Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
Planning Penninsula Office Park Folder 1 of 2
/0/,,t/3V .. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPORT�N AND HOUSING AGENCY • PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 (510) 286-4444 Ms. Elizabeth Diamond City Engineer City of San Mateo Public Works Department 330 West 20th Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 Dear Ms. Diamond: April 18, 1995 4-SM-92-R9.7 4224-217600 t jtf 1' 1 .. �! APR 2 1 ig The Department of Transportation is preparing a project report to repair a 42 -inch RCP culvert. The 468 foot culvert is located under Route 92, at 0.75 Miles West of the Alameda De Las Pulgas Overcrossing and under Campus Drive, at approximately 0.4 Miles East of West Hillsdale Boulevard, in the City of San Mateo. Caltrans did a preliminary investigation of the 42" RCP culvert and concluded that the entire 42" pipe needs to be repaired, even though 200 feet of pipe is not within the States Right of Way. Our Hydraulics Department recommended that a 30" Corrugated ADS HDPE Pipe culvert with a smooth interior wall be placed inside of the existing 42" RCP. The space between the 30" ADS culvert and the existing 42" RCP will be filled with Grout (Pipe Encasement). The new 30" ADS culvert will be able to handle the 100 year storm runoff without significant increase in the headwater at the inlet. Caltrans would like to set up a meeting to discuss the problem of repairing the existing 42" RCP that is not within our State Right of Way. To set up a time for a meeting, please contact me or the project engineer, Puklok Seetho, at (510)286-4760. Your earliest attention will be appreciated. .1 Attachments Sincerely yours, ARLISSA PANG District Branch Chief 10.1 AVE. R. ?1\ cu Py, ! p i QP. ? 'ti �b4Y� 1, LI. � a 1 � rG $�OR L $OCIf lv ii 'v. \ � w�$Euw WEST % �'� C " CREUMGE S t„ c'..�R...,._ _ _mss '-4 *ti. aR�� OV. r •r tER ss'• 0. BUM \q SS BUDS iT l` TT OR. Ua 44, BASE MAP PRODUCED BY COURTESY OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION COPYRIGHT OWNER. FIESTA PROJECT LOCATION 0 N 0 0 I i ai bri- C(. 9CY ss it Jay RWD cr� AI EUVO:,....::::: ` ,,AW° 11 I g\ A1RR J11- , a 'it i „LAURllvaOR eyiR �� 4,..r kk/1> 1 \i. PARKIN° SAN MATEO COUNTY EXPO CENTER so* -1:71 te STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 4 A' SN SAN MATEO CouNTY iN SAN MAT° AT Q,75 M i L s wLSr or ALAMEhA LAS PULGAS OvERcRoscf IvG LOCATION MAP CO. RTE. P.I. DR. NO. SM (42 RCL7 217601 h 4`CAI ?.DD. 42'N. P. X1;1 Siw.wn in tees 1'.epv ,1 Cno/rrfer .'8"i a ' 4_-4' TOP VIEW ✓,30erHod( - 8a/w'C•o per 24 `CN.P DD faun F.L.26T.0 C ( 1 '24 ?1C.M.P, 'A -L.266.01 42" RCP FL -2654 • ousaat view SPECIAL DISSIPATOR Stole: - 16=2.-0" r Ditch a_I � 51611A! 1. ..168. 5ae CCU KT Sht.4 vt 4 Std.HW.. C-14 2/1' RCP. .241x!S• C.M.P. F-L.26b0 Spoo4;1I Dis-vpator T.Br 269.9 2'RCP., R7.. 265.0 Ditch FL. 2670 I5'Type 5 Ditch Two fe.g 24'Bo/fs LOCATION OF MEDIAN GUTTER j 3 4• Slot ion 4 //9, o0 to A /23+00 O s l Min. r prtih 0-10 • Appr4r it of Draw - — • OD Locotio9 44 In/et 7•! 34&7 F.ca4LS L1:GLND Idantifieot/sw a pf !Mow Sheet fr/ambor ohms D • Anainege 0 • Undordra/n .f • Sanitary M'' /rrigot/an Ow Mi edsr jov- 12'.Trsg'C.AIP a � l Dra/noVrrddonitont.Tya/a+nv, 4R. Pipe, to be Abando en ARX., 4I are .dd, !0 8a Abandetood 4 fro Q oft ..14, iv 3e Actir.o4tof to deader. Irs2A0'RCP • (s-D•/a 920' Type 2 Ditch 2S0'PC.P 8"t234'P.C.P. -If 700' Tie P_ n:trhi— - A mon.X-94 a y eh g'x /70'PC.P. DRAINAGE DETAILS, ScaII:- I'•40'. L,1 halaseallow AMParaalleammoillip r , " V g i g s S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a B u s i n e s s , T r a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d H o u s i n g A g e n c y M E M O R A N D U M / + r �� T o : G I N G C H I N D a t e : F e b r u a r y 1 4 ; 1 9 9 3 M a i n t e n a n c e S e r v i c e s F r o m : D E P A R T M E N T O F T R A N S P O R T A T I O N - 4 H y d r a u l i c s S e c t i o n A t t e n t i o n : C l i f f D a w S u b j e c t : R e p a i r . o f 4 2 " R C P F i l e : 0 4 - S M - 9 2 9 . 7 4 2 " R C P r C U P i " F O R n A p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 0 0 f e e t o f t h e 4 2 " R C P f r o m t h e e a s t R / W t o t h e J u n c t i o n B o x i s o n p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y . W h e n t h e e a s t s i d e o f R o u t e 9 2 w a s d e v e l o p e d a d d i t i o n a l f i l l w a s p l a c e d o v e r t h i s p a r t o f t h e 4 2 " R C P b y t h e d e v e l o p e r s c o n t r a c t o r . T h e h e i g h t o f f i l l o v e r t h e 4 2 " R C P p l a c e d b y t h e d e v e l o p e r e x c e e d e d t h e m a x i m u m a l l o w a b l e h e i g h t o f 5 3 ' f o r C l a s s I I I R C P . W h e n t h e 4 8 " X 2 6 0 ' c u l v e r t e x t e n t i o n a n d J u n c t i o n B o x w e r e c o n s t r u c t e d b y t h e d e v e l o p e r , o n t h e i r p r o p e r t y , t h e C i t y o f S a n M a t e o a g r e e d t o a c c e p t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e p a r t o f t h e 4 2 " R C P t h a t i s o u t s i d e o f o u r R / W ( s e e a t t a c h e d M e m o t o F i l e s b y G l e n d i n n i n g ) . W e w i l l n e e d t o o b t a i n p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e C i t y o f S a n M a t e o f o r r e p a i r w o r k o n t h e p a r t o f t h e 4 2 ' R C P t h a t i s o u t s i d e o f o u r R / W . B e f o r e f u n d i n g f o r t h i s p r o j e c t i s a r r a n g e d , i t m i g h t b e a g o o d i d e a t o c h e c k w i t h L e g a l f o r p o s s i b l e c o m p l i c a t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g l i a b i l i t y . I f w e r e p a i r t h e 4 2 " R C P w i l l w e b e r e q u i r e d t o t a k e o v e r t h e m a i n t e n a n c e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f r o m t h e C i t y ? I n s t e a d o f j a c k i n g a n e w R C P a t a c o s t o f $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 n o t i n c l u d i n g R / W , w e r e c o m m e n d t h e f o l l o w i n g a l t e r n a t e s o l u t i o n . P l a c e a 3 0 " C o r r u g a t e d A D S H D P E P i p e c u l v e r t w i t h a s m o o t h i n t e r i o r w a l l ( O D = 3 6 . 1 5 " ) i n s i d e o f t h e e x i s t i n g 4 2 " R C P . F i l l v o i d s b e l o w t h e i n v e r t u s i n g p r e s s u r e g r o u t i n g t e c h n i q u e s . F i l l t h e s p a c e b e t w e e n t h e 3 0 " A D S c u l v e r t a n d t h e e x i s t i n g 4 2 " R C P w i t h G r o u t ( P i p e E n c a s e m e n t ) . A l t h o u g h t h e m a x i m u m f u l l f l o w c a p a c i t y o f t h e p r o p o s e d 3 0 " A D S c u l v e r t i s a b o u t h a l f o f t h e c a p a c i t y o f t h e e x i s t i n g 4 2 " R C P , i t w i l l s t i l l b e a b l e t o h a n d l e t h e 1 0 0 y e a r s t o r m r u n o f f w i t h o u t s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n t h e h e a d w a t e r a t t h e i n l e t . The following preliminary estimate is for drainage work only. ITEM QUANTITY PRICE COST 30" CORRUGATED ADS 420 LF 120 50,400 HDPE CULVERT GROUT (PIPE ENCASEMENT) 40 CY 500 20,000 GROUT (SUBSEALING) LUMP SUM 4,000 SUBTOTAL 74,400 CONTINGENCY 15,600 TOTAL 90,000 If you require additional information, please contact Tom Arneson or Dixon Lau at 286-4854 J'S H PETERSON Senior Hydraulics Engineer TJA:ta cc: JEP,DTL,TJA,Files MCurry - Maintenance Services State of California Memorandum Files File : 04- SM- 92 - PM 9.2/11.3 Excess Land Study 04210 - 282300 ,ee From o Department of Public Works —Division of Highways R. B. Glendinning - S. H. Young, Jr. subject: Meeting this date to discuss grading plan of Borel Company to develop excess lands Attendance: Attending: Frank L. Henry - Project Mgr. Borel Development Co. Redmond Walsh - C. E. Lyle Johnson - Assistant City Engineer, San Mateo Harry Quinn - R/W Agent, Div. of Hwys. Skip Young - P. E. Design A, Div. of Hwys. Dick Glendinning - P. E. Design A, Div. of Hwys. Frank Mascheroni - Design A, Div. of Hwys. The State had prepared a study from the Borel grading plan so that the right of way could be changed thereby allowing the Borel Company to purchase a portion of the State right of way. It was agreed that the right of way could be set so that it would be con- sistent with the Borel grading plan and still satisfy the Districts requirements for the possible future widening of Route 92 to a full 6 -lane freeway. The 42" RCP crossing Route 92 at A 115+ was discussed insofar as to who would accept responsibility and maintenance of the portion outside the State's right of way up to the dissipator box. Note --at one time the State planned to acquire right of way up to the dissipator box. Somehow, the State never acquired that portion of property from the present right of way line to the dissi- pator box. Harry Quinn from the Right of Way Department mentioned that the Maintenance Department would not allow a private party to extend one of its drainage systems without some municipality accepting maintenance of it. At this time Mr. Johnson of City of San Mateo mentioned he would not accept responsibility and maintenance of the culvert since they were not involved in the initial placement of it and also since it is on private property without an easement for maintaining it. Mr. Johnson said the City would review the possibility of accepting the 42" RCP outside the State's right of -2- • way up to the dissipator box, but would require certification from the State as to the method of placement and condition of the pipe. The Borel Development Company plans to extend the present 42" RCP approximately 260 -feet by replacing the dissi- pator box with a junction box and continuing with a 48" Class V RCP. At this time the City of San Mateo would supervise the placement and inspection of the 48" RCP and would require an ease- ment for maintaining it. Also they would require an easement from the Borel Company over the 42" RCP for maintaining it. The Borel Company was agreeable to both the requirements and ease- ments. Note --Mr. Bezzant, City Engineer of the City of San Mateo telephoned S. H. Young, Jr. on May 12, 1971, and wanted infor- mation about the 42" RCP. Mr. Young explained that, before the State would grant. the Borel Company an encroachment permit, main- tenance of the portion of the pipe outside the State right of way would have to be assumed by a municipal government. Mr. Bezzant agreed to give the State. a 'letter of intent' stating that, if the Borel Company did proceed with their development that the City of San Mateo would assume maintenance of the pipe. Mr. Young suggested that the City of San Mateo acquire an easement through the property for maintenance purposes. He also suggested that a manhole be installed over the junction box. Mr. Bezzant said he would look into both suggestions. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY. R. B. Glendinning Project Engineer S. H. Young, Jr. Project Engineer FAM:mk cc: CAP LEC BCB LJT (WJK-HJQ) (JWR-SHY) Borel Land Company Attn: Frank L. Henry 1700 El Camino Real, Room 318 San Mateo, CA 1 r t pY�•. - f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Appliiccant: Pekin' sula' Offi a'rk Joh W. Leyerza General Partner Negative Declaration PENINSULA OFFICE PARK BUILDING 7 Prepared for City of San Mateo Community Development Department by Kenneth Kaplan Scientific Service, Inc. 1536 Maple Street Redwood City, California 94063 Date; W Pt, OF =BM OEYUUOPMEN PUNNING APR 6 1976 CTIONE Fr -1 L fkPR - 1976 SAN MATEO PU7,! IC WORKS D; PT. 2700 CA tp as D2t vim. ..� /976 1 1 Table of Contents Page Introduction Description of the Project Basis for the Negative Declaration Geologic and Seismic Conditions Visual Conditions Circulation Impacts and Land Use as Related to Traffic Background Present Conditions Future Conditions Public Service Facility Requirements Energy Conservation Cumulative Impacts Preparation of the Declaration 1 1 2 3 4 8 8 10 12 15 16 16 17 1 Peninsula Office Park 1 1 1 1 1 Building No. 7 NEGATIVE DECLARATION INTRODUCTION This Negative Declaration has been prepared in response to the Environ- mental Assessment Form of the City of San Mateo dated March 19, 1976, and the requirements of Resolution No. 56 (1975) 'adopted by the City Council of San Mateo. