-
LL a
"t"-
lJ... :2: crj ro
0 0 ~ <5
CO a ro t:.-
CI) <5 g
"t"- <: E
a "( t:.- -.I ::J
"t"- ro LL ::c CO f-
crj <5 lJ... 0) >- ::c
r:: ~ t:.- O a: ~ 0)
0 ..c CO ::c E a:
~ ~ 0) <: 0) ~ c ::c
Q) ::J ::J ::J :s 0)
~ "( e "t"- o E "( ro f- f- ::J
Q) a ..c <5 4= 0
E ffi ..c "t"- ::J ~ 4= ..c
f- crj f- f- t:.- c Q) Q)
E c g ---I ---I f-
-.I ~ 4= ..c :s co
-.I :s Q) co co
::J ---I 0) f- S
~ f- g f- -.I ::J ::c w w
4= .::t::= co CO e -0 -0 -0
z 0)
g Q) -.I Q) I- ..c a: > > >
---I CO ---I -0 <: f- co co co
-.I 0... I- 0... > 0 0... 0... C C
CO E 0:: E co Q E E C
I- eu 0 eu t eu eu "0 "0 "0
0:: a: a: SJ a: a: 0.. 0.. 0..
0 ~ Q ~ 0 ~ ~
0:: e- i-: CD CD CD
Q 0 Cf) ~ 0 <( Cf) ~ 0 0 U5 U5 U5 Cf)
0:: co 0 co 0 co co >- >- >- 0
~ Cf) ---I crj Z uj ---I 0 Cf) Cf) 0 0 0 ---I
Q) ""'d
{j~
~ 0
.~ ~
CfJ
~
CfJ Q)
Q) .e
q ~
.2::!""'d
4-1 Q)
o tJ
o.~
g ~
M{J
c;l c;l
~ 8
tB ~
.~ c;l
Q) q
bJJ 0
c;l '.0
6 u
+-> Q)
CfJ ~
q ~
1j .8
~ 0.
~ 8
;.:::1 ~
~tt
c;l 0
~ 8
+->
o q
r ~
E .E
~ q
~
Q) ~
~ +->
E-1 6
~~
~ B
u ~
:.a{j
.8 Q)
CfJ q
c;l 0
Q) q
q c;l
.2::!{j
q Q)
~ ~
B 0
~ 8
Q) 4-1
0. 0
6 3-" tJ
if 8 "B
~ bJJ 0
o c;l bJJ
K ~ .8
~ tB ~
~ "'0' ~
o cr
0. i:5 i:1
g 13 'D
M~S
Q) ~ Q)
q ~ +->
.2::! 8" 0
~ Q) 8
B ~ 1j
+-l ~ 4-J
Q) CfJ q
E? tJ .~
t) .e q
J:lr-d.2::!
c~{J
''-<1 .~ c;l
~ Q)
~ ~ i:5
~ 0 Q)
Q) +-> ij
g., i:1 c;l
""'d Q) B
q 8
c;l Q) ""'d
Q) po ~
bJ) ~ ~
c;l c: 0.
6 ~ ~
U) c:
* ~]
T-
.q-
I
M
w
<.J
<(
0-
Q)
~
Q)
~
U'
Q)
::5
q
Q)
u
~
Q)
0.
~
~
(5
I-
U
w
o
a:::
0-
w
::)
Z
w
> ~
<(LJ...J
o 0
z w
<( Vl
a::: :::J
lJ u
I- 0
Vl u..
<( I-
LJ...J LJ..
01 <(
.q- a:::
NO
.~
~
.;:1
c;
~
~
~
~
~
(J
~
+->
o
Lfl
II
~
t:::
~
"
V:i
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Improvements to Offset Year 2020+ Base Case (Without Project) Unacceptable
Operation
South Airport Boulevard/D.S.lOl Northbound Ramps/Wondercolor Lane
. Signal phasing adjustments would be able to reduce the 95th percentile northbound
queue to within acceptable limits during the AM peak hour while maintaining an
acceptable level of service.
Resultant AM Peak Hour Operation
AM Peak Hour: LOS D-47.3 seconds average vehicle delay, 1,620 feet of 95th
percentile off-ramp vehicle storage demand (with 1,675 feet of available storage)
Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/D.S.lOl Southbound Flyover Off-
Ramp
No feasible physical improvements beyond those included in the East of 101 TIP and in
subsequent EIRs in the East of 101 area have been identified for the one intersection
exceeding the City's level of service standard that also has 50th percentile vehicle
queuing exceeding available City required storage in the Oyster Point Boulevard
eastbound left turn pocket during the AM peak traffic hour. The following General Plan
policies and their related programs would mitigate the Probable Future impacts at the
intersection of Gateway Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp:
Accept LOS E or F after finding that:
. There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and
. The uses resulting in the poorer than acceptable level of service are of clear, overall
public benefit.
The East of 101 TIP will require all new development to implement a TDM and traffic
monitoring program in order to achieve the maximum development densities.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-42
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
13.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a Project's aesthetic impacts are based upon CEQA
Guidelines thresholds:
Project impacts would be significant if they result in any of the following conditions:
1. The project would exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system.
2. Signalized intersection operation would change from LOS A, B, C or D to LOS E or F.
3. Movements or approaches at unsignalized intersections would change from LOS A, B,
C, D or E to LOS F.
4. Project traffic would increase Base Case volumes at an unsignalized intersection to meet
peak hour signal warrant criteria levels.
S. The proposed project would increase traffic entering an intersection by two percent or
more with a signalized or all-way stop operation already at a Base Case LOS E or F, or
when the intersection is side street stop sign controlled and already operating at LOS F.
6. The proposed project would increase traffic entering an unsignalized intersection by two
percent or more with Base Case traffic levels already exceeding signal warrant criteria
levels.
7. Project traffic would degrade operation of the U.S.101 freeway frolTI LOS E to LOS F,
or would increase volumes by more than one percent on a freeway segment with Base
Case LOS F operation.
8. The proposed project would increase Base Case SOth percentile vehicle queuing between
intersections to unacceptable lengths, or, if Base Case SOth percentile queuing between
intersections was already greater than available storage, the project would increase
queuing volumes by two percent or more (City of South San Francisco criteria for City
controlled intersection approaches).
9. The proposed project would increase acceptable Base Case 9Sth percentile vehicle
queuing between intersections to unacceptable lengths, or, if Base Case 9 Sth percentile
queuing between intersections was already greater than available storage, the project
would increase queuing volumes by two percent or more (Caltrans criteria).
