Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCostco Final EIR 08-1999Final Environmental Impact Report Project Costco Facility S CH# 99032047 Lead Agency: City of South San Francisco August, 1999 Introduction and Project Description A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed project was prepared and circulated from Apri130 to June 14, 1999. The proposed project includes construction of a new retail/wholesale warehouse facility on the east side of El Camino Real (State Route 82) approximately 1,200 feet south of the intersection of El Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard. The street address of the property is 1556 El Camino Real. Assessor's Parcel Number for the site is 010-212-070. A Costco Wholesale warehouse sales facility is planned to be located on the northwest corner of the site. This building would include approximately 147,000 gross square feet of floor area in a single story configuration, with primary interior uses being administrative offices, a central receiving area and the sales portion of the building. The building would be used for selling goods and services, including food products, clothing, personal care, household and electronic goods, automotive supplies and similar products for resale, commercial and personal use. Another component of the project would be an automobile gasoline facility to be constructed in conjunction with the warehouse facility. The gasoline facility would be located along the easterly side of the site. Use of the gasoline facility would be restricted to Costco Wholesale members only. Four pump islands under a canopy would be built with 8self-service pumps installed. A maximum of 16 vehicles could be refueled at one time. New underground tanks would be installed as part of the gasoline facility. In addition to the above, up to 50,000 square feet of retail space is proposed to be built on the project site, although specific users and a precise site plan have not been developed. While certification of this EIR would constitute compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for such future development, that development would remain subject to requirements for a future use permit and design review approvals. Under CEQA and implementing CEQA Guidelines, after completion of the Draft EIR, lead agencies are required to consult with and obtain comments from public agencies and organizations having jurisdiction by law over elements of the project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. Lead agencies are also required to respond to substantive comments on environmental issues raised during the EIR review period. The South San Francisco Planning Commission also held a noticed public hearing on the DEIR on June 3, 1999, for the purpose of soliciting comments from the Planning Commission and public. This document contains all public comments received during the 45-day public review process regarding the DEIR and responses to those comments. Included within the document is a summary of each comment followed by a response to that comment. Each EIR comment letter is then printed following the responses. The FEIR also contains addenda and minor corrections to information presented in the DEIR. Addenda to DEIR Project Description The design of the Costco Wholesale warehouse and gasoline facilities has been refined since the application for the use permit was filed, and the description of the project is restated here, including those refinements. The proposed project is a 147,000 square feet member's only Costco Wholesale store and a member's only Costco Wholesale gasoline facility containing 4 islands with 2 dispensers each, for a total of 16 fueling positions, plus a retail center of approximately another 48,000 square feet. The proposed project site is a 20.03 acre portion of a larger property, currently 26.74 acres in size, located on the east side of El Camino Real about 1200 feet southeast of the El Camino Real/Hickey Boulevard intersection. While El Camino Real generally is a north-south roadway, it turns and at the project site runs diagonally to its general north-south alignment. Nevertheless, for reference purposes, project directions shall be stated as if El Camino Real were running north-south. The San Mateo County Transit District ("SamTrans") has filed an action in eminent domain against Costco Wholesale and its subsidiary which owns the land, Costco SSF, LLC. That action seeks to acquire an L-shaped 3.12 acre portion of southern- most part of the property for the Bay Area Rapid Transit District ("BART") South San Francisco Station (the "Station Parcel"); a 2.54 acre portion in the apex of that L under a temporary construction easement through October, 2002, for use as the concrete batch plant for construction of the BART San Francisco Airport Extension (the "Batch Plant Parcel"); a 1.05 acre portion just north of the Batch Plant Parcel as a permanent roadway easement for the Hickey Boulevard extension (the "Roadway Parcel"); and a 0.70 acre portion in the northeasterly corner of the property under a temporary construction easement through October, 2000, for a BART construction staging area. It is anticipated that SamTrans will establish the Station Parcel and the Roadway Parcel as separate parcels from the balance of the property by means of administrative subdivision of these areas, thereby also dividing the Batch Plant Parcel from the balance of the Costco SSF, LLC property. Costco Wholesale is a cash and carry retail/wholesale operation, selling high quality national brands and private label merchandise at low prices for resale, commercial and personal use. It also sells to individuals who are members of selected employee groups. Warehouse hours of operation will be Monday through Friday from 10:00 AM to 8:30 PM, Saturday 9:30 AM to 5:00 PM and Sunday 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page z City of South San Francisco August 1999 In conjunction with the new warehouse, Costco Wholesale is also proposing to construct a gasoline facility that is an ancillary use. The gasoline facility includes eight self-serve dispensers on four pump islands, which totals sixteen fueling positions. Like the warehouse, the gasoline facility is only open to Costco Wholesale members. Members must purchase gas electronically using both their membership card and a credit card or debit card, which except for periodic maintenance, eliminates the need for attendants. The facility is also equipped with video cameras and a Help Phone, both of which are monitored from the Costco Wholesale store during business hours. Hours of operation for the gasoline facility will be from 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM weekdays and 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM weekends. The project site previously was occupied by a Macy's department store distribution warehouse. The warehouse has been demolished. The project site is bordered by a vacant parcel and Colma Creek to the east, El Camino Real to the west, the Roadway Parcel and the Batch Plant Parcel to the south and an existing trailer court to the north. The site is relatively flat and there are no cultural, historic or scenic aspects of note on the property. The Costco Wholesale store and gasoline facility will occupy the northern-most 15.12acres (the "Costco Wholesale Parcel"). Because of the refinements in the project since the filing of Costco Wholesale's application, the anticipated development of the 4.91-acre balance of the site (the "Residual Parcel") has been reduced from the initially envisioned 73,000 square feet. The Residual Parcel is intended to contain retail development and the revised proposal is to provide for approximately 48,000 square feet of retail space on that parcel. There are no current plans for the use or development of the Batch Plant Parcel, and it is not a part of this application. The entire project is designed as single story retail structures with adjacent surface parking. All buildings will be architecturally consistent and the site will be landscaped as per city requirements. Parking spaces on the Costco Wholesale Parcel will number 851 stalls, which exceeds the city code minimum requirement for the Costco Wholesale store. Parking for the intended 48,000 square feet of retail space on the Residual Parcel will be provided on the Residual Parcel. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site will be from El Camino Real by a new signalized drive entrance. 1. Use permit required for: a) Non-residential land uses that generate in excess of 100 average daily vehicle trips b) Sale of gasoline. The Costco Wholesale gasoline facility will strictly be used for the sale and dispensing of fuel to Costco Wholesale members only. Hours of operation will be as described in the gasoline facility description above. Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 3 City of South San Francisco August 1999 c) Ancillary automotive related services. Within the Costco Wholesale retail building approximately 5,200 square feet will be devoted to tire sales and installation. All tire installation will be performed entirely within the building during the normal hours of operation for the warehouse. 2. Design approvals from the South San Francisco Planning Commission regarding Site Plan and Elevations. Pro~ct P_ basing Phase I: Rough grade and install infrastructure for the Costco Wholesale site in addition rough grade and provide necessary future utility connections to the Residual Parcel. Phase II: Construct the Costco Wholesale store and related site improvements, including the full width of the entry drive. Phase III: Develop approximately 48,000 square feet of retail space on the Residual Parcel. Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 4 City of South San Francisco August 1999 Summary of Comment Letters Comment letters were received by the City of South San Francisco during the 45-day public comment period on the DEIR from the following agencies and organizations. Commentator Date 1 Federal Agencies None received -- 2 State Agencies None Received -- 3 Local Agencies 3.1 C/CAG (CMA) 5/19/99 3.2 Town of Colma 6/11/99 3.3 Town of Colma 6/14/99 3.4 Ci of Dal Ci 6/11/99 4 Interested Individuals 4.1 Henn and Etzel 6/15/99 4.2 Smith En ineerin & Mana ement 6/10/99 4.3 RGA Environmental Inc. 6/14/99 5.1 Planning Commission Public Hearing Testimony 6/3/99 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6 5.1.7 5.1.8 5.1.9 5.1.10 Ted Simas, Dennis DeCota, Keith Simas, South San Francisco Planning Commission Commissioner Comment Commissioner Comment Commissioner Comment Commissioner Comment Commissioner Comment Commissioner Comment Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 5 City of South San Francisco August 1999 Responses to Continents This is a summary of each of the comments and the response of the City of South San Francisco. Each letter has been reviewed and divided into smaller comments as noted by annotations in the margin in each of the letters. Each comment is then summarized and responded to below. The full text of each letter with annotations follows this section. Comment 3.1: C/CAG • Comment 3.1.1: The DEIR incorrectly states that the CMP Level of Service in the vicinity of the project is LOS E. The 1997 CMP indicates the correct LOS is D. Response: The CMP LOS standard for I-280 segment from SR1 South to San Bruno Avenue is LOS D. The report shows an error as LOS E, which has been corrected. However this does not change the analysis or the conclusion of no significant impact (see response to Comment 3.1.2). In addition, a more recent analysis of I-280 segments near the project site indicates that project traffic would add 0.73% to existing segment volumes. This would be a less-than- significant impact. • Comment 3.1.2: The DEIR notes that the project would increase traffic on local freeway segments, however, with the subtraction of interregional traffic, impacts of the project would be insignificant. C/CAG staff notes that the project would add significant traffic to the local freeway system. Response: Although the proposed project would increase local traffic congestion, a deficiency plan is not required due to interregional travel credit. CMP roadway segments were evaluated based on San Mateo County CMP guidelines. Under the Near-Term as well as Long-Term Project Conditions, the 1-280 segment between Hickey Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard is projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service F without factoring in CMP-authorized exemptions. According to the CMP guidelines, the 1997 reported LOS for this segment is LOS "E" without exemptions and LOS "A" with exemptions. By adding the background and the project traffic to this segment, the LOS would degrade from "E" to "F." The project would add more traffic to the already deficient roadway segment that would further increase congestion and travel delay. The project would add approximately 0.73% to existing volumes. C/CAG only requires the local jurisdiction to prepare a deficiency plan if the C/CAG biennial monitoring discovers that the standard has degraded from LOS "D" to LOS "F" after certain exemptions such as interregional travel, traffic from freeway ramp metering, traffic from very low income housing, and others are applied. The 1997 LOS "A" with Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 6 City of South San Francisco August 1999 exemptions is based upon the exclusion of interregional trips that do not originate from the vicinity of the segment or local jurisdiction. Based on the 1997 LOS monitoring report, C/CAG may determine that the LOS for this segment assuming project generated traffic, with exclusions, would be "A" or "B." In either event, a deficiency plan would not be required from the City. Nevertheless, and even though the project would contribute a less-than-significant amount of traffic to the freeway, the City will require as a condition of approval of the Use Permit that the project proponent prepare and implement a TDM program (see response to Comment 3.1.3) and participate in an interregional deficiency plan developed through C/CAG. • Comment 3.1.3: The DEIR includes no mitigation for increased freeway volumes in the vicinity of the project. If approved, the development should include a Transportation Demand Management strategy. Response: A condition of Use Permit approval would require the project developer to prepare and implement a TDM program consisting of measures such as employee bicycle parking facilities and lockers, appointment of a transportation coordinator to promote and arrange employee carpooling, and designation of preferred reserved employee parking spaces for the carpools. Additionally, the project and the identified mitigation measures are designed to incorporate some of the specific management strategies suggested in the attachment to the letter from C/CAG, including signalization improvements, turn lanes at intersections, and restrictions on curb-side deliveries and on- street parking. As a condition of approval of the use permit, the TDM program shall be developed in consultation with City of South San Francisco staff and the Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance staff (formerly MTSMA) and shall be subject to the approval of the City of South San Francisco Director of Economic and Community Development. • Comment 3.1.4: Comments made by Daly City indicate that the proposed project would not be consistent with transit opportunities, such as BART and bus service. Response: The City of South San Francisco acknowledges the nearby location of BART facilities. However, the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan which allows for commercial land uses. Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 7 City of South San Francisco August 1999 Comment 3.2: Town of Colma (6/11/99) • Comment 3.2.1: All references in the DEIR should be changed to reflect "Town of Colma." Response: Comment acknowledged. The DEIR should reference Town of Colma and such changes to the DEIR are hereby incorporated by reference into the DEIR. • Comment 3.2.2: Previous correspondence from the Town of Colma indicated that the area located between Mission Road and Colma Creek is designated for mixed use development. Response: Comment acknowledged. The DEIR hereby incorporates this information by reference. • Comment 3.2.3: The Initial Study notes that approval of the proposed project could induce growth on other properties in South San Francisco, leading to possible traffic, air quality, population and housing impacts. Which properties in the area could redevelop? Response: Anticipated growth inducing and cumulative impacts associated with the project have been addressed in Sections 6.4 and 6.5 of the DEIR. Specific properties in the area of the project that may be expected to redevelop include the Batch Plant Parcel after October, 2002, and the property on Mission Road in the Town of Colma east of the project. It is expected, however, that the South San Francisco BART Station, including the extension of Hickey Boulevard from EI Camino Real to Mission Road, will be the primary inducement to such growth, far overshadowing any growth-inducing impacts of the Costco Wholesale project. The growth-inducing impacts of the BART station have been analyzed in the EIS/EIR for the BART San Francisco Airport Extension and have been included in the 2010 background project conditions for purposes of the present EIR and analysis. • Comment 3.2.4: The Initial Study notes that the project would have no impact with respect to noise and there is no discussion on noise in the DEIR. Response: A subsequent acoustic impact analysis was recently prepared for the project by the firm of Giroux and Associates. The full text of this analysis is contained in the Acoustic Appendix. The analysis confirms that there would be no significant noise impacts related to the construction or operation of the project. Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 8 City of South San Francisco August 1999 • Comment 3.2.5: The Town of Colma has concerns related to traffic impacts of the proposed project. Such concerns will be forwarded in a separate letter. Response: Comment acknowledged. A second letter was submitted to the City of South San Francisco on June 14, 1999. See Letter 3.3, following. • Comment 3.2.6: The Town of Colma recommends that a cross section be provided through the project site to identify potential aesthetic impacts on properties within the Town. Response: See elevation drawings and cross-section drawings in the Appendix. • Comment 3.2.7: Identify the "other" source used to evaluate aesthetics referenced in the DEIR. Response: The other source was a review of the proposed site plan for the project. Comment 3.3: Town of Colma (6/14/99) • Comment 3.3.1: Signalization of the Mission Boulevard/El Camino Real is not in the best interest of the Town of Colma at this time. Response: Comment acknowledged. No further response necessary. • Comment 3.3.2: The Town of Colma recommends a 30% fair share contribution for the traffic signal for the Mission Boulevard/El Camino Real intersection. Response: The intersection of El Camino Real/Mission Boulevard is operating at Level of Service (LOS) F under existing conditions. Even without the addition of project traffic, this intersection is projected to operate at LOS F in the Years 2000 and 2010. The addition of Project traffic to this poorly operating intersection would further deteriorate the operating conditions. Under this situation, the Project is not responsible for direct improvements. Section 15126.4 (a) (4) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that mitigation measures must be consistent with all applicable constitutional requirements, including that there be an essential nexus (connection) between the mitigation measure and a legitimate governmental interest (citing Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825); that the Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 9 City of South San Francisco August 1999 mitigation measure be "roughly proportional" to the impacts of the project (citing Dolan v. Cit~of Tigard (1994) 513 U.S. 374); and that where the mitigation measure is an ad hoc exaction, it must be "roughly proportional" to the impacts (citing Ehrlich v. Chu of Culver Cite (1996) 12 Cal 4th 854). As confirmed by the California Supreme Court in Ehrlich, these same requirements of the United States Constitution are also mandated by California Government Code Section 66000 et. seq. (also known as AB 1600 and the Mitigation Fee Act). In the present case, there is an essential nexus between a mitigation measure designed to offset traffic congestion and the governmental interest in providing safe and effective public streets and highways. The project, however, would account for only a relatively small proportion of the traffic which would necessitate the intersection improvements (ranging from 1.4% at the Grand Avenue/Chestnut Avenue intersection, to 14.1% at the Hickey Boulevard/Hilton Avenue intersection if the Residual Parcel were to be developed to 73,000 square feet of retail space), and to require the project to make improvements directly would violate the cited constitutional and statutory requirements. Therefore, the traffic analysis has determined the proportion of traffic attributable to the project at each impacted intersection during the weekday PM peak hour when traffic is worst and presents the conditions which the intersection improvements are designed to alleviate. The project will then be assessed a percentage of the anticipated cost of those improvements equal to its proportion of the traffic. In this way, the mitigation measure is an ad hoc exaction, which is roughly proportional to the impacts of the project and represents the project's fair share contribution. The project's fair share contribution for the Mission Boulevard/EI Camino intersection is calculated, at 3.6 percent. As the intersection is beyond the jurisdictional limits of the City of South San Francisco, the City would estimate the dollar amount of the project's fair share contribution to the cost of signalizing the intersection and the City would reserve that amount for disbursement to the Town of Colma/Caltrans when they determine to signalize the intersection.. Comment 3.4: City of Daly City • Comment 3.4.1: The intersections of Hickey Boulevard/Gellert Boulevard and Serramonte Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard should be included in the analysis. Response: These intersections have been studied in response to the above comment. The existing PM intersection analysis for the Hickey Boulevard/Gellert Boulevard intersection indicates LOS D. The year 2010 PM Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 10 City of South San Francisco August 1999 analysis with and without the project traffic also indicates an acceptable LOS D. Therefore, no significant impact is identified. Based on the recent traffic data collection for the Serramonte Boulevard/junipero Serra Boulevard intersection, the existing condition analysis indicates a level of service C during both the weekday PM and the weekend afternoon peak hours. With the addition of project traffic, this intersection is projected to operate at level of service C at both the weekday PM and weekend afternoon peak hours in both the Near-Term and Long- Term. Therefore, no significant impact is identified. • Comment 3.4.2: The proposed development should comply with the 1995 CMP. At some intersections, it appears that the DEIR uses a different parameter to determine LOS. The EIR should outline why different parameters were used and how each intersection complies with CMP intersection LOS definitions. Response: Refer to the comment and response 3.1.1 from C/CAG and the response thereto. Through its design and the proposed mitigation measures, the project is intended to comply with the Final Congestion Management Agency Program for 1997, which is the applicable CMP until the next revision estimated to occur approximately on December 1, 1999. The authorizing legislation for the congestion management program, California Government Code Section 65088, et. seq., provides that level of service (LOS) shall be measured by Circular 212, by the most recent Highway Capacity Manual, or by a uniform methodology adopted by C/CAG and approved by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Government Code Section 65089 (b) (1) (A). For purposes of measuring impacts on CMP network roadway segments and intersections, C/CAG has adopted Circular 212, volume-to- capacity ratio methodology, apparently because in a 1991 survey that methodology was being used by a plurality of the responding San Mateo County cities (1997 CMP, page 3.5). However, the CMP provides, on pages 6-4 to 6-5, "Jurisdictions may use their own site traffic impact analyses, their own travel forecasting models or C/CAG's Travel Demand Forecasting Model to assess the impacts of large development proposals on the CMP network. If a jurisdiction uses its own travel forecasting model to assess impacts, it must be consistent with MTC's regional model and C/CAG's modeling and measurement standards. This flexibility between Circular 212 and the Highway Capacity Manual methodologies is possible because both rely on similar data and measurement standards for their analyses, so that they are consistent. In compliance with these provisions, the long-term (2010) traffic analysis for the proposed project actually uses a special model prepared for the BART SFO extension project, based on the MTC regional model for travel forecasting. Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 11 City of South San Francisco August 1999 The traffic analysis measures LOS in accordance with the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual. To assure consistency in LOS computations and measurement standards, the project traffic study also uses C/CAG's Circular 212 methodology to compute LOS for the I-280 and El Camino Real roadway segments. These roadway segments are the only parts of the CMP network which would be impacted by the project. There are no CMP network intersections located within the study area, so C/CAG has not calculated LOS for any of the intersections that would be impacted by the proposed project. Without C/CAG intersections ratings to which to compare project impacts, the City of South San Francisco elected to use the Highway Capacity Manual methodology because this methodology is based primarily on average stopped delay time per vehicle, it is more indicative of driver discomfort and frustration, and it encompasses other parameters including volume-to- capacity ratios. • Comment 3.4.3: When determining intersection LOS using the CMP method, both Hickey Boulevard/I-280 intersections show worse LOS than reported in the DEIR. Response: See response to Comment 3.4.2. According to the CMP guidelines, there are no CMP intersections in the study area that should be analyzed using the CMP method. • Comment 3.4.4: The DEIR states that the CMP LOS standard for I-280 from Hickey Boulevard to Westborough Boulevard is LOS E. The 1995 CMP defines LOS standard for this segment as LOS D. Response: Comment acknowledged. Refer to the aforementioned response to Comment 3.1.1 from C/CAG. • Comment 3.4.5: It is unclear if the DEIR is addressing the AM or PM peak period. Please clarify this and also include an analysis of peak weekend conditions. Response: The draft traffic impact analysis addresses the PM peak hour analysis. Costco Wholesale attracts more traffic on the weekend than on weekdays, but existing conditions were assumed to include less traffic on the weekend so that the weekday PM peak would present the worst case. Based on this assumption, the weekend was excluded from the scope of the traffic study for the DEIR. The validity of this scoping decision was tested in response to the above comment and Comment 4.2.13 by determining Saturday peak trips and Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 12 City of South San Francisco August 1999 examining their impact on the critical intersections. Those intersections were selected because of proximity to the project (EI Camino Real/Hickey Boulevard and El Camino Real/Mid-Peninsula Driveway), positioning between the project and its primary freeway access (Junipero Serra $oulevard/Hickey Boulevard) and relation to other Saturday traffic generating locations and specific request of Daly City per Comment 3.4.1 (Gellert Boulevard/Hickey Boulevard and Junipero Serra Boulevard/Serramonte Boulevard). The Saturday peak hour project traffic is higher than the weekday project traffic. The proposed project would generate 639 inbound and 639 outbound new trips during the Saturday afternoon (1:00 to 2:00 p.m.) peak hour. Table 4A contained in the Traffic Appendix provides the trip generation data. Based upon the Costco Wholesale trip generation rate, the year 2000 and 2010 weekend analysis at the most critical intersections shows that all of the above-referenced intersections would operate at level of service standard D or better (shown in Table 5 of the Traffic Appendix) during the Saturday afternoon peak hour. Hence, additional weekend analysis for other intersections is not indicated. • Comment 3.4.6: The DEIR should include an expanded discussion of background traffic. The DEIR text mentions a number of new residential projects in the area, but with minimal changes to volume to capacity ratios at the Hickey/I-280 intersection. It appears unlikely that the Hickey/I-280 will be unaffected, since this would be the main access route to the project. Include project trip generation and distribution for approved projects in the area to show which roadways are projected to be used as access routes. Response: Traffic Appendix B, Table 6 provides the background project trip generation data. The background projects generate 641 trips during the PM peak hour. Trips at the intersections for the background projects were obtained from the previous traffic reports undertaken by the City of South San Francisco. Please refer to individual project traffic impact analysis reports for trip distributions, which are available at the City of South San Francisco. The primary access routes are Hickey Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard. • Comment 3.4.7: How were traffic standards of significance developed? They do not appear to be consistent with the 1995 CMP. Conformance with these standards is strongly recommended. Response: Standards of significance used to evaluate traffic and circulation impacts are based on standards contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 13 City of South San Francisco August 1999 • Comment 3.4.8: Although the DEIR indicates that the LOS for some intersections would be unchanged, intersection delay and volume to capacity ratios are significantly affected. Intersection LOS is at or near its low in many instances. Response: Comment acknowledged. Traffic impacts of the proposed project are based upon the level of service standard set by the City and not on a change in delay or volume to capacity ratio within a level of service. • Comment 3.4.9: Daly City will require mitigation of any negative impact at City intersections as a result of project traffic. Response: CEQA requires mitigation of i ' a t negative environmental impacts to a level of less than significant. All of the proposed project significant traffic impacts during the worst-case evening peak hour, and required mitigation measures are identified in the Project Traffic Impact Analysis. • Comment 3.4.10: Are long-term traffic impacts outlined in the DEIR consistent with similar projections completed for other projects in the area, specifically the BART station? Response: Yes, the year 2010 traffic forecasts were obtained from BART long term projections that include traffic from the BART station (Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff Memorandum dated April 3 and April 21, 1998 addressed to BATC). • Comment 3.4.11: Intersection analyses, including LOS and queuing distance for turn lanes, should be provided for all intersections within Daly City. Response: The Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix provides the intersection analysis for the study intersections identified by the lead agency and the results of queuing requirements. The analysis sheets provide the traffic queue numbers at each intersection. The Traffic Impact Analysis and Appendix has been available at the City of South San Francisco. The City, as lead agency, selected the study intersections based on Costco Wholesale demographic information, proximity of intersections to the proposed project and possibility for impact. Th following additional intersections were requested to be analyzed by the City of Daly City: • I-280 SB off-ramp/Serramonte Blvd.; Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR rayG iw City of South San Francisco August 1999 • I-280 NB off-ramp/Serramonte Blvd. • Junipero Serra Blvd./Serramonte Blvd.; • El Camino Real Blvd./Serramonte Blvd. The results of the additional analysis show that all of the project intersections are currently operating in a satisfactory condition for the weekday PM condition. The most congested intersections are Junipero Serra Blvd./Serramonta Blvd. and El Camino Real/Serramonte Blvd. The results of the analysis are as follows. Intersection Existing PM Year 2000 Year 2000 Year 2010 Year 2010 Peak Hour Background Project PM Background Project PM LOS PM Peak Peak Hour PM Peak Peak Hour Hour LOS LOS Hour LOS LOS 1-280 SB off- ramp/Serramonte B B B B B Blvd 1-280 NB off- ramp/Serramonte A A A A A Blvd Junipero Serra Blvd./Serramonte C C C C C Blvd. El Camino Real Blvd./Serramonte D D D C D Blvd In conclusion, the project would have no significant impact to these four intersections in the City of Daly City. Since other AM and Saturday analyses also showed no significant impacts to any study intersections, it is expected that the same results would occur at these intersections (see response to Comment 3.4.1 confirming this expectation with regard to Junipero Serra Boulevard/Serramonte Boulevard during weekend PM peak hours). Further, since no significant impacts would occur at these intersections, it is reasonable to conclude that other intersections in the City of Daly City farther away from the project would not experience significant impacts from project traffic. • Comment 3.4.12: Daly City believes the proposed development is incompatible with regional transportation improvements near the project site. Residential land uses would be better served for the project site than the proposed project, given the presence of a nearby BART station and local bus service. There is no discussion of compatibility with the 1995 CMP. Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 15 City of South San Francisco August 1999 Response: The proposed project has been designed to be consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan. Please refer to the comment and response from C/CAG (Comment 3.1.1) regarding consistency with the County CMP. • Comment 3.4.13: The FEIR must address land use compatibility of the proposed project given the public transit efficiency within the area. Daly City requests a written response from South San Francisco that the County of San Mateo has reviewed and accepted the FEIR in reference to CMP compliance. Response: The previous use of the site was as a warehouse facility for a major retail operation, including warehouse-direct sales to customers. The proposed use of the site represents a continuation of the previous type of use of the property. The DEIR addresses all impacts associated with the project, including traffic, air quality and aesthetics. A subsequent acoustic analysis has been prepared based on the request of Daly City and confirms that no significant acoustic impact would result should the project be constructed. See Acoustic Appendix. The DEIR was circulated to C/CAG as the Congestion Management Agency for the County of San Mateo, in accordance with CEQA requirements. Please refer to Comment 3.1 for comments from C/CAG regarding consistency with the County CMP. • Comment 3.4.14: Noise impacts of the proposed project have not been addressed. Two schools and residential uses exist in the area which could be impacted by project related noise. Response: Comment acknowledged. Noise impacts were not addressed in the DEIR because of the lack of such impacts by the comparable prior use of the property. In response to the specific request from Daly City, however, an acoustic study has been prepared for the project by the firm of Giroux and Associates and confirms the lack of impact. The full text of the acoustic report is included in the Appendix. Comment 4.1: Henn & Etzel • Comment 4.1.1: The DEIR is inadequate because the South San Francisco General Plan is missing two of the seven mandatory elements, Safety and Conservation, and these elements have an essential nexus to the analysis of project impacts. Response: The South San Francisco General Plan does adequately address safety and conservation issues. There is no requirement that a general plan consist of seven separate elements. The analysis contained in the existing general plan addresses the required elements and any challenge based on Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 16 City of South San Francisco August 1999 alleged inadequacies is time-barred. A challenge to the proposed project based on an argument of invalidity of the City's General Plan is untimely, since State law establishes that one cannot make an untimely collateral attack on a City's General Plan as the basis for challenging a specific project approval. (See, e.g., A Local and Regional Monitor v. Citt~o Los Angeles ("ALARM") (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 630, 20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 228) With regard to the issues necessary for an adequate safety element, the existing General Plan does address the presence of the San Andreas Fault through the westerly portion of the City and identifies a policy requiring further analysis of potential development on unstable slopes (General Plan Land Use ,Circulation and Transportation Element, p. 3-2., Policy 4.) The project site for the proposed development, however, is generally level and is thus not subject to the requirement for further study based on the General Plan policy. Nonetheless, given the soil compaction as analyzed in the EIR and Kleinfelder report, which was part of the EIR, specific mitigation measures were included to address potential impacts from seismic activity. See Impact 4-3.1. Similarly, issues required in a Conservation Element, including water supply, are also included in the General Plan. The General Plan specifically concludes that "the supply and storage capacity of the water purveyors in South San Francisco is adequate to meet present needs and intensity of growth projected in the General Plan (General Plan Land Use, Circulation and Transportation Elements, p. 3-30). The General Plan also contains discussion of the preservation and management of natural resources including Colma Creek (Id. at 3-24) and flood control protection as related to Colma Creek (Id. at 5-82, Policy A11-2). Comment 4.1.2: The defects in the City's planning and regulatory framework have even graver consequences for the City's ability to approve any land development permit. Response: The City's General Plan is adequate. See response to Comment 4.1.1. • Comment 4.1.3: For the project to be approved, the City must amend the General Plan Land Use Element for Planning Area 11, its Redevelopment Plan for the El Camino Corridor and the Zoning District. The DEIR fails to disclose this information. Response: The provisions of General Plan Planning Area No. 11, Section B only becomes operative upon the City receiving an irrevocable agreement with BART/SamTrans to construct the subway configuration and when there Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 17 City of South San Francisco August 1999 is a guaranteed funding commitment. Although the BART/SamTrans has commenced construction of a facility involving a subway configuration, to date there is not a guaranteed funding commitment for the full amount of the funds including the subway configuration for the full amount of funds, including the subway configuration and the BART South San Francisco station. The primary uncertainty underlying the full funding is the discretionary element of the federal funding component. Specifically, the annual funding of BART is subject to the discretionary approval of the United States Congress. Thus, the BART/SamTrans are subject to receiving lesser amounts of funds on an annual; basis from Congress than are necessary to complete the project. For example, in fiscal year 1998, BART requested 56 million dollars from Congress but only received 29.5 million dollars. In fiscal year 1999, BART requested 74 million dollars from the U.S. Congress, but received only 40 million dollars. BART has been forced to borrow funds to continue with the construction of the project, thereby increasing the overall cost of the project. As costs increase, there is not a guaranty that full funding will be provided for the project from identified sources. The absence of actual full funding prevents the provisions of Section 11-B from becoming operative by their own terms. • Comment 4.1.4: The DEIR appears to have been prepared in an extremely compressed time frame, which did not allow for adequate scoping of impacts. Response: All CEQA-mandated time frames, including a minimum thirty (30) days for the Notice of Preparation and forty five (45) days for public review, have been met. • Comment 4.1.5: The project description is internally inconsistent, does not include all relevant aspects of the project, including reasonable foreseeable future activities, minimizes project impacts and does not list all approvals required for the project. Response: The description of the Costco Wholesale Parcel portion of the project has been refined, as noted in the Addendum section, resulting in the reduction of the retail area to be developed on the Residual Parcel from 73,000 square feet (which was to consist of three proposed pads: 60,000 square feet, 8,000 square feet and 5,000 square feet) envisioned in the project description for the Initial Study in March, 1999, to probable future development of about 48,000 to 50,000 square feet as envisioned by the project description in the DEIR. The holdover reference to the 60,000 square foot building at page 11 of the DEIR was in error but in no way invalidates the DEIR analysis of the reduced project. Instead, the reduced retail area also reduces the environmental impact of the project. Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 18 City of South San Francisco August 1999 The plans for the Costco Wholesale Parcel have become more specific, but the plans for the Residual Parcel have become more general as a result. Rather than three identified pad sizes, the Residual Parcel now is planned for about 50,000 square feet of non-specific retail area. While there are no specific plans for the Residual Parcel, it remains a part of the project because its development with approximately 50,000 square feet of retail area remains a reasonably foreseeable future activity. The Batch Plant Parcel, on the other hand, will continue to be occupied by the BART concrete batch plant until October, 2002, and there are no plans for its development; it may be retail, commercial, residential or mixed use. It will be separated from the balance of Costco Wholesale's property by a major public street and will immediately adjoin the BART station so that it is not a natural extension of the proposed retail development of the Costco Wholesale Parcel and the Residual Parcel. Impacts of unknown possible future development of the Batch Plant Parcel are not required to be analyzed by the DEIR precisely because there is no probable project to analyze, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(B)2. Nevertheless, traffic, which might be generated from development of the Batch Plant Parcel, is accounted for in the cumulative traffic under the long-term (year 2010) scenario. A 40,000 square foot neighborhood shopping center was assumed by BATC under BART projections, which were used for traffic projections for the proposed Costco Wholesale project (Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff Memorandum dated April 3 and April 21, 1998 addressed to BATC). The trip generation for the Costco Wholesale gasoline facility is based upon documented field surveys conducted at similar Costco Wholesale sites. Two surveys were conducted. The first survey includes analysis of four Costco Wholesale gasoline facilities surveyed in 1996 and 1997. Document 1 in Traffic Appendix A provides the results of this study conducted by Entranco, Inc. According to the study, which collected transaction data at each gasoline facility, the trip generation for the weekday evening peak hour varied from 10.67 to 35.33 trips per vehicle fueling position (a single vehicle obtaining gasoline would generate two trips-one trip in and one trip out-and these rates actually represent 5.33 to 17.67 customers obtaining gasoline at each fueling position in one hour). In the Proposed Project Traffic Impact Analysis, a gasoline facility trip generation rate of 35.33 per vehicle fueling position was used. This is the highest trip rate counted in previous studies, and thus represents the conservative worst case analysis. The survey data at the four gasoline facilities indicates an internal capture rate (gasoline facility trips that also include trips to or from the Costco Wholesale warehouse) of between 68% and 77%, with an average internal capture rate of 70 percent. Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 19 City of South San Francisco August 1999 The second survey conducted by DKS Associates, in June of 1998 (Document 2, Traffic Appendix A) at two gasoline facilities indicates an internal capture rate of 56 percent to 70 percent. Based on this sample of six sites, 56 percent on a weekday PM peak hour was too low and out of range compared to all of the other data indicating 70 percent internal capture rate. Therefore, in the Proposed Project traffic study, a 70 percent internal capture rate was used for the gasoline facility trips. The recent DKS Associates study also indicated passer-by trip percentage of 29 and 43 percent for the evening peak hour at two Costco Wholesale sites. These gasoline facility passer-by trips are trips neither going to Costco Wholesale nor coming from Costco Wholesale. The gasoline facility is the sole attraction for these trips from the adjacent existing traffic. The Proposed Project traffic impact analysis was made with a very conservative assumption of only 10 percent passer-by trips for the gasoline facility traffic. In conclusion, the conservative trip generation, average internal utilization, and very conservative passer-by trip assumptions yield a conservative (i.e., high) estimate of trip generation for the proposed project. Costco Wholesale has received a BAAQMD permit for 12,630.000 gallons per yea, not 15,000,000 gallons. Even 12,630,000 gallons includes substantial reserve in excess of anticipated capacity. As found by the Entranco, Inc. Gas Station Study, a typical Costco Wholesale gasoline facility averages about 1700 vehicles per day. This probably is a high average because Entranco's 1996-97 counts included Costco Wholesale sites at which non-Costco Wholesale members were allowed to obtain gas at higher cost than Costco Wholesale members; non-Costco Wholesale members no longer are allowed to obtain gas at any Costco Wholesale facilities.. Costco Wholesale's experience is that the average vehicle obtains 13 gallons of gas. This is higher than industry average because (i) Costco Wholesale customers drive larger than average vehicles, and (ii) since all gas must be paid by credit card, almost all Costco Wholesale gas customers fill their tanks completely. Using these conservatively high numbers, a Costco Wholesale gasoline facility could be expected to pump approximately 22,000 gallons of gasoline per day, 660,000 gallons per month, and 8,000,000 gallons per year to 1700 customers per day, 51,000 customers per month, and 600,000 customers per year. The commentator's use of the 70% internal trip rate also is in error in that he suggests it means 70% of the 8,388 project trips per day will go to both the gasoline and warehouse facilities. Rather it means that 70% of the 1700 customers per day going to the gasoline facility (or about 1,200 customers) also will be going to the warehouse facility. For the reasons stated in the footnote to the response to Comment 4.3.3, Costco Wholesale will install 16 fueling positions in the project but does not expect the increased number of fueling positions to increase the volume of gasoline sold. Even on a vehicle per fueling position basis, however, 16 fueling positions would result in Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 20 City of South San Francisco August 1999 approximately 1,600 gasoline customers per day also shopping at the warehouse. The South San Francisco Planning Department has determined that a warehouse sales facility, such as the proposed Costco Wholesale facility, is a permitted use under the existing P-C-L zoning. Accordingly, the Planned Unit Development permit is not required. • Comment 4.1.6: The analysis section of the DEIR is inadequate. The DEIR should have evaluated an alternative without the gasoline facility and also analyze another alternative assuming a transit oriented design scenario. Response: The DEIR includes a range of alternatives including No Project, multi family residential, and retail commercial development. Analysis of a Costco Wholesale facility without proposed gas pumps was not undertaken because the project sponsor (Costco Wholesale) deems the gasoline facility to be an integral part of the project and its exclusion would not achieve the project objectives. Under CEQA, analysis of alternatives need only relate to the project as a whole, not specific alternatives to parts of the project Rock Mesas Propertl{ Owners Association v Board of Supervisors (2d Dist. 1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 218, 227, 139 Ca1.Rptr. 445). The multi family residential development alternative analysis assumed an average density of 15 units per acre for two reasons. First, this density is comparable with the multi family project currently under construction on the west side of El Camino Real, so that the market feasibility of such an alternative is proven. Second, assuming a higher density multi family project on the site, 40 units per acre, would result in an estimated 300 additional AM peak hour trips than the proposed project and potentially significant impacts to local road networks. Since the mandate of CEQA is to identify and analyze alternatives that would result in reduced impacts, in comparison to the proposed project, analysis of a higher density residential project was not undertaken for the DEIR. To corroborate this scoping decision, estimates of trip generation at 15 and 40 residential units per acre have been prepared and are attached at Table 6, Traffic Appendix B. Among the project alternatives other than the No Project alternative, Alternative 2, the medium density multi family residential development, would be environmentally superior to Alternative 3, the retail commercial development. Alternative 2 may have greater noise and land use impacts than the proposed project, however, and it does not achieve the project objectives of maximizing tax revenues to the City and increasing employment opportunities within the community. Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 21 City of South San Francisco August 1999 ~ Comment 4.1.7: Mitigation measures proposed in the DEIR are inadequate, specifically related to traffic fair share contributions, proposed parking impacts in terms of the nearby BART station, and hazardous materials mitigation measures. Response: Mitigation measures are adequate. Refer to the responses to Comments 3.3.2 and 4.2.9 regarding fair share contributions for traffic and transportation mitigation measures. In terms of parking, the proposed on-site parking is sufficient for the proposed project. The forecasted year 2010 BART traffic accounts for the BART trip generation associated with parking at the BART station (Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff Memorandum dated April 3 and April 21, 1998 addressed to BATC). The near-term analysis, which is typically conducted in the year when the proposed project is anticipated to open (1999), includes the traffic from the approved projects list provided by the City of South San Francisco which are planned to open before or within a year after the proposed project opening date. The parking management plan is part of the permit process and out of the scope of the traffic study. In terms of hazardous material impacts (Section 4.5), the DEIR clearly points out the potential impact of soil and groundwater contamination. A previous site remediation program was completed. Some level of site contamination appears to remain, consisting of two spots in the soil with Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons at approximately 500 parts per million and groundwater in the area of the former. underground tank, with Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Diesel of about 7,000 parts per billion and Motor Oil of about 4,000 parts per billion. The previous building on the site has been demolished and the environmental investigation report has been provided to the San Mateo County Department of Health Services (DHS). Clean-up levels for remediation of hydrocarbons are determined on a case-by-case basis, and DHS may determine that site clearances are not available. In that event, given that the use of the site would be retail with almost all of the site covered with buildings or hardscape, the soils remediation alternatives range from encapsulation by these improvements to off-hauling of soils, as determined by the DHS in order that the contaminants will pose no threat to human health, life or the environment in general. Hydrocarbon- contaminated soils are accepted at most landfill operations and may be readily disposed of. If remediation of the groundwater is required, it typically would involve excavating the impacted area, allowing the resulting hole to fill with groundwater and skimming and discarding the hydrocarbons until water samples are acceptable to DHS as posing no threat to human health, life or the environment. If DHS determines remediation is required, DHS and the City will require Costco Wholesale to comply with the designated remediation measures to satisfy the performance criterion that the hydrocarbons pose no threat to human health, life or the environment. Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 22 City of South San Francisco August 1999 Comment 4.2: Smith Engineering and Management • Comment 4.2.1: The DEIR traffic analysis is inadequate since it does not provide an analysis of traffic in the AM peak hour. Response: The Costco Wholesale store and other planned retail units open at 10:00 AM to the general public. The only trips associated with the Costco Wholesale facility during the morning peak hour are the shift employee trips (25 in/25 out) and delivery truck trips (approximately 20 trucks daily, spread throughout the morning hours). The gasoline facility opens at 6:00 AM, and it is available for Costco Wholesale members only. According to the data provided by the study conducted by Entranco, Inc. (Traffic Appendix A, Document 1), the gasoline facility generates approximately 3.46 trips per vehicle fueling position during the AM peak hour. The recent study conducted by DKS Associates, Inc. (Traffic Appendix A, Document 2) indicates that almost 95 to 99 percent of the Costco Wholesale gasoline facility trips during the AM peak hour are passer-by trips. Hence, the proposed Costco Wholesale gasoline facility would only add two (2) new trips to the adjacent transportation system. As mentioned in Mr. Smith's comment, the ITE trip generation rate is not valid for a Costco Wholesale gasoline facility, because gasoline is only available for Costco Wholesale members. Table 2 in Traffic Appendix B provides the AM peak hour trip generation of the proposed project. The proposed project will add only 102 inbound and 77 outbound new trips during the AM peak hour on the surrounding transportation network. Hence, the AM peak hour impacts of the proposed project on the transportation system would be far less in comparison with the evening peak hour impacts. Therefore, the City of South San Francisco did not require A1VI peak hour analysis. In order to corroborate this scoping decision with data, an AM peak hour traffic count was collected at the Hickey Boulevard/EI Camino Real intersection. This intersection was selected for analysis of existing conditions because project AM traffic would consist almost exclusively of employees and delivery trucks, and most of this traffic is estimated to arrive via Hickey Boulevard from I-280. The results show that the AM traffic is 25% less than the PM traffic. An existing condition analysis was conducted, which indicates that this intersection operates at level of service C with average delay of 18.1 seconds per vehicle. Adding the background and project traffic, this intersection would still operate at level of service D or better under the near- term and long-term scenarios for the AM condition. Therefore, the Project has no significant impact during the AM peak hour at this location. Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 23 City of South San Francisco August 1999 • Comment 4.2.2: Traffic counts used for the DEIR traffic analysis are lower than normal since they were taken during El Nino storm events. Response: Traffic count data was not collected on rainy days. Please see the attached letter from the traffic count company (Traffic Appendix A, Document 3). • Comment 4.2.3: Assumptions regarding internal trip making are not credible, are inconsistent with internal tripmaking with a concurrent proposal for a gasoline facility. Therefore, traffic impacts are understated. Response: The internal trip reduction of 70 percent is consistent based on the two studies conducted by two independent consulting firms. Please see the response to Comment 4.1.5. The DEIR traffic study uses a conservative number (worst case--highest traffic- - scenario) for Costco Wholesale gasoline facility trip generation. In light of the new data obtained from Costco Wholesale and changes in the size of the buildings, Table 3A in Traffic Appendix B shows the revised project trip generation of the Proposed Project using the fitted curve equation for the shopping center as requested by Mr. Smith. As shown in the table, he net This is due to the fact that the: _ retail size has been reduced to 48,000 square feet instead of 73,000 square feet _ the gasoline facility trip generation is the average trip generation for the Costco Wholesale gasoline facilities surveyed (still considerably higher trip rate than the ITE trip generation) and includes 29 percent passer-by trips reduction (considerably lower than the ITE trip generation), and, _ the trip generation rate for the Costco Wholesale warehouse facility is based upon the average trip rate of 5.0 trips per 1000 square feet, instead of the higher trip rate of 5.4 representing only one store. The existing South San Francisco store (132,769 square feet) door counts indicate a trip rate of only 4.05 trips per 1000 square feet which is significantly (25%) lower than the average. The existing San Bruno store (106,854 square feet) indicates a trip rate of 5.12 per 1000 square feet, which is consistent with (within 2% o, fl the average. As indicated by the trip generation data for the various Costco Wholesale stores and by ITE trip generation data for the Residual Parcel shopping center, as the shopping center size increases the trip rate per 1000 square feet decreases. The proposed project is planned for a 147,000 square feet Costco Wholesale store, which is 11 % and 37% larger than Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 24 City of South San Francisco August 1999 the existing South San Francisco and San Bruno stores, respectively. Therefore, this proposed store would likely generate trips at the rate similar to the South San Francisco store (i.e. 4.05 trips per 1000 square feet). The average rate of 5.0 trips per 1000 square feet in Table 3A thus represents a conservative estimate. Based on the revised trip generation data and revised scope of project, the proposed project would generate approximately 96 less trips than the trip generation presented in the draft EIR. No additional analysis is required, since the EIR traffic study considers a worse case situation. As requested, Table 3B in Traffic Appendix B shows the trip generation of the proposed project as 220,000 square feet of retail shopping center use (Costco Wholesale plus the retail using fitted curve equation and passer-by discount) without any multi-use discount. Even with the original 73,000 square feet of retail space on the Residual Parcel rather than the revised 48,000 square feet, the proposed project would generate approximately 150 less net new trips under this analysis. This is because as the size of the shopping center increases, trip generation per square footage of floor area decreases. Gasoline facility trip generation uses 29 percent passer-by rate based on the recent study by DKS Associates presented in Traffic Appendix A. The traffic study for the Redwood City Costco Wholesale gasoline facility used the 29% passer-by trip rate and the 56% internal trip rate for the PM peak analysis. These rates were used at the direction of City staff (see DKS Study in Traffic Appendix A, at pages 11 and 12), even though the 56% internal trip rate is anomalously low (see response to Comment 4.1.5 above). Nevertheless, the combination of these rates (85%), suggests that the remaining 15% of the trips to the gasoline facility will constitute new trips generated by that facility. Our study uses a more typical internal trip rate of 70% and a very conservative passer-by rate of 10%, thereby allowing for 20% of the trips to the gasoline facility to be new trips generated by that facility; this is even more conservative than the composite 15% directed by the City of Redwood City. The commentator's conclusion that half of the PM peak hour warehouse customers will also buy gas results from the application of a verified average internal trip generation rate (70%) against aworst-case rate per pump (35.33). In order to sustain this rate of 35.33 trips (17.67 customers) per fueling position for the PM peak hour, 212 customers would have to enter the gasoline facility; insert and retrieve their Costco Wholesale cards and credit cards; select the grade of gasoline; insert the nozzle and activate the pump; pump an average of 13 gallons of gasoline; return the nozzle; specify whether a receipt is desired and, if so, print and obtain the receipt; and exit the facility to make space for the next customers; all in an average of 3 minutes and 24 seconds. This timing is so tight that it does not allow for common delays Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 25 City of South San Francisco August 1999 such as non functioning cards (e.g., de-magnetized strips), card readers or receipt printers, or parking which blocks two fueling stations. As a result and because it has sufficient space at the project site, Costco Wholesale has elected to construct 16 fueling positions rather than its typical 12 positions, not with the expectation or intention of selling more gasoline but rather to allow longer fueling times without increasing queuing. Accordingly, the expected PM peak trips is the average trip rate of 22.31 times 12 positions or 268 trips (134 customers), and this would indicate that approximately 26% of the warehouse customers also would purchase Costco Wholesale gasoline. • Comment 4.2.4: Traffic impacts of the project are understated, since pass-by is not counted in the analysis. The percent of traffic drawn from traffic passing by the site may be excessive, which understates traffic impacts. Response: The passer-by assumptions are very conservative based on passer- by data collected at comparable Costco Wholesale sites. Further, a 40 percent passer-by deduction for the shopping center was assumed based upon the ITE Trip generation handbook for similar size shopping centers. The passer-by trips are part of the level of service analysis calculation and are not dropped from the main entrance analysis. Please see the level of service analysis at the Costco Wholesale entrance. Further, based upon the survey conducted by DKS associates, the gasoline facility passer-by trip discount is independent of the internal trip reduction. • Comment 4.2.5: Procedures used for Level of Service (LOS) calculations disguise the effects of traffic growth and may fail to disclose significant traffic impacts and mitigations. LOS calculations should be redone. Response: It is comwcon practice in traffic impact studies in many jurisdictions to use peak hour factor of 1.0 for the future long-term scenario. This is due to the fact that in the long term scenario (ten years from now), one cannot successfully predict the 15-minute variation in the peak hour traffic flow on each approach, and hence the use of 1.0 as the peak hour factor. Further, in the long term scenario, it is often assumed that due to growth in traffic, some intersections would operate under saturated conditions and that causes uniform flow within the peak hour, and hence the use of peak hour factor of 1.0. The City of South San Francisco's retained the services of an independent traffic review consultant to review the traffic impact analysis assumptions and methodology. This consultant approved use of peak hour factor 1.0 for the long-term. ..-. Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 26 City of South San Francisco August 1999 • N • Comment 4.2.6: Adequacy of queuing storage provisions must be analyzed. Response: The Costco Wholesale main entrance intersection with El Camino Real indicates a queue requirement of approximately 400 feet storage for the northbound through movement (the highest queuing movement) in the year 2010 evening peak hour analysis, with the proposed project build-out. This northbound PM peak hour movement will be attributable primarily to vehicles leaving the South San Francisco BART Station parking structure. The distance from the Costco Wholesale Entrance to the Hickey Boulevard extension is adequate to accommodate this queue. The mitigation measures and the project fair-share calculations were identified for the intersections that were worse than the City's acceptable level of service standard D. For peak hour factors and trip generation, please refer to response to Comment 4.1.5. • Comment 4.2.7: The DEIR must demonstrate that traffic signals along El Camino Real at Hickey, at the new project driveway and at the new Hickey Boulevard can be successfully interconnected. Different turning lane provisions than indicated in the EIR may be required. Response: In order to determine the impacts at the individual intersections, traffic impact analysis requires the signals along EI Camino Real to be treated as individual signals. The coordination of signals along El Camino Real is an operational aspect and Caltrans prepares a timing plan based upon the actual demand in the future. Caltrans also determines the cycle length and adjusts the timing plans based upon field observations at the time. The proposed project's design of a new signal at the main entrance does provide for interconnection between signals. Signal coordination will help to improve the traffic flow within the network and hence will help to improve the overall level of service, which is based on delay. The study intersections are projected to operate at level of service D or better and hence, additional analysis is not required. • Comment 4.2.8: The Year 2010 analysis misleads the public by disguising actual near-term cumulative impacts of the project as distant year impacts. Response: Please refer to response to Comment 4.1.7. Due to planned improvements in the 2010 BART traffic scenario, the proposed project would have fewer impacts on the surrounding transportation system. These BART- related improvements will be completed before opening of the BART South San Francisco Station as part of the mitigation measures under the BART San Francisco Airport Extension EIS/EIR. Accordingly, the 2010 Background conditions, with BART, are indicative of the conditions to be expected when Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 27 City of South San Francisco August 1999 the BART extension opens, and under Costco Wholesale project will have few transportation system than it does in ti BART-related roadway improvements. those conditions as well, the proposed er impacts on the surrounding ie near-term prior to completion of the • Comment 4.2.9: Fair share contributions to fund identified mitigation measures are inadequate unless a clear program exists to fully fund and implement mitigation improvements. The DEIR also provides an unclear indication of the project's fair share contribution and fails to reflect specific input from an expert peer review commissioned by the City. Response: The DEIR includes mitigation measures whereby the project developer would be required to pay a "fair share" contribution to identified traffic improvements near the project site to ensure nearby intersections would operate at satisfactory levels of service, even with the addition of project traffic. The project's contribution to these improvements has been programmed into the City's Five-Year Capital Improvement Program. The City's Capital Improvement Program (1999-2000) includes the following projects. • Chestnut/Grand Avenue Intersection. This project will replace the existing signal at the intersections of Grand and Chestnut, roadways widening in the project area and restriping for new exclusive right and left turn lanes. The project design is substantially complete and the City is now coordinating the relocation of utility poles with PG£~E. Construction is planned for fall, 1999. • Hickey/Hilton Improvement. This project will widen Hickey Boulevard along Hilton to accommodate protected left turn movements and will result in the construction of a new traffic signal at this intersection. The design contract has been awarded and preliminary engineering design completed. The project is expected to be complete in spring, 2000. • Right-turn lanes at Chestnut/EI Camino Real: This project will create a new right turn lane on the northeast corner of this intersection and will modify striping on El Camino Real. The project will require acquisition of right-of--way to construct the new right turn lane. Design and right of way acquisition is estimated to be completed in March, 2000, and construction of this project is anticipated in summer of 2000. The CIP further sets aside funds for signalization of intersections citywide. Included in this program will be a Camaritas and Hickey traffic signal, assuming this signal is warranted after the construction of Hickey/Hilton intersection. The Costco Wholesale project contribution for construction of signals in Caltrans's right of way and within the Town of Colma will be Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 28 City of South San Francisco August 1999 programmed into the CIP and, upon commencement of these projects, the fair share contribution will be paid to each respective lead agency by the City of South San Francisco. Fair share contributions for the improvement projects within the Town of Colma and Caltrans jurisdictions would therefore be available upon issuance of occupancy permits for Costco Wholesale. The need to provide additional traffic signals within the Town of Colma to accommodate future cumulative traffic impacts should be programmed into the Town's CIP budget. The City of South San Francisco Public Works Department has estimated the cost for these improvements and will collect an appropriate fair share from Costco Wholesale. The DEIR clearly identifies the project's fair share contribution and provides background information to compute fair share contributions. Another method to calculate a project's fair share contribution towards improvement of an already substandard intersection would be to determine the improvements needed to bring that intersection to LOS D without the project, add the project traffic to the intersection, and, if the project traffic reduced the LOS below level D, determine those improvements necessary to restore the intersection to operate at LOS D. The project would then be responsible for the full cost of implementing the mitigation measure for additional impacts. As referenced in the above comment, an independent consultant retained by the City of South San Francisco has suggested consideration of this alternate analysis. The City of South San Francisco has not undertaken this analysis, however, because it was believed that the actual fair share calculation method used in the traffic analysis would result in a greater contribution to alleviate area traffic congestion, For example, under the independent consultant's suggested approach, an intersection would be first improved to achieve LOS D. It is likely that the Costco Wholesale project traffic would not contribute to a deterioration of traffic beyond that LOS D significance level in many locations. As a result, no project impact or mitigation would be identified for such intersection. On the other hand, the actual method used for the analysis calculates a proportionate share of the overall problem. Many more intersections are identified in this fashion, with greater contribution by the project applicant to the overall traffic improvement program. The fair share contribution endorsed by the City is a well recognized approach (see Bass, CEQA Deskbook, 1999, Second Edition, page 83) and, in summary, it is more comprehensive in its identification of exactions. • Comment 4.2.10: The DEIR fails to consider the possibility of mitigating the project's traffic impact by reducing the scale of the project. Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 29 City of South San Francisco August 1999 Response: Although the No Project alternative was analyzed as required by CEQA, a reduced project alternative was not included for the following reasons. First, the square footage of the project was requested by the applicant based on Costco Wholesale's business planning and operations. Reduction of this square footage would not have presented a feasible alternative, since the project applicant would not have implemented a reduced project. Secondly, CEQA mandates that alternatives to the proposed project be identified to minimize impacts associated with the proposed project. In this instance, the DEIR found no significant traffic impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significance. Therefore, inclusion of the reduced project size was not needed. See also response to Comment 4.1.6. • Comment 4.2.11: The DEIR traffic analysis is deficient in that it is incapable of identifying significant project traffic at intersections that already exceed the City's standard of significance (LOS D). Response: See response to Comment 4.2.9.The City of South San Francisco requires the project to contribute to intersections already exceeding the city's level of service standard the project's fair share of the cost of improvements to bring those intersections to at least LOS D. The improvements at those intersections are part of the City of South San Francisco Capital Improvement Program. • Comment 4.2.12: The intersection of Junipero Serra Boulevard and Serramonte Boulevard should be analyzed. Response: See response to Comment 3.4.1. This intersection has been analyzed and found to have no significant impact from the proposed project. • Comment 4.2.13: A weekend traffic analysis should be included in the traffic analysis. Response: See response to Comment 3.4.5. Table 4B of the Traffic Appendix provides the trip generation of the proposed project as 220,000 square feet of shopping center/retail (as requested by Mr. Smith). According to Table 4B contained in the Traffic Appendix, the proposed project would generate 464 inbound and 429 outbound net new trips after 39 percent passer-by discount. Based upon the higher Costco Wholesale trip generation rate, the year 2000 and 2010 weekend analysis at critical intersections shows that all of them would operate at level of service standard D or better (shown in Table 5 of the Traffic Appendix) during the Saturday afternoon peak hour. Hence, additional weekend analysis for other intersections is not indicated. Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 30 City of South San Francisco August 1999 • Comment 4.2.14: A Transportation System Management Plan (TSM) should be included in the EIR. Response: The City will require the project developer to design and implement a TDM Plan as a condition of approval of the use permit for the project. Refer to Comment and Response 3.1.3. • Comment 4.2.15: Trip generation for the 73,000 square feet of additional retail development in Scenario B is understated, causing the DEIR to understate the project's traffic impacts. Response: Table 3A in Traffic Appendix B shows the revised project trip generation of the Proposed Project using the fitted curve equation for the shopping center requested by Mr. Smith. As shown in the table, the net project tries are less than the iron sed_project trip Qeneration under Scenario B ~u 96 trips (including the retail component). This is due to the fact that the. _ retail size has been reduced to 48,000 square feet instead of 73,000 square feet _ the gasoline facility trip generation is the average trip generation for the Costco Wholesale gasoline facilities surveyed (still considerably higher trip rate than the ITE trip generation) and includes 29 percent passer-by trips reduction (considerably lower than the ITE trip generation), and, _ the trip generation rate for the Costco Wholesale warehouse facility is based upon the average trip rate of 5.0 trips per 1000 square feet, instead of the higher trip rate of 5.4 representing only one store. As requested, Table 3B in Traffic Appendix B shows the trip generation of the proposed project as 220,000 square feet of retail shopping center use (Costco Wholesale plus the retail using fitted curve equation and passer-by discount) without any multi-use discount. Even with the original 73,000 square feet of retail space on the Residual Parcel rather than the revised 48,000 square feet, the proposed project would generate approximately 150 less net new trips under this analysis. This is because as the size of the shopping center increases, trip generation per square footage of floor area decreases. Gasoline facility trip generation uses 29 percent passer-by rate based on the recent study by DKS Associates presented in Traffic Appendix A. • Comment 4.2.16: The DEIR does not address project traffic effects on public access to emergency services, especially nearby Kaiser Hospital. Page 31 Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR August 1999 City of South San Francisco Response: The traffic analysis indicates that the addition of project traffic to the background condition near the Costco Wholesale entrance would not cause traffic queues that would block access to emergency services at Kaiser Hospital, which is more than 1,500 feet to the south of the Costco Wholesale main entrance intersection. Projected queuing at the future El Camino Real/BART South San Francisco Station access road intersection, which is much closer to Kaiser Hospital, is not expected to back to the Hospital emergency entrance (a northbound queue of approximately 250 feet is projected). In fact, to the contrary, the future provision of this new intersection will create a new route and a new opening in the El Camino Real median, which should improve emergency response and access. Comment 4.3: RGA Environmental • Comment 4.3.1: The air quality analysis is inadequate since it does not reflect the local impacts of increased traffic and associated contaminants. Specifically, modeled intersections are too remote from the Costco Wholesale site and may not reflect air quality impacts to nearby residences, schools and the Kaiser hospital. Response: The DEIR analysis was completed using Bay Area Air Quality Management District's CEQA Guidelines. These guidelines provide that localized concentrations of carbon monoxide be estimated for projects where: • vehicle emissions of carbon monoxide exceed 550 pounds per day; • project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at LOS D, E or F, or would cause LOS to decline to LOS D, E or F. • project traffic would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more. The proposed project clearly exceeds these thresholds, so a local-scale analysis of carbon monoxide was conducted. The analysis included in the DEIR is a worst-case analysis in that assumptions regarding location, traffic conditions and meteorology were made in an attempt to maximize concentrations. To this end, only signalized intersections operating at LOS D, E or F were considered. Signalized intersections were selected because they typically have a much higher volume of traffic than unsignalized intersections. The selection of intersections operating at LOS D or worse reflects the large effect that congestion, delay and idling have on concentrations of carbon monoxide. Such an analysis is often called a "hot spot" analysis, since the area close to a congested intersection will have a dramatically higher concentration of carbon monoxide than other locations. Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR rage ~1 City of South San Francisco August 1999 A worst-case carbon-monoxide analysis therefore seeks to find the highest concentration, regardless of location. If concentrations at worst-case locations do not exceed the applicable state/federal standards, it can be assumed that concentrations at other locations farther from the congested intersections would also not exceed the applicable state/federal standard. To corroborate this assumption, concentrations of carbon monoxide at additional locations closer to the project site have been calculated using an identical methodology as in the DEIR. The following table shows predicted worst-case concentrations. Concentrations under all scenarios remain below the state/federal standard, so that this impact would be less than significant. Intersection Existing Background Background Background + Scenario A + Scenario B 1-hr. 8-hr. 1-hr. 8-hr. 1-hr. 8-hr. 1-hr. 8-hr. El Camino 9.1 5.9 9.5 6.1 11.4 7.4 11.5 7.5 Real/Hickey E1 Camino/Kaiser 9.3 6.0 9.7 6.2 10.8 7.0 10.8 7.0 Hospital E1 Camino 9.2 5.9 9.4 6.0 12.0 7.9 12.1 7.9 Real/Arro o Dr. EI Camino -- -- 8.9 5.7 9.7 6.2 9.7 6.3 Real/Hickey Ext./McLean E1 Camino -- -- 8.7 5.5 10.0 6.5 10.2 6.6 Real/Costco Wholesale/Mid- Peninsula Most Stringent Street 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 Standard Source: Donald Ballanti • Comment 4.3.2: The vehicle mix used for the air quality analysis does not reflect the vehicle mix shown in the traffic analysis for the project. Response: The term "2000 vehicle mix" refers to the vehicle population that would exist in the year 2000, and not the number of vehicles generated by the proposed project. The air quality analysis for the proposed project is based on the trip generation and traffic assignments provided in the Rajappan £~ Meyer traffic report for the project. Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 33 City of South San Francisco August 1999 • Comment 4.3.3: The AQIA does not address the emissions from idling vehicles lining up at the gasoline facility. Response: See response to Comment 4.3.1; under the "hot spot" analysis, it can be assumed that concentrations at locations farther from the congested intersections, including locations within the project, would not exceed the applicable state/federal standard. Observations at the Santa Clara Costco Wholesale indicate that the maximum queue at peak times at that location is five cars idling per queue, with each queue accessing two fueling positions. Since the proposed facility would have 8 queues leading to 16 fueling positions, the probable maximum number of idling vehicles at one time would be 40 (or 30 under the information provided in the response to Comment 4.2.31). During an hour, 40 vehicles would idle a total of 2,400 minutes, assuming no one turned off the engine while waiting. The existing vehicle idling time at, for example, the Westborough-Chestnut/EI Camino Real intersection (calculated by multiplying the number of approaching vehicles by the average delay time) is 7,438 minutes in the PM peak hour. The Costco Wholesale gasoline facility would be located within the Costco Wholesale parking lot and is several hundred feet distant from residences, businesses, public sidewalks or other locations of public exposure. The concentrations at worst-case intersections, calculated for a receptor 25 feet from the road edge, would be far in excess of concentrations anywhere near the Costco Wholesale gasoline facility. Since concentrations at worst-case intersections are not predicted to exceed the state/federal standards, the same safely can be said for concentrations in the vicinity of the Costco Wholesale gasoline facility. Comment 5.1: South San Francisco Planning Commission Meeting of June 3,1999 • Comment 5.1.1 (Ted Simas): Costco Wholesale's pricing tactics will be devastating to gasoline dealers in the community. The proposed 15 million gallons per year of gasoline to be dispensed by the proposed Costco Wholesale ' The proposed project includes 16 fueling positions instead of 12 in order to reduce the queuing time at the gasoline facility. At the Santa Clara Costco Wholesale, for example, the PM peak gasoline facility trip rate is 35.33 trips (17.67 customers) per fueling position per hour, which translates to an average of one customer at each position every 3 minutes and 24 seconds, with an average of 2.5 cars in line behind that customer. This results in a wait of 8.5 minutes (2.5 times 3 minutes 24 seconds) from the time of getting into line until reaching the fueling position. By providing 4 additional fueling positions (4/16 = a 25% increase), the average queue length and wait time may be reduced by 25% to 1.875 cars in line for an average of 6 minutes and 22 seconds. Accordingly, Costco Wholesale's expectations would be 1.875 cars times 16 fueling positions = 30 idling cars per hour times 60 minutes = a total of 1,800 minutes of idling. Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 34 City of South San Francisco August 1999 facility would be equal to five gas stations. The air quality analyses included in the EIR were taken at five locations, none of which was near the site. Response: Additional air quality analyses have been conducted nearer to the project site. No new significant impacts have been identified. See the responses to Comments 4.3.1 and 4.3.3. Costco Wholesale has received a BAAQMD permit for 12,630,000 gallons per year, but that number includes substantial reserve in excess of anticipated capacity. As found by the Entranco Gas Station Study (Appendix A, Document 1), a typical Costco Wholesale gasoline facility has twelve fueling positions and averages about 1700 vehicles per day. This probably is a high average because Entranco's 1996-97 counts included Costco Wholesale sites at which non-Costco Wholesale members were allowed to obtain gas at higher cost than Costco Wholesale members; non-Costco Wholesale members no longer are allowed to obtain gas at any Costco Wholesale facilities. Although the project gasoline facility will have 16 fueling positions, Costco Wholesale does -not expect it to sell more gas than the typical gasoline facility of 12 positions for the reasons stated in the footnote to the response to Comment 4.3.3. Costco Wholesale's experience is that the average vehicle obtains 13 gallons of gas. This is higher than industry average because (i) Costco Wholesale customers drive larger than average vehicles, and (ii) since all gas must be paid by credit card, almost all Costco Wholesale gas customers fill their tanks completely. Using these conservatively high numbers, a Costco Wholesale gasoline facility could be expected to pump approximately 22,000 gallons of gasoline per day, 660,000 gallons per month, and 8,000,000 gallons per year. While economic considerations are beyond the purview of an EIR, the concern regarding the impact of Costco Wholesale's "pricing tactics" to community gasoline dealers warrants some discussion. The gasoline facility is an integral part of the proposed project. Costco Wholesale has determined that a gasoline facility is a feature that its members desire and increasingly expect from afull-range Costco Wholesale warehouse. Accordingly, Costco Wholesale's goal is to install gasoline facilities at all existing warehouses that can accommodate them and to include gasoline facilities in all new warehouses by opening new warehouses only in sites that do accommodate the gasoline facilities. Costco Wholesale's pricing is not predatory or improper in any way; it is based on the same principle that is reflected in the pricing of all of Costco Wholesale's products and in its mission statement, To continually provide [its] members with quality goods and services at the lowest possible prices." Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual, February 1995 Update, as cited in the Entranco study, between 52% and 58% of the peak hour customers at gas stations are passer-by travelers. However, at a Costco Wholesale gasoline Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 35 City of South San Francisco August 1999 facility at least 70% of the gasoline customers are shoppers at the warehouse. Less than 30% of the gasoline purchasers are persons who (i) have come from a distance solely to buy gasoline at Costco Wholesale, (ii) have diverted from their usual course of travel to buy gasoline at Costco Wholesale, or (iii) are passers-by. Nevertheless, if it is assumed for sake of conservative analysis that 30% of the Costco Wholesale gasoline customers otherwise would have patronized other South San Francisco gas stations, then those customers would purchase about 200,000 gallons of gas a month (30% times 660,000 gallons) from Costco Wholesale instead. The likely economic impact of the Costco Wholesale gasoline facility on South San Francisco gas stations, therefore, would be approximately equivalent to opening one more gas station2. • Comment 5.1.2 (Dennis DeCota): A result of the proposed project would be the loss of a lot of jobs in the local gasoline businesses. The proposed project would add significant air quality emissions from tanker trucks fueling the proposed gasoline facility that would drive up environmental costs. Response: See response to Comment 5.1.1 regarding economic impacts on local gas stations. Fuel will be delivered to the Costco Wholesale gasoline facility tanks by two to three fuel trucks (8,600 to 9,500 gallons each) per day, or about 15 trucks per week, 780 trucks per year. The gasoline facility should receive a total of about 1,700 cars per day divided among the 16 fueling positions. This gasoline facility traffic has been included in the total project traffic numbers for purposes of analyzing the project impacts on air quality. Additional air quality analyses have been conducted nearer to the project site. No new significant impacts have been identified. See the responses to Comments 4.3.1 and 4.3.3. • Comment 5.1.3 (Keith Simas): The traffic report falls short in trip generation for the proposed project, specifically regarding the amount of internal trip capture. Also, the DEIR does not include AM peak hour conditions. The nearby trailer park would be impacted by the proposed project. The DEIR does not include clear-cut traffic mitigations. Z Even if the increased number of fueling positions somehow resulted in a directly proportionate increase in sales of gasoline, the respective numbers for sixteen fueling positions would be 2,300 vehicles per day, 29,300 gallons per day, 878,000 gallons per month, 10,600,000 gallons per year, and 260,000 gallons per month sold to members who otherwise might patronize other South San Francisco gas stations. Again, this is only a little more than the equivalent of one new gas station. Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 36 City of South San Francisco August 1999 Response: The trip generation for the Costco Wholesale gasoline facility is based upon documented field surveys conducted at similar Costco Wholesale sites. Two surveys were conducted. The first survey includes analysis of four Costco Wholesale gasoline facilities surveyed in 1996 and 1997. Document 1 in Traffic Appendix A provides the results of this study conducted by Entranco, Inc. According to the study, which collected transaction data at each gasoline facility, the trip generation for the weekday evening peak hour varied from 10.67 to 35.33 trips per vehicle fueling position. In the Proposed Project Traffic Impact Analysis, a gasoline facility trip generation of 35.33 trips per fueling position was used. This is the highest trip rate counted in previous studies, and thus represents the conservative worst case analysis. The survey data at the four gasoline facilities indicates an internal capture rate (trips to and from Costco Wholesale of between 68% to 77%, with an average internal capture rate of 70 percent. The second survey conducted by DKS Associates, in June of 1998 (Document 2, Traffic Appendix A) at two gasoline facilities indicates an internal capture rate of 56 percent to 70 percent. Based on this sample of six sites, 56 percent on a weekday PM peak hour was too low and out of range compared to all of the other data indicating 70 percent internal capture rate. Therefore, in the Proposed Project traffic study, a 70 percent internal capture rate was used for the gasoline facility trips. The recent DKS Associates study also indicated passer-by trip percentage of 29 and 43 percent for the evening peak hour at two Costco Wholesale sites. These gasoline facility passer-by trips are trips neither going to Costco Wholesale nor coming from Costco Wholesale. The gasoline facility is the sole attraction for these trips from the adjacent existing traffic. The Proposed Project traffic impact analysis was made with a very conservative assumption of 10 percent passer-by trips for the gasoline facility traffic. In conclusion, the conservative trip generation, average internal utilization, and very conservative passer-by trip assumptions yield a conservative estimate of trip generation for the proposed project. The proposed project will add 102 inbound and 77 outbound new trips during the AM peak hour on the surrounding transportation network. Hence, the AM peak hour impacts of the proposed project on the transportation system would be less in comparison with the evening peak hour impacts. Therefore, the City of South San Francisco did not require AM peak hour analysis. The Redwood City Costco Wholesale report for the addition of a gasoline facility to the Costco Wholesale warehouse in that city shows less trips in the morning peak hour than in the evening peak hour. Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 37 City of South San Francisco August 1999 The trailer park existing traffic would experience more delay than the existing condition due to addition of background and project traffic. However, even with the addition of project traffic, the intersection level of service is forecast to remain at LOS C at Hickey Boulevard/El Camino Real, which is an acceptable level of service. The City of South San Francisco's intersection level of service standard is D. The Traffic Impact Analysis Report has been prepared in accordance with City of South San Francisco guidelines. It was reviewed by an independent traffic consultant under separate contract to the City, prior to finalization. The report presents the fair share contributions at the poorly operating intersections under the background conditions. Further, the report also identifies the improvements necessary at those intersections in order to maintain a level of service D or better. • Comment 5.1.4: Compare the parking at the Redwood City Costco Wholesale and Airport Boulevard Costco Wholesale. Response: Redwood City Costco Wholesale provides for 598 parking spaces (Costco Wholesale 112,831 square feet, 3248 square feet of office). The city requirement is one parking space per 200 square feet of retail land use. The San Bruno Costco Wholesale store (106,854 square feet) has 880 parking spaces within a strip mall setting and shares the parking with other adjacent land uses. According to Costco Wholesale, the South San Francisco Airport Boulevard Costco Wholesale (132,769 square feet) has 900 parking spaces. The proposed Costco Wholesale project would provide 850 stalls for Costco Wholesale. According to the City standard of one space per 200 square feet of retail, only 735 parking spaces (with Costco Wholesale at 147,000 square feet) are required and the proposed project would provide more than the city's requirement. At least an additional 240 parking stalls would be created to support the 48,000 square feet of retail space on the Residual Parcel when it is developed. • Comment 5.1.5: Address issues regarding traffic, land use compatibility and storm drainage as requested by Daly City. Response: Comments from Daly City have been responded to as part of Comment 3.4. Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 38 City of South San Francisco August 1999 • Comment 5.1.6: Look at the proposed and existing parking Response: According to Costco Wholesale representatives, relocation of the existing San Bruno facility is being considered because the site is inadequate to accommodate parking and the expansion of the existing 106,854 square foot warehouse facility to 147,000 square feet plus a gasoline facility. The San Bruno facility effectively includes up to 600 parking spaces after deduction for spaces shared with surrounding retailers, whereas the proposed South San Francisco facility includes 850 spaces. The amount of proposed on-site parking exceeds City zoning requirements. • Comment 5.1.7: Look at Costco Wholesale facility with a gasoline facility and one without. Response: The responses to Comments 4.1.6 and 4.2.3 discuss the impact of the gasoline facility component of the proposed Costco Wholesale. Its highest-use period (PM peak) conditions are stated separately from the trip generation numbers of the Costco Wholesale warehouse and the Residual Parcel retail area in Tables 5 and 6 of the Traffic Impact Analysis for the DEIR and in Tables 2, 3A and 4A of Appendix A hereto. • Comment 5.1.8: Conduct additional air quality analyses, especially in relation to El Camino High School. Response: Additional air quality analyses has been prepared for the project. See responses to Comments 4.3.1 and 4.3.3. • Comment 5.1.9: More discussion of mitigation measures. Response: Additional discussion of mitigation measures has been included as part of this Final EIR, primarily with regard to traffic and circulation mitigation measures. • Comment 5.1.10: Analyze the impacts of proposed BART overflow parking. Response: According to the BART EIR, sufficient parking is being provided at the BART station based upon traffic studies and CEQA requirements. Thus, spillover parking is not expected. However, BART has indicated it will design a monitoring program for spillover parking. Please refer to the response to section 23.1 in BART-San Francisco Airport Extension FEIR/FEIS Volume 1- Transportation (June 1996) for further details. Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 39 City of South San Francisco August 1999 Appendices -Traffic Appendix -Acoustic Report -Building Elevations and Cross-Section Drawings Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 41 City of South San Francisco August 1999 APPENDIX A Document 1 (Entranco Gas Station Study, Source: Costco Wholesale) Document 2 (DKS Study, Source: Costco Wholesale) Document 3 (Traffic Count Company letter) APPENDIX A Document 1 (Entranco Gas Station Study, Source: Costco Wholesale) Entranco performeo tum movement counts at the intersec:ions of South 180th StreetJSperry Orive. Andover Park EastlSaxon Drive, and South 180th Street/Andover Park East during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, and the Saturday peak hour. These counts were performed on June 19 and 21, 1997. However, the counts at these intersections reflect inter-development traffic movement on Christensen Road between Cosip and Home Depot. Entranco also performed weekday p.m. peak-hour and Saturday peak hour counts in July 1995 with the development of the Cosica Optical Lab. The Juiy 1996 taunts were performed prior to the opening of Christensen Road to Home Depot and Cosica; therefore, these taunts were used for analysis purposes. Fgure 3 shows the existing weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour and Saturday peak hour traffic volumes on primary access routes in the study area based on Eniranca's taunts and data from the cities. TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS Trip Generation The City of Tukwila requested trip generation estimates for the weekday daily, a.m. peak hour, and p.m. peak hour; and Saturday daily and peak hour. Trip generation rates also have been provided for the weekday noon peak hour for comparison. Typically, trip generation rates used to estimate the number of new trips from a gas station are obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generai7cn Manual, Februar}~ 1995 Update to the Fifth Edition. However, due to the unique characteristics of a Cosica gas station, the trip generation for the proposed site was based an trip generation rates derived from data ai four existing Cosica gas stations located around the country. The following data were toll led at the four existing Cosica gas stations between November 1996 an ebrua 1997: • number of gas station transacKions during the p.m. peak hour • total daily gas station transactions on a weekday and weekend day • survey data documenting the number of gas station transactions that also included a visit to the Cosica Wholesale Store (internal trips) In addition, noon peak hour cos station cos stationslo~l0. 1997~Transac~tion data used to develop trip generation data will be provided to the City separately from this report. 97~pl1(t t nrNOln 7ll7~a All four existing gas sation sites have 12 pump locations, althouoh some of the sites allowed non-Costca members to ootain gas at the pumps at a highe- cost than Casico members, white transaction data were collected. The effect this wilt have on using this data to estimate trips at the Tukwila site is that a more conservative trip generation rate wi11 be used. Oata for the four existing Costco gas stations and an average of the four sites are shown in table 2. Weekday pm. peak hour trip rates range between 10.67 and 35.33 trips per pump, with an average of 22.31 trios per pumo. When the p.m. peak hour trip generation rate is compared to the ITE Trip Generation Manual rate (15.76 trips per pump), it is shown that the Costco rate is higher (and therefore more conservative) than the 1TC rate. Although transaction taunts were not obtained for the weekend peak hour, it was' estimated by multiplying the weekend daily tcial by the ratio of the weekday p.m. peak hour total to the weekday daily total for each site. The average weekend peak hour trip rate. therefore, was estimated as slightly higher than the weekday p.m. peak hour trip rate ai 24.57 trips per pump. The ave2ge weekday and weekend daily rates of the four existing gas station sites were estimated at 138.54 and 1;3.11 trips per pump, respectively. Table 2 Typical Costco Gas Station Trip Generation Study History Costco Gas Station Location Oxnard. CA Albuquerque. NM Santa Clara. CA 7ueson, AZ Average Number of Pump. 12 12 12 12 12 Tripst Noon Peak Hour 244 234 292 280 263 P.M.Peak Hour 128 364 424 15b 258 Weekday Oaiiy 734 2.124. 2,478 1.314 1.663 Weekend Oal1y 750 2.140 ~~ Na 1,717 Rate2 Noort Peak Hour 20.33 1950 24.33 23.33 21.88 P.M. Peak Hour 10.67 30.33 35.33 12.92 2231 Vyeekday Oa;ly 61.17 177.00 206.50 109.50 13854 Weekend Pk How 10.90 3056 32.25 Na 24.57 Weekend 0~ 6250 178.33 188.50 , Na 143.11 Pertxnt Ittterrtal Trips3 T7x 73x 70Y. 68y. 72:'. t. Trips are assocatad with gas ration only. and do not irtc:trde trips to wholesale store only. 2 Rates tiro given as trips per gas pump- 3. Irrtarrtal trips are traps in wniCt the patron went to both the gas station and the wholesale store. l70p~1rt t1~r0lIt7971:stt 7 -._ ~ T'ne noon peak hcur trip generation rates fcr tt~e four existing sites ranged between 19.50 and 24.33 trips per pump, with an overate trip rate of 2t.88 trips per pump. The average ~ ' ncon peak hour trip rate is slightly tower the overate p.m. peak hour trip rate. The City also requested a trip generation analysis for the a.m, peek hcur. 6s~usa Cestca Whciesale stores are not open during the typi~;al a.n. peak period, and bec2use most of the trips generated by the gas station are considered internal trips (therefore the gas station is exper~ed to generate fewer trips during the a.rn. peak hour than at any other time during the day), Ccstco has nct conducted trip generticn studies for the gas s:ati4n daring the a.m. peak hour at the four sites listed in table 2. HowEver, Calico has caltccted trip generation taunts st one exis~nQ aas•station for the oeri.d fmm E:30 to ]0:3o a.m., wttic.~t is wftett tlta yes statiari w2s ocen, but the Whclesale store was not open. Tne study did not break down the r';.ta by the hcur or the peak hour: howevEr, me• study canduded that 5 percent of the Gaily trice at the cos station occsrred during this four-hour mcming aericd. ~ To estimate a trip gcrcrtion rate fcr tt;e g=: station curing the a.m. peek hour, it was conservativery assumed that half of the trips ~t~,arved Curing the a.m. four-Hour study period cc: arced during the a.rn. peek hcur. 4-hr. close the weekday a.m. peak hour trip ~ generation rate watt PSttmatet~ to be 2.5 percent of the average weekday Bail lets to rate, cr ,.. trips Fcr pum .1 Based cn survey data provided by Costro 1Nhotesale Stores at the four existing gas station sites. it w38 fcund tt;at an average, %2 cercnni of the pauens using me gas s:arinn are also going to the wholesale ~ ore, which is as an internal trip. Thcse arc i vehir-fe tips that are, one wilt be, cn the rcad network, whether or not the Costcn gas station is constructed. Therefore inferno! trips arc not con: idered new trips. The avenge trip generaticn rates anrt inteln3l trip percentage were use~.1 to estimate the number of net new trips asscc'ated with the proposed Cestca gas station to be located in Tukwila. The trtp generation for the Tukwila Calico gas station is documented in table 3. i The total trips gcne.-aced by a project can same~mes be raducad by a pass-by trip fatter. Pass-by trips are deftned as trips made as intermediate stcpa on the v;ay from an crigin to a primary trip destination. Based on me ITE Trip Generation Manual Febniary 1995 Update, the percentage of gra,s projctt generated trips classified as pars-by trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour far a gas station is SZ percent, and 58 percent durinq the weekday a.m. peak hcur (see ta61e 3). Accounting for ~ntamat and pass-by trip,, mP net new trips gerteratecl e,y uie Tukwila Cestca gas station in the weekday noon and p.m. peak hour is 36 trips, while the waekenc! peak hour will experience 40 net haw lri~s. Table 3 Trip Generation Summary Number of Trip Generation Trips Trips Total Pumps laatel ~ In Oui Trips Weekday A.M. Peak Hour t2 3.46 21 21 42 Less Pass-by Trips (58 ;}2 12 12 2a Net New Trips 9 9 18 ~ Weekday Noon Peak Hour 1 Z 21.88 131 132 Less Intemal Trips (72°b) 9a 95 Less Pass-try Trips (52°0 ~ 19 19 Nei New Trips 18 18 Weekday P.M. Peak Hour 12 22.31 134 Less Intemal Trips (72 a) 97 Less Pass-by Trips (5Z o)Z 19 Net New Trips '- 18 Weekday Oal}r Tota! 12 138.54 831 Less Intemal Trips (72 ;) 598 Less Pass-by Trips (52 ;)3 121 Net New Trips 112 Weekend Peak Hour 12 24.5 148 Less Intemal Trips (77'0) 106 Less Pass-by Trips (52'x}3 21 Nei New Trips 20 Weekend Oaily Total 12 143.11 858 Less Intemal Tnps (72 a) 678 Less Pass-by Trips (52 oj3 125 Net New Trips 115 134 96 20 18 831 598 121 112 147 106 21 20 859 618 125 116 253 189 38 '36. zaa 193 39 36 1,652 1,196 242 224 295 212 43 40 1,717 1,235 ZcO 231 1.The trip gerteration rates are given as trips per gas pump. Pass-by trip reduGion perexnbges were obtained tram the fTE Tnq~ Gerreratiion Mantra/. February 1995 Update :a the Frith Edllion. Pass-by trip reduGion percantages for ttus time period are not provided in the ITE Tnp Ganeradon Marrua4 '~ Febntary 1995 Update to the Fifth Edition. therefore. the p.m. peak hour pays-by trip redoetion percentage was asstuned. New Project Trip Distribution The trip distribution and assignment for the proposed developments trip generation was based on the existing travel patterns (figure 3), actress to the major arterials, and access to I-5 and 1-405. Fgure 4 depicts the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour and weekend peak hour trip assignment of the net new project-generated volumes on the surrounding street network :~ar~ ~rro'nsisr~. 9 APPENDIX A Documeat 2 (DKS Study, Source: Costco Wholesale) Z cv ~- N N Z ~~~ r ~ r a as m ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ai m m Zm va~i ~°n ._y U r r r U o m O ~ m ~ N ^ ~ } a ~ ~ F- ~ m ~ ~ 'v r Z c~ o N o ~ c ~ ~ ~ 0 v, o } ~ c°fo coo w ~ I~ N !~ Qf of `° ~ co m ~ as ~~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ Z ~a SEE vii-'t'- n33 c0 c0 W O O O m ~ ~ ~ O m m E U UU E E E ~~o~~o~~ m C C C V V V ~ ~~~~N~~ ~n co ~ as ~ co r N~o~mm ~~ E E ~o coa~m mmv~3 v)I~F'cc ~ W ~ m m m e`o W oEE E U U U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R ~ R W W ~ ~ !A (n fn U1 lH rri c~ _c E 0 0 y ~ p O U ~ O Q ~ r w C ~ _C ~+ ~ E m E ~ r c m o` c a C y C m ..p. lII O y 0 3 io ~ m ~ ~ °~ ~ c °' t y t ~ m ~ ~ W C (A ~ ~ ~ ~, a 3 dt ~: C'=~c~ m m ~ ~~Emy O v~ ~ h a ~ ~ ~ m o 0 ,.`_m~m _L 3? y too=~ m TJ ~- C p ~ m v ~ ~ as ~~~~on y y E ~°0m~~ "' aQ3 3 ~. r °' ~ = ~ ~ m ~ ai m '° t ~• at?-o y V L m ~,m~ ~o~~~ a~m~o eow~~c r= ~E a~ o m m W y w r W ~ L ~ ~ a Y ... ~~~ E o°-~o~° ~~a`oc~. •= dl m lp C M ~ ~j,~QO ~~ ~~~3H oco`~' a Y y ~; oE~~a ~ Q ~ V cfl U 3 t `o vi c0 > > O m O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z td ~ v y _m W v 0 y y Q Y D k m N C U k m _4 c DKS Associates Table 4 Trip Generation Summary Number of VFPs' Trip Rate per VFP ° Total Trips Generated ~ Intemal Capture Reduction Factor AM Peak Hour 12 12.3 148 0 PM Peak Hour 12 14.6 175. 50% Avera a Dail 12 168.6 2,023 c Pass-by Trips Net New Trios Generated 95% a 29% ~.~_ c ~ 2,023` Notes: a. Vehicle Fueling Position b. Trip Rate based on IT>= Trip Generation. 6th Edition, 1997. c. As with A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic, pass-by and intemal capture trips would account for a portion of the total daily number of vehicle patronizing the proposed gasoline station addition. However, as data concerning daily pass-by and intemal gptun3 trips wen: not available, these trips are not presented in this table for average daily traffic. Source: DKS Associates A significant portion of trips generated by the proposed gasoline station are "internally captured" trips. Internally captured trips are trips that are "captured" while traveling to or from some other on-site destination. l:n this case, a large amount of trips are expected to travel between the existing Costco facility, fast food restaurant, and hardware store facilities and the proposed gasoline station. This is particularly true for the proposed Costco gas stations, because patrons would have to have a Costco membership card to use the facility. Internally captured trips are not considered generated traffic because the vehicles that make use of the existing facilities and the gasoline station would enter and/or exit the site, regardless of the presence of the gasoline station. DKS recently commissioned surveys at existing Costco gasoline stations in Santa Clara and South Sacramento, California to better gauge typical trip generation properties for gasoline station additions at Costco facilities. The individual customer interview surveys were conducted on Saturday June 6. Tuesday June 16 and Wednesday June 17, 1998. A summary of the survey results is contained in the Appendix B. The surveys indicated an intemal capture rate of between 53 to 72 percent on weekends ~ During the wee y pe enod, internal capture rates ranged from 56 to 70 percent. - At the direction of City of Redwood City staff, the most conservative analysis was performed, assuming a 56 percent reduction of total generated trips to reflect the internall ca lured trips. 's reduction was used for. the PM peak hour only, as Costco is not open during the peak hour and, therefore, no trips would be going fo both the Costco and the Costco gasoline station. The hardware store and the fast food restaurant are currently open during the AM peak period and would lead to some internal Redwood City Costco Gasoline S1aUon Addition 11 Marsh 25, 1999 DKS Associates . capture trips for the proposed gas station; however, for a conservative analysis, these internal capture trips were not included in this analysis. A percentage of trips to/from the project consist of what is referred to as "pass-by" trips, which are those vehicle trips that are already on the existing street system and simply turn into the site from the adjacent roadway network without altering their normal route. Gasoline stations, in particular, generate a large percentage of pass-by trips. Pass-by trips, by definition, are not new to the system and, normally, the number of trips generated by a project are reduced by some percentage to reflect the pass-by trips. The individual customer interview surveys conducted by DKS (as described earlier and as summarized in Appendix B), ' dicated that approximately 29 to 43 percent of total number of vehicles travelin to the gasoline station during the PM nP~k hoLr were t~aSS- y ve e~s-Hari a peak, pass- by trips accounted for 95 to 99 percent of gasoline station customer. As directed by City of Redwood City staff a conservative analysis was performed, assur~ing,2~ eat and 95 percent pass-b s du ' the AM and PM a These trips were subtracted throu a roadway network and are st in detail in the LOS calculations provided in Appendix A. In addition to internally captured trips and pass-by trips, there are "diverted trips" that would frequent the proposed gasoline station. Diverted trips represent vehicles which currently travel on roadways within the project vicinity that would reroute themselves through the existing roadway network in order to visit the new gasoline station. The customer interview surveys conducted by DKS (as described earlier and as s~,mm~riaed in Appendix B) indicated that diverted trips accounted for 16 percent to less than one percent of the gasoline station traffic. For a ~~nsta~tive analysis, no iverted tries were assumed in this analysis. Based on the ITE trip generation rates, the proposed Costco facility would generate 148 AM peak hour trips, 175 PM peak hour trips, and 2023 daily vehicle trips. Once internal capture trips and pass-by trips are accounted for, the proposed project would only generate 8 net new vehicle trips during the A.M. peak hour and 26 net new vehicle trips during the P.M. peak hour (As with A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic, pass-by and internal capture trips would account for a portion of the total daily number of vehicle patronizing the proposed gasoline station addition. As data concerning daily pass-by and internal capture trips were not available, daily pass-by and internal trips are not presented in this report.). Project Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution is a process where trips are linked to an origin and destination to predict the flow between origin and destination. The distribution of trips generated by the proposed project were determined based on existing travel patterns, the relative attractiveness of the site, and the distance people are required to travel to that site. Trip distribution percentages assumed for this project are illustrated in Figure 4 and are listed in Table 5. Redrwod City Costco Gasoline Station Addition 12 March 25, 1999 APPENDIX A Document 3 (Traffic Count Company letter) ' 06/29/1999 05:27 5103576882 ~~ ~ ~~ PACE 01 TRAFFIC REpEAACH AaSOC1ATEta Troffic Octo You Con Count On TAO: Situ Dalai, Res}appan ~ Meyer FROM: Richard Dinwiddie DATE: June 28, 1999 RE: 1998 Counts in South San Francisco With regard to your questions of 6/25/99: TRA makes it a policy to NOT perform any ttaffi~c counts on days in which it is raining (antes specifcally requested regardless of weather by the client) or when weather conditions do not allow for normal traffic flow. In the fast months of 1998, this meant that these were frequent cancellations of scheduled counts because of the El Nino effect. In fact, there were a couple of circumstancGS in which we tcttainattd a count after it had begun because it began to rain. Conscquendy, there were occasional long stretches in which is was not possible to conduct counts, sometimes as long as one or two weeks. The count dates are listed on the count sheets. Spec weather condition notes for each count were not kept as we do not do counts in bad weather. P.O. Box 4205 San La~ndro, CA 94579-0205 Pha~elFex: 510.357.6882 APPE~'DIX B TABLE 1 Trip Generation of Alternative Land Use TABLE 2 A11~1 Peak Hour Project Trip Generation TABLE 3A Revised Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation TABLE 3B Revised Weekday PNI Peak Honr Trip Generation TABLE 4A Weekend Peak Honr Project Trip Generation TABLE 4B Weekend Peak Hour Project Trip Generation TABLE 5 Level of Service Results for Additional analysis TABLE 6 Background Trip Generation ~ o h c h ('~ H ti a ~ C N 3 • O ~ ~ i O ~ U < m f m ~ $ pti N ~ a Z ~ {r f R • H C W $ of N ~ w A ~ ~ ~ N ~ {Y r ~ ~7 p a a x W x x x xx ~~ ~~ ~~ W d ~y m m m m m m ~ _ ~ m m m m m tNo 4. m O O O O O O a ~ W N ~ ~. A ~ {7 N f W PNf ~ C W v~ o m N m ~~ r Y tL a < x W m m O O a~D m W m ` O C R R W & m m m x x d {L m t 0 f 0 ~ _' _ Yf N off 1ff N N < m ~ o O O o O O a C7 ~~ a o ~n o~ N e 0 c 0 G S F ~° ° ° m ' ~ a a w r ~o a ,¢ ~~° m m m m m m ~ o¢ m m m m m m C7 ~ .