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT Peninsula Office Park (POP) Building 7 is a four story, reinforced concrete structure approximately 350 ft long and 100 ft wide located on an 8.36 acre, generally level, site along the north-east perimeter of POP. The occupant will be the Arthur G. McKee Company, Western Knapp Engineering Divi- sion which specializes in the engineering and construction of facilities and equipment for handling and refining non-ferrous metals. About 450 employees of the company now occupy POP Building 2, and 200 occupy additional space in Interland Executive Center. The building overlooks the Peninsula Country Club and much of the down- town San Mateo City. The ground floor of the side of the building facing San Mateo is approximately at existing grade on the sloping bank of the fill 1 1 on which the building is to be built. Thus, the opposite side of the build- ing is recessed into the bank, giving the building a three story appearance from the parking area above. The parking area is designed to accommodate 531 cars. Extensive landscaping of hillsides and other common areas in POP are planned. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. BASIS FOR THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION Geologic impacts are minimal because of the character of the fill and underlying rock at the project site. Visual conditions will be little modi- fied because of the location of the building, its design, the placement of its lower level below the grade of the remainder of the site, and because of off -site screening elements. Traffic circulation, potentially the most criti- cal of the environmental factors, should actually be somewhat improved over present peak hour circulation after completion of Buildings 5, 6, and 7. The impact on traffic of the last remaining planned. building (0) depends primarily on its size and its level of occupancy. Public Service require- ments are minimal, and Energy conservation measures have been included in the building design. These potential impacts are discussed in turn in the following material. 2 GEi'LOGIC AND SEISMIC CONDITIONS Building 7 is to be built on a fill placed, principally over bedrock, but occasionally over native soil in 1971. Soils in the general area are characterized as belonging to the "Los Gatos-Gilroy--Gaviota association" (Ref. which consists of well drained soils derived from shales, sandstone and basic igneous rocks. Bedrock in the local area consists of sandstone and some shale (Ref. 2). The fill itself, placed under the direction of Cooper Clark Associates, foundation engineers, was very well engineered and controlled, and designed to minimize landslide potential. Native material was graded on a 2:1 slope with 10 ft benches. During placement and compaction of the fill material frequent tests were made (over 900 in all) of the quality of the fill. Recent borings at the site conducted by Don Hillebrandt Associates, geo- technical consultants, have confirmed the stability of the fill in the area of Building 7. Six 30 -in. diameter holes were drilled to bedrock (between 16 and 60 feet down), four near the location of the building corners, and two within the building's plan area. All borings were completely satisfactory, showing well compacted fill throughout. The structure itself, engineered by Raj T. Desai, structural engineers, is to be supported on drilled, cast -in -place caissons that will extend from 2 ft to 8 ft into bedrock. It has ductile concrete moment frames on the 3 perimeter to resist design seismic loads, and is designed for lateral loads recommended in the yet -to -be published 1976 Uniform Building Code. The total seismic load requirements of this code are approximately 40% larger than those in the current 1973 Uniform Building Code. VISUAL CONDITIONS The design and placement of Building 7 indicates that attention has been paid to views from -- and views of -- the building, and to its effect on views from other buildings. Its placement tends to preserve the main views from other POP buildings, and the views from the building itself encompass a screening stand of eucalyptus and the lower -lying areas of San Mateo. The building's design, :by. Robinson and Mills, architects and planners, incorporates exterior elements that have been related to features of other POP buildings to provide visual continuity. For example, structural and window wall modules are similar to those in other buildings in the park. The exposed concrete frame will be score -textured to relate to the horizontal wood elements in the window wall of Building 3. The overall apparent size of the building facades have been reduced into units equivalent to the size of its neighbors by recessing the glass plane at appropriate horizontal and vertical points. The general character of the existing landscaping of the office park will be continued in the additional landscaping development of the building site. Berms, trees, shrubs, and ground cover will be placed throughout the parking area and surround the building with a green belt. A grove of trees 4 will be placed at the terminus of the entrance drive. From the direction of the freeway and the College of San Mateo, there should be little effect of the building on views, in large part because the building has been placed into, rather than on the site. In essence, relative to the level of the plateau on which the parking area will be, the building will be closer to three stories in height, rather than four. The building should be unobtrusive when viewed from the city partly be- cause of its location on one of the lowest building sites in the park, but more important, because of the screening provided by a heavy stand of eucalyp- tus trees along the western edge of the golf course. This last can best be seen in before and after photographs, the first showing existing conditions, the second future conditions created by adding the visible part of the building's mass to the first photographs. Two such sets are given on the following pages: one from a point on El Camino Real from which the park is most visible; one from the vicinity of the Bayshore Freeway -Route 92 interchange. 5 View of POP from the Vicinity of El Camino Real and 20th Ave. Present Conditions MINI INN On IIIIII 111111 NMI MIN MIS Mil VIII 1•11 NOB MN MIN 1111 In 1 N r 1 OM N r 1 1 N— N E NM I Cr, 0 - View of POP from the Vicinity of El Camino Real and 20th Ave. Including Building 7 Projection 15` r.� .4%C-' 3 a+„v rim 1.S G 5 tc. 9. - 1E11 NMI 11111 111111 111111 1= - MN IMO NMI 11111 1111111 - - View of POP from the Vicinity of the Intersection of Routes 101 and 92 Present Conditions M = MN I M N E = N INIII NMI E E MIN INS NM NMI =I 11111 1 INN INN EMI NMI IMIN =I 1 View of POP from the Vicinity of the Intersection of Routes 101 and 92 Including Building 7 Projection CIRCULATION IMPACTS AND LAND USE AS RELATED TO TRAFFIC Background Traffic circulation impacts have been of major concern since the initial special permit for the development of Peninsula Office Park (POP) was approved by the San Mateo City Council in January, 1971. In fact, three of the condi- tions that accompanied the approval of the application dealt specifically with traffic: Condition 15 required that improvements to West Hillsdale Blvd be made as specified by the City Engineer; Condition 18 required a traffic report for each building addition to aid in determining whether the maximum allowable development, 768,000 net square feet (nsf),was justified; Condi- tion 19 required the developer to bear a proportionate part of the cost of freeway access improvement. Part of the justification for the development submitted to the Council was a special report prepared by J.D. Drachman Associates, transportation con- sultants, which dealt specifically with then current and projected traffic in the vicinity of West Hillsdale Blvd and Campus Dr (Ref. 3). The report discussed the traffic to be generated by the development, and -- on the basis of a relatively high assumed occupant density of 200 nsf of floor area per employee -- arrived at projected peak trip generation rates for both morning and evening hourly traffic into and out of POP. 1 The report also discussed possible trip sources (based on the Bay Area 8 1 Transportation Study) to project which roads would be utilized by development employees. It was concluded that about 80% would use State Route 92 both at the time of the report and 20 years in the future. (The direction of use changed between the two projections, but the totals were about the same.) Finally, the report discussed the ability of various types of West Hills- dale Blvd -Campus Dr intersections to deal with the planned traffic. So called "Service Level D" as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual (Ref. 4) was used as the basis for peak traffic period analysis in the report. This level pro- vides for service through an intersection at less than the intersection's ultimate capacity, and is in accord with recommended national urban design criteria for peak period use. It covers a variety of conditions during which the number of green phases of the signals that are loaded (i.e., fully utili- zed) by traffic ranges between about 40% and 70% of the total number of green phases. Excess back-ups are prevented because enough cycles with low demand occur to allow periodic clearance of developing queues. 1 To carry out the provisions of Condition 15, the Engineering Department of the City of San Mateo prepared a detailed study of the Campus Dr -West Hillsdale Blvd -Route 92 road interchange system (Ref. 5). That study con- sidered the effect on traffic of eventual full development of all residential and executive areas in the vicinity. For the two executive developments (Peninsula Office Park and Interland Executive Center) the trip generation and source information developed by Drachman for POP were used; for the five residential areas, population densities were projected and trip distributions were derived from Ref. 6. 9 The conclusions of the Engineering Department study were in broad agree- pi:=nt with those of the earlier Drachman report: that peak hour traffic gen- erated by full planned development (which included 684,000 nsf in POP) could be accommodated by signalizing, widening, and channelizing the West Hillsdale Blvd and Campus Dr intersection, and improving the freeway interchange. Al- though the study did not specifically address the level of service assumed, the projected traffic volumes are compatible with those of Service Level D. Present Conditions In the five years since the special permit was approved and the two re- ports described earlier were issued, the area in the vicinity of the freeway interchange has been developed to a significant degree. Many of the residen- tial areas have been fully developed, as has the Interland Executive Center. In POP, four of the planned eight buildings (in addition to the restaurant) have been completed. These four have a net floor area of 194,000 square feet, less than a third of the maximum allowable under the permit. 