10. The project worsens traffic, pedestrian or bicycle safety.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-43
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
11. The project would not provide City code required parking.
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Table 13-12 shows that a total of 540,000 square feet of research and development or office
uses would be likely to generate 664 inbound and 92 outbound trips during the AM peak hour,
with 124 inbound and 605 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. This assumes a 9.5 percent
reduction in peak hour trips due to a moderate TDM program and assumed office rather than
R&D uses to provide a conservative analysis, as office trip generation has been found to be
higher than from R&D uses. Table 13-13 presents the projected trip generation from the
Georgia Pacific manufacturing plant that was associated with the 249 East Grand Avenue site up
to the middle of 2004. As shown in Table 13-14, after elimination of those trips associated with
existing uses on the project site, the net increase in traffic due to total site redevelopment would
be about 515 two-way trips during the AM peak hour and 485 two-way trips during the PM peak
hour.
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Project traffic was distributed to the subregional roadway network based upon East of 101
development traffic patterns contained in the April 2001 Draft SEIR for the South San
Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Ordinance (see Table 13-7).
Overall, about 62 percent of project traffic should be destined to/from south and southwest of
the site, with 38 percent destined to/from the north and northwest. However, it is likely that
project drivers destined to/from the U.S.101 freeway either north or south would choose to
access the freeway via several routes and interchanges. AM and PM peak hour project traffic is
shown distributed to the local roadway network in Figures 13-11 and 13-12. Figures 13-13 and
13-14 present resultant year 2008 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + project volumes, while
Figures 13-15 and 13-16 present resultant year 2020 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + project
volumes.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact 13-1
Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours. The Project
would generate more than 100 net new trips during the AM and PM peak
hours (515 trips during the AM peak hour and 485 trips during the PM peak
hour, if allowing for the reduction in traffic from the former Georgia Pacific
manufacturing use) or 756 trips during the AM peak hour and 729 trips
during the PM peak hour if assuming all site trip generation is new (see
Tables 13-11, 13-12 and 13-13). The San Mateo City/County Association of
Governments (C/ CAG) Agency Guidelines for the implementation of the
2003 Draft Congestion Management Program ("C/ CAG Guidelines")
specific that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/ or tenants
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-44
z
a
i=
<(
--.J
:J
U
0::.:
U
o
z
<(
z
a
i=
<(
I-
0::.:
a
0..
CJ)
Z
<(
0::.:
I-
0 L()
0
> <.0
-0
c N
Cf) ::l a.>
0 co ""'""':
CL n
0::: "5 0::: ..--
I- a
0:::
:::>
a
:c
~
<(
w -<::t
CL 0 N
::2: > ..--
CL
-0
c a.> C"0
::l co
0 "!
n 0:::
E
0 N
> en
-0
Cf) C
::l a.> I"-
CL 0 co
0::: :8 0::: ""'""':
I- ::l
0::: a
:::>
a
:c
~
<(
w
CL 0 -<::t
::2: > <.0
<( <.0
-0
C a.> C"0
::l co "!
0
n 0::: ..--
E
<.0
0 -<::t
> en
.9 L()
>- .=
---1
<( iiJ
0 S
N a.> ..--
co ~
0::: ..--
..--
0 ~
a.> 0
o LL
N ad
en
~U)
Q)
u
tE
0
~
a.> c
(J) oC5 Q)
:::> ..c E
u D...
ro 0
Q) CD
(j) >
Q) Q)
0:::0
M
::2:
<(
0::
c>
o
0::
0..
::2:
C
I--
o
I--
Zw
0:::::>
i=C
<(z
ffiQ
zl--
wU
c>~
No..W
;:;;0::0::
...-I--z
wl-O
-Iui=
mW<(
<(-'0::
I-OW
o::z
o..w
Cc>
m9:
00::
0.. I-
00::
0:::::::>
0..0
::c
~
<(
w
0..
~
~
en
::c
I-
~
0::.:
w
I-
0..
<(
I
U
c-ri
o
o
N
UJ
l-<
(J)
(J)
.~
~
~
~
o
- +=1
B
5
0...
cg
c-o
l-<
b
4-<
o
(J)
B
- +=1
cg
~
(J)
iJ
:>.
..1J
~
o
- +=1
~
~
.-C
-I-J
r---
-~-
~
s;:::
J
-~
~
v
u
3
o
C/)
~
c-o
p::;
-S<
b
I-
Z
w
::2:
0..
o
-I
w
G:i::2:
cc
wI-
I- I-
U55
W::c
("'):::::>1-
;:;;r5~
"'->z
w<(o
~~~
I-o::w
c>z
I-W
enc>
~9:
0')0::
-<::tI-
N
en
:::::>
o
:>
w
0::
0..
0 L()
L()
> ..--
-0
C
::l a.> I"-
Cf) 0 co ~
CL n 0:::
0::: "5
I- a
0:::
:::>
a
:c
~
<(
w (5 en
CL
::2: > co
CL
-0
c a.> I"-
::l co
0 "!
n 0:::
E
0 <.0
> L()
-0
Cf) C a.>
::l I"-
CL 0 co
n ..--
0::: "5 0:::
I- a
0:::
:::>
a
:c
~
<(
w
CL 0 L()
::2: > co
<( ..--
-0
C a.> <.0
::l co
0 ~
n 0:::
E
N
0 <.0
> N
(J) ..--
0.
>- ~
---1
<( 10
0 S
N a.> N
co co
0::: c0
0 ~
a.> 0
N o LL
en ad
~(J)
0')
a.> c
(J) -~
:::> <:5
J2
:::J
C
cu
~
0..
::l
o
(3
~
o
- +=1
B
5
0...
cg
c-o
b
(J)
~
c-o
U
>-.
..1J
'U
~
-ct
8
o
u
z c>
0 z
i= 0::
<( :::::>
0:: I-
W U
Z <(
W LL.
c> :::::>
-.::t 9: z
'7 <(
c-ri ("')0::::2:
0 ...-I-en
0
N ~~:::::>
UJ mwen
l-< <(uo::
(J)
(J) I-Zw
-~ w>
~ o::C
~ wcCS
~ LL. 0::
LL. -
0 -w
-+=1 Cu
B I-U:
l-<
0 W LL.
0... ZO
cg
c-o
l-<
b
4-<
0
(J)
B
-+=1
]
(J)
iJ
:>--.
..1J
~
0 0..
- +=1 ::l
~ 0
~ l-<
c.J
iJ ~
r--- 0
- +=1
.~ B
l-<
~ 0
0...
J cg
c-o
l-<
,~ b
t-=< (J)
~
c-o
V l-<
U U
l-<
::l >-.
0
C/) ..1J
~ 'U
c-o ~
p::; -0..
-S< 8
l-< 0
b U
-0
c 0
::l
Cf) 0 L()
n -<::t
CL "5 +
0::: a
I-
0:::
:::>
a
:c - -
~
<(
w
CL
::2: -0
C L()
CL ::l
0 C"0
n +
E
-0
C
::l <.0
Cf) 0 C"0
n
CL "5 +
0::: a
I-
0:::
:::>
a
:c
~
<(
w
CL
::2: -0 en
c
<( ::l I"-
0 -<::t
n +
E
.9 -<::t
>- .=
---1 co
<( ~ <.0
-<::t
0 S +
N
Li)
-.::t
I
M
w
LJ
<(
0-
I-
U
w
0.. B
0::.:
::l 0-
0
l-< W
c.J :::J
~ Z
0
-+=1 w
B > C:!::
l-< <(
0 LI..J
0... 0
cg Z 0
c-o <( W
l-< CJ)
b 0::.: :::J
(J) lJ u
~
c-o f- a
l-<
u CJ) I..L..