~ •~ F ~ H Uf 1q ~ N N N A N m f N ~ ~ N j ~ t b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ _ a a ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 m m ,~ ~ O m Z N ~ N Z C f N ~ ~ N ~ ~ N f ~ F OO . ... _ J ~ ~ y~ F j0 ~ F ~ ~ o F s ~ ~ a a . a a ~ ¢ ~ V a c O! C W C 7 w O U m m b C °a a a ~_~ ,,AA c vJ V N v ~ • ~ ~= ~ ~ F a ~ ~ ~ .~, ~ V ~ ~ m G ~ ~ ~ d G ~ m G ~ p w Q e QQ 0 C.~ O ~ _ x W ~ C ~ N N N A _ O W m C W ~ C 1~ N ~ N N N O ` r C e .X W e C u'~ e ~ ~ ° .+ x W e O ~ ~ • W Of ... p~ N Of N ~p C '~" C C C 7 W N ~ ` ~ °p~ N~ .~, ` e a W ~ ~ d `c ~o m c o c o R ~ ~ Q W C ~ N m 1= y a ~ ` v H ?. ~ M O~ H ~ N ~ O1 ~n u7 ~ (n U a ~ v H 1= ~ a c a p c ~ a ~ c ~ ~ ~i a ~ >, '~ ~ ~ ~ o Q. eYO m v eh a W m ~ U' m a ~ L aA t0 ~ • `. ~ a O •~ eco t~ ~ v E ~ ~c a~ W v~? za ` " 8 o m W C7 c ~ ~ U v1 F- o w o ~ o C7 c ~ O o m ~ $ W ~ 2 w '$ ~ r p C v • ~ C m J c e a c ~ Q ~. a H y m ~ 1C m t7 ~ ` m < ~ o n o ~ $ to a m c a v° C a ~ W $ d ~ 'o °: w w o o m ~ '2 ~ a '3 ~ m 0 o V i19 r u~ M N ~ J m m fA J m Z m • r ei c m c as C W e :. 3 O C O V L ate. m a!f c A a a C O v dl ~ ~ M ~ ~ m a s ~ ~ L y V C^ o ~ c ~ ~ d ~ e o ;:. ~ a C v G v°~ Q U G o U m v as 0 X t00 ' ~ ~ th ~ ~ W O O N O - N ^ O r ~ ~ to N In N O e W C 1 ~ N N ~ ? .X y~ w a a • m .c ~' c ~ c W ~ m ~ ^ ~ r. ~ ~,,.~ ~ m N 1A ~ O ~ I~ ~ ~ ~O O ~ O v ~ ~ N ~ N O W C ~ W a ~ o ~ •X W o ~ ~ oe 3e .+ x m m ~ t W Ql D ip td m C C ~ ~ C ._ W d m e e m a d e ~ W ~ ~ LL L C r ^ 41 O ~ C O a ~ ~ m to ~ d c ~- N a aci ~ C7 ~ -'' W m O a 'C a°DO ' Q' ~ O1v 1O O c~i r ~ N '~ N N m e i ~ ~ N `° O a '= ~• IA v O `'' H y l0 o a ~ c 7 m m ~ i. ~ ~ v Q ~ ~ er t- H- ~"~ .- a n c 0 a c o c ~ o a f w ~. ~ ~ ; ~ a ~ N o a~ c `- a m ~ p ~ ~ ~ Z a a m m ~ ~ ~ W ~- o c . U m ~ ~ o o ae ~ o c 0 0 0 ~ o c o C7 c ~ ~ m a s $ ~ ~ ~; L ~ ~ a~ ~ o ~ m ~ ° ~ m ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ °f ~ °° a ~ m m ~ o m V ~ m c ~ m ~' ~ a ~ ~ M O ~ ~ `~' d1 V p~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ a C. ~ o a ~ v a ° -° m o o ~. ~ ~ ~ es a c ~ r. ~ ~ m ~ °c Z ~ J a m ~ m U ~ !~ J F - d1 ~ ~ J F J fA Z ^ + i V C m m C m C W O w c 0 U m m e~ C a a e 0 ~, ~ ~ n ~ v .. ~ a L U V r' N CI 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ c m ~ N ~/~ ~~ it G t° m Q ~ o 0 a U ~ a0 Of Of W u~'1 N e"f ~X W ~ C W w ~ N ~'f C Y~9 N M W X e W ~ W ~ ~ lQ ~ C C N W a o W ~ o ° ~ ~ ~ _ ~ to a m c ° a c~ ~+ ~ fA N t~ 1!! '~ ~ ~ H 01 C9 ~ a a ~ 0 ~ 'a N a~ ~ ~" y ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ 0 N N ~ N Q d 0 ~ d«m1 C G ~ l0 M J ~ a m i f~A O ~ ~ a _ N ~ V J 1- .-. 0 ~ ~ N t'9 R! ... GD ~ ~ 7 fA 'C H .~. .~. O ~ N1 ~ R 1 m C~ C ~? c 0 a~ . = e r x W O lf~ o ~ ~ m ~ N r ~ C r N ~ O d a ,~ ~ o y c ~ ~ w T .II N N a ~ rn ~ O ~ i a ~ R C a~ m U V ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ c ° ~ ~ ~ w = a ? ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"~ C a ~ as ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ o Z Q LL W U m H W v ~ Q ~ w w 0 ~ ~ ,^ V ~ Z 40 0 ° o - i ~ M _ C ~ ~ C N ~ d tC O m ~ ~ Q m ~ d .~+ y fA (A V ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ C m ~ ~ z ~ ~ c w m ~ fn ~ Z c d d .~ c W 7 c 0 v d b e R a a w m 0 a ~ ~ o ~ ~ C7 d -~ ~ F ~ s ' ~ d C ~ yr ~ a .C ~ ~ C t m C. c ~ G ~ m ~ $ z o e U ~ V a ~e X W m m 47 O N m ~ ~ N V m Qf ~ I~ O ~ r h Qf tp ~ N ~"~ a M m X W d- ~ ~ ~ H C W C aD ~ ~ ~ t0 ~ h N V O N N N ~ ~ m r ~ O v Of tp ~ N eel Nl !'! t0 W C ~ x W ;e ~ ee ~ ~' X W e ~ m ~ Y m 'K ~ ~ 3 w C ~ (p ~ d C ~ ~ W `y a m w o2 ° v2 ~ m a m w of ° ~ tO 0 4 ~ r u~ _ ~ ^ ~ "~ E a N ~n N c Y y j ~ c r m a ~ C a :° 2. ~ b ~ O 'C O m tp O ^ N f0 01 ~ m r ~ ^ tp O O 10 ~ !O ~ O 'C ~ T to N f c C 67 Q d H m O ~ ~ A 119 ~ Il') N 17 H F ~ ~ ~ a c a ~ ° c ~ a ~ ~ m t ae ,~ ~ H % ~ p - S ~i n ~ ~ o ~ a ~ w L_ ~ m ~. ~ a o ~ ~~ e ~ ~~ m -- ms mw m o `~ Z o m m ~~ ~ ~ U a = `o _ ie _ ~ a ~ m C 0 0 o W = .4 L ~ ~ o H io ~ ~ a Z m ~ m ~ ~ ~ • m m o e ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~- 'o c c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ S _ c ,u ' 5 a~ ~ m a~ J ~ m U= m ~ m m -- _ Q ~ ~ c `~ W o ~ ~ ° a c a ~ 3 a ~ ~ a ~ c ~ ~ °v ~ a ~ ~~ c ~ ~~ ~ ~ 'Z ~ a m ,€ m m () ~ f/1 J F- tlJ ~ Cl) J H J f!) J Z ~ 7 c • c a c W m s a c 0 V m m b c a a A ~• ~ p a~ f.' E^ ~^ as C G Q U c R c 0 U H U c 0 m c • t0 0 c m V W m N ~t X a m •c c ~ W Al CD ~ N C ~ ~ m W I~ N ~ ~X W °D ~ ~ X m Of m ~ C C W d ~ ~ w ~ ~ c o N ~ _ ~ lY0 C ~ a c~ o a ~ ~ ~ o~ a ._ H ~ m w ,~ y co l0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 2' • o N ~ ~ N Q m M ~ r C ~ ~ J ~ T m a o a a ~ ~". V J F~- 0 C ~ ~ t0 N M 7 a c ~- ~ m t0 v N ~'f ~ d C ~ C O '~ W O L ^ 117 ttI ee N ~ m ~ t0 C ;0 c 0 a ~ o ~ o w ~ y d ~o ~o m a N = N O ~ C ~p a~ m Z q ' V t0 P f N ~ ~ ~ ~ c 0 a w o ~ L _ ~ m a Y ~ ~ N C o a ~ . ~ c m a m ~ _ ~ ~ ~c w ~ a m Z O p~ W W 'U' v ~ V ~ ~ w ~ ~ C 0 ~ ~ ' V Q ~ ~ ~ ~ _ 0 0 r ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ m ~ O •c a m ~. m H ~ m C Q ~ m ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ° ~ °' ~, a 19 m m ? J fn J Z s i ci c m • c o~ c W C ~ w ~ 3 c w ~ c -~ V o L ~ m b C a a R w h V F n ~a C C d ~ ~ O O D ~ ~ m m ~ ~ v U V D • U ~ ~ ~ ~ N V w oc ~ a ~ ID ~i ~i ~"1 ~r ~i t_ d p ~ ~ $ ~ ^~~ ~ t o • d W t d M !~ ~ ~ n g M M a d d ~ M b ~ ~~h 1 S $ z8 ! ~e v g ~ y T. 7 3 ~ era'. ~ ~ ~ W ~ rn m ~ t~if ~ x~~ H ~„ .~ ~ <~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ oG - H ~ ~ OC ~ O Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ a ~ ~ d .-i N P'1 i4. b ~' E o+ 0 N n MITIG8 - Existing PM Wed Aug 4, 1999 04:32:55------------------Page-1_1 ----------------------------- Costco South San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative} Intersection #537 I-280 SB off-ramp/Serramonte Blvd. ++++++++++*+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++0*560+++++ Cycle (sec)• 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 9 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 11.$ Optimal Cycle: 38 Level Of Service: Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound WestTBoundR Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L I -------II---------------II---------------II--------------- --I-------- Control: Split Phase SpliQvlhase Protected Protected Include Include Include Rights: 0 16 0 Min. Green: 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 -0- I -----I---------------Il---------------II---------------II------------ Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Aug 1999 « Base Vol• 0 0 0 595 0 580 0 1149 0 0 630 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 595 0 580 0 1149 0 0 630 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.87 0.87 0.87 PHF Volume• 0 0 0 647 0 630 0 1291 0 0 720 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 647 0 630 0 1291 0 0 724 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 647 0 630 0 1291-----0 0 724 01 II---------------II--------- II--------------- ------------i--------------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 Z.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 Z.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3800 0 3800 0 3800 0 0 3800 01 II---------------II---------------II--------------- ------------I--------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0*** 0.00 0.17 0.00 0*34 0.00 0+00 0.19 0.00 Crit Moves: Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.4 0.0 30.9 0.0 60.6 0.0 0.0 60.6 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.001 II---------------il---------------il--------------- ------------I--------------- Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.3 0.0 19.2 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.3 0.0 19.2 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.00 610 0 0 Queue: 0 0 0 15 D 15 0 22 0 Traffix 7.0.0923 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RAJAPPAN & MEYER, SJ `~K 2ooa MITIGB - Background PM Wed Auq 4, 1999 13:03:38 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Costco South San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) +*++*+**,r*****+~**********+*****+*,.*****+**+*,r*,r****,r****+*********~*~**,+******* Intersection #537 I-280 SB off-ramp/Serramonte Blvd. Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.573 Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 12.1 Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------1---------------I1---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Riqhts: Include Ovl Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 0 10 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Aug 1999 « Base Vol: 0 0 0 607 D 595 0 1199 0 D 630 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 607 0 595 0 1149 0 0 630 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.89 0.89 0.89 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 660 0 647 0 1321 0 0 708 0 Redact Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 660 0 647 0 1321 0 0 708 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 660 0 647 0 1321 0 0 708 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3800 0 3800 0 3800 0 0 3800 0 ------------i---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 Crlt MOVe9: **** **** **** Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.3 0.0 30.3 0.0 60.7 D.0 0.0 60.7 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.5 0.0 19.4 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.5 0.0 19.4 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 6.2 D.0 Queue: 0 0 0 16 0 15 0 ZZ 0 0 10 0 Traffix 7.0.0923 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RAJAPPAN ~ MEYER, SJ ~'1 Q 2 000 MITIG8 - B~e~d PM Wed Aug 4, 1999 13:04:15 Page 1-1 ---------- ~ F~S--------------------------------------------------------------- Costco South San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis ------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #537 I-280 SB off-ramp/Serramonte Blvd. Cycle (sec)• 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.580 Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 12.1 Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I ------------I---------------il---------------il---------------II--------------- Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ovl Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 1D 0 10 0 10 0 0 1D 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 D 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------il--------------- Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Auq 1999 « Base Vol: 0 D 0 607 0 595 0 1149 0 0 630 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.D0 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 6D7 0 595 0 1199 0 0 630 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 13 0 0 13 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 617 D 595 0 1162 0 0 643 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.89 0.89 0.89 PHF Volume: D 0 0 671 0 647 0 1336 D ~ 720 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 671 0 647 0 1336 0 0 722 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 671 0 647 D 1336 0 0 722 01 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 190D 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 D.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3800 0 3800 0 3800 0 0 3800-----01 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II-------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 Crit Moves: Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.4 O.D 30.4 0.0 60.6 0.0 O.D 60.6 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 O.DO 0.56 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.31 O.ODI ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II--------------- Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.5 0.0 19.3 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.5 0.0 19.3 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 Queue• 0 0 0 16 0 15 0 23 0 0 10 0 Traffix 7.0.0923 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RAJAPPAN ~ MEYER, 5J 3acl ,~,nd MITIGB - 2010 Buil~out PM Wed Aug 4, 1999 12:56:38 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Costco South San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #537 I-280 SB off-ramp/Serramonte Blvd. ****++*+****f,r*******************+*************+******+****#***+*******,r******** Cycle (sec): lOD Critical Vol./Cap. {X): 0.592 Loss Time {sec): 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 12.4 Optimal Cycle: 40 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------I1---------------II---------------I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ovl Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 D 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 ------------i---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Aug 1999 « Base Vol: 0 0 0 595 0 580 0 630 0 0 1149 0 Growth Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 655 0 638 0 693 0 0 1264 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF At3j: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 655 D 638 0 693 0 0 1264 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 D 655 0 638 0 693 0 D 1264 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.OD MLF Adj: I.00 1.00 1.00 2.03 1.00 1.13 1.00 1.05 1.00 I.00 I.05 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 674 0 721 0 728 0 0 1327 0 ------------I---------------il---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 190D 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 Z.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 D 3800 0 3800 0 3800 0 0 3800 0 ------------1---------------II---------------II---------------il---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 Crit Moves: *'`** **'`* **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.32 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------11---------------I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 D.0 18.6 0.0 19.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 User De1Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.4 0.0 18.6 0.0 19.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 Queue: 0 0 0 16 0 17 0 10 0 0 23 0 ***t********+++*~**~********+**+**************t+*****+******************~*+***** Traffix 7.0.0923 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RAJAPPAN & MEYER, SJ MITIG8 - 2010 Buildout PM Wed Aug 4, 1999 12:56:05 Page 1-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Costco South San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******,r*****+**+~+,r****~****+**t***,r**+*****+****«*+****~*+****~*******+***+**** Intersection #537 I-280 SB off-ramp/Serramonte Blvd. Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.596 Loss Time (sec): 9 (Y+R 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 12.4 Optimal Cycle: 41 Level Of Service: B ***+**+**++**~******++***+****.***+******+**+************+****+**********+***~t* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T R ------------I---------------1I---------------II---------------11---------------I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ovl Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 D 0 0 D 2 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Aug 1999 « Base Vol: 0 0 0 595 0 580 0 630 0 0 1149 0 Growth Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 655 0 638 0 693 0 0 1264 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D PasserByVol: D 0 0 10 0 0 0 13 0 0 13 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 665 0 638 0 706 0 0 1277 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 665 0 638 0 706 0 0 1277 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 665 0 638 0 706 D 0 1277 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.03 1.00 1.13 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 684 0 721 0 741 0 0 1341 0 -------- ------------i---------------II---------------If---------------11------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: O.DO 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 3800 0 3800 0 3800 0 0 3800 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 O.OG 0.19 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 Crit Moves: **** '`*** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 D.OD 0.32 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.60 O.OD 0.33 O.OD 0.00 0.60 0_00 ------------I---------------II---------------il---------------I1----------- --1 Level Of Service Module: Delay/veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 19.1 0.0 6.7 D.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 19.1 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 Queue: 0 0 0 16 0 17 0 10 0 0 24 0 Traffix 7.0.0923 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RAJAPPAN ~ MEYER, SJ MITIG8 - Existing PM Wed Aug 4, 1999 04:26:33 Page 1-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Costco South San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) *,.**,r+,r*,r++.+,r***+**,rf*~************+++,.,r*++++*******,r*,r***,r*,.*******~,r**~**+*+* Intersection #536 I-280 NB on-ramp/Serramonte Blvd. Cycle (sec): I00 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.405 Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y+R 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.7 Optimal Cycle: 60 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------tl---------------il---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 D 0 0 0 2 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 410 1315 0 0 656 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 910 1315 0 0 656 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 D 0 0 451 1445 0 0 721 D Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 451 1445 0 0 721 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 I.00 1.00 1.00 I.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 D 0 0 0 D 451 1445 0 0 721 D ------------i---------------II---------------II---------------11---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 D 0 0 3800 3800 0 D 3800 0 ------------I---------------II---------------il---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 Crit Maves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.2 94.0 0.0 0.0 57.8 0.0 Volume/Cap: O.OG G.00 0.00 G.OG 0.00 G.00 0.33 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.33 O.OG ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------i Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 0.0 D.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 Queue : 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 4 0 0 10 0 Traffix 7.0.0923 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RAJAPPAN & MEYER, SJ `(~ 2000 MZTIGB - Background PM Wed Aug 4, 1999 12:38:39 Page I-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Costco South San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #536 I-280 NB on-ramp/Serramonte Blvd. **+**,rf*******~*+*,r******:+**,r***,r******+***,r*+****#**++**+****,r*+,r****+*,r****** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.408 Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.7 Optimal Cycle: 23 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------I1---------------II---------------t Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 D Lanes : 0 0 0 D D 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Aug 1999 « Base vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 410 1327 0 0 656 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 910 1327 0 D 656 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 0 451 1458 0 0 721 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: D 0 0 0 0 0 451 1458 0 0 721 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 I.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 I.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 0 451 1458 0 0 721 0 ------------i---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 0 0 0 3800 3800 0 0 3800 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.38 0.00 D.00 0.19 O.DO Crit Moves: **** **** Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.2 94.0 0.0 0.0 57.8 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.33 0_00 ------------I---------------II---------------il---------------II----------- --I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 Queue : 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 4 0 0 1 D 0 Traffix 7.0.0923 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RAJAPPAN & MEYER, SJ ^I ~ 2~ MITIG8 - Baeleetre~d PM Wed Aug 4, 1999 12:39x32------------------Page-1_1 ---------- P1.~~ELs------------------------------ ---- Costco South San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis ----------------------_---------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) +*.*****+t+***************~*+****+********+**.********,.*~*+*+*********~*******+* Intersection #536 Z-280 NB on-ramp/Serramonte Blvd. Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.415 Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.6 Optimal Cycle: 24 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------1---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------i Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Aug 1999 « Base Vol: 0 0 Q 0 0 0 410 1327 0 0 656 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 410 1327 0 0 656 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByvol: 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 23 0 0 13 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 0 0 0 410 1350 0 0 669 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 0 451 1484 0 0 735 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 451 1484 0 D 735 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 0 451 1484 0 0 735 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Z.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 0 0 0 3800 3800 0 0 3800 0 ------------I---------------II---------------I1---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 Crit Maves: '`'`*'` **** Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.Q 0.0 0.0 35.7 94.0 0.0 0.0 58.3 0.0 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 I.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D.0 0.0 15.2 0.2 D.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 Queue: 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 4 0 0 11 0 Traffix 7.0.0923 {c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RAJAPPAN & MEYER, SJ gnc ~ rah, r~ MITIGB - 2010 -B~~tt PM Wed Aug 4, 1999 12:45:41 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Costco South San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 fiCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ***,r****+~*+****,r*,r***+*+***#****+*+*+**,r***************,rr****++****+****++,r*+** Intersection #536 I-280 NB on-ramp/Serramonte Blvd. r+******+**********+******,r**,r*+***+****##+*+t**,r*******,r****+++,r+,r+*+*t*****+** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.425 Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y+R 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.7 Optimal Cycle: 24 Level Of Service: A *,r++*+++**+*+***~**,r*+*.,rt**+*+*,r,r*+***+*****++*********+**++,r*++*************++ Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 D 2 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: » Count Date: 1 Sep 1997 « Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 410 1315 0 0 656 0 Growth Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 0 0 451 1447 0 0 722 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 0 451 1447 0 0 722 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 451 1447 0 0 722 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 0 465 1519 D 0 758 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------i Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 D 0 0 0 3800 3800 0 0 3800 0 ------------I---------------il---------------II---------------il---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.DO 0.00 0.36 0.94 0.00 O.OD D.58 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.34 0_00 ------------i---------------II---------------II---------------II----------- --I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.D0 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 Queue : 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 4 0 0 11 0 **+++***+**.****+*++**********,.*****+******t******+**+**+*****++*++******~**+*+* Traffix 7.D.0923 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RAJRPPAN 6 MEYER, SJ MITIGB - 2010 Buildout PM Wed Aug 4, 1999 12:47:52 Page 1-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Costco South San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #536 I-280 NB on-ramp/Serramonte Blvd. ~*+***t**+***********+*~*+*+**+***~****+***t*~**,r*********+++********+*****,.*.*~ Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.432 Loss Time (sec): 6 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.7 Optimal Cycle: 24 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 G 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 D 0 0 0 2 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: » Count Date: 1 Sep 1997 « Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 410 1315 0 0 656 0 Growth Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.I0 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Initial Bse: D 0 0 0 0 0 451 1447 0 0 722 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 13 0 Initial Fut: 0 D 0 0 0 0 451 147D 0 0 735 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.OD 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 I.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 0 0 451 1470 0 0 735 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 451 147D 0 0 735 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.03 1.05. 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 0 465 1543 0 0 771 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------If---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Z.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 0 0 0 3800 3800 D 0 3800 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 Crit Moves: '`**'` **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 D.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 ------------I---------------il---------------il---------------il---------------I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 0.0 D.0 0.0 0.0 O.D 15.9 0.3 D.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 Queue: 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 4 0 0 11 0 Traffix 7.0.0923 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RAJAPPAN ~ MEYER, SJ MZTIGB - Existing PM Wed Aug 4, 1999 04:17:10 Page 1-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Costco South San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #535 E1 Camino Real/Serramonte Cycle (sec): 119 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.900 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 33.8 Optimal Cycle: 119 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Ovl Include Ovl Min. Green: 10 10 10 7 10 10 1G 10 10 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Aug 1999 « Base Vol: 270 983 267 137 758 138 206 327 138 212 422 166 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 270 983 267 137 758 138 206 327 138 212 422 166 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.80 0.80 0.80 PHF Volume: 338 1229 334 178 984 179 271 430 182 265 528 208 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 338 1229 334 178 984 179 271 430 182 265 528 208 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: I.00 1.00 1.00 I.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 T.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 338 1229 334 178 984 179 271 430 182 265 528 208 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.36 0.64 1.00 3.00 1.00 0.61 0.98 0.41 0.67 1.33 1.00 Final Sat.: 1900 4482 1218 1900 5700 1900 1166 1851 783 1270 2530 1900 ------------i---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.18 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.17 0.09 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 24.7 36.3 36.3 12.4 24.0 54.7 30.7 30.7 30.7 27.6 27.6 40.0 Volume/Cap: 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.20 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.33 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 41.1 30.5 30.5 60.3 34.3 12.4 35.5 35.5 35.5 37.4 37.4 19.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 41.1 30.5 30.5 60.3 34.3 12.4 35.5 35.5 35.5 37.4 37.4 19.1 Queue: 12 42 13 8 33 4 11 16 8 11 19 5 **+********+*~***+***+******+**f******f**+**+*****+***f*************+**+**~***** Traffix 7.0.0923 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RAJAPPAN & MEYER, SJ `~ R aoo 0 MITIGB - Background PM Wed Aug 4, 1999 06:34:42 Page 1-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Costco South San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #535 El Camino Real/Serramonte *********+****,r*****+****+**************************************************+*** Cycle {sec): 131 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.909 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 37.2 Optimal Cycle: I31 Level Of Service: D- Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------Il---------------I Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Ovl Include Ovl Min. Green: 7 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 274 1006 271 137 807 138 206 327 150 224 422 166 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 274 1006 271 137 807 138 206 327 150 224 422 166 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVal: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 274 1006 271 137 807 138 206 327 150 224 422 166 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.80 0.80 0.80 PHF Volume: 343 1258 339 178 1048 179 271 430 197 280 528 208 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 343 1258 339 178 1048 179 271 430 197 280 528 208 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 343 1258 339 178 1048 179 271 430 197 280 528 208 ------------{---------------II---------------tl---------------11---------------4 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19D0 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.36 0.64 1.00 3.00 1.00 0.77 1.23 1.00 0.55 1.04 0.41 Final Sat.: 1900 4490 1210 1900 5700 1900 1469 2331 1900 1047 1975 778 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.18 0.28 0.28 0.09 O.IB 0.09 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.27 Crit Moves- **** **** **** **** Green Time: 26.7 40.4 90.4 13.5 27.2 53.8 26.6 26.6 26.6 38.5 38.5 52.0 Volume/Cap: 0.89 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.89 0.23 0.91 0.91 D.51 0.91 0.91 0.67 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 47.5 33.5 33.5 65.6 38.5 16.3 43.5 43.5 30.9 36.6 36.6 21.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 47.5 33.5 33.5 65.6 38.5 16.3 43.5 43.5 30.9 36.6 36.6 21.8 Queue: 14 47 14 8 40 4 12 18 7 12 21 7 Traffix 7.0.0923 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RAJAPPAN & MEYER, SJ `i4lf~op P Q of ect MITIGS - -Bae~ct~re~ertel-PM Wed Auq 4, 1999 06:36:44 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Costco South San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #535 E1 Camino Real/Serramonte r**,r++x,r,r,t,r*****+*#,t*,t**,t,t,t,r+*,t,t,t,t**,t,t*t**#,tr++****,t,t,rt+r,t,r**+***++**********+*+* Cycle (sec): 139 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.915 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 39.5 Optimal Cycle: 139 Level Of Service: D- **t**+,r****,r*r+,r+*+,r****,r*+,r***,v**++*tt*,r*+**,r,r:*********++#**,r* c+*************+ Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------)I---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Ovl Include Ovl Min. Green: 7 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 D 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 274 1006 271 137 807 138 206 327 150 224 422 166 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 274 1006 271 137 807 138 206 327 150 224 422 166 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 7 31 7 0 31 D 0 0 7 7 0 0 Initial Fut: 281 1037 278 137 838 138 206 327 157 231 422 166 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.80 0.80 0.80 PHF Volume: 351 1296 348 178 1088 179 271 430 207 289 528 208 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 351 1296 348 178 1088 179 271 430 207 289 528 208 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 351 1296 348 178 1088 179 271 430 207 289 528 208 ------------i---------------11---------------II---------------ll---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.36 0.64 1.00 3.00 1.00 0.77 1.23 1.00 0.56 1.03 0.41 Final Sat.: 1900 4493 1207 1900 5700 1900 1469 2331 1900 1071 1957 771 ------------i---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.18 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.27 0.27 0.27 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green Time: 28.5 43.8 43.8 14.2 29.5 57.5 28.0 28.0 28.0 41.0 41.0 55.2 Volume/Cap: 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.90 0.23 0.92 0.92 0.54 0.92 0.92 0.68 ------------I---------------il---------------II---------------II---------------I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 51.1 35.3 35.3 69.3 41.2 17.1 46.3 46.3 33.3 38.9 38.9 23.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 51.1 35.3 35.3 69.3 41.2 17.1 46.3 46.3 33.3 38.9 38.9 23.2 Queue: 16 52 16 9 44 4 13 19 7 13 23 7 +**.*+*****t**++******+**.*******+**+*****+*~**+++***,r***+t*+*~..******+******+** Traffix 7.0.0923 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RAJAPPAN ~ MEYER, SJ Bad~j2und Pa e 1-1 MITIG8 - 2010 $~.d.ds~ PM Wed Aug 4 , 1999 11:27:22 4 ------------------------ Costco South San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis ----------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) *******++*.***,r************+*******+**+***,r**+**~**,.+*+***+,r**+*******+*****t*** Intersection #535 E1 Camino Real/Serramonte +*+a+,t++***rt***,r*++t**+,t,r**,t,t*********,t**+***#t+******++***+*,r+*+*+**********+** Cycle (sec)• 86 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.854 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 23.9 Optimal Cycle: 86 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T--_--R-I _ __ ______ II---------------II-------- I---------------II--------------- Control: Protected Protected Split Phase SpliOvlhase Rights: Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 1D 10 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1--D--1-I ------------i---------------II---------------II---------------II-------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 274 1006 271 137 807 138 206 327 150 224 422 166 Growth Adi: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Initial Bse: 301 1107 298 151 888 152 227 360 165 296 464 183 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 301 1107 298 151 888 152 227 360 165 246 464 183 Reduct Vol: D 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 301 1107 298 151 888 152 227 360 165 246 464 183 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 301 1217 328 151 976 152 227 360 165 246 464_--1831 II---------------II---------------II------- ------------I--------------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 I.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.36 0.64 1.00 3.00 1.00 0.60 0.96 0.44 0.69 1.31 1.00 Final Sat.: 1900 9490 1210 1900 5700 1900 1147 1819 834 1317 2483 -19001 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.27 0.27 0.08 0.17 0.08 0**0 0.20 D.ZO 0.19 0**9 0.10 Crit Moves: **'* ~*~"` Green/Cycle: 0.20 0.32 0.32 0.09 0.21 0.44 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.31 Volume/Cap: 0.80 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.18 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.311 II---------------II--------------- 1------------- ------------i--------------- Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 29.5 20.8 20.8 46.1 23.6 9.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 27.0 27.0 14.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 29.5 20.8 20.8 46.1 23.6 9.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 27.0 2712 14.3 Queue: 8 29 9 5 23 2 7 10 5 ********+*+*.****+***+***.*+********:*++**+***,r****«+*++**t*******+*****+******+ Traffix 7.0.0923 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RAJAPPAN ~ MEYER, SJ MITIG8 - 2010 Buildout PM Wed Aug 4, 1999 11:26:10 Page 1-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Costco South San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) *****,r,-~,r**,r*****+,r*****++**,r*+***,r********,r*********,r+*.,r*,r****+,r***+********** Intersection #535 E1 Camino Real/5erramonte *w+*++*r**t,t*,t*,t*,t*+,t*,r*tt,t,t**,r+***,r,r++**+*,t**,r,t**t*,t****++.**,t***+***+*,r,t****** Cycle (sec): 90 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.861 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 25.0 Optimal Cycle: 90 Level Of Service: D *****+**++r*+*+*****,r**********+****,r*+++******+++******,r****+***+.++++++**+***+* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Ovl Include Ovl Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 274 1006 271 137 807 13B 206 327 I50 224 422 166 -1 Growth Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Initial Bse: 301 1107 298 151 888 152 227 360 165 246 464 183 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 7 31 7 0 31 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 Initial Fut: 308 1138 305 151 919 152 227 360 172 253 464 183 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 308 1138 305 151 919 152 227 360 172 253 464 183 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G G Reduced Vol: 308 1138 305 151 919 152 227 360 172 253 464 183 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.I0 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 308 1251 336 151 1011 152 227 360 172 253 464 183 ------------4---------------1V---------------44---------------{{---------------{ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.36 0.64 1.00 3.00 1.00 0.60 0.95 0.45 0.71 1.29 1.00 Final Sat.: 1900 4493 1207 1900 5700 1900 1136 1802 861 1341 2459 1900 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.28 0.08 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.10 Crlt MOVes' **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.20 0.32 0.32 0.09 0.22 0.45 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.31 Volume/Cap: 0.82 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.82 0.18 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.31 ------------I---------------il---------------II---------------II---------------I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 31.3 2I.6 21.6 48.3 24.8 9.