1 1 West Hillsdale Blvd has been channelized for left turns into Campus Dr, but the current status of traffic in the vicinity of the West Hillsdale -Campus Dr intersection is not satisfactory. As indicated in Ref. 7, "the inter- sections --- are operating at a reasonable level of service during the non - peak demand. However, there is considerable delay to the public during peak hours." Some of the approaches fail during peak periods due to lack of control, although enough physical capacity is actually available to handle. the traffic. This is not surprising in light of the fact that the installation 10 1 1 i of three-way stop signs was recommended in the traffic study for Building 3 to accommodate traffic from the first three buildings alone, when about 148,000 nsf of floor area would have been available. The signs have not been installed, however. The current partial development of POP does permit an interim examination of the factors that influence traffic in the area. Before development began, provisional factors had to be derived from experience with other similar de- velopments and from historic origin and destination studies. As development proceeds, however, these provisional factors should be continually refined and updated by others derived from current experience. The two most important factors used in preparing projections in both Ref. 3 and Ref. 4 were: 1) that about 83% of the traffic destined for POP in the morning would approach Campus Dr on West Hillsdale Blvd from the direc- tion of Route 92 (that is, from the west) and would, therefore, have to turn left onto Campus Dr; 2) that the following peak hour trip generation rates (in trips per 1000 square feet of net floor area) for traffic into and out of POP would apply. Morning Evening In Out In Out 2.25 0.35 0.75 2,80 Examination of Table 1 and Sketch A of the attached Traffic Report Supplement (undertaken, along with five earlier traffic reports, to fulfill Conditions 18) indicates that the first provisional factor appears to be valid; 11 according to the latest traffic survey, approximately 80% of the traffic destined for POP turned left into. Campus Dr from West Hillsdale Blvd in the morning. The report also indicates, however, that actual trip generation rates differ from those used in the earlier reports. The new proposed rates are: Morning Evening In Out In Out 2.8 0.3 0.7 2.0 The "morning -in peak" is quite high when compared with data from executive park developments. Future Conditions Improvement of the West Hillsdale -Campus Dr intersection is required. A three-way stop sign would help but would not solve the problem; the inter- section should be signalized. The Engineering Department analysis indicates that signals alone could accommodate up to 350,000 square feet of floor space (assumed to be nsf to be consistent with other elements of the report). With the traffic generation rate for morning peak conditions derived from current experience, this would be reduced to 280,000.nsf. Thus, signalization alone could accommodate traffic from the next POP building built, whether it be Building 5 (total POP space would be 240,000 nsf) or Building 6 (total POP space would be 266,000 nsf). Additional intersection and interchange improvements are now in the planning stage. Their costs are to be shared by San Mateo City, the State, and the developer, thus meeting the requirements of Condition 19. The 12 1 improvements include interconnected signalization, and widening and channeli- zation of West Hillsdale Blvd, and were designed to accommodate up to 680,000 nsf using provisional traffic generation rates. The attached traffic report for Building 7, which uses the trip generation rates drawn from current ex- perience in projecting traffic for Buildings 5, 6, and 7, indicates that the West Hillsdale Blvd -Campus Dr intersection would still be operating at Service Level D when these three buildings are completed, that is, when POP would con- tain seven fully occupied buildings and a restaurant. Thus, with seven buildings occupied., planned road improvements would result in peak hour traffic conditions that are better than current conditions with only four buildings occupied. It appears feasible to re-establish Service Level D conditions, and avoid the approach failures that are being experienced at present. A special factor relating to Building 7`s tenant would tend to further improve traffic conditions. As noted earlier in this declaration, the Arthur G. McKee Company now leases Building 2 of POP, and has significant additional space in Interland Executive Center. The consolidation of these two groups in Building 7 should decrease traffic between the two groups, which now must use West Hillsdale Blvd and Campus Dr. For example, car pools con- taining occupants for both buildings approaching along West Hillsdale Blvd from the east, would not have to pass through the Campus Dr intersection at all. Of course, the immediate effect of installing the planned improvements would be to greatly relieve the peak traffic situation at the intersection. 13 Conditions would probably be those of an intersection in which, even during peak hours, drivers only occasionally would have to wait through more than one signal indication and, only occasionally would back-ups behind turning vehicles develop (Service Level C). Only one more site is available after Building 7 is completed to achieve full development of POP. The effect on traffic of a building on this site is dependent both on the traffic level at the time construction is undertaken, and, more important, on the design and nature of tenancy of the structure itself. 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Condition 4 of the permit of 1971 requires that the developer install a sanitary sewer system, and Condition 5 that the developer correct inadequacies in the storm water runoff system due to increased runoff caused by POP itself. These conditions have both been met to the satisfaction of the City's Engineer- ing Division. All utilities have been installed underground (Condition 7), and lighting installed as approved by the Traffic Engineer (Condition 3). Thus, all public services that would relate to Building 7, with the exception of Fire and Police Services, are already in place and functioning well, The San Mateo City Fire Department has indicated that Building 7 is within the Department's fire flow capability. The building will meet code requirements as far as fires are concerned. An on -site fire hydrant will be required by the Department, and will be provided by the developer. POP Building 7 should not place an excessive burden on the facilities or capabilities of the Police Department, with whom the developers have work- ed satisfactorily in the past. 15 1 ENERGY CONSERVATION The design of Building 7 incorporates a number of energy conserving elements: o I/4 -in tinted heat absorbing glass which will reduce cooling load demands. o A gas -fired variable volume heating, ventilating, and air condition- ing (HVAC) system which makes maximum use of ambient conditions to reduce energy consumption. By appropriate thermostatic control the system is able to draw upon outside air for either the cooling or heating function whenever the temperature of the outside air makes this feasible. Thus, the demand for energy input is minimized. o Urethane insulation applied over the entire roof surface which will reduce both heating and cooling loads. The normal energy saving capabilities of the urethane insulation are enhanced by its appli- cation to the outside of the roof. This tends to capture the roof's "thermal mass" (the heat content of the roof and its support- ing elements) and results in a load smoothing effect. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The major cumulative impacts are those involving traffic and traffic circulation. These have been discussed in some detail in the section; "Circulation Impacts and Land Use as Related to Traffic." 16 1 PREPARATION OF THE DECLARATION This negative declaration was prepared by Kenneth Kaplan of Scientific Service, Inc. (SSI) Redwood City, California. Contributing to and consult- ing on the effort were: W. Van Horn and J.V. Zaccor. of SSI, (land use and energy); Raj T. Desai (structural); Don Hillebrandt (soils and geology). Additional information discussions were held with concerned San Mateo City employees, viz L. Tong, Planning Division, L. Johnson, Engineering Division., T. Slattery, Fire Department and J. Steinrock, Police Department. 17 THE DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES Hi 2988 Campus Drive 'Y" ;\ 1974 San Mateo, California 94403 (415) 349-7770 May 9, 1974 ACTION Mr, Peter Katzlberger City of San Mateo Board of Zoning Adjustments Planning Division 330 West 20th Avenue San Mateo, California 94403 SUBJECT: Peninsula Office Park Building No. 5 BOZA Application Dear Mr. Katzlberger: ' We are in receipt of your letter dated April 19, 1974, which recommends approval of our application with 19 conditions. This letter is filed to confirm those conditions and to indicate some minor changes in the application. 11 Conditions As a matter of fulfilling the law, 1971 P.U.D. conditions, or our ' normal policy, we have agreed in the past and now again confirm our agreement with the conditions of April 19, 1974, with the following comments: ' #2: Please note our area calculation change below and our addition of parking spaces to comply with City standards. 11 #3: A complete updated traffic study is attached to the application. Please note the addendum attached which reflects the area calculation change below. #4: Please advise us of the time schedule on future signal- ization and provide our office with data on which an assess- ' ment may be based. #11: We have a permanent irrigation system in operation for all sloped and common areas. We provide a permanent, automatic 11 sprinkler system with each building for landscaping on the flat areas of each pad. Real Estate Development • Investment • Management I Borel Development Company • Borel Estate Company • Peninsula Office Park Spear Street Investment Company • San Jose Airport Office Center Company Mr. Peter Katzlberger City of San Mateo BOZA, Planning Division May 9, 1974 Page 2 #15: We do not understand this condition because all of our buildings are open and available to the public and public agencies. If it is a new City policy to grant an easement, we will comply. Modification to Application Due to confusion on "gross area" calculation techniques and changes in material and area caused by our feasibility re-evaluation, we are resubmitting our calculations and drawings which are attached along with addenda to the traffic study and EIR. Please Note: 1. That the "gross area" has been increased and twelve (12) new parking spaces have been added. 2. That the exterior material has been changed to sandblasted concrete and drawings have been modified accordingly. We hope you find our comments and the attached data in order. Should there be any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office or the offices of our consultants. We look forward to our hearing with the Planning Commission on May 28, 1974. Very truly yours, BOREL DEVELOPMENT CDMPANIES Frank L. Henry General Partner att. Revised May 14, 1974 PENINSULA OFFICE PARK BUILDING NO. 5 PARKING REQUIREMENT CALCULATION Actual Gross Area of Building: First Floor Second Floor Third Floor Total 25,094 S.F. 27,778 S.F. 27,778 S.F. 80,650 S.F. Total Bulk Area of Building (by City of San Mateo definition) Largest upper floor x'three floors = 86' x 323' x 3 = 83;334 bulk S.F. .90 x 83,334 = 75,000 S.F. Parking Required @ 250 S.F./car = 300 cars 1 loading Small Cars Allowed 14 cars SITE COVERATE CALCULATIONS Project Total Site Area Dedicated Area Development Area Area Allocated to Site Area Common to all Sites Building No. 5 Site Area Share of Common Area Total Site Covered Area Per Cent Coverage 2,372.184 S.F. 215,240 S.F. 2,156,944 S.F. 1,859,089 S.F. 297,955 S.F. 219,093 S.F. 36,800 S.F. 255,893 S.F. 131,274 S.F. 51 % of Total Parking Lot Area 11 % in Landscaping HAROLD E. ATKINSON PLANNING CONSULTANT 1611 BOREL PLACE • SAN MATEO • CALIFORNIA • 94402 415 341-8252 May 14, 1974 The City Planning Commission City of San Mateo 330 West 20th Avenue San Mateo, California 94403 SUBJECT: Supplement to Environmental Impact Report submitted March 1974, in relation to Application for Site Plan Approval - Building V, Peninsula Office Park, San Mateo Honorable Members: The following is an evaluation of the impact effect of the modifications proposed in the design of Building V and parking provisions as described in letter of Mr. Frank Henry dated May 13, 1974. A careful review of the modifications as related to the overall plan and design shows that their total impact on the environment will be minimal. Specifically the effect will be as follows: 1. Increase in building dimension In the refinement and drawing up of final plans for the building, the overall length has been increased by 3 feet and the width by 2 feet, over the figures quoted on page 9 of our report. This results in an increase in gross floor area of about 1, 000 square feet per floor. However, the net rentable area upon which the number of employees and traffic calculations are based is unchanged and will remain at slightly under the 72, 000 square feet figure shown in the report. 