<( l-
v LI..J LJ..
U O'l <(
l-<
::l -.::t 0::.:
0 0
C/) N
2 CJ
~
t 0 ~.
~ .. 20 ..- 14 ~
Miller SB 101 '" .. 3
Offramp rn~ G)~
2-,. g 4 170 -,. c::
CD ::::14
tn
::t:.
22 -a'
t. ~ ..- 3
Grand Not To Scale
r+ . = Project ~~
9 -.. NORTH
6 Site
::t:.
-a'
~"-2
.. 34
13 -..
36
~
Mitchell
t r+
7 13
6J
o
~
CJ
~.
~
~ , 177
Forbes
33 -,. ::t:.~ r+
& 3 15
@-
::J
::t:.
::::
(J)
210 ~
0
~ ::J
Cabot
18 J ~
10 -,. 46
46 ::t:.
t. ,11 &
9 1 @-
US 101 Wonder- Orivewa Utah ~ t. ::J ..- 7
NB Ramp Color E Grand
20 J r+ 46 J
46 -,. 0 19
~ 0
~
..- 18
E Grand
39 -..
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
t.6 11t.1 ~--o
60 ..- 18 7 0 ~. d. t. 20 ..-7
g-"- 60 62 4
t. , 36 t. tn, 6 ~ t.~ ~ ..- 5 ,4
E Grand '" .....
E Grand E Grand E Grand
r+ 349 -.. ~ r+ 362 J r-~ r+
13 & 26 20 -.. % 33 26
0 20 -.. (J)
...., 1 -,. ::::!l
(J)
Q
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13-11
AM Peak Hour
Project Increment
Miller
..- 89
o
~,,4
S8 101
Offramp
~ t
1 1
~
~ 31
Q.
CD
C/)
~ --L 2
4 {3"
~ 0 ..- 12
~ r- 4
Grand 'f
3 -+
8 -+
~
1
. = Project
Site
~
:::;.
-g..- 12
~
.. 222
8
~
.. 71
Utah
Wonder-
C%r
Orivewa
~
4
o
~
o
~
11
~
L 42
..- 120
.. 160
E Grand
..,., L 6
o
~ ~..- 322
C/) .. 109
E Grand
~1J
407 6 ~. C3 --L 5
~ ~~ Q:..- 30
E Grand
E Grand
~
3
~
66 -+ g-
....,
~
4
67 J
4 -+
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
tJ
~.
"
CD
~
'<:::
G)~ ~
c::
30 t :::: 89 2
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
4 -+
6 t
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13-12
PM Peak Hour
Project Increment
GrandA v
G)
Q)
160 CD
~ ~ ..- 74
Mitchell
t ~
2 2
0
~
..- 31
.. 30
E Grand
r- ~ ~
~ 6 5
af
Q
544 :t:-t...5
80 :=:t.
~ t o ~ 205
4- -f 889
Miller S8 101
Offramp
112 f ~ t
50 185
410 :t:- t... 111
J t 1~3 i~ 137
Grand -f 281
195 J
308 -+
90 f
~ t ~
30 290 230
875 :t:- t... 140
~o t 280 i~ 337
L.- -f 354
J -o~ t ~
C3
-+ g.210 200 36
C)
f CD
~ t... 15
CD ~ 205
~
0) -f 35
Mitchell
146 J
302
o
465 -,. 4-
480
105 I 25
~ t L.-
US 101
NB Ramp
810 J
50
566 f
t... 1 5
~5
-f 25
Wonder-
C%r
~~ t ~
~. 75 240 5
4-
+- 334 1 ~-L6
5 1 Q3
, 25 ~ t L.- ~ +- 155
" , 23
Oster
rn~ ~ Point J ~~ t ,.
a 134 60 100
CD 675 -+ :::::254 30
C/) 10
655 f
. = Project
Site
295
5 I 766
~ t L.-
-L 90
+- 3
, 216
Utah
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
CJ -L8
0 ~.
3 0 "
CD +- 140
~ t L.- ~ , 262
Forbes
16 J :t:-~ t ~
610 -+ ar28 o 65
2}
68 f ::J
45 ~ -L 25
CD
223 55 2} +- 10
~ t L.- ::J,7
Cabot
21 J ~ t ~
8 -+ 66 60 20
17 f
:t:-
ar -L 20
99 21 2}
~ L.- ::J +- 497
E Grand
246 J
2115 -+
CJ 90 -L 51 50 "T1 -L 26 0 ~ -0 -L 20 920 -Lo
g t... 55 ~5 t 175 +- 463 130 t 52 0 4 ~. ~. +- 495
39 53 L.- a- +- 450 62 +-472
~ L.- CD ~ t ~tL.-
~ L.- ~ ~ 733 ,126 C/) ,126 L.-~ Q , 20 ,124
E Grand E Grand E Grand E Grand E Grand
81 J 660 J ::r:~ t ~ 362 J ~ t ~ 35 J r-~t~
0)
2304 -+ a- 60 101 1860 -+ 50 0 5 1775 -+ ~ 78 5 586
1522 -+ 0 70
"""' :::!'l
210 f 120 -,. 91 -,. CD
Q
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
Drivewa
5 -,.
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13-13
2008 Base Case + Project
AM Peak Hour Volumes
416 ~-L5
60 :::;.
.J ~ o ...- 300
~ .. 428
Miller S8 101
Offramp
146 t ~ t
112 403
~ t ~
95 470 107
...- 1374
.. 45
rn ~ ~
Q 496 25
CD
(J)
510 ~ -L 315
150 I 330~....- 346
.J t ~ ~.. 805
Grand
165 J
103 --.
100 t
. = Project
Site
985 ~ -L 295
95 I 150~'...- 392
.J t ~ ~.. 1342
66 J
101
o
355 t ~
510
255 I 25
.J t ~
US 101
N8 Ramp
479 J
40
228 t
J lJ~ t ~
C3 1
--. g. 125 225 80
C)
t CD
Grand A v
75 0 3
.J t ~
Oster
poi~t J
180 --.
280 t
&-L1
~
~ +-. 595
" ,- 15
~ -L 20
CD ...- 789
~
m .. 75
Mitchell
-L 25
...- 15
.. 25
Wonder-
C%r
~~ t ~
~.265315 20
~
530
5 I 263
.J t ~
-L 255
+- 5
,- 936
Utah
(j)~ t ~
t::
::::: 554 27
1
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
tJ -L7
~.