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 28.3 28.3 15.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 31.3 21.6 21.6 48.3 24.8 9.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 28.3 28.3 15.4 Queue: 9 31 10 5 25 2 7 10 6 8 13 4 Traffix 7.0.0923 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RAJAPPAN & MEYER, SJ MITIG8 - Existing PM Wed Aug 4, 1999 11:52:34 Page 1-1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Costco South San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #533 Juniperro Serra Blvd/Serramonte Blvd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.769 Loss Time {sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 Sec) Rverage Delay (sec/veh): 23.3 Optimal Cycle: 70 Level Of Service: C- Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------1I---------------II---------------II---------------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Ovl Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 i0 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Lanes: 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 D 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Aug 1999 « Base Vol: 367 390 138 111 383 157 485 668 162 237 966 38 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 367 390 138 111 383 157 485 668 162 237 966 38 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 417 443 157 123 426 174 511 703 171 252 1028 40 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 417 443 157 123 426 179 511 703 171 252 1028 40 PCE Rdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.QO I.00 I.00 1.00 I.00 1.00 I.00 Final Vol.: 417 443 157 123 426 174 511 703 171 252 1028 40 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 190D 1900 1900 1900 1900 19D0 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.OQ 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 0.45 1.55 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.Q0 1.00 1.93 0.07 Final Sat.: 3800 3800 1900 851 2949 1900 3800 3800 1900 1900 3658 142 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.12 O.D8 0.14 0.14 0.09 0.13 0.19 0.09 0.13 0.28 0.28 Crlt Moves• **** **** **** **** Green Time: 15.2 15.2 37.7 18.8 18.8 18.8 17.5 31.5 46.6 22.6 36.6 36.6 Volume/Cap: 0.72 0.77 0.22 0.77 0.77 0.49 D.77 0.59 0.19 0.59 0.77 0.77 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 27.7 28.6 13.7 28.4 28.4 24.3 29.2 19.2 10.1 23.9 20.0 20.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.Q0 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 27.7 28.6 13.7 28.4 28.4 24.3 29.2 19.2 10.1 23.9 20.4 20.0 Queue: 12 I3 3 4 12 4 14 17 3 6 26 2 Traffix 7.0.0923 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RAJAPPAN 6 MEYER, SJ `1R a~ov MITIGS - Background PM Wed Aug 4, 1999 11:50:28 Page 1-1 ------------------------------------------------------T------------------------ Costco South San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #533 Juniperro Serra Blvd/Serramon*_e Blvd Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.785 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec} Average Delay (sec/veh): 23.7 Optimal Cycle: 74 Level Of Service: C- **a,r~+r++#+irir,r#*,ti.,t**ir*r,t*+,t*+*r**a+,tr,t+,r**ir*,t*a,tt+*,t*ir*t,t++*,t*++,t+*.**.+,r+**~,tri. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T R ------------I---------------II---------------il---------------II---------------I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Ovl Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Lanes: 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Aug 1999 « Base Vol: 367 390 138 111 383 157 485 680 162 237 970 38 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 367 390 138 111 383 157 485 680 162 237 970 38 User Adj: 1.DD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 417 443 157 123 426 174 511 716 171 252 1032 40 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 417 443 157 123 426 174 511 716 171 252 1032 40 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 417 443 157 123 426 174 511 716 171 252 1032 40 ------------i---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19D0 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: Z.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.42 0.58 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.93 0.07 Final Sat.: 3800 3800 1900 1900 2698 1102 3800 3800 1900 1900 3658 142 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.19 0.09 0.13 D.28 0.28 Crit Moves: ***" *'`'`* **~* **** Green Time: 14.8 14.8 36.8 20.1 20.1 Z0.1 17.1 31.1 46.0 21.9 35.9 35.9 Volume/Cap: 0.74 0.79 0.22 0.32 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.61 0.20 0.61 0.79 0_'19 ------------I---------------II---------------il---------------II------------ --I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 28.1 29.2 14.1 22.2 28.3 28.3 30.0 19.5 10.4 24.5 20.7 20.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 28.1 29.2 14.1 22.2 28.3 28.3 30.0 19.5 10.4 24.5 20.'7 20.7 Queue: 12 13 3 3 12 5 15 17 3 7 27 2 Traffix 7.0.0923 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RAJAPPAN & MEYER, SJ `~Facoa Pro ec.~ MITIG8 - PM Wed Auq 4, 1999 06:55:19 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Costco South San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) *********++++**+******+**,r*,r,r*,r*+**,r**,r,r,r**+f~*****++***+**,r****,rt++*****.*.***+ Intersection #533 Juniperro Serra Blvd/Serramonte Blvd Cycle (sec}: 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.785 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Averaqe Delay (sec/veh): 23.8 Optimal Cycle: 74 Level Of Service: C- Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L T R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------i Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Ovl Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 ld 10 7 10 10 Lanes: 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 ------------I---------------II---------------it---------------II---------------I Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Auq 1999 « Base Vol: 367 390 138 111 383 157 485 680 162 237 970 38 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 367 390 138 111 383 157 485 680 162 237 970 38 Added Vol: 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 390 390 138 111 383 157 485 680 185 237 970 38 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 443 443 157 123 426 174 511 716 195 252 1032 40 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 443 443 157 123 426 174 511 716 195 252 1032 90 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD Final Vol.: 443 443 157 123 426 174 511 716 195 252 1032 40 ------------I---------------!)---------------ii---------------1I---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.42 0.58 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.93 0.07 Final Sat.: 3800 3800 1900 1900 2698 1102 3800 3800 1900 1900 3658 142 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol{Sat: 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.19 0.10 0.13 0.28 0.28 *,r*+ ***« ***,r **,r* Crit Moves: Green Time: 14.8 14.8 36.8 20.1 20.1 20.1 17.1 31.1 46.0 21.9 35.9 35.9 Volume/Cap: 0.79 0.79 0.22 0.32 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.61 0.22 0.61 0.79 0.79 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------1 Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 29.1 29.1 14.1 22.2 28.3 28.3 30.0 19.5 10.5 24.5 20.7 20.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 29.1 29.1 14.1 22.2 28.3 28.3 30.0 19.5 10.5 24.5 20.7 20.7 Queue: 13 13 3 3 12 5 15 17 3 7 27 2 Traffix 7.0.0923 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RAJAPPAN 6 MEYER, SJ yK 2f,~o MITIG8 - Background PM Wed Aug 4, 1999 12:19:11 Page 1-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Costco South San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #533 Juniperro Serra Blvd/Serramonte Blvd Cycle {sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.797 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 23.9 Optimal Cycle: 76 Level Of Service: C- Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------i---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Ovl Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Lanes: 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------t Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Aug 1999 « Base Vol: 367 390 138 111 383 157 485 680 162 237 970 38 Growth Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Initial Bse: 404 429 152 122 421 173 534 748 178 261 1067 42 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 404 429 152 122 421 173 534 748 178 261 1067 42 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced VoI: 404 429 152 122 921 173 534 748 178 261 1067 42 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD I.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 404 429 152 122 421 173 534 748 178 261 1067 42 ------------I---------------II---------------11---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19D0 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.42 0.58 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.92 0.08 Final Sat.: 3800 3800 1900 1900 2693 1107 3800 3800 1900 1900 3656 144 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------11---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.11 D.08 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.20 D.09 0.14 D.29 0.29 Crit Moves- **** "** **'`* **** Green Time: 14.2 14.2 36.5 19.6 19.6 19.6 17.6 31.9 46.1 22.3 36.6 36.6 Volume/Cap: 0.75 0.80 0.22 0.33 0.80 0.80 0.80 G.62 0.20 0.62 0.80 0.80 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 28.7 29.9 14.2 22.5 29.0 29.0 30.2 19.3 10.4 24.5 20.7 20.7 User De1Adj: 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 28.7 29.9 14.2 22.5 29.0 29.0 30.2 19.3 1D.4 24.5 20.7 20.7 Queue: 12 13 3 3 12 6 15 18 3 7 28 2 Traffix 7.0.4923 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RAJAPPAN ~ MEYER, SJ ,yR Zoia MITIG8 - Bacl d PM Wed Aug 4, 1999 12:20_17------------------Page 1-1 ----------QBS2 ~ ~ ----------------------------- ---------- Costco South San Francisco Traffic Impact Analysis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #533 Juniperro Serra Blvd/Serramonte Blvd Cycle {sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.797 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 24.D Optimal Cycle: 76 Level Of Service: C- Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------1I---------------II---------------I1---------------I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Ovl Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 i0 7 10 10 7 10 10 Lanes : 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 D 1 1 D 1 1 0 ------------I---------------II---------------I----------------II---------------I Volume Module: » Count Date: 3 Aug 1999 « Base Vol: 367 390 138 11I 383 157 485 680 162 237 97G 38 Growth Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Initial Bse: 404 429 152 122 921 173 534 748 178 261 1067 42 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 D 0 PasserByVol: 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 427 429 152 122 421 173 534 748 201 261 1067 42 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 427 429 152 222 421 173 534 748 201 261 1067 42 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 427 429 152 122 421 173 534 748 201 261 1067 42 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 427 429 152 122 421 173 534 748 201 261 1067 42 ------------I---------------If---------------II---------------II---------------i Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 190D 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.42 0.58 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.92 0.08 Final Sat.: 3800 3800 1900 1900 2693 1107 3800 3800 1900 1900 3656 144 ------------I---------------il---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: O.il 0.11 0.08 0.06 D.16 D.16 0.14 0.20 0.11 0.14 0.29 0.29 Crlt MOVe3' **** **** **** **** Green Time: 14.2 14.2 36.5 19.6 19.6 19.6 17.6 31.9 46.1 22.3 36.6 36.6 Volume/Cap: 0.79 0.80 0.22 0.33 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.62 0.23 0.62 0.80 0.80 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 29.7 29.8 14.2 22.5 29.0 29.0 30.2 19.3 10.5 24.5 20.7 20.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.DD 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 29.7 29.8 14.2 22.5 29.0 29.0 30.2 19.3 10.5 24.5 20.7 20.7 Queue: 13 13 3 3 12 6 15 18 3 7 28 2 Traffix 7.0.0923 (c) 1997 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RAJAPPAN ~ MEYER, SJ r- Giroux 8c Associates ~ Environmental Consultants ACOUST =CAL ANALY S Z S COSTCO WHOLESALE STORE/GAS STATION SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Jerry Haag & Associates Attn: Jerry Haag 2029 University Avenue Berkeley, CA 94704 Date: July 8, 1999 17744 Sky Phrk Circle, Suite 210, Irvine, California 92614 -Phone (949) ts51-tfbuv - tnx ~y4y~ zs~~-rso~~ S ETT = NG Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise is unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that describe the rate of oscillation of sound waves, the distance between successive troughs or crests, the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content of a given sound. In particular, the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound intensity. A decibel is defined as the logarithmic ratio of a physical parameter relative to some reference level. For sound, the reference level is the faintest sound that can be heard by an average person with good auditory acuity. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions in a process called "A- weighting", written as dB(A). All noise units in the following discussion written as "dB" should be understood to be "dB{A)". Time variations in noise exposure is typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called Leq), or, alternately, as a statistical description of what sound level is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. Finally, because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). CNEL is broken down into three time periods where one noise penalty is assigned to evening events, and a more stringent penalty for the hours from 10 PM to 7 AM. A similar descriptor called the day-night level (Ldn) is used in some jurisdictions. Ldn and CNEL are almost identical. CNEL and Ldn are considered interchangeable in this noise analysis. An interior CNEL of 45 dB is mandated for multiple family dwellings, and is considered a desirable noise exposure for single family dwelling units as well. Since typical noise attenuation within residential structures with closed windows is around 20 dB, an exterior noise exposure of 65 dB CNEL is thus the design exterior noise exposure for most residential dwellings in California that facilitates meeting the interior standard. A level of 65 dB CNEL is also the threshold where ambient noise begins to significantly interfere with outdoor recreation or relaxation such as quiet conversations, reading, etc. A noise exposure standard of 65 dB CNEL thus is appropriate for achieving both acceptable 1 interior as well as exterior noise exposures. Because commercial uses are not occupied on a 24-hour basis, the same exterior noise exposure standard generally does not apply for such less noise sensitive land uses. There are two types of noise standards/criteria that are applied to the ambient noise environment to protect the public. Local jurisdictions generally have community noise ordinances that dictate the allowable noise levels that a regulated source may impose upon an adjacent land use. These thresholds generally vary with the noise sensitivity of the affected use. Such noise ordinances are prescriptive and proactive. For many sources, especially from transportation, noise control is preempted by state or federal law. Local response to such noise sources is therefore more reactive. Achieving an acceptable noise exposure near airports or highways is accomplished by regulating allowable land use, by requiring construction of noise propagation barriers, or by requiring extra architectural noise protection to insure that building interiors are quiet even when the exterior is excessively noisy. The range of allowable noise exposures as a function of exposure to locally preempted sources is generally articulated in the Noise Element of the affected jurisdiction's General Plan. Noise Standards Noise standards that are applicable to the proposed project are contained in the City of San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code). The ordinance establishes maximum noise levels that a noise generator on one property may impose upon an adjacent property. These noise standards vary with the noise sensitivity of the receiving property. The project site is in a Planned Commercial (P-C-L) zone. Adjacent land uses include a mobile home and travel trailer park ina P-C-L zone northwest of the site, and low (R-1-E) and medium (R-2-H) density residential uses southwest of the site across E1 Camino Real. For on-site sources of noise generation potentially affecting the residential uses adjacent to and across from the project site, the City of South San Francisco Noise Ordinance prohibits "excessive, unnecessary and unreasonable noises from any and all sources in the community" in order to protect "the peace, health, safety and welfare" of city residents. (Section 8.32.010) In addition to numerical standards, the ordinance further prohibits "any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood." (Section 8.32.030d) The ordinance sets time and noise level (dB) restrictions for commercial zones as follows: 2 Time Period 10 p.m. - 7 a.m. 7 a.m. - 10 p.m. (Table 8.32.030) 60 65 These limits apply at the northern project property line shared with the mobile home and travel trailer park. These limits are not to be exceeded on more than fifty percent of all noise readings n anyone hour (called an "L50" standard). On-site activities such as truck unloading, mechanical equipment such as air conditioners, operation of maintenance activities such as parking lot sweeping or trash pickup, etc. may exceed this L50 standard on occasion if such activities stay within the parameters of the ordinance. If the noise level standard is exceeded by plus 5 dB, the cumulative period of violation may not exceed 15 minutes in an hour. More stringent time restrictions apply as the violation of the standard increases in dB level with a maximum violation of 20 dB. (See Section 8.32.030) On-site activities could constitute a nuisance if they annoy any reasonable number of people, even if the numerical standards are not exceeded. Nuisance, however, is a subjective determination such that quantitative standards like those cited above are normally the preferred basis for assessing noise environment acceptability. Commercial activity noise spill-over into adjacent low-residential uses across El Camino Real is specifically addressed in Section 8.32.030(c) which states that the noise level standard at any commercial/low density residential interface shall be that applicable to the residential zone plus 5 dB. This means that the maximum spill-over noise level must be within these parameters: Noise Level (dB) 10 p.m. - 7 a.m. 7 a.m. - 10 p.m. 55 (50 +5) 65 (60 +5) If baseline noise levels due to traffic on E1 Camino Real already exceed the above threshold levels, the ambient level becomes the Noise Level (dB) 3 new L50 standard and the allowable excursions from L50 are adjusted upward accordingly. The City's noise ordinance also governs construction activities. The ordinance limits on-site construction to hours of lesser noise sensitivity with heavy equipment to operate only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. on weekdays, 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. In addition, any single piece of equipment may not produce a noise level exceeding 90 dB at a distance of 25 .feet. (Section 8.32.050) Existing Noise Levels In order to determine existing baseline levels of noise at the project site, a 24-hour noise measurement was made on June 29-30, 1999. Monitoring was conducted using digital sound level meters calibrated before and after the measurement. The measurements were made along E1 Camino Real near the rear of the existing homes on Camaritas Circle (Low Density Residential zone) near the mobile homes in the Treasure Island Trailer Court (Planned Commercial zone), and adjacent to the proposed loading dock for the Costco (Planned Commercial zone). Table 1 summarizes the project site noise characteristics at the various monitoring locations from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. when unloading, sales or other activities would be occurring at the project site. Measured L50 noise levels across E1 Camino Real exceed the 65 dB daytime standard on most hours because of background traffic noise. The allowable project site noise would thus be adjusted upward to 70 dB (L50) to accommodate the existing background noise. At the mobile home park interface with the project site, the increased distance from E1 Camino Real reduces baseline noise conditions. The allowable daytime noise exposure at the site boundary is 65 dB (L50). Background conditions are elevated, but not in excess of 65 dB (L50). The City noise standard would apply in its unmodified form at the boundary with the mobile home park. For locations closest to the loading dock, the following baseline L50 noise levels were observed relative to the allowable standard: 10 p.m. - 7 a.m. 60 dB 46-60 7 a.m. - 10 p.m. 65 dB 56-61 4 TABLE 1 PROJECT SITE NOISE IrIONITORING SZJl~II4ARY June 29-30, 1999 (6 a.m. - 9 p.mm.) Camaritas/ Loading Treasure Parameter E1 Camino Dock Area Island' Energy-Averaged Levels (Leq) 69-75 59-66 54-60 50th Percentile Levels (L50) 64-70 56-61 50-57 Maximum Level (Lmax) 88 83 80 Minimum Level (Lorin) 56 51 48 ' - Near the "permanent" park site northeast of Colma Creek. During the daytime, an adequate margin of safety exists that would allow for a moderate level of site activity noise without threatening the standard. At night, there are two noise concerns, namely: (1) Noise levels in the middle of the night are low. If there were any loud sources on the project site, they would be clearly noticeable even if the 60 dB standard is not exceeded. (2) Around 6 a.m., background noise levels increase to near the 60 dB nocturnal standard. Site activity noise could cause the standard to be exceeded during the early morning hours because it is just marginally met without any project activity noise. The project vicinity noise readings suggest the following: (1) Homes west of E1 Camino Real have high background levels that will mask any site activity noise. (2) Daytime background noise can probably accommodate project activities without causing any violation of the City's noise ordinance standards. (3) On-site noise could constitute a nuisance if generated during the middle of the night, and could cause the standard to be exceeded during the early morning hours. 6 NO = S E =MPACT ANALY S 2 S Standards of Significance Community noise problems typically occur at levels that are well below the threshold for hearing loss. Noise at less than hearing loss levels, however, may nevertheless create a variety of negative effects through loss of sleep, interference with communication or lack of concentration. Noise-induced stress varies from one person to another and varies even within the same person from one day to the next. There are therefore no clear-cut limits that characterize a stress-free noise environment. The City of South San Francisco has established noise compatibility standards for various land uses as previously noted. A substantial increase in off-site noise levels due to project-related changes in traffic that causes these standards to be exceeded would be considered a significant impact. Site-related traffic, however, is rapidly diluted as cars select various preferred access/egress routes. Arterial roadways near the project site already experience a high level of vehicular noise that will mask any additional site traffic noise. Project-related, off-site noise level changes are only a fractional decibel. Noise analysis methodology is accurate only to the nearest whole decibel, and most people only notice a change in the noise environment when pre- and post-project differences are around 3 dB. Nasking effects of existing traffic at any off-site receivers possibly affected by increases in project-related transportation will minimize project perceptibility. The dilution of potential noise impacts at increasing distance from the proposed project suggests that any impact potential will be concentrated within the immediate vicinity of the site. Site- related impacts are governed by the municipal noise ordinance. A potential to violate the ordinance would be considered a significant impact. Such impacts could derive from commercial activities, from maintenance and other service functions, or from vehicle movements in, out and within the parking lot. Such activities may not necessarily violate numerical standards, but could be perceived as a nuisance by virtue of time of day, nature of the activity, or because of isolated single events. Noise generation late at night such as parking lot sweeping or trash pick-up could be a nuisance and thus be significant even if standards are not exceeded. Temporary noise generation will result during construction activities to finish grading the site and construct proposed site improvements. Both the duration and intensity of such noise will be temporary. Enforcement of time limits on allowable 7 construction, as well as other good construction practice elements, can usually keep construction noise impacts at less than significant levels. NOISE IMPACTS Facility Construction Peak noise levels from heavy construction equipment are seen in Table 2 to be around 90 dB at 50 feet from the source. With normal spherical spreading losses, the noise exposure decreases at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. The nearest homes from the center of the Costco store building pad are around 300 feet away. Peak construction noise will be 74 dB at the nearest residences. These are short-term peak levels. Hourly average noise levels will be 5-10 dB lower. Given that daytime background levels at the nearest mobile homes are in the low 60 dB range, the peak construction equipment noise will be audible above the background. The longer term average daily noise level will be comparable to the background. Daily construction activity noise will thus be masked by the background, but short-term excursions could be clearly audible at the nearest residences. At the nearest single family uses across E1 Camino Real, daytime noise levels are in the upper 60 dB range with peaks into the 80 dB range. Construction activity noise will be generally less than background conditions both in terms of averages and peaks. Noise impacts to the nearest single family uses will be less than significant during construction. Construction activities will be limited to hours of lesser noise sensitivity by the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. Heavy equipment operations will occur for only a limited period. Structural assembly is accomplished with smaller, semi-stationary equipment that lends itself better to placement behind other equipment or temporary barriers to reduce noise. Completion of the building shell will be followed by interior finish construction with the finished building perimeter walls shielding off-site receivers. Construction activity noise impacts should therefore be considered as temporarily perceptible, but at a less-than- significant level. 8 TABLE 2 TYPICAL COlII~IERCIAL LAND USE CONSTRUCTION NOISE T.RVRT Average Maximum Construction Phase Noise Level {dBAZ Noise Level (dBAI Ground Clearing 84 91 Excavation 89 98 Foundations 78 88 Erection 83 88 Finishing 79 88 Noise level observed at 50 feet from the source. Source: Bolt, Berenek, and Newman, 1971, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Site Operations Noise Iapact Retail and service activities are generally not perceived as major noise nuisances, but do sometimes have site-specific noise generation activities that could be audibly intrusive or annoying at the residential development north or west of the site. Such intrusion may result both from the nature of the noise (motors, compressors, blowers, metal banging on metal, etc. ) as well as from the time at which it occurs. In order to quantify the typical range of noise activity levels at the rear of a high volume retail sales activity, several noise impact studies had been conducted at shopping centers with truck receiving via semi-trailers, plus multiple smaller jobbers delivering specialty products in step-vans or mid-size delivery trucks. Measurements were made at the rear of a grocery store, but truck traffic from multiple facilities passed the monitoring site. The measurement data at 30 feet from the rear of the store, with an open, unenclosed unloading dock, were as follows: Parameter Noise Level (~~A~ ) 24-hour CNEL Range of L50 Levels Noisiest 1-Sec. Peak Time of Maximum Peak - 65 dB - 54-58 dB - 101 - (10-11 a.m.) The range of measured L50 levels relative to the daytime City of South San Francisco noise standard of 65 dB are well below this threshold. Combined effects of the existing L50 background plus the measurement data would not cause the daytime standard to be exceeded. The L50 standard represents semi-continuous noise. Unloading activities are not semi-continuous, but are usually dominated by brief intermittent noise with extended periods of minimum noise generation. This pattern of activity therefore reduces the potential that the L50 standard is exceeded. If any audibility of unloading activity were to occur, it would be due to single events. Single event intrusion potential will be minimized by constraining activities to times of lesser noise sensitivity. The receiving area at the Costco store will include a compactor and baler for waste disposal. These self-contained units are sealed to 10 minimize odors, control flies and other vectors and to prevent scavenging. They are relatively quiet sources with the electric motor as the most noticeable noise generator. Measurement data provided by the Marathon Equipment Company shows noise levels of 75-78 dB at 5 feet from the center of their Model RJ-88SC as a representative baler/compactor used at most Costco stores. Compactors operate only for a brief fraction of an hour. Using the 78 dB level reported above, with the compactor operated for 5 minutes in one hour, the hourly noise level (dB LEQ) at the nearest home would be 36 dB. Such a level would be undetectable to humans within the elevated noise background that exists at the project site. On-site noise generation from mechanical equipment such as heating/ ventilation/air conditioning (HVAC), meat and produce coolers or frozen food storage systems, could be audible at adjacent residences under quiet background conditions. With an elevated arterial traffic noise background, audibility is unlikely. Air cooled condensers with two units operating are reported by Frigid Coil/Frick as a typical supplier to have a noise level of 71 dB at 5 feet from the equipment. Multiple simultaneous operation of "N" units would produce a combined noise level of 71 dB + 10 X LOG (N). Noise attenuation from the air conditioners will be reduced by the break in the line of sight from the source to the receiver created by the roof edge and any parapet. Noise level reduction of 8 dB has been calculated for similar building geometries from roof edge shielding. Simultaneous operation of ten units, shielded by the roof edge, would have a 73 dB reference noise level at 5 feet from any unit. At the nearest residence, mechanical equipment noise would be reduced by 36 dB from spherical spreading of sound waves. At the nearest home, the residual mechanical equipment noise of 37 dB would be inaudible among the near 60 dB traffic noise background. The tire center at the Costco store represents another on-site noise source, especially during lug wrench operation. Tire service will be accomplished within an open door building with the opening directed eastward. In order to estimate adjacent residential exposure, a noise test was conducted for 30 minutes at the Costco Tire Center in Tustin, California on December 12, 1997. The measured average noise level at 60 feet from the opening of the tire changing bay was 59 dB. Only a part of the noise was attributable to tire operations with auto traffic in/out of the area passing near the noise meter. Extrapolation of this measurement to the nearest mobile homes for direct line-of-sight conditions would produce a reading of 43 dB. Such a level would be well below the ambient level that already 11 exists in the area. Impacts from tire operations would be less than significant. While the lug wrench noise might be faintly audible because of its unique noise character, it will be at levels well below ambient conditions. The proposed gas station represents an additional source of potential noise nuisance. Noise monitoring was conducted near the Costco service station in Chino Hills. Noise levels were only marginally higher near the gas station than along identical nearby locations adjacent to the nearest street (Peyton Drive). The reference noise level for gas station operation was well below 55 dB Leq at 100 feet from the center of the pump islands. With additional distance spreading losses due to gas station operations, the nearest residential noise exposure will be 40 dB or less. Such levels will be substantially below the existing background. The gas station will likely open at 6: 30 a.m. in a time period considered "nocturnal." Gasoline delivery may occur at night, but such activities are very quiet since the transfer from the tanker truck to the underground storage tank is via gravity feed. Gas stations are not major noise generators in the absence of any on- site automotive repair, car wash or similar activities. Gas station operation will have no detectable noise implications. Conclusion The proposed project will be built in an already elevated ambient noise environment. Operational activity noise will be generally inaudible due to the masking effects of the background and the attenuation loss created by the separation between the site and the homes. If commercial retail operations were to ever come into conflict with adjacent residential development, it would be due to nocturnal activities. The key to minimizing the potential for such conflicts at the proposed project is to restrict nocturnal maintenance activities such as trash pick-up or parking lot sweeping to daytime hours. Nocturnal truck traffic from the northern site entrance could also be audible at the nearest residences (the travel trailers) because of high r.p.m. engines in low gears. This effect would be accentuated by reflection from the building wall. Limits on truck use of the northern entrance during the night, including a prohibition on idling trucks along the northern driveway, is also an appropriate condition to minimize any nuisance potential. 12 NO 2 S E =MPACT M= T = GAT = ON Operational activity noise will likely not be audible at the nearest homes. There are no noise abatement recommendations necessary during normal-project operating hours. A perceived nuisance could be created if unusual on-site noise generation occurred at night when the masking effects of traffic noise is diminished. The following measures are recommended as use permit conditions to protect nearby residences from any noise nuisance: 1. Refuse or recycled cardboard trucks should not collect waste materials before 7 a.m. on weekdays, 8 a.m. on Saturday, or 9 a.m. on Sunday. 2. Parking lot sweeping should not occur from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 3. Heavy-duty trucks should be restricted from using the northern driveway between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. , and no engines from idling trucks or refrigeration units should be left running within the loading dock area during this time period. Short-term construction noise intrusion will be limited by conditions on construction permits requiring compliance with the South San Francisco Noise Ordinance. The allowed hours of construction are from 8 a . m . to 8 p . m . on weekdays , 9 a . m . to 8 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. As a practical matter, construction activities would rarely extend beyond 4 p.m. and would be confined to Monday - Saturday. 13 Y~ 4tY- t ~ ~ ,. III zr :~ c ~~~;s ~~ ~. .: rz ~', ~_: 3 `' 3` i r~ b S 1 r ?e. FEY: %~ j' ~' n ,•iii ~' . ___.~; <~" ~r A' 9 ~~~r i!._ ~3 ~,x S. ~ / c ~rt 3~ :.~ i ~l "~ - ;~_ ,5'` ~' ~I ~'; ,~\ ~'R ~` 1~~~ 5 -wI •yi I -~9~.. f ~~ =_ ~ ~ i I: I i ,~ , I `~; 1~.. ~~~ P U _ -"if ~~~1 S CONCEPT ELEVATIONS ..i F ~ =0 i ~' 3 b ~_ O d ~' _J ,r ~` ~ fG J U. ~_ C 'J' f"' S: O ~ r r~ ~ ~~" ,~. * 5 ,y~{ ~~i ~4 5 ~ ~i ~ f ~~ s e (4 f'b`4r •= o ~~ k q1~ `" >;`~~: '~. , ...~'-. t }ir ~F ~. i+ 9 ~~ ~'`, ~7 ~G r C. ' x tr _ ~. C l ry ~` ~ v ~.Y r e~~~ ^_ r `~ ~~~ Yi i c ~; :: .;~, '~~. d i P, .~ L *'' ..~..~~1 ~,,.7 '+~a ~1 ~?. ~~~°f ~ y~*~~ "k %~ .. 4. ~f S `r ~~ ~~r.. ~.. ~~. i! ~k `, ~ 'j ,` { i ~) > .d a ~~ ' a fd ~ Fti ~. `f 9 i ~ j 'I I 7 '-~ i CONCEPT ELEVATIONS .l J ~F' ~;+• i 1 ' a ~ .' i r e ' ., ; i ~; 5, 1 •et ~'r t~•1.+ L*: ~' ... k'~< od ? r n' T r'R . ~~1 .~ 1 ~~y~l~~ `.lf i L. 'r 1 k.r-. f ~;.,a ifiW '~ ~ r ~~ ~~ 1 ,; ~ i i +':~ r ~°°'~ ~ ~ ~;~ e~ ; ,rat a 'g y ~ ~= t tr i +. rat ~, ~, ~ ~.: CT1 ~ ~' tfr .~ t t ._ r ~~ ~ rr~; {~ t +~ti~. ~ ~}t. a r r I J ,q {~~ ,,~ ,` . iJ ~ t. ~ c ~ ;•~ ~: ~.A 4 s s 'SSi ~ :,'YS i. "f ' ~ L T {'~t 1 ~t. P, fit:. fM +;4 y ~~ r t r~ ..~ ` ~ ~ ~ , a~£ ,;. ,. ,,' ., y 1 i'~' t ~ 'S p ~ Y~ ,~ ~ I } L ~A,, .~ ~+ ~ - , ~, ~ ' F. ~ ~ ~ ~ W1 y .. Y ~Iy I .,f'~ ~. Y t ~ ~ yr, J ~~ -~ '' A~ lr,% .4p' ~Y i 1 .J y ~ lr ~ ~ k ~ r <r .~ e:,~ t :, +,~, " e ~; ,~, 'i.^ a ~': ac° ;, ~ ,' w~~a .~ t ~ + ~~;~:: 1 w'y ~a # r ~ A y ~~. it r r ~r ~k - -~ +, ' i ' tyy.~ Y• 1` } r '' r i i.'.1 .. . .F' ~ COSTCO GASOLINE N C M ''ri C7 .t~ IZ ;~ '~ ~x: 4 . ~, , `.l ~' y{5 R ~: M{ t: i`~t t§ Y i~ { y / ~ '~ ~~ a~~~ j ~ .:~ ~~ eyy 4 A'~t~~ r.., ~. ', .: O trf z .p PERSPECTIVES ..;j ~ ~~~_~" .. Y ~}: x ~, : ~, ,t° `, '~I"~i ;ae L,N. MC l" O ~~ t_+1 r z O O z x ' '~ e1 C ~1 ~~ `, 7O Y~ m MO \'~ ~.Y l r O a ~t:, t t '4 •~ .1 ,~v !e h~ ,` ~ } 1 ~i ~~ }' .~~ (~. r /l' ' ~':~ ~zA r F '.' ~ ' ~ 1.`e ~. G 4, ~A ~~ ~'~ ~h _. ~.j `.'~1' ~ ~: ,re R h ~:t: .„ ah " yM l Z ~ +~ l~~ A' ~ ; } , 3 a' ,Q }'~ R ~ ..r~ , `, ,. s °~ f ~` '~sx ~,, ,~ .,~ Y .S ,; , ~~ ~ ~ ~._ ., ,; ~~; ~~~ . PERSPECTIVES ,- tW J.. ~~Yr q:. r. ,I ~ Y~ ~ ', f .~ 3 ~'~ ~ § ~~ ~1. ' C f t Vii: 9 I ~+ Y( ~ 3 .: ,`. {~~.i i ~ I I ~.