2. Addition of 12 parking spaces The 12 additional spaces will increase parking by 4%, 288 to 300 and decrease landscaping and walk area by approximately .06 acres; i. e. , from 5.5 to about 5.44 acres. The City Planning Commission May 14, 1974 Page 2 3. Change in exterior wall surface from tile to sand- blasted concrete Although the material will change, the texture and color will remain approximately the same: the only apparent difference will be a reduction in -light reflection and creation of a matte finish. The modification will not diminish the architectural quality of the building. Summary and Conclusion: The proposed changes will have no measurable effect on the environmental impact. The effected items of gross floor area, parking ratio and open space provision are all well within desireable and permitted limits. The change in building material will be visible only to those using the building and will not be discernable from off site locations. The proposed development will continue to be aesthetically pleasing and a beneficial addition to the community. Very truly yours, HEA/jr OLD ATKINSON 1 • 1 !3. • . 1.r✓i ►i'V i�..Ji.�..ii �^JJ Jo��`sa<l.�J • n -.n..., .., ..'•.. /� uii55Girr • 1 C.•...+ JVJ ♦w •J �i•i VJ:�J l�l J�\ • J v ::ionN : 94704 (415) 543-2373 10 May 1974 Mr. Frank Henry Borel Development Company 2988 Campus Drive San Mateo, California 94403 Subject: Peninsula Office Park - Building Five Amendment Dear Frank: We have been advised by Mr. R. Graziano of Robinson and Mills, Architects, that some modifications have been effected in the gross building area of POP Building Five. The purpose of this letter is to address these modifications, as they may affect the analysis and conclusions of our traffic report on the subject project dated April 1, 1974. Table 1 (Page 4) of our April 1 report presented the summary of Trip Generation assumptions for Building Five. As indicated :a the same table, all the trip genera- tion effort was based on net square footage of building area. The gross building area and number of parking stalls provided was presented for informational purposes only. The same trip generation basis has been utilized in all of our previous work efforts for the Peninsula Office Park Project. A comparison of the input parameters as originally assumed versus the same para- meters as currently amended for POP Building Five are as follows: Gross Building Area Net Building Area (estimated) Parking Stalls Provided . Original Assumption 80, 000 sq. ft. 72, 000 sq. ft. 288 spaces Current Amendment 83,334 sq. ft. 72, 000 sq. ft. • 300 spaces ��. . 1 . : y y 4 - a . ' t o L ��L L ��" 1 L W v \ L L V a L ��, / 1 0 M a y 1 9 7 4 P a g e 2 I t i s o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t t h e a c t u a l d e s i g n f o r P O P B u i l d i n g F i v e h a s n o t b e e n c h a n g e d . R a t h e r t h e m e t h o d o f c a l c u l a t i n g t h e b u l k g r o s s b u i l d i n g a r e a h a s b e e n m o d i f i e d . T h e r e s u l t s a r e h i g h e r g r o s s a r e a a n d r e s u l t i n g h i g h e r p a r k i n g s p a c e r e q u i r e m e n t s , b u t t h e s a m e e s t i m a t e o f n e t b u i l d i n g a r e a . I n s u m m a r y , t h e a m e n d m e n t o f t h e P O P B u i l d i n g F i v e g r o s s b u i l d i n g a r e a w i l l n o t r e q u i r e a c o r r e s p o n d i n g a m e n d m e n t o f t h e t r a f f i c s t u d y c o m p l e t e d o n A p r i l 1 , 1 9 7 4 . T h e n e t b u i l d i n g a r e a , w h i c h f o r m e d t h e b a s i s f o r t h e t r a f f i c f o r e c a s t s , h a s n o t b e e n c h a n g e d . T h e r e f o r e , t h e r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d i n t h e A p r i l 1 , 1 9 7 4 r e p o r t s t i l l r e p r e s e n t t h e t r a f f i c f o r e c a s t s r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e p r o p o s e d P O P B u i l d i n g F i v e . A s u s u a l , i f y o u h a v e a n y f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n s , p l e a s e d o n o t h e s i t a t e t o c o n t a c t u s . V e r y T r u l y Y o u r s , . 1 D . D R A C H M A N A S S O C I A T E S 1 / m a n J D D : t l b ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT submitted in relation to APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL BUILDING NUMBER V PENINSULA OFFICE PARK OF SAN MATEO MARCH, 1974 Atkinson Associates Planning Consultants San Mateo, Ca. HAROLD E. ATKINSON PLANNING CONSULTANT 1611 BOREL PLACE • SAN MATEO • CALIFORNIA • 94402 415 34 1.8252 April 2, 1974 City of San Mateo Department of Community Development 330 West 20th Avenue San Mateo, California 94403 Gentle men: We are pleased to submit herewith the Environmental Impact Report relating to the Application for Site Plan Approval, Building V, Lot 6, Peninsula Office Park, San Mateo. Very truly yours, 1 HEA:rr Attachments - 27. copies of EIR Report TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL PAGE SECTION 1 General Information 1 Project Name and Location 1 SECTION 2 Introductory Material Previous EIR submittals Basis of Subject Report 2 2 3 SECTION 3 Description of Project 4 A. Peninsula Office Park 4 B. Building V 6 Location 6 - Building ? Parking 9 Traffic 9 SECTION 4 Environmental Setting 10 SECTION 5 Environmental Impact 12 A. Relationship to General Plan 12 B. Summary of Environmental Impact of Proposed Building 13 C. Adverse Effects Which Cannot be Avoided 17 D. Mitigating Measures Proposed 18 E. Alternatives to Proposed Development 18 F. Relationship of Short -Term Uses/Long-Term Productivity 19 G. Irreversible Changes 19 H. Growth Inducing Impact 20 I. Summary of Environmental Impact 20 SECTION 6 Traffic Study (attached hereto) -i- Table of Contents EXHIBITS A General Site Location B Peninsula Office Park - General Plan C Site Development Plan - Lot 6; Building V D Table of Development - Peninsula Office Park E List of Plant Materials - Lot 6 F Comparable Environmental Data SECTION 1. GENERAL INFORMATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for PENINSULA OFFICE PARK BUILDING V SECTION 1 - GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: The Borel Companies 2988 Campus Drive San Mateo, California 94403 PROJECT NAME: Peninsula Office Park - Building V PROJECT LOCATION: Five Acres lying generally Northeast of the intersection of Hillsdale Boulevard and State Route #92 Freeway. PRECISE LOCATION: Lot 6, Peninsula Office Park, as shown on Exhibits B and C. -1- SECTION 2. INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL SECTION 2 - INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL The following EIR is submitted in relation to the application for site plan approval of Building V which is to be constructed on Lot 6 in the Peninsula Office Park. The major environmental aspects of the Peninsula Office Park development were explored in depth during the Planning Commission and City Council hearings on the project general development plan. They were further dealt with in the initial Environmental Impact Report submitted March, 1973 entitled "Environmental Impact Report pertaining to: Applica- tion for Site Plan Approval, Building III (SPAR 2-52) Peninsula Office Park." Environmental considerations have thus far been reviewed and approved, either per se, or as part of design and site review for the project General Plan and five buildings. The General Plan for the entire development and the site plans for Buildings I, II and the Borel Restaurant were approved prior to the adoption of City policy relating to Environmental Impact. The EIR for Building III was approved on the basis of the report of March, 1973 noted above. On the basi s of an updated statement of the March, 1973 material, an Environ- mental Clearance was granted as a part of the site plan approval for Building IV. -2- The material here submitted constitutes the EIR for Building V. It supplements, and is an addendum to the environmental data and reports - previously submitted. The impact of Building V has, to a considerable extent, been anticipated in the design of the overall development and provisions have been made to mitigate any generalized adverse environmental effect. There are, however, two environmental aspects, i.e. aesthetics and traffic, which are directly related to each additional building. These two aspects are treated separately herein. A major part of this report, therefore, deals with the architectural appearance of Building V, and site improvements, and the volume of traffic flow which is cumulative in nature. PREPARING AGENCIES: HAROLD E. ATKINSON, A. I. P. Atkinson Associates 1611 Borel Place, San Mateo, California J. D. DRACHMAN ASSOCIATES Transportation Consultants 53 Tunnel Road, Berkeley, California -3- SECTION 3. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SECTION 3 - DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT A. PENINSULA OFFICE PARK The Peninsula Office Park is located on one of the highest rises in the City of San Mateo. It has been designed to create an office complex of distinction in a park -like setting, to utilize andpreserve the panoramic views of the San Francisco Bay, and to present an attractive appearance when seen from the surrounding community. Upon completion, the Park will include nine office buildings and the Borel Restaurant. Construction of the development was begun in June, 1971. To date overall site recontouring, street and utility construction and basic planting for the entire site have been completed and Buildings I, II and III, and the restaurant have been constructed. Buildings I and II are occupied. Building III will be completely occupied by the end of the current month. Building IV is under construction. The 54.5 acre Park site has been contoured into a series of eight terraces, separated and surrounded by heavily planted and sprinklered slopes and buffer areas. Of the total site, approx- imately 27 acres, or 50%, is in permanent green area and landscaping. Of this, the slopes between building sites take up about 15 acres, 7 acres is in the common wooded area on -4- Parcel A at the Southeast corner of the site, and the balance of 5 plus acres is in landscaping and walkways around the buildings, Buildings are widely spaced and set at varying levels with treed areas in between. Upon project completion building coverage will be no more than 5. 1 acres or 9% of total area. The distribution of land use for the completed development will be as follows: Project Total Acres Building Areas 27. 9 51 Building Coverage 5. 1 Landscape & Walks 5.5 Parking Areas 17. 3 Permanent Green Slopes 14.8 27 Total Area Lots Permanent Green Area (Parcel A) Street R. 0. W. TOTAL SITE Permanent Green and Landscaping Permanent Green Slopes Permanent Green Parcel A Landscaping and Walks 14. 7 6. 9 5. 5 42. 7 6.9 4. 9 13 9 54.5 100% TOTAL GREEN AREA AND GARDEN 27. 