11 2 ~ +- 555
.J ~ ~ ~ ,- 80
Forbes
3 J ~~ t ~
215 --. &80 o 190
S
39 t ::J
65 ~ -L 45
CD
44 40 S +- 10
.J ~ ~ ::J ,- 25
Cabot
130 J ~ t ~
10 --. 19 40 25
96t
~
& -L 15
250 26 S
.J ~ ::J +- 1906
E Grand
94 J
525 --.
tJ 285 -L 157 115 "11 -L 46 0 ~ lJ -L 5 30 11 -Lo
5- -L 90 225 ~ 61 +- 1735 50 ~ 16 0 407 6 ~.~. +- 1845 1
a. +- 1772 +- 1776
120 25 t:: .J ~ ~ CD .J~ .J~~
.J ~ ~ ...- 2220 ,- 610 (J) ,- 554 ~~ Q. ,- 10 ,- 380
E Grand E Grand E Grand E Grand E Grand
72 J 190 J :t ~t ~ 67 J ~ t ~ 5J r-~ t ~
556 --. a. 200 39 524 --. 1 00 0 20 499 --. E! 61 120
468 --. 0 55 CD
-, ~
75 t 10 t 66 t CD
Q
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
Orivewa
o
16 t ~
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13-14
2008 Base Case + Project
PM Peak Hour Volumes
CJ 135 -L 50 255 "11 -L 20 0 ~ lJ -L 20 2 -Lo
g. -L 65 35 t 130 ~ 580 215 t 50 0 4 "".....
49 93 c: ~ ~ a- ~ 485 62 ~ ~. ~ 630 9 0 ~615
~ ~ CD ~t ~t~
~ ~ a5 ~ 905 .. 140 C/) .. 270 ~~ Q .. 20 .. 80
E Grand E Grand E Grand E Grand E Grand
101 J 1385 J :t~ t ~ 362 J ~ t ~ 35 J r-~t~
III
2055 -. a- 70 325 1880 -. 50 0 5 1720 -. ~ 45 5 1125
2113-' 0 940
'""" :::!l
225 , 170, 100, CD
Q
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
557 ~ -L 5
60 :-:;"
~ t o ~ 170
:::). .. 1534
Miller SB 101
Offramp
105 , ~ t
35 270
415 ~ -L 106
~o t 1~1 i~ 154
Grand .. 276
530 J
404 -.
90 ,
~ t ~
25 305 224
785 ~ -L 255
115 I 235 ~.~ 240
~ t ~ :::)... 675
J lJ~ t ~
C3
-. g.195 40 665
C")
, CD
~ -L 40
CD ~ 550
~
III .. 40
Mitchell
135 J
520
420 ,
605
120 I 30
~ t ~
US 101
NB Ramp
1705 J
55 -.
1350 ,
-L 16
~5
.. 27
Wonder-
C%r
~~ t ~
~.100 345 5
:::).
~ 625 50 1 ~-L6
1 <i5
.. 30 ~ t ~ ~~ 225
'" .. 25
Oster
rn~ ~ Point J 0~ t ~
Q 175 65 335
CD 710 -. ::: 420 40
C/) 10
720,
. = Project
Site
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
-L 10
4 ~ 190
~ t .. 265
Forbes
20 J ~~ t ~
710 -. af30 1 65
~
75 , ::J
50 ~ -L 25
CD
225 55 ~~ 16
~ t ~ ::J .. 10
Cabot
25 J ~ t ~
10 -. 65 60 20
20,
):,.
af -L 20
100 20 ~
~ ~ ::J ~ 515
E Grand
250 J
2610 -.
510
6 1470
~ t ~
-L 115
~5
.. 215
Utah
Orivewa
5 ,
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13-15
Year 2020 (With Project)
AM Peak Hour Volumes
536 ):'~5
55 :.::;.
~ ~ o +- 295
~ .. 934
Miller SB 101
Offramp
136 f ~ t
106 402
505 ):. ~ 233
560 I 541 ~. +- 404
~ t ~ ~.. 801
Grand
455 J
130 ~
100 f
~ t ~
95 480 101
1085 ):. ~ 410
105 I 180~' +- 245
~ t ~ ~.. 2305
t ~
40 195
~ ~ 90
CD +- 1810
~
ll'l" 80
Mitchell
75 J
160
375 f
550
145 I 27
~ t ~
US 101
NB Ramp
690 J
40
555 f
~ 27
+- 16
.. 27
Wonder-
C%r
~~ t ~
~'315 400 22
~
+- 1855 280 5 ~~1
3 '"
~ +- 680
.. 45 ~ ~ ~ ll'l
" .. 25
Oster
rn ~ ~ Point J G)~ t ~
Q 590 30 65 c::
(J) 230 ~ :::: 830 35
(J) 3
375 f
. = Project
Site
660
5 I 465
~ t ~
-L 310
+- 5
.. 930
Utah
Not To Scale
~~
NORTH
tJ -L7
~"
11 2 Q5 +- 625
~ ~ ~ ~ .. 85
Forbes
3 J ):.~ t ~
255 ~ &85 0 195
~
45 f ::J
65 ~ -L 50
45 45 ~ +- 10
~~~::J"25
Cabot
130 J ~ t ~
1 0 ~ 20 45 25
100 f
250 20
~ ~
100 J
1 090 ~
):.
~ -L 20
o
::J +- 1950
E Grand
tJ 455 -L 150 1065 .,., -L 30 0 ~ ""tJ -L 5 30 11 -Lo
6- ~ 115 235 ~ 45 +- 1805 ~5 ~ 15 0 407 6 Q5" d. +- 1850 1 +- 1750
a- +- 1425
145 40 c:: ~ ~ ~ (J) ~ ~ ~~ ~ .. 15 ~~~
~ ~ ~ +- 2390 .. 640 (J) .. 870 .. 400
E Grand E Grand E Grand E Grand E Grand
92 J 370 J :r:~ t ~ 67 J ~ t ~ 5J r-~t~
III
640 ~ a- 255 140 725 ~ 100 0 25 690 ~ ~ 65 1 500
680 ~ 0 280
-, 55 f :::::!l
80 f 15 f (J)
Q:
249 East Grand EIR Traffic Study
Orivewa
5 J Cf)~ t ~
~ 20 200
o 420
20 f ~
~ CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 13-16
Year 2020 (With Project)
PM Peak Hour Volumes
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to
be generated by the development. This would be a significant impact.
Impact 13-1
PROJECT IMPACTS
Mitigation
Measure 13-1
Impact 13-2
Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours. The Project
would generate more than 100 net new trips during the AM and PM peak
hours (515 trips during the AM peak hour and 485 trips during the PM peak
hour, if allowing for the reduction in traffic from the former Georgia Pacific
manufacturing use) or 756 trips during the AM peak hour and 729 trips
during the PM peak hour if assuming all site trip generation is new (see
Tables 13-12, 13-13 and 13-14). The San Mateo City/County Association of
Governments (C/ CAG) Agency Guidelines for the implementation of the
2003 Draft Congestion Management Program ("C/ CAG Guidelines")
specify that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/ or tenants
will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to
be generated by the development. This would be a significant impact.