~ I H O .3 z Q a w N O V N O v O z W J Q C/') W J 0 0 U O U Q Q U O U cn U Z Q Z Q cn 2 cn Z ~f W a- Q d m t- O .,~ z Q >~ ~' o 0 v II 0 v o w N J p N Z U w cn W ~-' C/7 I.._. C/') Q Comment Letters Costco Wholesale Project Final EIR Page 42 Ciry of South San Francisco August 1999 • • C/CAG CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF (,OVERNMENTS OF SAN MATED COUNTY FL!af~-~'~R,, Millbrae Atherton • Belmont ~ Brisbane • Burlingame • Colmo • Daly Ciry • Fast Palo Alto ~ Fostcr City • Half Moon Bay • Hillsborough • Me o a Pacifica • Portolo Valley • Redwood Ciry • San Bruno • San Carlos ~ San Matco • San Matto County • South San Francisco • Woodsidc May 19, 1999 Susy Kalkin Comment 3.1 South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 COSTCO WHOLESALE WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT Dear~Kalkin: Thank you for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Costco Wholesale Warehouse Development. The report does not indicate the number of pear hour trips that the project will generate; however, given the size of the development it clearly falls within the guidelines for review by C/CAG. The report incorrectly states that the CMP LOS standard for I-280 in the vicinity of this project is LOS E. The correct LOS standard as stated in the 1997 CMP is LOS D. It also indicates that the reported LOS for I-280 at this location is LOS F. Appendix G of the 1997 CMP shows that the reported LOS for 1997 was LOS E. The report correctly notes that with the allowable traffic exemptions the LOS is A. The report states that the project is adding traffic to a freeway segment that is already congested, and that the location is close enough to the County border that there will likely be significant exclusions for interregional traffic. Therefore it concludes that the impact is insignificant. Although it is likely that the subtraction of the interregional traffic at this location will avoid the requirement of a deficiency plan, I must point out that this project will contribute significant traffic to a location that is fast approaching gridlock. This project will move it to that point quicker. What is particularly alarming is that ~ mitigation measures are proposed to deal with this freeway traffic. This development if approved should minimally be required to implement aggressive Transportation Demand Management strategies such as those attached to this letter. Appendix 8.3 includes a letter from the City of Daly City that makes a number of points about the regional transportation impacts of this project and that fact that it is not compatible with the transit opportunities (bus and BART) in proximity of the development site. It is very important that jurisdictions take responsibility for the impact of their actions on neighboring communities and the region as a whole. I encourage you to give serious consideration to the comments made by Daly City. 3.1.1 L 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 10 TWIN DOLPHIN DRIVE, SUITE C-200, REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065-1036 PHONE: 415.599.1406 F,vc: 415.637.1589 • • If you have any questions, please contact Walter Martone at 599-1465. Sincerely, Richard apier, Executive Director cc: Jim Datzman, C/CAG Representative for South San Francisco Joe Fernekes, C/CAG Alternate Representative for South San Francisco Michael Wilson, City Manager • • LIST OF PROGRAMS, ACTIONS, AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR INCLUSION IN DEFICIENCY PLANS - Improved roadway bicycle facilities and bike paths. - Transit and bicycle integration. - Bicycle lockers and racks at park and ride lots. - Bicycle facilities and showers at developments. - Improved pedestrian facilities. - Pedestrian signals. - Lighting for pedestrian safety. - Improvement of bus, rail and ferry transit services. - Expansion of rail transit service. - Expansion of ferry services. - Preferential treatment for buses and in-street light rail vehicles. - Transit information and promotion. - Transit pricing strategies to encourage ridership and, where applicable, reduce transit vehicle crowding. - Transit fare subsidy programs . - Transit centers. - Improved and expanded timed transfer programs. - Improved and expanded fare coordination. - Signal preemption by transit vehicles. - Bus stop bulbs. - School bus transit service. - Preferential treatment for shared ride vehicles. - Increased use of commuter/employer services. - Bus and carpool/buspool/vanpool/taxipool priority lanes on local arterials. - High occupancy vehicle lanes on the freeways. - HOV to HOV facilities. - Direct HOV lane entrance/exit ramps to arterials and special generators . • - Stricter travel demand management/trip reduction requirements . - Expanded public education programs. - Child care facilities at or close to employment sites, transit centers, and park and ride lots. - Retail services at or close to employment sites, transit centers and park and ride lots. - Telecommuting centers and work-at-home programs. - Parking management. - Parking "cash-out" program/travel allowance. - Land use measures. - Preferential treatment of HOVs. - Ramp metering. - Auxiliary lanes of up to one miles in length where HOV lanes are provided. - Signalization improvements. - Computerized traffic and transit control/management on arterials. - Turn lanes at intersections. - Turn restrictions at intersections. - Reversible lanes. - One way streets. - Targeted traffic enforcement programs. - Restrictions on curb side deliveries and on-street parking. • • ~`~~ ~ `~ ~~~ ~~~, ~f~i~ Hand Delivered June 11, 1999 Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Div. P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Comment 3.2 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report -Costco Wholesale Warehouse Dear Ms. Kalkin: Thank you for inviting us to comment on the Draft Costco Wholesale Warehouse Development. In a review of the document, we request that further information be provided under the following topics consistent with our letter dated April 6, 1999. General Items: • All references to the City of Colma should be changed to Town of Colma. 3.2.1 Pg. 18 Surrounding Uses and Exhibit 5. In our April 6, 1999 letter, we indicated that the 3.2.2 property between Mission Road and Colma Creek is designated for mixed-use development. I No mention or discussion of this property is found in the DEIR document. Section 5.02.134 of the draft Colma General Plan is provided for reference. The updated Colma General Plan is scheduled for adoption on June 16, 1999. Comments on the Initial Study: The following items in the initial study were identified as having no impact. After a review of the project description and draft EIR, we request a discussion of the following areas of potentially significant impacts: ll. b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly. The proposed project 3.2.3 will drastically change the character of the area over the previous low intensity use of the site as a warehouse. The project could cause indirect growth to surrounding properties (including redevelopment of properties) within the City of South San Francisco, leading to possibly significant cumulative impacts in traffic, air quality, population and housing. Please expand the discussion found on pages 58 and 59 to include a discussion of properties in the vicinity which could develop or redevelop. Please also include a discussion of the vacant property to the south of the Costco site, identified as vacant in the surrounding use discussion. This discussion conflicts with the statement in section 6.4 on page 58 describing all properties surrounding the site as fully developed. TOWN OF COLMA 1190 EI Camino Real • Colma, California 94014 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Phone: (650) 985-2590 • FAX: (650) 985-2578 • • Comments on Draft EIR, Costco Development, June 11, 1999 Page 2 X. a, b Increases in existing noise levels and exposure of people to severe noise levels. The initial study indicates "no impact" with respect to noise, and there is no discussion of noise issues in the Environmental Impact Report. In addition, this determination is not supported by any empirical information. The only source given is a communication with appropriate City of South San Francisco Departments. In our letter of April 6, 1999 we recommended that the analysis of noise should address both ambient and project related noise, including noise from additional traffic generation, and commercial activities on the Costco site. Noise impacts should be the site boundaries with appropriate mitigation for future noise levels exceeding 60 dBA. Please include this analysis in your response to comments. Transportation and Circulation: The Town of Colma Public Works Department is in the process of reviewing the traffic information prepared for the project. They will be able to fax this information to you on Monday June 14, 1999 or Tuesday morning June 15, 1999 as discussed on the phone with Michael Laughlin of our staff. Please refer back to our April 6, 1999 letter which outlines our concerns. Comments from the Public Works Department will include, but not be limited to a more complete discussion of the impacts of the project after the Hickey Boulevard extension, and an increase in the percentage of fair share costs to mitigate traffic impacts. We anticipate that a substantial number of vehicles will utilize Hillside Boulevard and Mission Road in South San Francisco and Colma to access the site after the Hickey Boulevard extension. This may require developer mitigation. The Colma General Plan anticipates that the property behind the Costco site to the east will be developed for mixed use, with housing over retail or office. As you can appreciate, the Town of Colma would like to assure that housing at this site remains a viable option, and that proper mitigation measures for traffic and noise are included within the Costco Development EIR. Aesthetics, Light and Glare: We recommend that the analysis include cross sections through the site and adjacent streets, in addition to the existing discussion. Please identify the source cited as "other source" in your initial study which was used as a basis for the discussion. The Town of Colma's primary interest in this information is to determine visual impacts to the undeveloped property to the east in Colma. One possible mitigation may be a strong landscape buffer between the Costco project site and the vacant property in the Town of Colma. We look forward to receiving your response to comments when it is ready. Please call me or Michael Laughlin of our staff if you have any questions about the comments in this letter. S' cerely, Malcolm C. Carpente , AICP City Planner Cc: City Manager City Attorney City Engineer 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.6 3.2.7 MPL C:colmaUetterslpenerallcoctco.ll2 • • GENERAL PLAN Land Use Element (Draft March 1999) westerly end of Collins Avenue. Commercial uses should not be expanded easteriy from the 280 Metro Center along Colma Boulevard in order to protect the cemetery frontages on Colma Boulevard and the continuity of cemetery uses along EI Camino Real north and south of Colma Bouelvard. Service facilities related to the major automobile dealerships on Serramonte Boulevard may be included on the same site with the principal retail use or in separate facilities located on Collins Avenue or in one of the two identified Service Commercial Areas. It is intended that new development in the Core Commercial Area will include convenient off-street parking and high quality landscaping that results in an attractive street frontage. Signs should be integrated with building architecture; however, it is recognized that freestanding signs may be necessary in the Core Area. 5.02.133 Service Commercial Areas (Coverage: 50%; FAR: 1.0) Service commercial uses include auto servicing, light manufacturing, warehousing, contractors' supplies and other non-retail uses. Three areas suitable for the concentration of service commercial uses include Semamonte Boulevard east of EI Camino Real, the central portion of Collins Avenue, and the northerly portion of the Mission Road District. Service commercial uses should be contained within a building. No open, uncovered storage of materials, supplies or refuse should be permitted and all repair and manufacturing work must be done inside of a building qualified to meet building and fire code standards for such use. Auto repair and servicing facilities, in particular, should not be approved unless there is sufficient off-street parking for each employee, vehicles waiting for service or repair, repaired or serviced vehicles waiting for pickup and vehicles stored until needed parts arrive. It is intended that new development in the Service Commercial Areas will include convenient off-street parking and landscaping that results in an attracctive street frontage. Signs should be integrated with building architecture; pole signs should be discouraged. In the Mission Road District, some commercial parcels have frontage on both Mission Road and EI Camino Real. Access to and from the segment of EI Camino Real bordering the Mission Road District is potentially hazardous because of poor visibility due to the curvature of the road, relativey high traffic speeds, and a steep embankment. Access to parcels with frontage on both EI Camino Real and Mission Road should be restricted to Mission Road. Special guidelines and design standards for development along the Collins Avenue corridor have been adopted and are covered under a separate heading. Uses along Collins Avenue have included auto servicing, light manufacturing, and contractor's supplies -uses that are primarily contained in a building and do not, regularly, draw a large clientele to the site. Buildings with these service uses may not cover more than 50% of the site and total floor area may not exceed 1.0 times the lot area. As properties along Collins Avenue are redeveloped, however, new uses that support the Auto Row function of the Core Commercial Area should be encouraged. Where a new use is consistent with those of the Core Commercial Area, an FAR of 1.5 would apply. 5.02.134 Mixed CommerciallResidential Areas (Coverage: 75%; FAR: 3.0; Intended Density: 30 units per net acre) Mixed commercial and residential uses will be encouraged in the southerly portion of the Mission Road District and in the commercial frontage along Mission Street in the Sterling Park Planning Area pursuant to Planned Development Zoning. Both of these locations are within convenient walking distance of existing or planned BART stations and bus lines, helping to minimize reliance on automobile use. With the development of the new BART stations near D and Mission Streets, west of Colma, and adjacent to the Hickey Boulevard extension, south of Colma, it is expected that surrounding land values will increase and pressure will be brought to develop vacant and underutilized sites more intensively. It is intended that mixed commercial/residential uses will consist of pedestrian-oriented retail facilities on the ground floor with two or more levels of residential or office uses above. It is the most intensive use of commercial land in Colma. New buildings should be set back at least ten feet from the street curb with the setback area TOWN OF COLMA W-~o • • GENERAL PLAN L Land Use Element (Draft March 1999) sites will be compatible with nearby, established land uses. Sites that are close to cemeteries or residences, for instance, should be restricted to uses that do not generate traffic or noise and that are not visually unsightly. Signs, other than small identification signs, should be discouraged. Planning and zoning designations should not be changed to create any new scattered commercial sites. When opportunities arise, the outlying commercial uses should be eliminated and the land use designation changed for improved compatibility with surrounding uses. 5.02.136 Commercial Land Use Develoament Guidelines It is intended that new bwldings in all commercial districts, with the exception of established shopping centers, will incorporate aSpanish/ Mediterranean architectural theme. Exceptions will be considered if this approach would clash with existing improvements having recognized historical or architectural merit. paved as sidewalk but articulated with planters, street trees and benches. Pitched roofs should be used and the front facades should be well articulated with windows, doors, balconies, bays, exposed beams, overhangs and similar features. Appropriate ground floor uses are listed below: Baker Barber Shop Beauty Salon Book Store Butcher Shop Camera Store Clothing Store Coffee Shop Delicatessen Dry Cleaner Florist Gift Store Hardware Store Health Club Home Furnishings Office Supplies Pet Store Pharmacy Restaurant Shoe Sales/Repair Specialty Foods Sporting Goods Toy Store Vdeo Rentat 5.02.135 Outh-in4 Commercial Areas (Coverage: 50%; FAR: 1.0) Outlying commercial uses are scattered across the Town. Specific policies should be used to ensure that the types of uses allowed on these t.u~~ ~ TOWN OF COLMA /-.~ 4~~,.:~`~ ~ TOWN OF COLMA Engineering & Public Works ~ FLf~1~;~~V'a 1188 El Camino Real Colma, California 94014 ~~ /''~ Tel 650-794-2002 Fax 650-794-2009 Comment 3.3 June 14, 1999 Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco, Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue/P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Subject: Costco Wholesale Warehouse Development Traffic Impact Study Comments Deaz Ms. Kalltin: Based on our review of the traffic impact from the new development, and proposed contribution for the mitigation of signalization at Mission Boulevard and El Camino intersection is not in the best interest of the Town of Colma at this time. Our recommendation for the two options presented A, or B of your new development project and the recommended mitigation of signalization at Mission Boulevard and EI Camino Real intersection would be a fair share contribution of 30%. This option would be in the best interest of The Town of Colma. If you or the developer would like to discuss further options, the Town would be glad to discuss them with you. P.espectfi:lly, ~- s-'_""_' Fernando Bravo Senior Engineer Cc: City Manager City Attorney City Planner 3.3.1 3.3.2 C:\FBravo\costco.doc s 4~ cj'~ C3 ~ ti ~ijFOg~ _ ~' r '~ 1 r ~ L C L) ~ i ~ JUF~ 1 ~ took PLANNnVG CITY OF DALY CITY 333-90TH STREET DALY CITY. CA 94015-1895 PHONE: (650) 991-8000 June 11, 1999 Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report Proposed Costco Wholesale Wazehouse Development Dear Ms. Kalkin: Comment 3.4 Thank you for giving the City of Daly City the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the proposed Costco Wholesale Warehouse Development project at 1600 El Camino Real in South San Francisco. The comments on the DEIR and project are as follows: Traffic and Circulation In general, Daly City staff s review found that the Transportation and Circulation sections did not adequately address the project's impacts on Daly City roadways and intersections. The City of Daly City has the following traffic and circulation comments regazding the proposed Costco: 1. The intersections of Hickey Boulevazd/Gellert Boulevazd and Serramonte Boulevazd/ 3.4.1 Junipero Serra Boulevazd should be included in the analysis. 2. The proposed development should comply with the 1995 San Mateo County Congestion 3,4.2 ,'Management Program, which bases intersection level of service definitions on critical volume to capacity ratio. As some intersection levels of service aze not consistent with CMP requirements, it appears that the Draft EIR used a different parameter (such as Average Delay) to detenmine intersection levels of service. The EIR should outline why different pazameters were chosen, and how each intersection complies with the CMP intersection level of service definitions. 3. When determining intersection levels of service using the CMP method, both Hickey 3.4.3 Boulevazd/I-280 intersections show worse levels of service than reported in the Draft EIR. 4. The Draft EIR states that the CMP level of service standazd for I-280 from Hickey Boulevazd 3.4.4 to Westborough Boulevazd is LOS "E". The 1995 CMP defines the level of service standard for this segment as LOS "D". .1 Comments on DEIR Page 2 Proposed Costco Wholesale Warehouse Development June 11,1999 5. It is uncleaz whether the Draft EIR is addressing the AM or PM peak period? This should be clarified. An analysis of weekend peak conditions should also be included. 6. The Draft EIR should expand its discussion regazding background traffic. The text mentions a number of new residential projects in the azea, but there is minimal (if any) change in volume to capacity ratios at the Hickey/I-280 intersections. As the Draft EIR states Hickey Boulevazd will be the main access route to the azea, it is unlikely that the proposed new developments will have no effect on the Hickey/I-280 intersections. The project trip generation and distribution of other approved projects in the azea should be included to show which roadways aze projected to be used as access routes. 3.4.5 3.4.6 7. How were the Standazds of Significance developed? They do not appear to be consistent 3.4.7 with the 1995 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program. Conformance with the intersection and roadway level of service standazds set in the San Mateo County CMP is strongly encouraged. Although the report indicates that level of service at some intersections remain unchanged, 3.4.8 intersection delay and volume to capacity ratios aze significantly affected. The intersection level of service is at or neaz its low in many instances. 9. Daly City will require mitigation of any negative impacts at City intersections as a result of 3.4.9 the project traffic generated from the Costco development. 10. Are the Long-Term traffic impacts as outlined in the Draft EIR consistent with similaz 3.4.10 projections completed for other projects in the azea, specifically the proposed BART station? This question should be addressed in FEIR. 11. Intersection analysis, including level of service and queuing distance for turn lanes, should be 3.4.11 provided for all intersections within Daly City. Although some of the above comments may be addressed in the proposed project's full traffic impact analysis, Daly City requests that they also be included in the EIR. Regional Land Use Compatibility Daly City has reviewed the DEIR and believes that regional land use issues were not adequately 3.4.12 discussed. As noted in the City of Daly City's response to comment letter on the DEIR NOP dated April 14, 1999, Daly City believes the proposed Costco development is incompatible with the regional transportation opportunities located neaz the development site. Residential land uses would be better served for the project site than awholesale/bulk goods wazehouse, given the future location of a South San Francisco BART Station and prevalence of local bus service within close proximity of the Costco project area. The proposed Costco development does not support local or regional transit efficiencies for location of both affordable and mixed-use housing within close proximity of these public transportation facilities. • • Comments on DEIIt Page 3 Proposed Costco Wholesale Warehouse Development June 11,1999 The Land Use & Planning Section (Section 4.2 -Pg.'s 18-22) of the DEIR outlines that the 3.4.13 proposed Costco use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City of South San Francisco General Plan. There is no discussion about compatibility with the 1995 Congestion Management Plan. In addition, in the Alternatives to the Proposed Project Section (Section 5.0 -Pg.'s 53-56), there is aMulti-Family Residential Altennative presented but again no discussion of compatibility with the CMP. The FEIR must address the land use compatibility of the proposed Costco development given the public transit efficiency within the azea. In addition, the City of Daly City requests a written response from South San Francisco that the County of San Mateo has reviewed and accepted the FEIR in reference to CMP compliance for the proposed Costco development. Noise Daly City has reviewed the DEIR and found that the project's noise impacts have not been 3.4.14 adequately addressed. The Initial Study attached to the EIR discusses noise issues (Page 25) but does not provide any mitigation measures. There aze two schools, Alta Loma and El Camino High School, as well as residentially zoned land and existing residential uses in close proximity to the project site. Noise mitigation measures for both the short-term construction and long-term operation of the project must be included as part of the FEIR. Request for FEIR Copies We would like to receive four (4) copies of the FEIR. Please direct the copies to the attention of Cazlos de Melo, Associate Planner, Daly City Planning Division. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact me at 991-8033. Sincerely, Cazlos de Melo Associate Planner cc: John C. Martin, City Manager Terry Sedik, Director, Economic & Community Development Department Richazd Berger, Assistant Director, Economic & Community Development Department Al Savay, Senior Planner Attachments Attachment A - CMP Traffic Level of Service Standazds ,~ ` • • 3. Traffic Level of Service Standards Legislative Requirements California Government Code Sections 65089.1 (A) and (B) requires that level of service standards be established by, in this case, CCAG for the roadways and intersections designated to be in the CMP Roadway System. Furthermore, roadway levels of service (LOS) are to be measured by methods described in one of the following documents: the Transportation Research Board's Circular 212, the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual, or an uniform methodology adopted by the CMA that is consistent with the highway Capacity Manual. The CMA (CCAG in San Mateo) is responsible for selecting the LOS methodology to be used. The CMP legislation stipulates that the CMP's Level of Service Standards can be set at any level of service-A through F. However, only roadway segments or intersections currently operating at Level of Service F may have an LOS F standard set for them. Discussion Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative term used to describe a roadway's operating condition. The level of service of a road or street is designated by a letter grade ranging from A to F, with LOS A representing free-flow conditions with little or no delay and LOS F representing forced flow with excessive delays. Verbal descriptions of the levels of service for the five types of facilities in San Mateo County's CMP Road- way System-freeways, multilane highways, two-lane highways, arterials, and intersections-are presented in Table 3-1. Graphical illustrations of the LOS designa- tions are presented on Figure 3-1. Barton-Aschman Associates, -nc. ATTACI"iMENT A 3-1 ,~ • • Traffic Level o/ Service Standards Arterials Intersections Free-flow conditions with a high level of Free-flow conditions with insignificant maneuverability. Minimal stopped delays at delays. No approach phase is fully signalized intersections. utilized by traffic and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. Reasonably unimpeded operations with Stable operations with minimal delays. slightly restricted maneuverability. Stopped An occasional approach phase is fully delays are not bothersome. utilized. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles. Stable operations with somewhat more re- Stable operations with acceptable strictions in making mid-block lane changes delays. Major approach phase may than LOS B. Motorists will experience ap- become fully utilized. Most drivers feel preciable tension while driving. somewhat restricted. Approaching unstable operations where small increases in volume produce sub- stantial increases in delay and decreases in speed. Approaching unstable conditions. De- lays are tolerable. Drivers may have to wait through more than one red signal indication. Queues may develop but dissipate rapidly, without excessive delay. Unstable operations with sign'rficant inter- Unstable operations with significant de- section approach delays and low average lays. Volumes at or near capacity. speeds. Vehicles may have to wait through several signal cycles. Long queues form upstream from intersection. Operations with extremely.low speeds Forced-flow operations with excessive caused by intersection congestion, volumes delays. Represents jammed conditions. exceeding capacity, and extensive delays. Intersection operates below capacity with low volumes. Oueues may block upstream intersections. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 3-3 • Traffic Level of Service Standards The purpose of setting LOS standards is to evaluate changes in congestion. Congestion is to be measured on the designated system of CMP roadways via level of service calculations. Existing levels of service are to be calculated every two years as part of the CMP's traffic operations monitoring program. (The results of the monitoring of existing levels of service in 1995 for the CMP roadway segments and intersections are presented in Appendix H.) Future (or anticipated) levels of service are expected to be calculated as part of the program to evaluate the impacts of planned (or anticipated) land use changes.'b The methods used in this CMP to analyze existing and future levels of service on the CMP Roadway System were selected after reviewing the methods used by local jurisdictions and Caltrans. A survey conducted in 1991 revealed that most of the cities that responded used standard level of service methods for signalized intersections with half using the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual method and half using the Transporta- tion Research Board's Circular 212 method. About a third of the responding cities used a reserve capacity method to evaluate unsignalized intersections. The volume-to- capacity method was used to evaluate arterials in half of the responding cities. Most cities indicated that they did not use a standard level of service calculation method for the remaining facilities-freeways, multilane highways. and two-lane highways. Of those cities that had previously selected a method, the volume-to-capacity ratio method was preferred. Caltrans uses a floating car method to determine travel speeds as a measure of congestion on freeways. The methods selected to calculate the levels of service are described in Appendix B. These methods are consistent with the Transportation Research Board's Circular 212 and the latest version (1994) of the Highway Capacity Manual, as required by the CMP legislation. When monitoring conformance with this CMP's recommendations, asignificant increase in congestion is defined as a change in the measured level of service to any level worse than the specified LOS standard. Therefore, nonattainment of the CMP's Roadway LOS Standards would occur whenever the LOS for a roadway segment or intersection included in the CMP Roadway System is monitored as falling below the LOS standard established for that roadway facility. With one exception, this would occur regardless of the LOS standard set by CCAG for a roadway. The exception would be that for a roadway where the standard.was set to be LOS F, further decreases in their LOS would not be measured as falling below this CMP's standards. Projected violations of the LOS standards may be identified as a result of the Land Use Impact Analysis Program. These projected violations will not trigger preparation of deficiency plans. 16See Chapter 6 for further discussion of the program that will analyze the potential countywide impacts of land use changes on San Mateo County's transportation system. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 3-5 • Traffic level of Service Standards 5. Future volumes (for the year 2000) were projected by applying growth factors ob- tained by comparing the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC's) (simulated) traffic assignments for the years 1987 and 2000. (The traffic volumes simulated by MTC to represent traffic conditions presumed to exist in 1987 were very similar to actual counts recorded in 1990 and 1991.) 6. Locations projected to have changes in capacity, due to roadway widening projects, were identified. Future V/C ratios (projected for the year 2000) and corresponding LOSS were evaluated for the AM and PM peak hours selected earlier. Roadway Segment level of Service Standards The following LOS standards were selected for the roadway segments. a. If the existing (1990/91) level of service was F, then the standard was set to be LOS F. b. If the existing or future level of service was or will be E, then the standard was set to be LOS E. c. The standard for roadway segments near the San Francisco, Santa Clara, and Alameda County borders, with one exception's was set to be LOS E to be consis- tent with the recommendations in those counties' 1991 CMPs. (This standard would apply unless those roadway segments were already operating at LOS F.) d. On SR 82 (El Camino Real), the standard was set to be LOS E. e. For the remaining roadway segments, the standard was set to be one letter designation worse than the LOS projected for the year 2000. The LOS standards adopted by CCAG for the roadway segments included in this CMP are presented in Table 3-2 and on Figure 3-2. The roadway segment Level of Service Standards adopted by the CCAG to monitor attainment of the CMP support the following objectives: 1. The LOS Standards established for San Mateo County vary by roadway segment. By adopting LOS standards based on geographic differences, the CCAG signaled that it intends to use the CMP process to prevent future congestion levels in San Mateo County from getting worse than currently anticipated. At the -same time, the variations in LOS standards by geographic area conform to current land use plans and development differences between the Coastside and Bayside, 16F'or I-280 south of SR 84, the adopted standard is LOS D. 3-7 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. r ~, • • Traffic Level of Service Standards Table 3-2 Level of Service Standards for CMP Roadway Segments° (Continued) Baseline Roadway (1990-91) LOS Route Segment LOS Standard 101 San Francisco County Line to I-380 E E 101 I-380 to Millbrae Avenue D D E E 101 Millbrae Avenue to Broadway E 101 Broadway to Peninsula Avenue E F 101 Peninsula Avenue to SR 92 F E 101 SR 92 to Whipple Avenue D F F 101 Whipple Avenue to Santa Clara County Line 109 Kavanaugh Drive to SR 84 (Bayfront Expressway) E E 114 U.S. 101 to SR 84 (Baytront Expressway) D E 28p San Francisco County Line to SR 1 (north) N 2gp SR 1 (north) to SR 1 (south) D E D 2g0 SR 1 (south) to San Bruno Avenue C D 280 San Bruno Avenue to SR 92 C C D 280 SR 92 to SR 84 C D 280 SR 84 to Santa Clara County Line 380 I-280 to U.S. 101 F A F C 380 U.S. 101 to Airport Access Road Mission Street San Francisco County Line to SR 82 A E Geneva Avenue San Francisco County Line to Bayshore Boulevard A E Bayshore Boulevard San Francisco County Line to Geneva Avenue A E ' Levels of Service •calculated based on volume-to-capacity ratios. ° The LOS Standard has been changed from LOS E to LOS F based on t he evaluati on of additional traffic count data. 3-9 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. ;~ ,, • • Traffic Level of Service Standards between older downtowns near CalTrain stations and other areas of San Mateo County. 2. The standards established the direction for subsequent CMPs. With the adoption of those standards, the CCAG started the technical and political processes of re- specting small area or city-based differentiations, while requiring that information on operating conditions be collected throughout San Mateo County to monitor changes in levels of service on roadways considered to be of importance to more than one jurisdiction. 3. The standards created the initial linkage between planned or anticipated land use changes and the analysis of the impacts that those. changes would be projected to have on San Mateo County's roadway system. (Additional discussion of the Land Use Impact Analysis Program is presented in Chapter 6.) Intersection Level of Service Standards Sixteen intersections were added to the CMP Roadway System first adopted in 1991. A process similar to the process used to develop the standards for the roadway segments was used to develop the standards for the intersections. As with the CMP's roadway segments, intersection levels of service were calculated by using volume-to-capacity ratios. The Transportation Research Board's Circular 212 Planning method was used, and capacity adjustments were made to reflect traffic operations in San Mateo County. The method used to calculate intersection levels of service is described in detail in Appendix B. The following process was used to develop the level of service standards for intersec- tions: 1. Existing (1993) peak-hour intersection turning-movement volumes were obtained from manual counts conducted during the morning commute period (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and the evening commute period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). 2. Existing volume-to-capacity ratios were calculated and levels of service were evaluated for the AM and PM peak hours. 3. Future intersection volumes were projected by applying growth factors obtained by comparing MTC's traffic assignments for roadway segments adjacent to each intersection for the years 1987 and 2000. 4. Future (year 2000) V/Cs were calculated and LOSS were evaluated for the AM and PM peak hours. 5. Intersection Level of Service Standards were selected based on the following considerations: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 3-~~ • • Traffic Level of Service Standards Table 3-3 Intersection Level of Service Standards (Continued) Baseline Peak (1993) LOS Intersection Hour LOS Standard EI Camino Real (SR 82)/ AM A A E Park-Peninsula Avenue PM Geneva Avenue/Bayshore Boulevard AM A E EI Camino Real (SR 82)/Ralston Avenue PM C EI Camino Real (SR 82)Molly Street AM A B E PM EI Camino Real (SR 82)/Whipple Avenue AM A E PM B Bayfront Expressway (SR 84)/ AM D F F University Avenue (SR 109) PM Bayfront Expressway (SR 84)/ AM F C F Willow Road (SR 114) PM Bayfront Expressway (SR 84)/Marsh Road AM E F PM F Woodside Road (SR 84)/Middlefield Road AM D E PM E SR 92/SR 1 AM B A E PM SR 92/Main Street AM F D F PM level of Service Standards and Monitoring the CMP The LOS standards presented in this CMP are all based on analyzing existing traffic counts or projections of local and regional traffic. That is, the calculations of existing and projected weekday levels of service do not exclude some types of trips, such as those associated with interregional travel or low-income housing. For purposes of determining deficiencies, however, as required by law, the impacts of the following will be excluded: (1) interregional travel, (2) construction, rehabilitation, or maintenance of 3-13 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. t •' ~ f • • Appendix B-Traf/k Level o/ Servke Cakulation Methods Signalized Intersections The TRB Circular 212 Planning method is the selected level of service calculation method for the designated intersections in the San Mateo County's CMP Roadway System. A signalized intersection's level of service, according to the method described in TR.B Circular 212, is based on dividing the sum of the critical volumes by the intersection's capacity. This calculation yields the volume-to-capacity ratio N/C). The critical movements are the combinations of through movements plus right-turn movements if there is no exclusive right-turn lane, and opposing left-turn movements that represent the highest per-lane volumes. Descriptions of levels of service for signalized intersections, together with their corresponding V/Cs, are presented in Table B-6. Table B-6 Intersection Level of Service Definitions Level of V/C Ratio Service Interpretation q Uncongested operations; all queues clear in a single Less Than 0.60 signal cycle. g Very light congestion; an occasional approach phase 0.60 to 0.69 is fully utilized. C Light congeston; occasional backups on critical ap- 0.70 to 0.79 proaches. p Significant congestion on critical approaches, but o.80 to 0.89 intersectron functwnal. Cars required to wait through more than one cycle during short peaks. No bng- standing queues formed. E Severe congestan with some bng•standing queues 0.90 to 0.99 on critical approaches. Blockage of intersection may occur if traffic signal does not provide for protected turning movements. Traffic queue may block nearby intersections(s) stream of critical approach(es). F Total breakdown, stop-and-go operation. 