1 -5- Project Floor Area: Gross floor area projected for the total pro- ject will be considerably under the amount permitted and approved. On the basis of E-1 zoning regulations the site could accommodate approximately 3, 000, 000 square feet of building. The conditions of the PD granted for the total development approved up to 750, 000 square feet. Under present plans total floor area for all buildings on the site will be no more than 624, 000 square feet. The total development, including Building V, is in accord with the San Mateo General Plan, the Area General Plan, and the Executive (E-1) Zoning of the Site. The general location of the development is shown on Map I, Exhibit A-; the general plan of the property and precise location of Building V is shown on Map 2, Exhibit B. The progress and status of the development at present is outlined on Table I, Exhibit C. B. BUILDING V Location: Building V is to be located on Lot 6, a centrally located site approximately five acres (219, 000 sq. ft.) in area. Entrance to the site will be from Campus Drive. The site has been graded to a generally level condition. -6- As shown on Exhibits B and C, the building site is separated by sloping banks from site 7 (occupied by Building II) and site 5 (on which Building IV is being constructed). The banks and buffer areas have already been extensively planted with trees, shrubs and ground cover which enhance the appearance of the area and control erosion. The Building: The construction of Building V will continue the development of Peninsula Office Park in accordance with the general plan for the property approved by the San Mateo City Council on January 18, 1971. Building V has been designed as an uncomplicated low rectangular structure, four times as long as it is wide. Its three stories are divided into a one story base of tile covered concrete surmounted by two stories of solar bronze glass. A narrow bronze spandrel of matching bronze lite glass joins the second and third floor, and a light bronze cornice completes the facade. The long horizontal lines of the building are stressed in the design to give strength and repose to the facade. These will be softened by the planting of regularly spaced mature trees which will combine with the cadence of the evenly spaced columns and windows and the earth colors to provide a harmonious and rythmic composition. Building materials have been selected to be generally non- -7- reflective to reduce glare. Earth colors will predominate on the exterior of the building. These will be made up of English red tile, and a rich dark solar bronze glass. The cornice, window detailing and trim will also be bronze in tone. Tile is used as a facing on the first floor masonry and on the columns which support the building. These are free-standing from the building curtain wall on the upper two floors. The earth color theme will also be reflected in the use of tan curtains throughout. Particular care has been taken in the design of the roof to present a handsome appearance when seen from above. All air- conditioning and mechanical equipment will be housed in the basement, leaving the- roof clear and uncluttered. Here also, warm tile red color aggregate will be used. The garden design and landscaping will be in keeping with that in the nearby buildings. The choice of planting materials will follow the established list. Tile red color will again be used in the stonework and walks. The building is further described in the following Table and on plans submitted with the application for site plan approval: Length 320 feet; Width 84 feet; Height 37 feet. Gross Floor Area - 80, 000 square feet. Rentable Area - 72, 000 square feet. Building Coverage - 26, 880 square feet. Occupancy (average 1 person/278 sq. ft.) -. 250 employees Estimated Cost of Building Construction - $1,800,000. Estimated Dates of Construction - May 1, 1974 - March 1, 1975 Parking: There are 288 parking stalls on the site, all at grade. These are screened by planting along the border of the parking lot. Tree planting along the center line of parking rows will provide shade and relieve the expanse of black top. All access to the site is from one entrance leading from Campus Drive. Traffic: A traffic study covering the impact of traffic generated by Building V and the cumulative effect of total project traffic on effected streets in the immediate area has been prepared by J. D. Drachman Associates. A copy of that study is attached hereto and made a part of this report. SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING SECTION 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING As set forth in the San Mateo General Plan and shown on Exhibit B, the location of the Peninsula Office Park including Building V is ideal for the proposed use. It is immediately adjacent to the 19th Avenue Freeday interchange and hence is accessible from all parts of the Bay Area via freeways. It is buffered from the nearest residential uses by permanent green area and other non-residential uses. Prior to develop- ment the site was a barren ridge area. Because Building V is located in the central area of the Peninsula Office Park and is, therefore, screened by other buildings in the develop- ment, it will not have a noticeable visual impact on adjacent lands. It will, in fact, be seen only from the Easterly and Southeasterly exposures. To the East, the front elevation faces the Peninsula Country Club. The Building is 500 feet distant and considerably above the boundary of the Club property and is set back from the brow of the plateau on which it is located. It is shielded by planting, and, although visible from the Club property, it will not have a serious impact. On the Southern exposure, the building will be visible from the apartments directly behind the Laurelwood Shopping Center and will be just visible from the 39th -42nd Avenue area of San Mateo. From the North and West, Building V will not be seen from areas outside the Office Park. It is screened from the West because it is situated below Lots 7 and 8 which are occupied by Building II and the Borel -10- Restaurant, and from the North by the embankment along 19th Avenue Freeway and Buildings I and II. An embankment at the terminus of 26th Avenue and along Campus Drive screens the view of Building V from this area also. -11- SECTION 5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SECTION 5 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT A. RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN The proposed use of the subject site offers benefits which are both short term and long term. It accords with the goals and policies of the General Plan which are stated in part as - (1) To establish a single unified community with which its citizens can identify with pride and pleasure; (2) To guide future development in such a way that the living and working environment can be improved and that the growing population can be absorbed without diminishing any of the values that have made San Mateo the wonderful city it is; (3) Provide an economic atmosphere which will encourage private investment in high quality development such as executive office buildings in order to establish a sound economic base. It accords also with the following General Plan policies relating to business and employment opportunities, i.e.: (1) Promote the development of executive -administrative offices as the major industry for the City of San Mateo. (2) Establish a plan for the development of office and commercial areas which will assure provision of efficient support services and adequate access. -12- In the land use element of the General Plan, the site is specifically recommended by the Executive Development Study Committee as having "special primeexecutivepotential and should be specifically set aside for executive use in con- junction with commercial use." B. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED BUILDING Economic and Social Factors: Building V will provide facilities for approximately 250 employees. The development of this additional close -in office location will contribute to the formation of a community balance between employment and residential. On the basis of the following Table of estimated average annual remuneration, it is anticipated that an annual local payroll of $3, 200, 000 will be generated by Building V, of which an estimated 40% or $1,280, 000 will be spent in San Mateo County. 10 Executives $35, 000 per annum 30 Supervisory $25, 000 210 Staff $10, 000 The construction of the building and site improvement will add $ 2, 000, 000 to the C-ity and County tax base and yield an annual combined tax return of approximately $ 55, 000. -13- Aesthetics : The building and site development as described above, will be attractive as seen both from within and outside the development. Noise: Although the noise level in the vicinity of the site will be increased because of anticipated traffic load increases on Campus Drive, Hillsdale Boulevard and Highway 92 the noise level at both on -site and off -site locations will not be incompatible with existing and proposed uses. Geology: The site of Building V (Lot 6) has been graded and compacted. The construction of Building V will add very little in the way of geologic impact, There will be a major increase in the percentage of imper- meable ground cover on the site, largely in the parking area. This will significantly reduce ground water recharge at the site and increase the rate of ground water run off. Biology: Because the entire area has been recontoured there is at present no biological habitat remaining on the site. The only plant material existing at present is that which has been planted on the slope for soil retention and beautification. There will be extensive planting of trees and shrubs around the building and on the site. This material will be comparable to that already established. -14- Utilities: The site for Building V contains underground connec- tions to all utilities needed to service the proposed building and site improvements. Domestic water facilities have been installed with sufficient capacities to service the total Peninsula Park development. The California Water Company has the capability of providing t he required flow. Storm Drainage: Storm drains and catch basins are already available to service the proposed development. Rain water will drain to existing facilities and be carried downstream in the established drainage pattern. A silting basin has been constructed on site (Parcel A) to insure that a minimum of off site silting will result from run-off waters. Sanitary Sewer: The flow contributed by the proposed develop- ment will add to the load on the San Mateo Treatment Plant which is now operating at design capacity. In view of the proposed enlargement of the treatment plant and addition of secondary treatment, the impact on quality of effluent will be for a short term only. Electricity and Natural Gas: These services are available on the site and have the capability of serving the proposed development. -15- Climatology: The proposed development will be too small in scale to effect temperature, wind speed or direction. Cost to City: Discussions with representatives of the San Mateo Department of Public Works, Fire Department and Police Department show that Building V will probably cause a slight increase in all related municipal services but this increase will not be to any significant amount. Utility requirements were taken into account at the time the. Peninsula Office Park was approved and utilities constructed. All utilities are now available on site. Although the building may call upon the services of the Police and Fire Departments at some time, itsconstruction will not call for the addition of personnel orequipment in either department. Employee Housing: As mentioned elsewhere herein, it is probable that about 30% of the employees in the building will live in San Mateo; 50% in San Mateo County, and the balance outside of San Mateo County. A sheet of Comparable Environ- mental Data and related matters is attached as Exhibit F. Energy Conservation: The three major consumers of energy in Building V are heating, lighting and air-conditioning. The design of the building with wide expanses of glass permits natural light to be fully utilized during daylight hours. The building design and construction will control heat loss and the heating plan design insures minimum heat energy cost. "Natural" air-conditioning will be used when outside temperatures permit. Although all glass in the building is fixed in place the air- conditioning system has a built-in economy cycle which draws upon fresh outside air to the maximum extent possible. Known as the "variable volume system" it has the lowest energy con- sumption of any office building system currently available. The bronze solar glass used in the windows together with special drapes will .screen out heat rays so that solar heat will not add to the air-conditioning load. -16- C. ADVERSE EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED (1) Atmospheric Impact The following two types if air pollution will be generated by the proposed development: (a) During Construction: During the limited building period some pollution will occur from construction activities which will extend over a period of approx- imately six months. This will include dust during excavation and grading; exhaust emissions from heavy equipment and trucks; the evaporation of solvents from asphalt paving, roofing materials, paints, varnishes and other finishes. It should be noted, however, that the site has already been graded and no piles will be required; hence the use of heavy equipment will be minimal. (b) During Normal Activity: Atmospheric pollution during normal activities will occur from two sources: i.e. vehicles exhaust and the products of combustion of natural gasusedfor heating. These willcause a slight increase in ambient levels of air pollution in the area. Because, as noted above, all mechanical and air- conditioning equipment will be located in the basement. No noise or visible vapor will result from these sources. -17- D. MITIGATING MEASURES PROPOSED TO REDUCE IMPACT San Mateo does not experience strong air inversions or high ambient air pollution levels. The applicant's experience in erecting four structures on the site over the past three years has shown that because of the relatively remote location and high elevation of the site, the two possible sources of pollution, atmospheric and noise, will not be at problem levels. During the construction, air pollution will be minimized by restricting planting or other disturbance of the earth to periods when there is very little wind and by the sprinklering of exposed soil surfaces. Noise pollution during construction will be held down by a care- ful check on equipment used and the requirement of adequate mufflers on exhausts. E. ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT There -are no alternative types of development which would lessen the minimal environment impact which will be occasioned by this project. There are no feasible alternative uses for the site which would be in keeping with City planning and zoning regulations. The site is not suitable for park or public use. It would be economically non -feasible to both the owners and to the community to leave it undeveloped. The use -18- of the property for industrial, residential or commercial use would not be compatible with the existing uses, nor with the provisions of the Area Plan, City General Plan, or City regula- t ions relating to zoning. F. RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT TERM USES/LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY The proposed development is the primary use of the site. It offers long term economic benefits. As the planting matures it will increase in ecological and aesthetic value to the area. A delay in the development would have a negative effect on the City's economic base and on City/County tax revenues. Because the site is unusable as it stands and not suitable for other uses, a delay in construction would present no benefits. G. IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES The only irreversible long term impact will be the increase in rate of surface water run off and the minor increase in the amount of siltation which may be carried by Laurelwood Creek and settle out in Marina Lagoon. As noted above, practically all siltation will be collected in an existing silting pond on the project site. -19- H. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT The construction of Building V represents a step in the comple- tion of a facility for which community services and facilities have been scheduled and are available. Because the rate of housing development is regulated by planning policy and site availability rather than by close -in employment opportunity, the development will not be a factor in adding people to the community. Building V will have a small positive impact on the shopping and commercial facilities adjoining the site and nearby service stations. This will not be of sufficient scale to generate the demand for more facilities The development will improve the balance between employment opportunities and resident population. I SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The total environmental impact of Building V will be: (1) The positive impact created by an attractive office building and the addition of 27.1 acres of greenery; A minor increase in area traffic; (2) (3) The addition of a very minor amount of air and noise pollution. -20- U W U3 a H i I NM N MN - MI - - N = N I MI N N = I NE 1 ' J. D. Drachman Associates Transportation Consultant 1918 Bonita Avenue Berkeley, California 94704 (415) 548-2873 1 April 1974 1 Mr. Frank Henry Borel Development Company 2988 Campus Drive San Mateo, California 94403 Subject: Peninsula Office Park Building Five Traffic Report Dear Mr. Henry: In accordance with your request and authorization, we are submitting this traffic report concerningaccess to the Peninsula Office Park Development. This report analyzes the effect of Building Five in addition to previously approved structures. Introduction On October 1970, we were engaged by your firm to provide transportation con- sulting services in connection with the proposed development of a 54 acre Gilmore Estates property into an office park complex. During the month of November 1970, we submitted to you a final report entitled "Gilmore Estates Traffic Access Study" concerning the vehicular access to the then proposed Peninsula Office Park Project. The study report was accompanied with meetings involving staff of the affected jurisdictions, in order to explain the scope of performed studies and context of the report. Shortly thereafter, on January 18, 1971, the subject study application for Special Permit and Reclassifications was approved by the San Mateo City Council, subject to several conditions. One of these conditions entailed the development of a supplemental traffic study prior to the approval of each building in order to cor- roborate or update the assumption of the overall study with field data on traffic patterns and surrounding land developments. A supplemental traffic report for POP Building Two and a Restaurant was submitted on August 17, 1972. Again shortly thereafter the POP Building Two and Restaurant study application was approved by the San Mateo City Council. Letter to Mr. Fra ienry 1 April 1974 Page 2 • On March 5, 1973, a supplemental traffic report for POP Building Three was sub- mitted. Based upon a request by Mr. Richard K. Hopper, City Traffic Engineer, an addendum to the POP Building Three traffic report, dealing specifically with the determination of traffic signal warrants for the intersection of West Hillsdale Boulevard and Campus Drive, was submitted on March 21, 1973. Consequently on March 27, 1973, and with the concurrence of the City Traffic Engineer, the POP Building Three application was . approved by the San Mateo City Council, with con- ditions. The traffic condition specifically stated that: "On occupancy of Building Three the applicant shall install signalization on Campus Drive and Hillsdale Boule- vard if traffic counts taken at this time warrant signalization". On September 6, 1973 a traffic report was submitted concerning Building Four. It was the conclusion of that report that traffic signal warrants at the intersection of Campus Drive and Hillsdale Boulevard would be met. Concurrent with the approval for the construction of the "Gilmore Estates Planned Executive Development" the City Council noted the existence of an additional 99 acres of undeveloped land adjacent to the J. Arthur Younger Freeway (Route 92) and W. Hillsdale Boulevard interchange in various states of development planning. Because of the potential traffic bottleneck at this interchange, the City Council requested a similar study by California Division of Highways through Resolution No. 9 (1971) "Requesting Official Study by the Division of Highways of the Impact Upon the Modifi- cations necessary to the Interchange of Route 92 and Hillsdale Boulevard within the City of San Mateo Due to the Development of Certain Lands Adjacent to Said Route 92 Together with the Possibility of Providing Direct Access to and From Said Property to Said Route 92." On March 1971, a report was published by the City of San Mateo Engineers Office entitled: "J. Arthur Younger Freeway - W. Hillsdale Boulevard Interchange, W. Hillsdale Boulevard and the Impact of Future Developments". The report summarized all available data to date including forecasts of intensity and staging of development of adjacent undeveloped lands throughout the area. It also incorporated the findings of our previous November 1970 report with regards to the Gilmore Estates Project. This report, as in our previous supplemental traffic reports, reflect the data from these studies. Study Methodology The methodology for this study follows the same general format of previous reports. Traffic volumes for existing conditions and for the first four buildings are isolated. To these volumes the additional traffic from Building Five is superimposed. With these data an evaluation of the Volume Capacity ratio is made and the need for traffic control devices are investigated. Letter to Mr. Fralenry 1 April 1974 Page 3 Traffic Forecasts • Table 1 summarizes the trip generation for POP Building Five. These rates have been generally accepted in previous studies. The trip distribution is also assumed to be as previously concluded. This distribution indicates that 79 percent of the generated traffic will use the 19th Avenue Freeway interchange. Sketch A indicates the A.M. peak hour traffic before the occupancy of Building Five. This is the same traffic diagram as Sketch 5 in our Report of September 6, 1973, and includes traffic from Building One through Four. Sketch B is a similar traffic diagram for the P. M. peak. Sketch C and D indicate the morning and evening traffic flows attributed to Building Five only. The addition of Sketches A and C, and B and D result in the total traffic forecast for each peak period. These are shown on Sketches E and F and are the basis for our analysis. Traffic Analysis The impact of the total traffic volumes as shown on Sketches E and F are discussed as follows. In our previous report it was concluded upon occupancy of Building Four a traffic signal at the Campus Drive intersection would be warranted. However, the traffic warrants for a signal were marginal and field counts may indicate that a three-way stop sign may suffice for an interim period.. From the additional strips generated by Building Five the need for a traffic signal becomes more evident. In recent discussions with Mr. Richard Hopper, the San Mateo Traffic Engineer, it was learned that field counts have been made but not as yet analyzed as to the need for a signal. We expect some direction from his office in the near future. An assessment of the available right-of-way width indicates that there will be available capacity to handle the peak demands. However the additional traffic from Building Five will raise the intersection utilization to 90 percent of level of service D, or about 80 percent of absolute capacity. This in itself indicates the need for a signal over and above any traffic warrants based on off peak flow. Of critical concern is the inbound flow during morning peak hour. The left turn in- bound to the Peninsula Office Park will grow to over 500 vehicles per. hour. This flow will be opposed by the through traffic flow 770 vehicles per hour on Hillsdale Boulevard. These conflicting traffic flows will consume the entire capacity of the intersection causing a back-up of vehicles turning left from Hillsdale Boulevard. This situation can be alleviated by the Installation of a signal with a special phase to accommodate the turning volumes. The P. M. peak will not be as critical because the heavy movement will be turning Table 1 - Summary of Trip Generation for Building 5 Gross Building Area Net Building Area Parking Stalls Provided Office Trip Generation Rates: AM Peak Hour Inbound AM Peak Hour Outbound PM Peak Hour Inbound PM Peak Hour Outbound POP Building #5 Trip Generation: AM Peak Hour Inbound AM Peak Hour Outbound PM Peak Hour Inbound PM Peak Hour Outbound 80, 000 square feet 72, 000 square feet (estimate) 288 spaces 2.25 trips/thousand square feet of net building area 0.35 trips/thousand square feet of net building area 0.75 trips/thousand square feet of net building area 2.80 trips/thousand square feet of net building area 165 vehicles/hour 25 vehicles/hour 55 vehicles/hour 200 vehicles/hour Page 4 NM MIN 11111 INN Mil IMO MI Mil MI 11E11 =I N MIMI MI MIN N Mill_ +111.41011•44•11.1 It r� b 0 a) cn 075 (95 . 