Transportation Demand Management Program. The project sponsors
shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program
consistent with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter
20.120 Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG.
These programs, once implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life
of the development. The C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that
may be credited for each TDM measure. Appendix Table B-5 outlines
TDM programs that can generate trip credits to offset the 515 total AM peak
hour and 485 PM peak hour trips generated by the project. This would
reduce the Project's impact to a less than significant level.
Year 2008 U.S. 101 Freeway Impacts. Tables 13-4 and 13-5 show that the
addition of traffic generated by approved development in South San
Francisco (year 2008 Base Case without project conditions) would cause two
freeway segments to operate at LOS F (both during the AM peak hour). The
project would increase volumes by more than one percent on both of these
segments (AM peak hour-southbound: north of the Oyster Point interchange
and northbound: south of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp). In addition,
project traffic would result in one segment of the freeway changing from
LOS E to LOS F operation (PM peak hour-northbound: north of the Oyster
Point interchange). These would be significant impacts.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-52
Mitigation
Measure 13-2
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Transportation Demand Management Program. The project sponsors
shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to
minimize potential increase in freeway traffic. The TDM plan shall contain
all Required Measures and Additional Measures required by the City of South
San Francisco TDM Ordinance, Schedule 20.120.030-B, in order to achieve a
minimum alternative mode use of 35 percent. The project applicant shall
submit a Preliminary TDM Plan containing checklists of Required and
Additional Measures, along with a site plan indicating the locations of TDM
elements such as preferential parking areas and bicycle facilities. The project
applicant shall submit a Final TDM Plan incorporating conditions imposed
by the Planning Commission.
The Project shall coordinate with the City in an annual survey of compliance
with the TDM plan, with a minimum required response rate of 75 percent of
employees at the project. The project shall also submit a Tri-Annual report
of TDM effectiveness, and be subject to penalties for non-compliance in
accordance with the City's TDM Ordinance. This impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of the TDM measures would reduce} but not fullY mitigate impacts to a less than significant leve~
so that the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. In detennining ~vhether to approve the proposed
prq/ecij decision-makers must balance its benrfits against its unavoidable environmental risks. To approve a
prq/ect despite its environmental risks} the lead ageru)l must make a statement of overriding considerations} giving
reasons in writing to support its action based on the FEIR and/or other irifol'mation in the record (CEQA
Section 15093(a)). H01VeVel'j under certain circumstances it is not necessary to make a statement of overriding
considerations} as described in the paragraph below.
The City mq) take action on the 249 East Grand prqject based upon a statement of overriding considerations
that was made 0; the City Council in the process of approving the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan. At
that time} the lead agenry detennined that the City could not implement feasible mitigation measures for
cumulative impacts on the U.S. 1 01 freelvq). Therifore} the agenry adopted a statement of overriding considerations
for freeu)q) impacts} based on the identified benrfits of prq/ected development under the General Plan. Since the
free~vq) impacts identified in this chapter lvere also identified in the General Plan FEIR} there is no need for the
agenry to make a duplicate statement of overriding considerations for the 249 East Grand prq/ect in order to take
action on the prqject. The 1999 statement of overriding considerations should be cited in the appropriate findings
and the Notice of Deten71ination for the proposed prq/ect.
No Deficiency Plan would be required by the San Mateo County Congestion
Management Agency based on exclusion of interregional traffic.
Freeway operations were evaluated for Existing, 2008 Baseline without project and 2008
Baseline with project conditions (Tables 13-3 and 13-4). Each freeway segment has been
evaluated based on the capacity of a four-lane freeway segment or a four-lane segment with an
auxiliary lane, as defined by the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. An ilnpact is identified if the
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-53
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
project would add traffic amounting to one percent or more of the capacity of a deficient CMP
freeway segment (operating at LOS F), or if the addition of project traffic results in acceptable
Base Case operations being degraded to unacceptable operation.
The addition of traffic generated by approved development in South San Francisco and Brisbane
as well as regional growth (year 2008 Baseline without project) would cause two freeway
segments to operate at LOS F.
. Northbound U.S.101 south of the East Grand Avenue off-ramp during the AM peak
hour.
. Southbound U.S.1 01 north of Oyster Point Boulevard during the AM peak hour.
Under the year 2008 Baseline with project scenario, traffic added by the proposed 249 East
Grand project would increase volumes by more than one percent on these two segments.
Project traffic would also change LOS E to LOS F operation on the following freeway segment.
. Northbound U.S.101 north of Oyster Point interchange during the PM peak hour.
Project traffic would also increase Base Case volumes by 2.03 percent on this
segment.
The San Mateo County Congestion Management Program indicates that a jurisdiction may be
required to develop a Deficiency Plan for segments of the CMP roadway system that exceed
LOS standards. For these purposes, it may be determined if the deficiency would still occur if
traffic originating outside San Mateo County is excluded from the determination of
conformance. U.S.101 southbound traffic originating in San Francisco, Alameda and Marin
counties may be excluded. In the northbound direction, traffic originating in Santa Clara County
may be excluded.
In the 333 Oyster Point EIR traffic analysis,3 the C/ CAG regional travel model for year 2000
was applied to determine the amounts of traffic on U.S.101 that originate in San Mateo County.
A "select link analysis" was used to identify the origins and destinations of peak hour traffic on
northbound and southbound U.S.1 01 in South San Francisco. The percentages are as follows:
. AM peak hour, northbound U.S.101: 71 % of trips originate in San Mateo County
. AM peak hour, southbound U;S.l 01: 20/0 of trips originate in San Mateo County
. PM peak hour, northbound U.S.1 01: 860/0 of trips originate in San Mateo County
. PM peak hour, southbound U.S.1 01: 40/0 of trips originate in San Mateo County
3 Dowling Associates
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-54
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Tables 13-3 and 13-4 indicate the freeway level of service that would result when considering
only trips that originate in San Mateo County. In the northbound direction, the level of service
would not exceed D on any segment during the AM or PM peak hours. In the southbound
direction, level of service would be A, as nearly all traffic originates outside of San Mateo
County, so San Mateo County vehicles do not contribute significantly to deficient conditions.
Therefore, preparation of a Deficiency Plan would not be required.
Impact 13-3
Year 2008 Intersection Level of Service. Year 2008 Base Case conditions
have assumed removal of the Georgia Pacific manufacturing activity on the
project site. These activities were included in the "Existing Conditions"
evaluation, as existing counts reflected the conservatively higher volume
levels found in 1999/2000. Therefore, year 2008 Base Case + Project
evaluation evaluates the full impact of the currently proposed project in
relation to an empty site.
Tables 13-1 and 13-2 show that the proposed project would produce
significant AM and/or PM peak hour level of service impacts at the
following intersections.