1.00 and Greater Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 8-10 k • • Appendix B-Traffic Level of Service Calculation Methods In the TRB Circular 212 method, the capacity of an intersection is based on an average saturation flow rate and percent lost time. The saturation flow rate is the maximum number of vehicles per lane that can pass a fixed point in one hour with 100 percent green time. The average saturation flow rate ml Thelost time is the time County is 1,980 vehicles per hour of green per lane (vphpgp ). when vehicles are not entering the intersection due to changeThe average percent lost Percent lost time is the lost time divided by the cycle length. time measured in San Mateo County for intersections with four or more phases is 12 percent. The intersection capacities, based oa San Matehaseuna~ presented ~ ahzed intersections with two, three, and four or more signal p Table B-7. These capacities are used with the Circular 212 Planning method to evaluate the levels of service for San Mateo County's CMP intersections. Table B-7 Intersection Capacities Number of Capacity Signal Phases (in vph) 2 1,850 3 1,760 1,700 4 or more 8-11 Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. HENN & ETZEL ~N~. A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W FOUR EMBARCADEAO CENTER. SUITE SIO SAN FRANCISCO. G 94111.4151 TELEPHONE: (415) 392-4600 FACSIMILE: (415)392-2939 June 15, 1999 VIA: Telecopier (650-829-6639) and U.S. Mail Planning Division City of South San Francisco Post Office Box 711 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 ATTN: Susy Kalkin, Senior Planner k : t..; ,.,..; .:;::. .. FREDERICK M. ETZEL DIRER DIAL NUMBER (415) 732-5698 Comment 4.1 RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report, COSTCO Wholesale Warehouse Facility Project Dear Ms. Kalkin: This office represents Xtra Oil Company, the owner and operator of the Shell Gas Station located at the intersection of El Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard. Our client has been serving the residents of South San Francisco since 1969. This letter presents our client's comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR or DEIR) for the COSTCO Wholesale Warehouse Facility Project,' which includes among other uses a gas station with 8 pumps providing 16 individual gasoline fueling positions. I One of the inadequacies of the DEIR is that it unfortunately selected a title for the project that is misleading. In the Project Description included in the application submitted by COSTCO, the project is identified as a 220,000 S.F. commercial center containing a 147,000 S.F. wholesale store, a COSTCO gas station facility containing 4 pumps with 16 fueling positions, a 60,000 S.F. supermarket, an 8,000 S.F. sit down restaurant and 5,000 S.F. of other general retail. Amore descriptive title would be "COSTCO 220,000 S.F. Commercial Center." XT0001.01 21/61/01 Planning Division June 15, 1999 Page 2 Our client understands the City's desire to approve land uses that will generate additional sales tax revenue for the City and he does not object to the COSTCO Wholesale Warehouse Facility and the related retail uses. He does, however, strongly object to the inclusion of the 8-pump gas station in the COSTCO Project. Attached to my letter and incorporated by reference are letters prepared by Daniel T. Smith, P.E., Smith Engineering & Management, and Robert E. Gils, CIH, RGA Environmental Inc., commenting respectively on the traffic and air quality impact analyses of the Draft EIR. Based on the comments presented below and those in the attached letters, the evidence is overwhelming that the Draft EIR does not meet the standard of adequacy established by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In order to discharge its duty under CEQA, the City must revise the Draft EIR to correct its inadequacies and recirculate the revised Draft EIR for public review and comment before the Planning Commission may certify it. But first, as I explain below, the City must adopt Conservation and Safety Elements for its General Plan, amend the land use designation for the El Camino Corridor to replace the transit oriented residential designation with a commercial retail designation and amend the P-C-L zoning classification to permit multi-use commercial centers. Comment 1: The DEIR is inadequate because the South San Francisco 4.1.1 General Plan is missing two of the seven mandatory elements -Safety and Conservation -and these elements have an essential nexus to the analysis of the Project's impacts in the DEIR. Before the City may revise the DEIR, it must first correct several fundamental flaws within its planing and regulatory framework, including the omission of the mandatory Conservation and Safety Elements in its General Plan. As noted in Cumin's California Land Use and Planning Law, 1999 at page 18: Environmental review of a land use proposal is also hamstrung by the legal inadequacy of a general plan. If a general plan lacks a mandatory element, an environmental impact report (EIR) on a project is "prepared in a vacuum." On this point, a court opinion stated: "The XT000101.01 21/61/01 Planning Division June 15, 1999 Page 3 lack of a noise element in the general plan resulted in a subversion of CEQA, because a necessary foundation as to the level of acceptable noise made the EIR deficient." Guardians of Turlock's Integrity v. City Council, 149 Cal. App. 3d 584 (1983). Similarly, the absence of Conservation and Safety Elements in its General Plan "hamstring" the City's ability to certify a legally adequate EIR for the COSTCO Project. The California Planning and Zoning Law requires California cities and counties to "adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city" 2 containing seven mandatory elements.3 There is no requirement that a jurisdiction's general plan consist of seven separate elements, and a jurisdiction may choose to consolidate elements so long as all relevant statutory issues are addressed. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Ca1.App.3d 692. I requested the Planning Department to provide me with a copy of the South San Francisco General Plan and the document provided to me did not contain elements identified as Conservation and Safety. Upon my review, it does not appear that the five separate elements provided to me address the relevant statutory issues for these two elements. I therefore conclude that the City's General Plan does not contain the Conservation and Safety Elements. As required by Government Code Section 65302(d) the City's General Plan must contain: "A conservation element for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources." The DIER contains no discussion of the impacts of the Project on natural resources present within the City. The DEIR at page 4 lists environmental topics deemed not to have a potential for significant environmental impacts that were therefore not addressed in the DEIR. Among the excluded topics are Water and Hydrology, Energy and Mineral Resources and Biological Resources. Z California Government Code Section 65300. s j~. at Section 65302. XT000101.01 21/61/01 Planning Division June 15, 1999 Page 4 Each of these three topic areas is addressed by the mandatory Conservation Element. The failure of the South San Francisco General Plan to include a Conservation Element means the City totally lacks the basic factual information, standards and criteria, goals and policies typically found in a general plan element that would have enabled it to reach a reasoned and informed decision to exclude these topic areas from the DEIR. Lacking a Conservation Element, the City was forced to rely on unsubstantiated, conclusory statements, such as that found at page 4 of the DEIR: "The project site is not believed to contain rare, threatened or endangered plant or animal species." For another example, there is no analysis in the DEIR regarding the impact of the Project on Colma Creek which, as shown in Exhibit 5 of the DEIR, runs along the northeast side of the Project. The fact is, no attempt is made by the DEIR to present any information on the potential impact of the Project on rare, threatened or endangered plant or animal species or waters in the vicinity of the Project. Without question, "there [is] a nexus between the" analysis of the Project in the DEIR "and the elements or characteristics of the [South San Francisco General] plan claimed to be inadequate." Garat v. City of Riverside (1991) 2 Ca1.App.4`h 259, 291. As required by Government Code Section 65302(g), the City's General Plan must contain: "A safety element for the protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides; subsidence, liquefaction and other seismic hazards identified pursuant to Chapter 7.8 (commencing with Section 2690) of the Public Resources Code, and other geologic hazards known to the legislative body; flooding; and wild land and urban fires. The safety element shall include mapping of known seismic and other geologic hazards. It shall also address evacuation routes, peakload water supply requirements, and minimum road widths and clearances around structures, as those items relate to identified fire and geologic hazards. XT000101.01 21 /61!01 Planning Division June 15, 1999 Page 5 Once again, "there [is] a nexus between the" analysis of the Project in the DEIR "and the elements or characteristics of the [South San Francisco General] plan claimed to be inadequate." Garat v. City of Riverside (1991) 2 Ca1.App.4th 259, 291. The failure of the South San Francisco General Plan to include a Safety Element means the City is totally without the basic factual information, standards and criteria, goals and policies found in a general plan element that would have enabled it to meaningfully and comprehensively analyze the life safety impacts of the proposed Project relative to the thousands of visitors it will have during a typical week. Lacking a Safety Element, the discussion of life safety issues in the DEIR is limited only to a cursory 2 and'/z page discussion of Earth and Geotechnical issues, an inadequate analysis of air quality impacts (see Robert E. Gils, CIH, RGA Environmental Inc.), and a sketchy 1 and'/z page discussion of Hazardous Materials. The California Planning and Zoning Law also requires that the general plan and its associated elements com~rise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of polices. The "internal consistency requirement" is extremely important to the overall integrity of a general plan because of the comprehensive interrelationships among its seven elements. The interrelationships among the elements of the general plan are stressed in Chapter 3 -The Required Elements of the General Plan in the 1998 General Plan Guidelines. Thus, the fact the South San Francisco General Plan is missing two of the mandatory seven elements also weakens and impairs the strength of the remaining five elements because their interrelationships with the missing two elements were simply not considered. In sum, before the City may revise, recirculate and ultimately certify the DEIR, it must first adopt Conservation and Safety Elements and ensure that all seven of its General Plan elements are integrated and internally consistent. Co ment 2• While the defects in the Citv's lanni g and reg~lat~ 4.1.2 framework have significant implications for its ability to ~ Pnvironmental review documents that complX with CEOA. these defects `Government Code Section 65300.5. XT000101.01 21/61/01 Planning Division June 15, 1999 Page 6 have even Q-1-aver consequences for the City's ability to annrove any la_n_d development permit. Beyond the detriment to the adequacy of the DEIR, the absence of two of the seven mandatory elements also prevents the City from validly approving the Project. The absence of these two mandatory elements would render the City's decision to approve the Project a legal nullity.s As stated by the Court of Appeal: Zoning ordinances are regulations governed by the superior enactments in the hierarchy of planning laws. Thus, the validity of a conditional use permit, which is governed by the zoning regulations, depends (derivatively) on the general plan's conformity with statutory criteria. Where the adopted general plan lacks elements required by state law, relevant to the uses sought, the ordinance fails to provide criteria mandated by such law for the measurement of the propriety of the uses to be authorized by the permit. These criteria are essential to evaluation of the proposed uses and the conditions which should be imposed. Put another way, the scope of authority of the agency to enact a general plan and zoning ordinances and to apply them is governed by the requirements of state law. A permit action taken without compliance with the hierarchy of land use laws is ultra vires as to any defect implicated by the uses sought by the permit. Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal. App.3d 1176, 1184. In order for the City to validly approve the Project, it must correct the defects in its planning and regulatory framework. This means the City must adopt a legally adequate general plan, i.e. a plan that is internally consistent with all seven mandatory elements. As I explain below, the City must then amend its general plan as it applies to the COSTCO Project site to permit the development of a multi-use commercial center, and it must amend its zoning ordinance to bring it into consistency with the General Plan. Only then may the City consider and possibly approve the COSTCO Project. s "A pernvt action taken without compliance with the hierarchy of land use laws is ultra vires as to any defect implicated by the uses sought by the permit." Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal. App.3d 1176, 1184. XT000101.01 21/61/01 Planning Division June 15, 1999 Page 7 Comment 3: For the Proiect to be aunroved as imposed, the Ci , of South fan Francisco must amend its General Plan Land Use Designation for 4.1.3 Planning Area l la its RedeveloRment Plan for the El Camino Corridor Area Proiect and its Zoning District Classification of P-C-L, each as it an lies to the Project site. The DEIR is inadequate because it fails to disclose the requirement for these amendments. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 requires an EIR to "discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans." The Land Use Element of the South San Francisco General Plan divides the City into eleven planning areas, including Planning Area No. 11 El Camino Corridor. Planning Area No. 11 comprises two mutually exclusive sets of land use polices -- Subsections A and B. Subsection A provides that the "El Camino Real is designated `Planned Commercial"' and: The existing General Plan land use designations and policies as contained in Subsection A shall remain in effect until: a) The City of South San Francisco receives an agreement or other instrument acceptable to the City wherein the sponsors of the extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station and line through the Planning Area are irrevocably committed to building said station and line (between the northerly City limits and South Spruce Avenue) in a subway AND, b) The sponsors of the BART line extension have all the funding commitments and approvals necessary to build the station and line through the City. After such time the General Plan land use designations and policies specifically related to a transit oriented land use plan, as set forth for this Planning Area in Subsection B, shall be in effect. (South San Francisco Land Use, Circulation and Transportation Elements, pages 5-79 and 5-80.) Subsection B at Policy B 11-6 states: The properties located between El Camino Real and the future BART line north of the Red Arrow Trailer Park should be developed with transit oriented residential uses at a density of 50 units/acre. Densities XT000101.01 21/61/01 Planning Division June 15, 1999 Page 8 less than 40 units/acre should not be considered in this area. Mixed use development with convenience retail is also appropriate, particularly on the south side of the Hickey Boulevard Extension, north of the BART station." (South San Francisco Land Use, Circulation and Transportation Elements, pages 5-88 and 5-89.) The text following Policy B 11-6 states in reference to the proposed COSTCO site, also know as the Macy's site, "The Treasure Island Trailer Park, which provides low cost housing opportunities in the City is immediately north of the Macy's site, which is designated for transit oriented residential uses at a density of 50 units/acre with BART in a subway (Emphasis added)." (Id. at page 5-89.) Figure 28 at page 5-90 of the Land Use, Circulation and Transportation Elements of the General Plan shows the proposed COSTCO site designated as residential 50 Units/acre. The two conditions for the sunset of Subsection A have each occurred. As to Condition (a), on November 4, 1998, the City and BART entered into a "Comprehensive Agreement between the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District and the City of South San Francisco Relating to the BART/SFO Extension." As to Condition (b), in July 1997, the Federal Transit Administration and BART executed a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA). Attachment 1 -Scope of the Project contained in the FFGA at page 1 states: "Stations: The South San Francisco (Hickey) Station would be in subway along the SPTCo railroad right-of--way just south of the proposed at-grade extension of Hickey Boulevard between Mission Road and El Camino Real in South San Francisco." The BART/SFO Extension, including the South San Francisco Station, is under construction and this station will be "open for business" in December 2001.6 Despite the existence of the Comprehensive Agreement and the Full Funding Grant Agreement, the DEIR assumes that the Subsection A polices have not "sunset" and that the El Camino Real is still designated as Planned Commercial. It is not reasonable for the DEIR to ignore the existence of these two agreements. Therefore, Subsection B Policy B 11-6 providing "The properties located between El Camino Real and the future BART line e Personal communication with Molly McArthur, BART/SFO Extension Project, June 2, 1999. XT000101.01 21/61/01 Planning Division June 15, 1999 Page 9 north of the Red Arrow Trailer Park should be developed with transit oriented residential uses at a density of 50 units/acre" is presently effective. The Redevelopment Plan for the El Camino Corridor Area Project also designates the Project site as "transit oriented residential uses at densities of up to 50 units/acre (Redevelopment Plan, p. 4, and Exhibit C - Project Area Land Use and Circulation Map.)." The DEIR in its discussion of the Land Use and Planning Impacts of the Project at pages 18 through 22 must evaluate this inconsistency between the COSTCO Project and adopted land use policy, i.e. Policy B 11-6 of the South San Francisco General Plan and the Redevelopment Plan for the El Camino Comdor Area Project, and acknowledge, under the Standards of Significance set forth at page 21 of the DEIR, that this is inconsistency is a significant impact of the Project. But more importantly, if the City intends to approve the COSTCO Commercial Center, it must first amend the land use designation for the EI Camino Corridor to replace the transit oriented residential designation with a commercial retail designation and amend the P-C-L zoning classification to permit multi-use commercial centers. Comment 4: The DEIR apnearc to have hPPn ~nare~ ;r ar eY*rP*rPly compressed time frame which did not allow fir ad ~ gal tP Coo ing of the 4.1.4 impacts the DEIR should addrecc Correspondence from the applicant to the City and conversations with Planning Department staff indicate that the original intention as to CEQA compliance for the Project was the preparation of a Negative Declaration. But this plan was abandoned when the air quality analysis revealed that there would be significant, unavoidable regional air quality impacts. This information, combined with a review of the Project record, gives one the impression that the DEIR was prepared in a hasty manner for a project of this size and complexity. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) is dated and presumably was published on March 12, 1999, a Friday. As required by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(b) and as stated in the Mulvaney Partnership letter to S. Kalkin dated November 4, 1998 at page 3. XT000101.01 21/61/01 Planning Division June 15, 1999 Page 10 NOP, persons responding to the NOP were required to do so within 30 days of receipt. Assuming persons received the NOP at the earliest on March 15, the 30 days expired on April 14, 1999. The Notice of Completion, which is undated, announced the public review period for the DEIR commenced on April 30, 1999, an interval of only approximately two weeks after the deadline for responses to the NOP. Given the extremely short interval between the deadline for comments on the NOP and the completion of the DEIR, it is not surprising in reviewing the Project record that the DEIR does not adequately respond to the comments the City received in response to the NOP. The California Department of Health Services (DHS), in a memo dated April 14, 1999, responded to the NOP and recommended that the DEIR "evaluate the potential impact [of the Project] to nearby existing drinking water wells and notify the respective water systems of the project." A search of the DEIR reveals that this comment by DHS was ignored. In a letter to the City dated March 30, 1999, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) recommended that the DIER "include adequate evaluation of cumulative impacts to utility systems [and] the utility facilities needed to serve those developments." PG&E also encowaged the City to include information about the issue of electric and magnetic fields (EMF) in the DEIR. A search of the DEIR reveals that these comment by PG&S were ignored. The Town of Colma, in a letter to the City dated Apri16, 1999, expressed concerns regarding the Project's noise and traffic impacts on future housing development located to the east of the Project site. Colma asked "Noise impacts should be projected from the project boundaries with appropriate mitigation for future noise levels exceeding 60 dBA." The entire noise analysis in the DEIR consists of the following statement at .page 4: "Although incremental increases in levels of short-term noise would be created by construction of the project, adherence to existing City noise regulations (Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code), which includes limitations on hours of construction, will reduce noise to less-than-significant levels." In other words, the DEIR ignored Colma's request and focused only on construction noise. XT000101.01 21/61/01 Planning Division June 15, 1999 Page 11 Colma also expressed particular interest in aesthetics, light and glare, recommending that the DEIR impact "analysis include cross sections through the site and adjacent streets with a discussion of any affects on scenic views." The DEIR ignores this request by Colma to an extent which suggests that the author of the DEIR never reviewed the Colma letter. There is essentially no analysis in the DEIR of the aesthetics, light and glare impacts of the Project, but merely four conclusory statements wholly unsupported by facts set forth on half a page at page 51 of the DEIR. In a three-page letter dated April 14, 1999, Daly City responded to the NOP. The best evidence of the failure of the DEIR to address the various concerns raised by Daly City is evidenced by a letter from the South San Francisco Planning staff dated May 10, 1999 to the author of the Daly City letter. I quote: "It has recently come to my attention that the City of Daly City is concerned that its comments have not been addressed in the draft EIR. While City staff and our EIR consultant have tried to provide a thorough and complete document, due to time constraints the issues may not have been addressed in as thorough a fashion as desired. We welcome your continued participation in the environmental review process and assure [youJ that these and any other issues you may have with the Draft EIR will be fully responded to in the final EIR (Emphasis added.)." S. Kalkin letter to Carlos de Melo dated May 10, 1999. In order for the City to adequately discharge its statutory duty under CEQA, it cannot let artificial and external "time constraints" impede the discharge of its statutory duty to "Inform governmental decision-makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities" and "Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible." State CEQA Guidelines Section 15002(a)(1) and (03). Nor can the City attempt to compensate for a shoddy, less than thorough impact analysis in the Draft EIR by bolstering the Final EIR after the Draft EIR has been circulated for public review and comment. To do so violates the very XT000101.01 21/61/01 Planning Division June 15, 1999 Page 12 essence of the Draft EIR as a public disclosure document and violates CEQA. The only way the City may remedy it failure to comply with CEQA is to sincerely and thoughtfully respond to the comments it received on the NOP by preparing a new Draft EIR that is then recirculated. The record of the DEIR which I reviewed did not indicate that a public scoping session related to the DEIR had been held, as is suggested by the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15083. Although a scoping session is not a requirement of CEQA, the better practice that is almost universally followed is to notice and hold a public scoping session prior to preparing an EIR. I would also request that the City hold such a scoping session prior to its revision of the Draft EIR. Comment 5. The DEIR Project 1_~escriptinn is internally incnnSis ent~ does 4.1.5 not include all relevant aspects of the ~j~,, includingreasonahly foreseeable future activities that are Hart of the ~j~rt, minimizes the Project's impacts and does not list all of the approvals required by the Pro, ect. T'he DEIR project description must be consistent throughout the EIR in order for the impact analysis to be meaningful and serve as vehicle for intelligent decision-making. County of Inyo v City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Ca1.App.3d 185, 197. The DEIR at pages 6 and 11 presents the Project as a warehouse sales facility with 147,000 gross square feet of floor area, a gas station with 8self-service gas pumps and 50,000 square feet of retail space to be built in the future. The DEIR at page 11 also refers to a 60,000 square foot building with no explanation of its use or function. The Traffic Impact Analysis at page 15 describes the Project as a 147,000 square feet warehouse sales facility with 16-pump gas station, plus a 73,000 square feet shopping center. Finally, the Project Description submitted by the applicant presents the Froject as a 220,000 square feet commercial center comprising a 147,000 square feet wholesale store, a gas station with 16 fueling positions, a +60,000 square feet retail building, a 8,000 square feet sit down restaurant and 5,000 square feet of other general retail. It goes without saying that when the DEIR is revised and recirculated, it must contain a uniform Project Description. XT000101.01 21/61/01 Planning Division June 15, 1999 Page 13 The project description must also include all relevant aspects of the project, including reasonably foreseeable future activities that are part of the project. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn v Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1988) 476 Ca1.3d 376. The DEIR at Exhibit 4 -- Concept Site Plan in the DEIR lists the total site area as 26.74 acres, divided among the COSTCO site area - 15.12 acres, Residual Site I - 4.91 acres and Residual Site Area II - 6.71 acres. However, Residual Site Area II is not shown on Exhibit 4. The Concept Master Plan submitted by the applicant does show Residual Site Area II, as well as the COSTCO site area and Residual Site I, although the acres for each varies slightly from those shown in Exhibit 4. The Project Description submitted by the applicant divides the Project into three parcels: I -- +14.63, II -- ±5.63 and III -- +2.94 acres, which totals 23.2 acres and leaves 3.5 acres unaccounted for As noted in the applicant's Project Description, "Parcel III +2.94 acres is expected to contain general retail and is not part of these entitlements." The applicant's Project Description also describes Project Phasing, dividing it into Phases I, II and III. These discrepancies among (a) Exhibit 4 -- Concept Site Plan in the DEIR, (b) the Concept Master Plan submitted by the applicant, and (c) the Project Phasing described in the applicant's Project Description raise the important question of whether the Project Description in the DEIR includes all relevant aspects of the project, including reasonably foreseeable future activities that are part of the Project. The DEIR fails to satisfactorily answer this question. The DEIR must analyze the impacts of the development of the entire 26.74 acres, including Residual Site Area II, Phases I, II and II and the 3.5 acres. Once again to state the obvious, when the DEIR is revised and recirculated, it must contain a Project Description setting forth all relevant aspects of the project, including all reasonably foreseeable future activities that are part of the Project. COSTCO has applied to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (See Form G-101 dated January 28, 1999) for permission for annual fuel sales of 15 Million gallons. Assuming a monthly average of 1,250,000 gallons and a 31-day month, an average of 40,323 gallons per day would be sold. Assuming an average fill-up of 8 gallons, this is an average of 5,040 fill-ups or cars per day. Table 5 of the Rajappan & Meyer Report calculates daily project trips to be 8,388 and assumes a 70% internal trip rate. 70% of 8,388 is 5,872 trips, in excess of the average of 5,040 fill-ups or cars per XT000101.01 21/61/01 Planning Division June 15, 1999 Page 14 day. However, assuming the 56% internal trip rate used in the Redwood City DIER yields 4,697 trips, well below the average of 5,040 fill-ups or cars per day. In other words, the DIER understates the worst case based on annual fuel sales of 15 million gallons by usifig an internal trip rate that is highly questionable. See Comment 3 of the letter prepared by Daniel T. Smith, P.E., Smith Engineering & Management. One of the inadequacies of the DEIR is that the Project Description contains an incomplete listing of the permits and other approvals required to implement the Project, as required by the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(d)(1)(B). The application submitted by COSTCO lists the Approvals Required as: (1) Conditional Use Permit for (a) off-site alcohol sales and (b) automotive related services, including tire sales and installation and a gas station, and (2) a Planned Unit Development (PUD) permit. The DEIR at page 12 lists under "Specific actions addressed in this Environmental Impact Report" a Use Permit but without specifying the individual conditionally permitted uses, and there is no reference to a PUD permit. The Zoning District Map indicates that the Project site is zoned P-C-L, Planned Commercial District, maximum density of 30 dwelling units per net acre. Chapter 20.24 of the City's Zoning Ordinance sets forth the Planned Commercial District Use Regulations, including Permitted uses and Uses permitted subject to a use permit. Nowhere in the lists of permitted and conditionally permitted Commercial Use Types can one find a Use Type encompassing the 220,000 S.F. multi-use commercial center for which COSTCO has applied for a permit. While it is possible to find in these lists each of the component parts of this multi-use commercial center, their aggregation as proposed by COSTCO is neither permitted nor conditionally permitted by the P-C-L District. 4.1.6 CEQA requires an EIR to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project, or its location, that would feasibly attain most of the Project's objectives. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a).) The Alternatives Analysis of the DEIR is inadequate, among other reasons, because it does not contain any analysis but only superficial, conclusory statements that do not permit the reader to obtain an informed understanding of the impacts of the Project compared to alternatives. XT000101.01 21/61/01 Planning Division June 15, 1999 Page 15 The alternatives analysis also fails to analyze an alternative which is the Project without the gas station. The analysis of aMulti-Family Residential Alternative with a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre should be replaced with a alternative consistent with the City's' General Plan Policy B 11-6, that is a Transit Oriented Residential Alternative, no less than 40 dwelling units per acre. Unlike the Multi-Family Residential Alternative, the Transit Oriented Residential Alternative would not require an amendment of the City's General Plan. The alternatives analysis also fails to identify the "environmentally superior alternative," as is required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2). Instead, the DIER simply states at page 56 that "Neither of the other two alternatives, Alternatives 5.2 and 5.3, would result in environmental impacts significantly lower than the Proposed Project." This conclusory statement does not constitute identification of the environmentally superior alternative. C'nttirttPnt 7 The Miti¢ation Measures Prop~~P~ fnr the Proiect's Impacts 4.1.7 are inadequate. ~ As noted in the attached letter prepared by Daniel T. Smith, P.E., Smith Engineering & Management, the "fair share" contributions to fund traffic mitigations (DEIR, p. 30) are inadequate to mitigate the traffic impacts of the Project because there is no evidence that the mitigations will actually result. The traffic mitigations are also inadequate because there are no mitigations addressing the interrelationship between traffic and parking associated with the Project and traffic and parking associated with the South San Francisco BART Station, projected to open in December, 2001. It appears that at one time City staff was proposing a parking management plan in order to deal with future BART and Project traffic, as noted in the November 4, 19981etter from Mulvanny Partnership Architects, the Project architects to the Planning Department. A combined traffic and parking management plan should be required as a Project mitigation measure. XT000101.01 21/61/01 Planning Division June 15, 1999 Page 16 The hazardous materials mitigation measure listed at page 50 of the DEIR requires the Project developer to contact the San Mateo County Health Department for site clearances. Among other reasons, the mitigation is inadequate because it defers the identification of the actual mitigation measure to a future time, and there is no evidence presented in the DEIR that "site clearances" would actually mitigate hazardous materials impacts. In closing, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR for the COSTCO Wholesale Warehouse Facility Project. After the City has adopted Conservation and Safety Elements, amended the land use designation for the El Camino Corridor to replace the transit oriented residential designation with a commercial retail designation and amended the P-C-L zoning classification to permit multi-use commercial centers, we look forward to the revised and recirculated Draft EIR. Please do not hesitate to call us if you have any questions or comments concerning this letter. Very truly yours, & ETZEL, / _ '1 /(~ . ~~~ derick M. Etzel FME:jmj Attachments: Letter to Fred Etzel from Smith Engineering & Management Dated June 10, 1999 Letter to Henn & Etzel from RGA Environmental, Inc. Dated June 14, 1999 CC: Ted Simas, Xtra Oil Company xrooolol.ol 21/61/01 SMITH ENGINEERING ~:-~ MANAGEMENT June 10, 1999 Mr. Fred Etzel Henn & Etzel Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 510 San Francisco, CA 94111-4151 Subject: South San Francisco Costco DEIR TratTic Analysis Dear Mr. Etzel Comment 4.2 Per your request, I have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the proposed Costco Wholesale Warehouse Facility in South San Francisco. This letter documents the findings of my review. QUALIFICATIONS TO PERFORM THIS REVIEW. I am a registered Civil and traffic engineer in California and have been practicing as a traffic and transportation engineering consultant in the Bay Area for 31 years. In my engineering practice I have prepared and reviewed the transportation elements of numerous environmental documents. I am familiar with the proposed South San Francisco Costco project site, and have previously performed traffic studies involving membership retail and warehouse retail operations including Costco. FINDINGS The transportation component of the DEIR is inadequate as circulated for a number of significant reasons. Some of the primary reasons include: 1. The DEIR traffic analysis is deficient because it completely fails to provide any 4.2.1 anal,Xsis of traffic in the am commute peak hour. The DEIR claims no am peak analysis was performed because the Costco membership warehouse store, the component of the project generating the largest portion of the trips overall, would have very little trip generation in the am commute peak period. However, T K :1 P I 1 (• T K A N ti P l~ k T A T 1 C~ \ \I -~ !~ :~ C; [ ~1 !. '~ T ~3I] Lown• Road. Union Cit~•. CA ~)-1~~- rel: ~10.~8`).9-1~~ ta.~: ~!U.-l3~).