7?3 no ri Ran• 3 r7 s� -tLLSD fi T7 -7) E LVD,. 13P3 um me No NE um um me vim um um mi am mu Ns NMI MIIII NMI =II Mill MIN INN N M MIN N IIIIIII IMII. 5 1-.f ! LLSDl L .. S R! °E% El BLVD.- _ PO p QLDG —6 AM..pr HR }!a(. OHrt- . l3ER�t2L�0VS NMI MN NM INN 1 IN 1 1=1 MEI 11111 9 — — . ` actcaa;:.:i:_..�e±w.y►,.�;i�.i:tivs:iw- - -- rrou,..��..,w�, iR +..aa- o,.n INka- iw =II INN = = MI MI M M = =II N ME = =I NM M = EMI IIIIN vfoo i" .�!Ois.'V.►J'i.�.:.iIIT`!�'�l�riRdaiF�±w37rFvh:..__ •�'`' :_',�.y+�,.... JR '-s. .fl4.Z i:Ltt.fl *.&I4. au • CD Letter to Mr. FraSenry 1 April 1974 Page 11 • right from the project and can be more easily accommodated. In conclusion, it is our opinion that a traffic signal will be warranted, subject to confirmation by field counts. Secondly, if the heavy left turn movement in the A.M. peak is realized, the traffic signal must have a special phase to accommodate this movement. As usual, if you have any questions please contact us. We stand ready to assist you further at your convenience. Very truly yours, J.D. DRACHMAN ASSOCIATES Azpil Richard J. Mayer, P.E. Partner RJM: tlb cc: Robinson & Mills, Architects 037p — .F—. • a N_ SYJNI#IYI 4 mill MID • vv : Ns" /po 4, 4-� 4-4 111 1.11 BUILDING V M— — N— M— N MI M I-- — I OM MI NM OM LEXNf13(T "15,". VEX LOT NUIii eR SLOG Nunnb : f('LJ KP-STAuaaNT : f ��1 G EN.ERAL PLAN PENN1NSULA OFFICE 7AVK P7ORE L. 7 .V ELOPM E NT COMPANY .S►AN MATEO-4CA.1..lK'OR A•�S^-. 5 ►J 6 iA t T T .• AA A RCN 1774- A P A IRT 0 F E N V l tz O N T!1 V tJ T A.L. t M r A c T rr-P0 z? 1=1 111111 IIIII MN. NM 1111111 NE NE NMI BU RLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 ' 3Atf NV70Hb'D N �v�od a.7/J✓O _ o. .a raua,r Arun, er p lj 1` ;'op-ar \ !1 + 1I • �. B iV �.>_'''/ pi n req„of e,� fr a u./n 1 iev6, ra =nynn ✓rFr yr o •f.d y,e 1. 111 - P; a• . .. n/a/np ..n un.odoeNpd n„d ef . s. o/a p ;u , p sr. woo mop t _; 5 \5 a 2C \ %. �.af faa a10 a.9V sera!/ rV .. 7.0 o. ,I S •o •fp ./rqo map a e./o mn.. . r roy _ad o/o, pe.r 000 ,.1 I roy „e p 0/f S un/ /apoa ma.odo A11 d y 10Q Jf a9/0 •o o• •a D -,14. 0/.6.. ..e 0.190; e.a .o deey.d 0. 0.0.. .; / 0/10 . P.. 00101, •, m v k CT co N = /-. /.• o O [rrof:ng o/onl.ny !o reefotn truoat f el.1 o$ redro/o 11" 210.0 i ---lrrfiffrfi Cif rTrr(ffrr"/-((Ytr(ri •1 Iffiitrifffi 145'I ,r(iCri Linn( ••• ( o" "r' f)'r •' r"' P/ontiny Ii/o7 eJ t. Jo.` prepero/ten tor or toast to ♦n tu.1f �• r nud t�rt-d../ r..d nsrnro/ ♦ er/,beer 3 to ter. /toot .v rY to'o/•!' e' r'o so,t ✓ emtoln lrru to/ rer.e., e..:• rr: o ..�r. _ m: = / o o ;s tome, e.d / /e Onnemer/ per on Fwd .• .1. hoof' end horn mJa' ter J. We're, for bored tree., lobe .0 ''noes'.fc •n: //h Joy'!mr.:e the dealt of !He hod 0, :Soo eg.at and :,ac holes lode trutce the eurdth sad deo/e ate tie /on. . d, All /eons be eod G. A// mound.. ! o Ae du: .' �! •toe fr led too.mr/. 7. Ifa:n!,:n t// treat Par erltV La! deVe. trer♦ur, n.teonder oh•/e Jy.<• • L.. rr m mvi porrt/b/te 20'dor /aedera A 'Nohnp"e a'o.e f �—�— • •••tic .fir, tP Popltofeprs "'deco reran Stt., J o, too r.t J.•.t l., 24' 4,..• ��,I„L t r f r Y f l i i f l �, • r r 1 • : . J 00r_ :r tot / C n, L a • RI L(l E C d. Q L- cC V 0 C) W 4- U •- C 4- N•fl) V o 0. CI O Z O - C) a) n o > 4-a U) J (1) r0 C — o E Con -- a) N (0 a 1 cn 0 ti 0 a ....• o r,; 0) • `- 4 • U V) 4 � � Co E 4 O CC Lo. CO �, W o Uv W Q Q g CZI 4.J • N. a� CQ CQ 0) IIIIII 011111 r -. N M N N M I - - M - M OM �% I s s I s r M N s r N N I r s s s r s a - - E L E M E N T T A B L E I P E N I N S U L A O F F I C E P A R K M a r c h , 1 9 7 4 E X H I B I T D S I T E P L A N S T A T U S A P P R O V A L G E N E R A L S I T E I M P R O V E M E N T J A N U A R Y 1 9 7 1 C O M P L E T E D F l o o r s B l d g . G r o s s P a r k i n g A r e a S p a c e s O F F I C E B U I L D I N G I 3 4 2 , 6 2 8 s q . � t . 1 5 4 J A N U A R Y 1 9 7 1 C O M P L E T E D A N D O C C U P I E D B O R E L R E S T A U R A N T 2 1 6 , 0 0 0 s q . f t . 1 8 8 A P R I L , 1 9 7 3 f r O F F I C E B U I L D I N G I I - 3 7 6 , 2 4 8 s q . f t . 2 7 5 A U G U S T , 1 9 7 2 ��1 O F F I C E B U I L D I N G I I I - 2 4 6 , 0 3 8 s q . f t . 1 6 6 M A R C H , 1 9 7 3 C O M P L E T E D - A b o u t 7 0 % O c c u p i e d O F F I C E B U I L D I N G I V - 2 5 0 , 5 0 0 s q . f t . 1 9 1 S E P T E M B E R , 1 9 7 3 U N D E R C O N - S T R U C T I O N O F F I C E B U I L D I N G V - 3 8 0 , 0 0 0 s q . f t . 2 8 8 P R E S E N T A P P L I C A T I O N O F F I C E B U I L D I N G V I - V I I P L A N N I N G S T A G E O F F I C E B U I L D I N G S V I I I & I X F U T U R E T O T A L ( T o D a t e ) 3 1 1 , 4 1 4 s q . f t . 1 , 2 6 2 EXHIBIT E List of Plant Materials - Lot 6 MUNKDALE BROS., INC. Landscape Contractors 1405 N. CAROLAN AVE. BURLINGAME, CALIF. 94010 PHONE: 342-7407 LICENSED INSURED PENINSULA OFFICE PARK BUILDING NUMBER 5 PLANT MATERIALS TO BE USED TREES 57 PINUS RADIATA 24" BOX SIZE 7 BETULA ALBA 24" BOX SIZE 20 PITTOSPORUM UNDULATUM 30" BOX SIZE 6 ULNUS PARVIFOLIA 36" BOX SIZE 5 ULNUS PARVIFOLIA 30" BOX SIZE 2 JUNIPER TORULOSA 24" BOX SIZE 11 ULNUS PARVIFOLIA 20" BOX SIZE SHRUBS 400 NERIUM OLEANDER 5 GAL. SIZE 187 RAPHIOLEPIS INDICA ROSEA 5 GAL. SIZE 250 AGAPANTHUS AFRICANUS 1 GAL. SIZE 228 PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA VAR. 5 GAL. SIZE GROUND COVERS HEDERA CANARIENSIS FLATS HYPERICUM CALYCINUM FLATS ALL LAWNS TO BE SODDED NEI' IN NE mu EN um um EXHIBIT F S;ui Mat AREA LIVE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT QUESTIONATRE TRANSPORTATION: CHILDREN IN SCHOOL: tic';=.: O':'<r._+,. Out 00n Car School Out Pri- Out -r ;:i`p. SM SMC SMC f Car Pool Public Other Child SM SMC SMC vate Total SM S'.0 S;•.0 Tot..?1 1301:EL #1 255 59 97 99 211 ' 26 5 13 107 23 48 46 .9. 126 25 67 63 155 3u 42 1.90 43 • 60 87 138 43. 2 7 65 15 35 99 4 153 19 32 68 119 RO'•U i. 113 31S 59 152 107 281 16 10 11 122 25 51 60 12 14S 25 101 75 199 BORii 115 394 85 183. 126 358 27 - 6 3 144 47 111 66 19 243 76 143 152 371 FOP ..i. • 1.<12 16 53 68 132 9 1 0 47 16 25 27 9 77 11 . 33 38 82 TOTALS 1299 262 550 , 487 1120 121 .24. 34 • 4S5 126 270 293 53 747 156 376 394 926 Out Own Car . School Out Pri- Out %mn. SJ SJC SJC Car Pool Public Other Child SJ SJC SJC vatc Total SJ SJC SJC Tot a'_ , OSE a 1- 210 113 76 28 193 15 (19) •• :o L' including Dctroi.t Diesel ?•:o': iriclucltn<; .Tot Iran or Bard. i 65 37 41 8 2 88 57 41 18 116 COMPARABLE ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RELATING TO COMPARABLE OFFICE BUILDINGS IN BOREL ESTATE OFFICE PARK, BUILDING I PENINSULA OFFICE PARK AND BUILDING I SAN JOSE OFFICE PARK. '4'BARNApD C. JOHNSON, P.E., INC. ' aific Engineering Consulting Sun, 24, 1985 'z•o3act 7376 . Michael Callan n Mateo Development Company 400 Veterans Boulevard, Suite 620 `?adwood City, CA 94063 DEPT. OF Miff l 1TY DEVELOPMENT PUNNING MAY 1 Y 1881 The Lorraine P ��ct - Prellminer Traffic. Stud ar Mr. Callan: Enclosed are copies of a preliminary traffic assessment of the orraine project on Campus Drive in San Mateo. Aai you indicated, the Ludy has addressed Plans B and C for 1,518 and 1,908 dwelling units iespectively, each with 140,000 square feet of office. Plan C coupled with other potential growth in the area would ;roduce capacity conditions on the street system as evidenced intolerable delays and conaeation. Plan B would offer somewhat Matter _tlr..,e e1+hcugh tt.cul d be approached if significant other growth were to occur. In this regard, it was earned that a ninth office building in the Peninsula Office Park is _ F - • ing considered. This study suggests that a less intense development should also �e considered. Part of the basis for this is that Hillsdale Boulevard .mould be difficult to widen and the SR 92 ramps are limited in carrying capacity. Further, the access road to Lorraine will need to ie wider than what has been shown OR your site plans. Study of a arge scale site plan is needed to solve the access drive questions. Finally, the study presents relative impact parameters for ".office and residential uses which allow estimates of level os service `iith different development intensities. We should arrange to discuss the findings to date and see how ou wish to proceed. .gape tfully submitted, ARHARD C. JO. SO , P.E. ;:President Ay' o.i nclosure 1975 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 (415) 333-3334 THE LORRAINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT Prepared for SAN MATEO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Redwood City, California Prepared by BARNARD C. JOHNSON, P.E., INC. Traffic Engineering Consultant THE LORRAINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT This report covers a preliminary traffic impact analysis and an assessment of two current proposals for development intensity for the Ca.11ar, Lorraine Project on Campus Drive in San Mateo. INTRODUCTION The project is in an area that has been studied frequently regarding traffic impacts associated with new development, the 'Peninsula Office Park (POP) particularly. These traffic studies have provided some general travel characteristics for the area. The scope of this evaluation covers the project site, Campus `Drive, and the principal intersection at Hi1isdalo Bnul_c_=ar,!. D ily and peak period traffic counts have been analyzed and the project access and circulation put in some perspective. The basic purpose of this study was to evaluate the implications on adjacent street traffic flow of two levels of development intensity or the Callan property. The focus is.on comparative traffic impacts. ECHNICAL EVALUATION Standard traffic engineering methodology was used to develop raffic impacts for the Project. Trip generation, distribution, and ssignment was supplemented with evaluations of the quality of traffic low on the streets as measured by level of service. Both existing nd future conditions were analyzed for the two development ntensities being considered. 2 The Lorraine Protect The triangular parcel has a useable area of about 15 acres and lies between SR 92, the Peninsula Golf and Country Club, and the Peninsula Office Park. The access to public streets is via a new connection with Campus Drive. In one development alternative, the land use is split between an office of 140,000 square feet (sf) anda mix of residential structures containing 1,518 dwelling units (du) (Plan B). In the second alternative, 1,908 residential units are considered (Plan C). A less intense alternative with the office building and 1,206 dwelling units (Plan A) may also be considered. About half of the residential units in each alternative are designed for the. elderly grandparents and include facilities. The other units are split roughly in half for the middle t._ age "parents" group and the "young professionals" group. Existing Conditions The adjacent streets are Campus Drive and Hillsdale Boulevard. Each has four lanes and parking prohibitions with left turn lanes added at critical locations. Campus Drive measures 60 feet curb -to— curb. The common intersection of Campus and Hillsdale has been signalized since about 1976 when Hillsdale was widened to 70 feet between curbs in the vicinity of the intersection. Access to SR 92 is provided via ramps connecting with Hillsdale Boulevard at two signalized intersections. Land uses contributing traffic to the study area, in addition to residential, include the College of San Mateo, Laurelwood Shopping Center, Borel's Restaurant, and the Peninsula Office Park (POP). The current office area in eight buildings totals 596,463 sf and is 95% 7._� - ! .. a. . 96, rs 3 occupied. This office space is about half of what was originally considered. Studies are currently underway for a ninth POP building with 120,000 sf of space. [dui` v''( ere fi H C t R/� f /c .'