East Grand A venue/ Allerton A venue
More than a two percent increase in traffic (2.1 % AM peak hour and 2.90/0
PM peak hour) at a location with a) unacceptable LOS F operation on the
stop sign controlled Allerton Avenue approach, b) both AM and PM peak
hour volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels, c) volume
warrant criteria being exceeded for the need of a left turn lane on the
eastbound East Grand Avenue approach and d) less than acceptable sight
lines between traffic turning from Allerton Avenue and westbound drivers
on East Grand Avenue.
East Grand A venue/Littlefield A venue
More than a two percent increase in traffic during the AM peak hour (2.90/0
increase) at a location with Base Case LOS F operation.
South Airport Boulevard/Utah A venue
Change in AM peak hour operation from LOS D to an unacceptable LOS E.
Forbes Boulevard/Allerton A venue
Change in AM peak hour all-way-stop operation from LOS C to an
unacceptable LOS E.
South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell A venue
More than a two percent increase in traffic during the PM peak hour (8.60/0
increase) at a location with Base Case LOS F operation.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-55
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.l0l Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp
More than a two percent increase in traffic during the AM peak hour (5.80/0
increase) at a location with Base Case LOS E operation.
These would be significant impacts.
Mitigation
Measure 13-3
Intersection Modifications. Modifications are recommended for the
following intersections:
East Grand A venue/ Allerton A venue Intersection
. Prohibit left turns from Allerton Avenue to East Grand Avenue until the
intersection is signalized-or-Cut back the hillside on the northeast
corner of the intersection to improve sight lines to/from the east to at
least 400 feet.
. Stripe a left turn lane on the eastbound intersection approach. This will
require removal of parking on the south side of East Grand Avenue.
. Provide a fair share contribution towards having the intersection
signalized by the time of project occupancy-or-provide signalization
when construction is complete and receive paybacks from other local
developments as they are constructed.
(All needed for Base Case operation.)
Resultant Operation
AM Peak Hour: LOS B-13.2 seconds average vehicle delay
PM Peak Hour: LOS C-25.6 seconds average vehicle delay
This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
East Grand A venue/Littlefield A venue Intersection
. Widen the northbound Littlefield Avenue approach to provide two
intersection approach lanes. Stripe as one exclusive right turn lane and a
combined left/ through/ right turn lane (needed for Base Case operation).
Resultant Operation
AM Peak Hour: LOS D-38.4 seconds average vehicle delay
This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-56
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
South Airport Boulevard/Utah A venue Intersection
· Restripe one of the northbound South Airport Boulevard through lanes
as a shared through/right turn lane.
Resultant Operation
AM Peak Hour: LOS C-32.1 seconds average vehicle delay
This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Forbes Boulevard/Allerton A venue Intersection
· Sign the intersection as an all-way-stop.
Resultant Operation
AM Peak Hour: LOS B-14.1 seconds average vehicle delay
This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Mitchell/Mitchell A venue
Intersection
· Add a second through lane on the westbound Mitchell Avenue approach
(needed for acceptable Base Case operation).
· Add a second right turn lane on the southbound Gateway Boulevard
approach.
Resultant Operation
PM Peak Hour: LOS C-28.2 seconds average vehicle delay
This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp
· There are no physical improvements at this intersection considered
feasible by City of South San Francisco staff to improve operation to
Base Case conditions or better.
This impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-57
Impact 13-4
Mitigation
Measure 13-4
Impact 13-5
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Year 2020 Project Intersection Level of Service Impacts. Tables 13-1 and
13-2 show that Project traffic would produce a significant impact at the
following intersection in 2020.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 1 01 Southbound Flyover
Off- Ramp
More than a two percent increase in traffic during the AM peak hour (a 5.30/0
increase) at a location with Base Case LOS F operation, and more than a two
percent increase in traffic during the PM peak hour (a 3.60/0 increase) at a
location with Base Case LOS F operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S. 1 01 Southbound Flyover
Off-Ramp
. There are no physical improvements at this intersection considered
feasible by City of South San Francisco staff to improve operation to
Base Case conditions or better.
This impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Year 2008 and 2020 Project Intersection Queuing Impacts. Table 13-3
shows that the proposed Project would not increase acceptable year 2008
95th percentile Base Case queuing at any of the three analyzed off-ramps to
unacceptable levels during either the AM or PM peak hours. In addition, the
proposed project would not add any traffic to the left turn movements on
the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach during the AM peak hour
which would have 95th percentile queuing just slightly exceeding available
storage lengths. This would be a less-than-significant impact in 2008.
Table 13-10 shows that in the year 2020 the proposed Project would not add
any traffic to those left turn movements on the Oyster Point Boulevard east
and westbound approaches during the AM and/or PM peak hours which
would have 95th percentile queuing exceeding available storage lengths.
While the 50th percentile queue in the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard
left turn lane would be within acceptable limits with or without the project,
the 50th percentile queue in the eastbound left turn lane would still exceed
available storage during the AM peak hour. However, since the proposed
project would not add any traffic to this movement, it would not be a
significant impact for this movement. The proposed Project would also not
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-58
Mitigation
Measure 13-5
Impact 13-6
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
increase acceptable year 2020 95th percentile Base Case queuing at any of the
three analyzed off-ramps to unacceptable levels during either the AM or PM
peak traffic hours. However, the project would increase AM peak hour
volumes more than two percent (2.20/0) at the northbound off-ramp
intersection to South Airport Boulevard/W ondercolor Lane, where 95th
percentile Base Case volumes would already be exceeding available storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Signal Phasing Adjustment. The following adjustment is recommended:
S. Airport BoulevardjU.S.l0l Northbound RampsjWondercolor Lane
Signal phasing adjustments recommended to mitigate Base Case AM peak
hour off-ramp queuing would also provide acceptable Base Case + Project
95th percentile off-ramp queuing and intersection level of service.
Resultant Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS D - 48.5 seconds vehicle delay, 1,665 feet of 95th
percentile off-ramp vehicle storage demand (with 1,675 feet of available
storage)
This would reduce the impact to a level of less than significant.
Project Driveways. The Project will be served by two driveways on East
Grand Avenue and by one driveway on the Cabot Road cul-de-sac. The
Cabot Road driveway connection would connect to the cul-de-sac directly
opposite the extension of Cabot Road to the east. Driveways from three
other businesses also connect to the cul-de-sac, and based upon volume
levels at Allerton Avenue, have low traffic volumes. Sight lines should be
acceptable to/from all driveways connecting to the Cabot Road cul-de-sac
(including to/from the project driveway) allowing a "see and be seen" flow
of traffic through the cul-de-sac area.
The Project's easterly driveway connection to East Grand Avenue would be
limited to right turns in and out only by the raised median along East Grand
Avenue. It will be located about 140 feet west of the signalized Littlefield
Avenue intersection and about 600 feet east of the signalized main project
access intersection. East Grand Avenue is level and straight in the project
area and sight lines are excellent at both driveway locations.