~)~-~ the gasoline service station component of the project would generate as many as 476 trips' in the am peak period. This number of trips could likely have significant traffic impact at intersections near the project site. These potential impacts and consequentially needed mitigation have not been evaluated at all in the DEIR. The proponents may azgue that the pm peak traffic is heavier and defines a worst case condition under CEQA and hence that an am analysis is unnecessary. Such an argument would fail to account for the fact that am peak traffic, although sometimes less intense than pm peaks, has different patterns from the pm peak and tends to require different mitigations. This is why it is normal practice in CEQA environmental documents to evaluate and mitigate both am as well as pm peak traffic, except in cases where the project is of a nature that it would generate no significant am peak traffic. As we have demonstrated above, the project would generate substantial am peak traffic, sufficient to alter Level-Of-Service conditions at nearby intersections. Hence, the DEIR is deficient in failing to provide an am peak period traffic analysis. 2. The base traffic counts for the DEIR may be lower than normal volumes because they 4.2.2 were taken at the hei t of an El Nno wtnter storm season. This would tend to result in understatement in severity of traffic Level-Of=Service problems the proiect contributes to and the understatement of mttt¢atton needs. The DEIR traffic study states that the traffic volume counts that form the basis for the "existing conditions" analysis were taken between December, 1997 and February, 1998. The report is unspecific as to actual dates the count data was taken. Because of the severity of the winter storms during that particulaz period, peak period traffic tended to be considerably lower than normal on storm days. The problem with this is illustrated in the case of a recent EIR we examined in which the 1998 base traffic data was collected during the height of an El Nino storm flood and its aftermath and in which the primazy study azea was the flooded district. The traffic data collected at that time was completely non- representative of typical traffic conditions that normally existed in that study azea. Unless the DEIR provides the specific dates on which all "existing condition" traffic data was collected, the public has no way to judge whether or not the data presented truly represents existing conditions and the DEIR is deficient as an information document. If the counts were indeed taken on significant storm dates, new data must be collected and the analysis redone. 3. The DEIR's assumptions about internal tripmakin~ are not credible. are inconsistent 4.2.3 with Costco's representations about internal tnpmakuta m tts concurrent proposal for a as station at its warehouse store in Redwood Cttv and understate the.pro ect's traffic impacts. ' Based on the DEIR's stated pm peak generation rate for the service station component of the project and the Institute of Transportation the ratio of am to pm peak hour service station generation rates per i+eco ~ traffic Engineers Trip Generation, 6'th Ed. Trip Generation, 6'th Edition is broadly gnu b5' engineers as the most authoritative source on the traffic-producing characteristics of land uses. "Internal trips" are trips that call at both the service station and the warehouse store. In the DEIR, such internal trips are presumed to be accounted for by the warehouse store's basic trip generation and are discounted from the gross estimated tripmaking. In this DEIR it is assumed that 70 percent of the cars that purchase gas will carry people who also shop at the warehouse store before or after fiaeling.2 No specific data substantiating the 70 percent internal trip discount on the fueling operation is presented in the DEIR. However, in Redwood City, Costco is concurrently asserting that only 56 percent of the vehicles that fuel will also carry people who shop at the warehouse store and presents data documenting the 56 percent internal pm peak rate for Costco's Santa Clara facility.3 It would appear that the internal rate Costco asserts in Redwood City is reasonable and substantiated, as contrast with the unsubstantiated 70 percent assumption in this DEIR. If Costco's substantiated rate from its Redwood City report is substituted into this South San Francisco analysis, there would be 14 percent less internal gas trips assumed, 14 percent more Costco gas trips loaded onto the street system. Under this more reasonable assumption, the project would cause 111 more pm peak hour trips on the adjacent street and highway system than analyzed in the DEIR traffic analysis. This difference alone would probably be sufficient to alter findings of impacts and mitigation needs at key intersections. The fact that the assumed 70 percent internal trip discount on the service station operation is not credible can be seen by examining it in light of the numbers of cars bringing people who shop at the warehouse store. The DEIR and its supporting Costco Traffic Study a estimate that in the pm peak hour, 397 vehicles will enter the site bringing people to the warehouse store. Under the 70 percent internal trip assumption for the gas station, it assumes that 396 trips to and from the gas station (198 in, 198 out) will be accounted for by vehicles that also bring people to the warehouse store and dismisses this number of trips from the overall analysis. But if one compares the internal trips dismissed from the gas station analysis with the total number of trips bringing people to the warehouse store, one sees that the 70 percent internal trip rate at the gas station implies that one out of every two bringing people to the Costco warehouse store will also purchase gas at that times. It is simply not credible to assume that fully half the vehicles bringing people to 2 See the DEIR's supporting traffic study, Costco South San Francisco Tra,()"ic ImpactAnalysis, February 12, 1999 by Rajappan & Meyer. Table S on page 16 identifies 396 of 565 trips generated by the service station component as being internal trips. This is a 70 percent internal rate. s Costco Gasoline Station Addition Tra,~'rc Impact Study prepared for City ojRedwood City, DKS Associates, March 25, 1999. ° The above referenced Costco South San Francisco Tra,BSc Impact Analysis is hereinafter referred-to as the Costco Traffic Study. s This comparison referenced here is of data included on Table S, page 16 of the Costco Traffic Study. The 397 pm peak trips in to the warehouse store is shown near the upper right of the table. The 396 trips to the gas station (198 inbound, 198 outbound) that are assumed to be "internal trips" are shown at the lower center of the table. The 198 inbound trips for gas assumod to be "inttrnal" are exactly SO percent of the 397 inbound trips to the warehouse store, bence it follows that tbe 70 percent internal trip rate assumption in tbe report implies that fully one-half the cars that bring people to the warehouse store would also purchase gas. shop at the Costco wazehouse would be in a state with gas tank's empty enough that they I would purchase gas at that same time.6 4. The DEIR simply drams from the analysis triers assumed attracted from traffic already 4.2.4 passingbv the site This understates traffic impacts at the protest's matn dnveway intersection and possib_,.y at the closest adjacent irttersecttons The percent of protect traffic assumed drawn from traffic alrea~ p~~bv the site may be excessive. thereby also understating~roject traffic impacts. The DEIR assumes that 10 percent of the pm peak trips to/from the warehouse store and the service station facility and 40 percent of the additional retail facility will be attracted from existing traffic passing by the site. If one adds up the existing traffic volumes currently passing the site from the existing condition Level-Of-Service calculations tables in the Costco Traffic Study, one finds about 2400 vehicles pass the site in the pm peak hour each day. On page 17, Table 6, the Costco Traffic Study assumes that a total of 111 inbound pm peak trips to the project will be drawn from existing passing traffic'. Comparing these 111 trips to the 2400 that pass the site daily in the pm peak, it becomes clear that the Costco Traffic Study's assumptions about attracted passers-by equate to the assumption that everyone driving by the site in the pm peak hour will stop there on the average of once every 21 days. An assumption implying that, on the average, every vehicle passing by the site in the pm peak hour will visit the Costco wazehouse store once every three weeks seems questionable indeed. More important is the fact that the attracted pass-by trips are simply dropped from the analysis at the trip generation stage. They are not even considered in the Level-Of-Service analysis for the main entrance intersection and neazest major intersections where they would certainly cause added movements (two for one) and a different pattern of movements (say a left in and a left out of the site -two trips- versus a single trip straight by) than the trip passing by that they replace. A total of 136 trips in Scenario A and 222 trips in Scenario Bg assumed attracted from passers-by has been assumed in the DEIR and discounted from the intersection Level-Of-Service analysis -enough to potentially affect conclusions about impact and mitigation needs at the closest intersections. The analysis should be redone including consideration of the movements of the amacted pass-by trips at the closest intersections. We also note that in the case of the gas station component, the DEIR and its supporting traffic study treat the internal trips and the attracted "pass-by" trips as independent discounts of the gas station component's total traffic generation. In fact, they aze not 6 We also note that the DEIR does not present a comprehensive trip generation analysis of trip rates to Costco warehouse stores that have service station facilities on the site versus those that do not. It would be expected that a Costco with a fueling operation would experience a higher warehouse store trip generation rate than one that does not have fueling. By this reasoning, the trip estimates in this DEIR would also appear low. These are comprised of 36 warehouse trips, 47 other retail trips and 28 gas trips. a See Costco Traffic Study Tables 5 and 6, pages 16 and 17. 4 necessarily independent. If 70 percent of the gas station trips are "internal trips" (that is, ones that also visit the warehouse store), it follows that 70 percent of the gas station's attracted "pass-by" trips are also internal trips already discounted in the 10 percent pass- by discount taken on the warehouse store traffic. Hence, the analysis has taken adouble- discount and overstated the pass-by trip discount on the gas station component by 70 percent. A corresponding number of "new" project trips should be added to the analysis. This consequence of this error is that project traffic impacts are understated at remote intersections as well as those closest to the project site. S. Procedures used in the long term analysis for the intersection traffic Level-Of-Service computations disguise the effects of traffic growth and may fail to disclose significant 4.2.5 traffic impacts and mitigation needs To proper disclose the full extent of traffic impacts the Level Of Service computations should be redone with future veer veak hour factors set at measured existing rates except where Level-Of-Service on individual approaches is already well into Level-Of-Service E. This is a highly technical matter which we will attempt to explain as clearly as possible in layman's terms. For detailed technical information, see the Highway Capacity Manual. Even in peak hours, traffic tends to come on individual approaches to an intersection in surges and lulls rather than at a constant steady rate. Only when the approach is heavily congested for the entire peak hour does traffic tend to approach at a constant steady-state rate. In the intersection Level-Of-Service analysis (which is used as a primary indicator to determine traffic impacts and mitigation needs), a quantity called the peak hour factor is used to account for the surges and lulls (or lack thereof) in traffic and duration of peak traffic within the peak hour. Peak hour factor can range from .25 to 1.0. A low peak hour factor reflects conditions where there is considerable surge and lull over the hour and the heaviest traffic lasts for only about 15 minutes. A peak hour factor approaching 1.0 is indicative of little surge and lull and steadily heavy traffic over the entire peak hour. In the data on existing traffic conditions, many of the approaches on the intersections analyzed in the DEIR have low to moderate peak hour factors indicative of short durations of peaks and considerable surge and lull in peak hour traffic. However, in the long term Level-Of- Service analysis, those preparing the traffic study have chosen to uniformly assume a 1.0 peak hour factor on all intersection approaches. This would be indicative of a constant steady flow rate on all approaches throughout the peak hour. This is an unreasonable assumption because it does not reflect the actual conditions that will occur and because it masks the true impacts of project traffic. As an illustration of this, consider the intersection of Dickey Boulevard and El Camino Real just north of the project. In the existing condition, the El Camino Real approaches have respective northbound and southbound peak hour factors of .92 and.95, the 9 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Hoard, National Research Council. The current edition of this manual is the 1997 edition. Since the Costoo Traffic Study employed the procedure of the 1994 edition, the reader is referenced to that edition. Discussion of peak hour factor can be found on Chapter 9, page 9-12 of the 1994 edition. eastbound Hickey approach has a .82 peak hour factor and the approach from the trailer court has a peak hour factor of .98. Existing Level-Of-Service is computed at "C", the average delay per vehicle is estimated at 17.0 seconds per vehicle and the average delay per vehicle for vehicles approaching from the trailer court is estimated at 40.3 seconds per vehicle. In the long term analysis (Year 2010 Buildout), all approaches aze assumed to operate at a peak hour factor of 1.0. This is completely unjustified since the analysis as presented in the DEIR shows the intersection still operating at Level-Of-Service "C" and the traffic volumes on the trailer court approach and the eastbound Hickey through and left approaches aze essemially unchanged. In the DEIR's and the supporting Costco Traffic Study's assessment, due to the unreasonable adjustment of the peak hour factor, the computed Level-Of-Service remains "C", average delay per vehicle for the entire intersection increases slightly to 23.6 seconds and average delay per vehicle for those on the trailer court approaches improves to 38.4 seconds per vehicle. However, if the existing peak hour factor is correctly assumed to remain as is justified by the data presented in the DEIR, using otherwise all the same data, methodology and analysis software as the DEIR analysis, the following results are obtained. The overall Level-Of- Service at the intersection would be "D" (not "C"), average delay per vehicle would be 25.3 seconds and there would be a huge increase in average delay per vehicle for people coming out of the trailer court entrance, a total of 71.2 seconds per vehicle (as contrast with the 38.4 forecast), putting this approach in Level-Of-Service "F" conditions. Cleazly, the unjustified assumption in the long term analysis that the peak hour factor on all approached goes to 1.0 has major ramifications on disclosure of impacts and makes the DEIR traffic analysis inadequate. All of the computations should be redone using reasonable peak hour factor rates. The consequence of this change is so potentially significant that for this reason alone the DEIR should be recirculated again as a draft. 6. Analysis of pro~cct traffic impacts must include an assessment of the adeauacv of 4.2.6 aueue storage yrovisions for all movements at all intersections analyzed. The proposed project's main driveway is in close proximity to the intersections of El Camino Real with Hickey Boulevazd and with the future Hickey Boulevazd extension. Although the DEIR asserts that there will be adequate queue storage between the proposed main driveway intersection and these two other intersection, malting appropriate alterations to the peak hour factor in the Level-Of-Service computations and making the changes to project traffic generation discussed in poirrts above will aher the estimates of critical queue storage requirements. After rerunning the Level-Of-Service computations with appropriate peak hour factors and trip generation adjustments, the DEIR should demonstrate the adequacy of queue storage provisions between the above intersections. Also, the Level-Of-Service calculation sheets in the Costco Traffic Study for the neaz-term and long term conditions forecast very long queues in the left turn lanes at many of the intersections analyzed. For instance, on northbound El Camino Real at Hickey, the left turn queue is 15 vehicles per lane in the background condition, 19 vehicles per lane in the "neaz term with project" condition and 28 vehicles per lane in the "Year 2010 with 6 project" condition. Queue storage length required is typically 20 to 25 feet per vehicle. So the length of left turn pockets needed would almost double from the 300 to 375 feet needed for the background condition to 560 to 700 feet needed for "Year 2010 with project" Just adding the project to background conditions would increase left turn storage length by 80 to 100 feet. When length of a left turn queue exceeds the length of the length of the left turn pockets, left turn traffic blocks the other approach lanes and creates severe operational difficulty not indicated in the theoretical Level-Of-Service analysis. Hence, the project may cause significant intersection traffic impacts and mitigation needs not disclosed in the analysis as conducted in the DEIR. After rerunning the Level-Of-Service computations with appropriate peak hour factors and trip generation adjustments, the DEIR should demonstrate the adequacy of queue storage provisions at all intersections analyzed in the DEIR. 7. The DEIR must demonstrate that the traffic signals along El Camino Real at Hickev. 4.2.7 at the main Costco entrance and at the New Hickey extension can be successfully interconnected in a satisfactorily functional operational scheme. Effective operation of such an interconnected scheme mawrequire different turninpLlane provisions than indicated in the DEIR traffic analysis which analyzes these locations as isolated intersections. In a similar vein, the DEIR itself notes that because of the proximity of the above intersections, the signals at these intersections will need to be coordinated. However, the DEIR's analysis of these locations examines them only as independent intersections. DEIR fails to demonstrate that the signals can be coordinated in a manner that will allow the intersections to perform at aLevel-Of-Service comparable to that in its analysis of them as independent intersections. The traffic analysis should be redone to include an analysis that treats the three signalized intersection complex as a single, integrated facility and includes the following elements: use of a program like Transyt 7F to estimate delay through the complex to compute Level-Of-Service, assess the implications of queue length on upstream facility operations and demonstrate the feasibility and suitable function of an interconnect system for the signals in the interchange complex area. Such an analysis could demonstrate significantly different mitigation requirements for the project. In specific, consider the left turn movement from El Camino southbound into the main Costco entrance (intersection 17 in the Costco Traffic Study Level-Of-Service calculations). In the single left turn lane configuration proposed, the 299 vehicles that will make this movement require 25 percent of the "green time" at this signal. This works fine if this intersection is considered as an isolated location according to the Costco Traffic Study's calculation for the long term situation. However, it seems probable that if the signals at the three closely spaced intersections were to interconnected in a satisfactorily coordinated system, it would be necessary to provide double left turns for the left turn entry movement to Costco to cut down on the percentage of green time that the left turn entry requires and allocate that time to other movements through the three intersection complex. The DEIR admits that the three signals would need to be interconnected. The above discussion illustrates why project mitigation requirements would likely be different under an interconnect strategy and, therefore, why the systematic interconnect analysis must be included in the DEIR. 8. The "Year 2010 Analvsis" misleads the public by disguising actual near term 4.2.8 cumulative impacts of the proiect as distant-year impacts. ~ The only apparent difference between the "Year 2010 Analysis" and the "Near Term" analysis in the DEIR is the assumption that the BART SFO extension with the station in South San Francisco adjacent to the Costco project site will be in operation. Treating the `wvith BART" condition only as a Year 2010 event is misleading in that it makes the conditions forecast seem like remote events that may or may not ever happen. In actual fact, BART is approved, under construction and will open within a year or two of the Costco project. BART should have been included among the approved projects included in the "near term backgound conditions" analysis. The entire traffic section should be redone with BART included in the "near term" analysis. 9. "Fair share" contributions to fund mitigations are inadequate as project mitigations 4.2.9 under CEOA unless there is a clear pro~am to fully fund and implement the mitigation proms ct in a timely manner In addition. the DEIR provides an unclear indication of what the Costco project's fair share contributions should be and fails_to reflect the ~ecific i~ut on this subject from its supporting traffic study and from the exvert veer review commissioned by the Cit~of South San Francisco. Several of the traffic mitigations proposed involve contribution of an estimated `fair share" toward the cost of needed improvements. However, absent a clear progam to fund the full cost of mitigation improvements and implement them in a timely manner, there is no guarantee that the necessary mitigations will ever be fully funded and constructed. The implication is that the public could experience the project's significant traffic impacts unmitigated for years even if a "fair share" deposit of funds were made. The DEIR provides no indication of certainty that the necessary traffic mitigations will be fully funded and constructed within a reasonable time. Hence the offer to pay "fair share cost" does not qualify as mitigation under CEQA. In addition, the Costco Traffic Study makes specific estimates of the actual fair share percentages based upon the Year 2010 analysis. The peer review of the Costco Traffic Study commissioned by the City of South San Francisco and performed by Crane Transportation Group is critical of the basis year of the fair share analysis in the Costco Traffic Study, contending that it understates Costco's fair share.10 The DEIR itself fails to resolve this issue, leaving Costco's fair share and actual cost vague and undetermined. This is inadequate as mitigation under CEQA. ' ° See Item 2 on page 1 of letter-report dated 12-29-98. 10. The DEIR fails to consider the.possibili of mitigating the vroiect's sigrtificant traffic 4.2.10 impacts by reducing_the scale of the vroiect. The DEIR fails to consider an obvious mitigation to the project's significant impacts - reducing the scale and traffic generating intensity of the project. Ways that this could be done include eliminating the secondary retail development proposal and/or eliminating the gasoline service station component of the proposal since this is really a separate activity from the fundamental membership warehouse retail component of the project. 11. The DEIR analysis procedure is deficient in that it is incapable of identifying the 4.2.11 project's significant traffic impacts at intersections that already exceed South San Francisco's Level-Of-Service "D" standard. I The DEIR identifies a single threshold of significance for traffic impacts at signalized intersections -that of causing conditions to exceed Level-Of-Service "D". This is suitable as one threshold of impact. However, there are other thresholds of significant impact that should be addressed in the DEIR but are not. For instance, it is certainly as significant an adverse traffic impact when a project causes intersection traffic demand that alters the Level-Of-Service rating computation from just into Level "E" to verging on or just into Level "F" or from barely into Level "F" to deeply into Level "F" as a condition causing the computation result to shift from Level "D" to "E". However, the DEIR provides no recognition of significant impacts that may occur as the result of traffic changes at intersections that already exceed the Level D threshold. This deficiency was identified in peer review of the Costco Traffic Study performed for South San Francisco by the Crane Transportation Group" but is not addressed or remedied in the DEIR. The entire analysis should be redone considering significance thresholds that consider the effect of traffic changes at locations where conditions already exceed the "acceptable" threshold. 12. The intersection of Juni ero Sena Boulevard and Serramonte Boulevard should be 4.2.12 analyzed in the DEIR but is not. The intersection of Junipero Serra Boulevard and Serramonte Boulevard is on an obvious route that allows project traffic to bypass the congested I~'ickey Boulevard/I-280 interchange area. ALevel-Of-Service analysis for this intersection should have been analyzed in the DEIR but was not, despite the fact that it was requested in the comments on the EIR scope by the City of Daly City. This deficiency should be remedied. 13. A weekend traffic analysis should be.performed for the proiect. 4.2.13 Trip Generation indicates that membership discount warehouse operations like Costco typically have about 29 percent more total traffic on Saturdays than weekdays and 36 percent more traffic in their Saturday peak hour than on their weekday peak hour. In a project the scale of this Costco, the all-day Saturday trips could be higher by 2432 (10,820 versus 8388) and peak hour trips could be higher by 286 (1080 versus 794).While it is " See Item 4 on page 2 of the referenced letter-report. 9 often true that the non-project background traffic is usually less on Saturdays than on weekdays, the increase in project traffic may offset the decrease in base traffic and significant project traffic impacts may be found on Saturdays. Such impacts may often occur at different locations and require different mitigations than those associated with weekday traffic. The DEIR is deficient without a weekend analysis. 14. A Transportation System Management Plan (TSNi~should be defined for the nroiect in the EIR but is not. This is a deficiency. Policy 81 of the City of South San Francisco General Plan requires that a TSM plan be defined for the project. None is provided in the EIR The plan should be included in the EIR so that the public has the opportunity to review and comment on it. Such a plan could concentrate on reducing trips by project employees and on taking maximum advantage of the project's proximity to the new BART station. 15. The trip~eneration for the 73 000 square feet of additional retail develoument in Scenario B is understated This causes the DEIR to understate the vroiect's traffic impacts for this scenario. Trip Generation indicates that as shopping center size increases, trip generation per square footage of floor area decreases. This is logical because, the larger the center, the more probability ofmulti-purpose trips within the one center. Because the rate varies by size, Trip Generation gives a fitted curve for shopping center trip generation based on center size and recommends that the fitted curve be used rather than the overall average trip generation rate per unit floor area that it also identifies.12 Despite this guidance, the DEIR and its supporting traffic study estimate the trip generation rate for the additiona173,000 square feet of retail use in the project under Scenario B at the average rate for shopping centers. This results in an understatement to project trips. ff the generation for the additional Scenario B retail is properly computed using the fitted curve from Trip Generation and treating the additional retail as an increment to the Costco retail center of Scenario A, the analysis indicates the DEIR understates project retail peak period trips by 57. This is enough to, in combination with other understatements of project tripmaking described herein, cause the DEIR to significantly understate the project's significant traffic impacts and mitigation requirements. Much of the 57 trip understatement is accounted-for by the Costco Traffic Study taking discounts on both the Costco warehouse and the added Scenario B retail for what it descnbes as "multi-use site reduction" (see Table 6 on page 17 of the Costco Traffic Study). However, this factor is already accounted-for in the fitted curve from Trip Generation.13 The entire analysis should be redone based on a proper computation of the trip generation from the additional retail in Scenario B. 12 See Op. Cit., page 1334. 's The peer review performed for the City of South San Francisco also raises this same point. However, it indicates the DEIR as having a much larger understatement of trip generation (2371ow) than our analysis because it interprets tbe added retail in Scenario B as afree-standing center rather than as an increment to the Costco center. However, it is significant to note that even though alerted to this problem by the peer analysis, the DEIR did nothing to remedy the deficienry. 4.2.14 4.2.15 10 16. The DEIR is deficient in failing to consider the effects of the project's significant 4.2.16 traffic impacts on public access to emer~cv services. The Kaiser Hospital is located on El Camino Real south of the project site. The DEIR fails to consider any potential consequences of the project's significant traffic impacts on public access to emergency medical care. Since public safety is a high level ministerial duty of the City, this deficiency in the DEIR must be remedied prior to certification. Conclusion Because of these severe inadequacies of the DEIR, we request that its transportation section be entirely redone in light of the comments herein and that, because of the extensive change in the impact disclosure that would result, that the DEIR be re-circulated as a draft document. Because of the significant changes entailed, the public would not have sufficient opportunity to review and comment on the responses to the points herein if they were simply incorporated in a FEIR. The project sponsor's or the City's desire to move the project forward on some project schedule that suits their objectives is not sufficient reason under CEQA for failure to provide adequate circulation and time for public review of a draft document when significant changes in disclosure are made. These conclude our current comments on the DEIR. We would be pleased to discuss them with you. Sincerely, SMITH ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT A California Corpo tion Daniel T. Smith Jr., P.E. President 11 -`~.~ ENVIRONMENTAL INC June 14, 1999 Henn & Etzel, Inc. Attorney At Law Four Embazcadero Center, Suite 510 San Francisco, CA 94111-4151 Comment 4.3 RE: DEIR Air Quality Impact Analysis for the Proposed Costco South San Francisco Robert Gils is a Certified Industrial Hygienist; he has worked in the field of Occupational and Environmental Health for twenty-eight years. His work experience includes hazardous materials risk assessments, hazardous management and air quality studies. He will shortly begin work on the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Odor Emissions study for the expansion of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Comment 1 The Air Ouality Impact Analti~sis (AOIAI for the Proposed Costco South San Francisco is inadequate because it does not reflect the local impacts of increased 4.3.1 traffic and associated contaminants. The worst case scenario locations evaluated for the DEIR/AQIA aze remote from the proposed Costco site. The five (5) intersections evaluated range from approximately one-half to one mile in distance. The remoteness of the study locations does not therefore accurately reflect the local impact of carbon monoxide and objectionable odors on sensitive receptors including residences and the Treasure Island Trailer Pazk to the northeast, El Camino High School across Mission Road, Alta Loma Middle School, the Kaiser Hospital and along roadways used by trafric. Example: elevated concentrations of carbon monoxide levels are normally only found neaz sources. Using remote locations one half to one mile from the site will not accurately predicted local conditions. Comment 2. The Vehicle mix used for the AOIA does not reflect the vehicle mix shown 4.3.2 in the Rajappan & Meyers report. 4701 Doyle Street Suite 14 Emeryville. CA 94608 510 547 7771 FAX 547 1983 i The DEIR/AQIA uses a 2000 vehicle mix in evaluating the five (5) selected intersections discussed above. The vehicle mix shown in the Rajappan & Meyer (R&M) report predicts vehiculaz traffic in excess of 8000 vehicles for the Costco site. By using a 2000 vehiculaz mix at points remote form the site the AQIA does not predict the local conditions shown in the R&M report. Example: the vehicle mix used in evaluating the local impact of cazbon monoxide and objectionable odors on sensitive receptors exceeds 8000 vehicles at the project site. Comment 3: The AQIA does not address emissions from idlin~z vehicles lining_up at the fill ports. 4.3.3 The loss leader mazketing concept of selling gasoline at a reduced rate will cause substantial line of idling traffic at the service pumps, therefore, increasing the amount of local emissions. Example: Because of its discount the predicted amount of gasoline to be sold at the site is estimated at roughly three times the volume of gasoline to the sold at any other neazby station; this will cause excess traffic for the purposes of fueling will occur. Sincerely, RGA ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. A California Corporation G~ -~L Robert E. Gils, CIH #1151 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES (EXCExrrS) MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE June 3,1999 PUBLIC HEARING -AGENDA ITEMS 3. Costco-owner/applicant 1556 El Camino Real EIR-98-084 Public hearing to take comments on Draft EIR for Costco Project. Senior Planner Kalldn gave the staff report. Comment 5.1 Jack Frank, Director of Real Estate Development for Costco, added that they did not have a formal presentation and they were here to listen to public and Commission concerns. Ted Simas, 110 Hickey Boulevazd, commented that Costco's pricing tactics will be devastating to the dealers in the community. He added that Costco applied to BAAQNID fora 15 million gallon a yeaz allocation, noting that an average lazge service station will se11200,000 gallons per month. Costco's anticipation is a million gallons per month, which equals to five gas stations. The analysis of the BAAQNID permit is focused on the pollution derived from the equipment on site, specifically the nozzles, and the fueling appazatus. He stated that in the EIR air samples were taken from five locations, none of which aze close to the site. He added that he has hired an air quality evaluator and his comments will be forthcoming. Dennis DeCota, Executive Director of California Service Station and Automotive Repair Association (CSSARA), added that CSSARA has worked diligently to create competition within the gasoline industry. The consumer will be able to buy gasoline at a lower cost, on average, lower at Costco. The turnout of this will be that a lot of jobs in the local gasoline businesses will be lost. He added that the major oil companies have a strategic plan, the hypermarket. Costco, Albertson's, Home Depot and other mass merchandisers aze going into the business. He added that there will be 1,440 truck loads of gasoline a yeaz, 5,000 cazs a day, 32 fueling sites. The VOC emissions that will be emitted from these vehicles will drive costs up in environmental azeas drastically. Keith Simas supported the prior speaker's comments. He added that the traffic report falls short in its trip estimate generations. He stated that the trip estimate for service station portion of the project aze not very believable. He pointed out that the report from the City of South San Francisco stated that the p.m peak trip analysis is 70% discounted as internal trips. He added that a traffic report generated for the Redwood City Costco claims 56°rb internally trip generation and he added that the numbers aze different and there should not be such a lazge gap. He stated that the Draft Environmental Impact Report does not report on a.m. peak period analysis. The Costco in Redwood City would have more traffic in the a.m than it would in the p.m. He added that the trailer park is impacted by the project, and he pointed out some discrepancies in the report in regard to egress and ingress from the azea. The report shows a scenario of an increase of 33% delay exiting the pazk. He pointed out another scenario without an increase, because the report states that the number of cazs exiting can be reduced by 1/3 going straight across, and'/z making a 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 left turn. He stated that there is not a clear program for the traffic mitigations outlined in the E1R. He added that the reports need to be studied further in regard to gasoline. Public Hearing was closed. The Planning Commission made comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. They asked staff to include the following in the Final Environmental Impact Review: Ol. Compaze pazking at the Redwood City Costco and Airport Boulevazd PriceCostco. 5.1.4 02. Address the issues regazding traffic, land use compatibility, and storm drainage in response to 5.1.5 the letter from the City of Daly City. 03. Look at proposed and existing parking. 5.1.6 Mr. Frank added that the relocation of the San Bruno facility is being considered because it is inadequate in the physical plan, there are 500-600 stalls and in the South San Francisco site the proposal is 850 stalls. Mr. Meyer added that the pazking space allocation exceeds the pazking requirements for the City. 04. Look at Costco with a gasoline station and then compaze it to a Costco without a gasoline 5.1.7 station. Chairperson Honan stated that there is a maximum of 16 vehicles, which can be refueled at one time and asked why there are so many pumps. Mr. Frank replied that there are 4 islands with four pumps per island, which is consistent with the Costco's standard design. O5. Make an air quality test at EI Camino high school because of the site being so close to the 5.1.8 school. 5.1.9 06. More discussion of the Mitigation Measures. 07. Analyze the impact of potential BART overflow pazking. 5.1.10 Public Hearing closed. ~.,. ~.. ~. ~.