The westerly driveway intersection along East Grand Avenue is now
signalized and also serves the Britannia Point Grand parking lot on the south
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-59
Mitigation
Measure 13-6
Impact 13-7
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
side of East Grand Avenue. A 1 00- foot-long left turn lane is provided in the
median of East Grand Avenue on the eastbound approach to this project
entrance. As shown in Tables 13-1 and 13-2, operation of this signalized
intersection would be acceptable during the AM peak hours in 2008 or 2020
(at LOS C) and would be just acceptable during the PM peak hours in 2008
or 2020 (at LOS D). However, during the AM peak hour, the 95th percentile
queue of inbound traffic using this left turn lane could extend about 275 feet
in both 2008 and 2020 (i.e. 11 vehicles at 25 feet per vehicle). During the
PM peak hour the 95th percentile queue would be five cars in 2008 and six
cars in 2020. Inbound project vehicles frequently extending out of the
existing 100-foot-long left turn pocket and blocking the flow of eastbound
through traffic would be a significant operational and safety concern.
This would be a significant impact.
Lane Extension. Extend the left turn lane on the eastbound East Grand
Avenue approach to the Project's signalized entrance by 200 feet. There are
about 200 feet of landscaped median in which to make this improvement (to
the east of the Roebling Road intersection). This would reduce the Project's
impact to a level of less than significant.
Internal Circulation. A two-lane loop road would circle the proposed
campus of four buildings. It would connect to the two driveways providing
access to East Grand Avenue as well as to the garage in the north section of
the site.
All internal surface lot driveways would accommodate two-way traffic flow
as would parking aisles in the garage. All parking aisles would be 25 feet
wide, which would meet City code and good traffic engineering practice
criteria. Parking stalls would be 90-degree throughout the site. The Cabot
Road cul-de-sac would access a different level of the parking garage than
would the loop road circling the project office buildings.
One area of concern with the internal circulation system layout is the eight
parking aisle connections to the loop road that intersect at 45 to 60 degrees
rather than a preferred 90 degrees. In addition, parking and backing
maneuvers to/from some of the parking stalls near many of these 45- to 60-
degree connections could impact traffic flow on the loop road.
These would be significant impacts.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-60
Mitigation
Measure 13-7
Impact 13-8
Mitigation
Measure 13-8
Impact 13-9
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
The following actions are recommended:
· Eliminate parking stalls that will result in parking or backing maneuvers
onto the project loop road; and
· Channelize 30- to 45-degree parking aisle connections with the loop road
to 80- or 90-degree connections.
This would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Site Parking. The 540,000 square feet of office/R&D development would
provide a total of 1,529 parking spaces (404 surface spaces and 1,125 garage
spaces). This is 91.50/0 of the 1,670 spaces that would be required by City
code. The City of South San Francisco promotes reduction in parking from
City zoning standards as a way to support trip reduction goals required per
the City's TDM ordinance and supported by various policies in the General
Plan (G.P. Policies 4.3-1-8, 11 and 12).
No mitigation is required.
On-Site Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation. Sidewalks will be maintained
along the project's East Grand Avenue and Cabot Road cul-de-sac frontages.
Sidewalks will also be provided along the interior of the project's internal lop
road as well as through the office campus. One sidewalk connection will be
made from the office campus to the sidewalk along East Grand Avenue near
the southeast corner of the site, while no sidewalk connection is proposed
from the site to the Cabot Road sidewalk. Pedestrians accessing the Cabot
Road sidewalk would need to use the garage driveway. The East Grand
Avenue pedestrian access would be provided by both stairs and a ramp and
would be a potential location for a shuttle stop. The lack of a defined
sidewalk connection from the project site to Cabot Road would produce
safety concerns and would be a significant impact.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-61
CHAPTER 13: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Mitigation
Measure 13-9
System Improvements. Provide a sidewalk connecting Cabot Way with the
internal campus sidewalk system, or to a garage elevator which will provide
access to the internal campus sidewalk system.
This measure would reduce the Project's impact to a less than significant
level.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 13-62
17
REFERENCES
17.1 REpORT PREPARERS
Lamphier - Gregory
1944 Embarcadero
Oakland, Ca. 94606
510-535-6690
Lamphier-Gregory
Joan Lamphier, President
Rudy Calderon, Associate Planner
Crane Transportation Group
Mark Crane, Principal
17.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Crane Transportation Group, Traffic Impact Report: 249 East Grand A venue, 2005.
Crane Transportation Group, Revised Trqffic Impact Report: 249 East Grand Avenue, March 2006.
Dowler-Groman Architects, 249 East Grand Avenue Development Plan, June 3,2005.
Dyett & Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October 1999.
Morehouse Associates, 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D Prqject Drqft EIR, September 2004.
Morehouse Associates, 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office R&D Prq/ect Final EIR, February 2005.
Morehouse Associates, East Jamie Court Office R&D Initial Stucfy/ Mitigated Negative Declaration,
September 2002.
249 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT
DRAFT FOCUSED EIR
PAGE 17-1
18
ApPENDICES
ApPENDIXA CALTRANS COMMENT LETTERS
ApPENDIX B TRAFFIC TABLES
ApPENDIX A
TATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
ARNOLD SCHW ARZENEGGER. Governor
JEP ARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
.11 GRAND AVENUE
). O. BOX 23660
)AKLAND, CA 94623-0660
)HONE (510) 286-5505
~AX (510) 286-5559
:TY (800) 735-2929
@".'
.;\ ._..010
: !.
=,,; ~
.~~ ~-~.
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient!
November 22, 2005
RECEIVED
NOV 2 8 2005
PLANNING
SMI01408
SM-I01-22.14
SCH2005042121
Ms. Susy Kalkin
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Dear Ms. KaIkin:
249 East Grand Avenue OfficelR&D Project - Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR)
Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation
(Department) in the environmental review process for the above-referenced project.
Our primary concern with the project is the potentially significant impact it may have to
traffic volume and congestion. Although Section 13, Transportation and Circulation
addressed most of our concerns, the Department needs to review the traffic operational
analysis input data to be more thorough in our review.
Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please
call Alice Jackson of my staff at (510) 286-5988.
Sincerely,
(7fo . .". J /1;'1
I, R 1 -="> _'" ; / I
. ~ y=---~ -71 /) \ II l
~ Po r <;. '< If" f p~
f J if }I~~ j: i, ~ { . \r> I fI,,"i J1, il
\,j I'd' Vir \.~"'" . ,.. b ~,,=>.,f
TIMOTHVc. SABLE
District Branch Chief
IGR/CEQA
c: Scott Morgan (State Clearinghouse)
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
TATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor
lEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
.11 GRAND AVENUE
). O. BOX 23660
)AKLAND, CA 94623-0660
lHONE (510) 286-5505
i'AX (510) 286-5559
rTY (800) 735-2929
~., .~...:. t. 0;.
Eo ~
~~p ~.\.
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient!
December 23, 2005
RECEIVED
JAN 0 4 ZOOS 2.CCW
PLANNING
SMI01408
SM-I01-22.14
SCH200504212
Ms. Susy Kalkin
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Dear Ms. Kalkin:,
249 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project - Traffic Operational Analysis
Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation
(Department) in the environmental review process for the above-referenced project.
We have reviewed the Traffic Operational Analysis in conjunction with the Draft
Environmental Impact Report, dated October 2005. We have found that several pages of
the calculation sheets are missing from the package. Please provide us with a complete
package for our review and comment. A 95% queue analysis for intersections #1 and 4
through 10 should be included.
The trips generated by this project will produce significant impacts to segments of US
101. Therefore, mitigation measures to reduce those impacts should be provided. All
mitigation measures proposed should be fully discussed, including financing, scheduling,
implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring.
Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please
call Alice Jackson of my staff at (510) 286-5988.
Sincerely,
t~2~
District Branch Chief
IGRlCEQA
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
ApPENDIX B
APPENDIX TABLE B-1
LEVEL OF SERVICE
CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR
ALL..WA Y STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service
Averaqe Control Delav Per Vehicle (in seconds)
A
B
C
o ~ 10
>10-15
> 15 - 25
o
> 25 - 35
E
F
> 35 - 50
> 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.
Santee: I-lighJvq)I Capad!}ll\tJoJlJla! 2000, Transportation Research Board.
APPENDIX TABLE B.2
LEVEL OF SERVICE
AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY RELATIONSHIP FOR
TWO.WAY STOP CONTROL
(SIDE STREET STOP SIGN CONTROL) INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service
Averaqe Control Delay Per Vehicle (in seconds)
A
0-10
B
> 10 -15
C
> 15 - 25
o
> 25 - 35
E
> 35 - 50
F
> 50
Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move up ti.tne to first in line at the intersection,
stopped delay as fust car in queue, and final acceleration delay.
Salltce: High]}Jc!JI Capad(y J\1aJ/JIt//2000, TranSpoltation Research Board.
APPENDIX TABLE 8-3
WA~TS.FOR PROVISION OF LEFT TURN LANES
Intersection Channelization Guide
Highway Research Program, Report #279. TRB, November 1985.
NOTE WHEN Vo < <\00 VPH Id~lhHj hnrl, A I.EFT-TURN LANE IS NOT NORMALLY
WARRANTED UNLESS THE ADVANCING VOLUME IVaI IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE
LEFT-TURNING TRAFFIC EXCEEDS 400 VPH IV.> 400 VPHI.
1COO
~1X:t
IVPHI
"'
..,
5
C
>
g
;:;
~
5
I I
2 . lANE IlOAO
I I
I
I
I
-
ii: 1500
>
uJ
::::
:J
:::
;; 1000
0
::::
in
0
...
lZ..
0 soo
0
;:l>
UFT.nJIlH TRUTL-HIT
......"/l....,.T~l) lac "~H
I I
I . I
LEFT 'tUPlh! Ire y....
I
"
>
ICQ
WCl JCO JOO ~
If A AOVANCING VOLUME I VPH I
lCO
100
-
;;
'5J
3
:J
,.
;;
IVI'HI
I I
4, LANE
UNDIVIDED ROAD
I
.5 to \5 20 25
Vl LEFT TURNING VOl.UME IVPH I
APPENDIX TABLE 8..4
PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT #3
(Urban Area)
600
*
*
::r:
a..
>
.
::r:
I- U
U! <t
U! 0 400
a: a:
I- a.
CJ) Co
~ ~ 300
z ::a
5E :J
g 200
::J:
Cl
5: 100
500
o
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
MAJOR STREET.. TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
* 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: Year 2003 Manual or Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Federal Highway Administration
~ ~
~ Caltrans Urban Area Peak Hour Volume Warrant #3
~RANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
~ ~
APPENDIX TABLE 8.5
Accolmting of C/CAG Off-Peale Trip Credits
i~~I}~~);fl~~~~f~~!!f~l~~~~:~:~}I{~~lir~;!l!~r.\~~~(~' p~\~~~ i~i~jjl:: :\:~~~r
Bicycle Parking - long-Term ( Gass I)
Bicycle Parldng - Short-Term (Class II)
Total Bicycle Storage 45 0.33 15
Carpool and Vanpool Ridematching Service 1 0 0
Designated Employer Contact 1 5 5
Direct Route to Transit 1 0 0
Free Parking for Carpool and Vanpools 100% 0 0
Gucu'anteed Ride Home (assumes 4 tenants) 4 1 4
Information Boards / IGosks 4 5 20
Passenger Loading Zones 1 5 5
Pedestrian. Connections 1 5 5
Preferential Carpool Parking 150 2 300
Preferential Vanpool Parking 3 7 21
PrOll1.otional Programs 1 0 0
Showers / Clothes Lockers 8 10 80
Additional Credit for combination with. bicycle locl<ers 1 5 5
Shuttle Program (assumes 8% ridership - 108 employees) 108 1 108
Additional Credit for Guaranteed Ride Home program 108 1 108
Transportation Management Association Participation 1 5 5
!if.1;~~!f~)Ki~W.~~~[&m)j1il';1;\i)~)i~r:;:t~!;,i:~f;~.~~l!{$~r6'tQf~IrQf~,t.l ijAGte~a.i~trnp;s::ei~i~t;~}l I ~\i,:+ C~?:\C f~~::.;~ ~:JM '';;':'~:S'''::'.:'~~'. "..,'i. :~~r~t6'8]j;\
;.": .c.. "- .-' .. ... "... ,-
Additional TDM Measures
Bicvcle Connections 1 5 5
Future Transit Facilities / Bus Shelter 1 0 0
On-site amenities (Exercise facilitv, restaurant) 3 1 3
Additional Credit for combination of any 10 elements 1 5 5
.Annual Employee Commute Survey 1 1.5 1.5
Campus Transportation Coordinator 1 20 20
Transportation Fair 1 5 5
';:;t~~;j~:?~~:rs,:i~(\t;t:;;~~~!F)f:rtj~: \'~!iH~1U~!~;k!i:i;);~:~;r sAiJ..fot~1>6'f 1A adi#di1~(Me;a::~'ttt!~i3 ;., . ...; ..... ::::'. ,>::::.};;:~} ';'ii.~:. ',:;U~$4~5~:r;'
I !:,';: ";~:-".;; :'.: '::::... 'ii, '.'" ..;,....
." .:.,
\:~{;fH:~1;;i::\:.!:~:::{~~,.~~iE\.tt;:L~:;1i;):,:.i.~;hX1':YrQt'ifJ(G!~AG;i.E,eM~;rr.rip'$:~:Gi~ai i:~~a I ::{~g~X~\ ;:t;~\~ :.,~,;:;, ~L7:1.-$~:4/:
'.\'.:;
.':' .::'.:.;. :"c'; . ".~'::.,;,. .....:....