#1 Traffic volumes were counted by the City of San Mateo or. Campus Drive just north of the Laurelwood shopping center and apartments, This location gives data indicative of the trip generation for POP and Sorel's. Three days of data show 7,690 vehicles per day (vpd) for both directions of flow on Campus Drive. The AM peak showed 968 vehicles per hour (vph) which is 12.6% of daily flow. The PM peak showed 1,043 vph (13.6%). Turning movement counts at Campus and Hillsdale showed 2,233 vph and 2,486 vph for the AM and PM peaks respectively. The detailed counts are shown in Figure I. From those rn.�nts the dai i; flow estimate on Campus, just north of Hillsdale, is 9,300 vpd reflecting increased activity near the shopping center. Count estimates on Hillsdale range from 10,000 vpd east of Campus to 17,000 vpd west of Campus. Trip Generation As mentioned earlier, the machine counts on Campus provided a basis for estimating POP trip generation which could then be applied to the Lorraine Project. First, it is estimated that Borel's Restaurant generates about 1,200 vehicle trips per day (based on data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers for a quality sit-down. restaurant). That leaves about 6,500 two-way vehicle trips being ger.erated by the occupied 565,000 sf in POP. The resulting figure of 11.5 trips per 1,000 sf has beer. applied to the Lorraine office. This rate is similar to that used by Drachman in earlier studies for POP. Shown in Table 1 are the trip generation figures based on accepted ates and peak hour characteristics. 4 S33 (Ate 990 Ili £5 (;‘) /,/71 CA�vs az740 l4i0, 175 x/,36/) Ij1d3 %3‘1) 370 1i5} 747 Ziff/ ININIME NNangr 354 708) (2,4,1iy4) Ji,,,' 4/5, 1915 A� • ovo 6ri.40 /, X11 !g8a1 4 f/9urt ,t 1,(457-hv6 «IFS 5 TABLE 1. TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES For Alternative Plans B & C VEHICLE TRIPS USE • SIZE RATE* AM PM DAILY IN OUT IN OUT PLAN B - 1.518 UNITS Office 140,000 sf 11.5 1, 610 183' 20 29 190 Residential Young Middle Elder 336 du 5.2 372 du 5.2 810 du 3.3 1,747 1,934 2,673 17 19 32 158 174 288 128 47 141 52 234 86 TOTAL 7,964 251 640 532 375 PLAN C - 1,908 UNITS Office 140,000 sf 11.5 1,610 183 20 29 190 Residential Young 444 du 5.2 2,309 23 208 169 62 Middle 528 du 5.2 2,745 28 246 200 74 Elder 936 du 3.3 3,089 37 334 271 100 TOTAL 9,753 271 808 669 426 =a The generation rate per 1,000 square feet or per dwelling unit is :in units of one-way vehicle trips per day. From this table it can be seen that both Plans B & C generate more traffic (7,964 and 9,753 trips/day than is now travelling on Campus Drive (7,690 trips per day). Also, the peak directional flows for office and residential uses are in opposite directions which places more balanced traffic flow demands on the street -system. The underlying assumptions for peak -hour percentages and `directional splits are shown in Table 2. 6 TABLE 2. PEAK -HOUR CHARACTERISTICS AM PM USE PEAK HOUR IN OUT IN OUT Office 12.6-13.6% 90% 10% 13% ' 87% Residential 8-10% 10% 90% 73% 27% Travel Distribution. The distribution of trips in this study has been kept the same as in previous studies: Hillsdale Boulevard - East 20% " " - West 6% State Route 92 - North 44% " " - South 30% This aspect of the study may be revised if more current data becomes available. Existing peak -hour counts suggest that the portion to a from the east on Hillsdale may be only 11-12%. Applying the above distribution to the peak -hour in and out ;:'movements for Lorraine produces the turning movement assignment shown in Figure 2. These estimated volumes were added to existing counts as input to the analysis of level -of -service impacts. Traffic Impacts The effects of Lorraine traffic on congestion and delay have been estimated in terms of level of service at the intersection of Campus and Hillsdale. Also a preliminary analysis has been done for the new intersection of the Lorraine access drive and Campus Drive. Campus and Hillsdale The combination of physical and traffic conditions produce a -maximum amount of traffic that can pass through this intersection which is known as the intersection's capacity. This is equivalent to ti I \-kA teb 3 8 e sum of critical lane volumes of 1,720 vph for the current three - base operation. The.Volume/Capacity ratio is 1.00 and the Level Of Service (LOS) is "E". This is not a desireable'condition because of_ total congestion and high vehicular delay. With lower volumes conditions improve down through LOS "D" which is generally considered a practical limit for design. Below this evel, conditions improve even more down through levels "C" and "B" until the best operating condition is found at LOS "A". With a raffic signal there will still be some delay at levels "A - C"; owever, conditions are considered acceptable. It is in LOS "D" where elay.begins approaching intolerable levels and not all traffic will ass through the intersection on one display of the green light. Table 3 shows the results of increased traffic at Campus and illsdale generated by the Lorraine proposals. Lorraine project traffic has been added on to existing volumes just to offer a relative c.mparisan. TABLE 3. LEVEL -OF -SERVICE ESTIMATES Campus and Hillsdale xisting - 1985 - AM I CONDITION '{ " - PM lan B (1,518) - 1985 - AM - PM CRITICAL LANE V/C LOS VOLUME "Bs. "A'1 1,133 0.66 899 0.52 1,454 1,190 0.85 0.69 D 111 „C '4 lan C (1,908) - 1985 - AM 1,510 0.88 "D" - PM 1,240 0. 72 "C" oP_..r 4=1 RA-olif With Plan B volume on Campus Drive would be more than doubled from 7,690 vpd to 15,654 vpd. The result is a change in LOS from "B" in the morning to "D". The morning condition is critical because of 9 the way the signal is phased, i.e. the inbound left turn -from Hillsdale to Campus adds directly to the critical lane volume. This is less critical in the evening because the exiting right turn traffic moves with the inbound left turn. The upper range of critical lane volume for LOS "D" is 1,530 vph and it can be seer. that Plan C for Lorraine would be very close to reaching capacity flow conditions at the intersection. If POP 9 were built with 120,000 sf of office space, the intersection would be operating in the range of capacity and delays would be intolerable. An analysis of the sensitivity of the intersection to increased traffic produces the following relationships which helps relate the street operation to incremental land use development. The estimated ' contribution. to critical lane volumes is about one vehicle for each 1,000 sf of office space and 13 vehicles for each 100 residential dwelling units. The range of critical lane volume through LOS "D" is 190 vehicles. Therefore, this would be the impact of an office building f 190,000 square feet or 1,460 dwelling units of the average type proposed. New Access Drive on Campus Drive As previously presented, the Lorraine project would generate ore traffic than is presently on Campus. Drive from POP and Sorel's. ;Thus, significant rechar.nelization and signalization would be needed for the new intersection. This location would be in about the middle f the 90 -degree curve or. Campus Drive. The. intersection would most ikely reed double turning lanes for entering and leaving the project. The access drive into the site would need to be about 50-60 feet n width depending or. the intersection. design. This width could be 10 reduced to about 44 feet for four lanes to the first traffic branching point on the site. From then on, two-lane. roadways should be sufficient. CURRENT ASSESSMENT Part of the reason for the relatively good traffic operation at Campus and Hillsdale is that work trips are partially staggered by about 30 minutes in both the morning and evening'hours. This would need to continue as a requirement for new office tenants. A significant new intersection would be needed on Campus Drive o serve Lorraine. The prospect of a freeway ramp connection to SR 92 would most likely not be approved by the State or the Federal Government because .f the proximity of the Hillsdale interchange. If it were, the connection would need to serve the public street system and POP traffic would then be routed through Lorraine. To the extent that residents of Lorraine would work in the new _office building or in POP, traffic impacts would be reduced at Campus and Hillsdale. Considering the overall traffic impact relationships, it seems that a less intense development should also be considered. f - 10. • ti - I ; A \x. • • ♦ i • " 4 0 ' A d o 1 ' . 1 S - - -C-'n 2.1 f w I: 4 ' ' ' ' '' 2 \ i bilmt ICE IC. HAMILTON rot SIN %I" IOPUS .>*t CItt attra.tl JZ W OLSON w► rn. £TTM.t. • Mr. James Harbison Sr. Vice -President Citizens Savings & Loan 700 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94102 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 3!e rL$1 TWENTIETH Avitit.E W+ MATEO. CALIFO*NIA IVK! T&UPOONt *4111 J 4 - March 19, 1980 Re: Peninsula Office Park/Callan Properties Dear Mr. Harbison: e This office has reviewed the agreement between Peninsula Office Park (P.O•P.) and Michael C.: Callan concerning the encroachments into Campus Drive by the P.O.P. development. Campus Drive is a street dedicated to the City of San Mateo, The City has permitted the encroachments pending a development project on tie. adjoining Caiian parcel. The City is agreeable to providing P.O.P. with 120 days written notice to remove the encroachments. Said notice will be issued by the City upon the occurrence of first of the following events: 1. If requested by Michael C. Callan,in writing, upon filing a project application with the City; or 2. At the time the Board of Zoning Adjustment's approval becomes final on: a. A tentative map fortheCallan property; or b. A site development plan on the Callan property. • f I trust the above commitments will suffice to assure your firm that the Callan project need not be delayed by the subject encroachments. Sincerely. itLLc(_ I "6c` MOOT : s j s (' MADRICiX. HAMILTON cc: Robert G. Sezzant, Director of Public Works Attn: Rimer Schaal William Wilson. Peninsula Office Park chael C. Callan -•f" y.ypt'.f y•. 1 PLR-•�•--'� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,c 1 1 1 1 PENINSULA OFFICE PARK SITE NUMBER 8 TRAFFIC IMPACT AND PARKING STUDY FINAL REPORT J. D. Drachman Associates September 1979 1 1 "1 poP E --- C�{ '9/_) 6-W u 7' Z -c Ca -h ` c Cy 2,- a -/14 C a_ e.-44 �' ✓_-s, ete-x 1' S /..Q 2 o - a -77 I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 STUDY METHODOLOGY 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 6 TRAFFIC IMPACTS 9 MITIGATION MEASURES - PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENT 13 MITIGATION MEASURES - TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 16 COMPACT CAR SURVEY 19 1 1 1 LIST OF TABLES i r 1 1 1 r 1 i Table Page 1 Summary of Traffic Impacts Volume/Capacity Ratio Critical Locations 2 Summary of Impacts Hillsdale Boulevard and Highway 92 Ramps Volume/Capacity Ratios (PM Peaks) 3 Summary of Staggered Work Hours 10 15 17 4 Compact Car Survey 20 1 introduction In November 1970, J. D. Drachman Associates completed a traffic report entitled "Gilmore Estates Traffic Access Study." Thie report covered the expected traffic conditions for the over-all development of what is . now known as the Peninsula Office Park. Since that time, we have been engaged to conduct traffic impact studies for individual office sites as the development progressed. This report is the latest of these impact reports covering the proposed Peninsula Office Park, Number 8. Peninsula Office Park, Number 8 (POP 8) will consist of one office building and a restaurant. The restaurant already exists and is in full operation. The _ office building will, be a development of 90,700 square feet of space, with the required 330 parking stalls. The purpose of this report is to cover two main areas of concern in connection with the development of these buildings: First is the traffic impact on the nearby street and highway system caused by the expected office trip generation, especially during peak periods. The second part of the study investigated the percentage of compact cars currently parked at the existing development so that an estimate of the required full-size and compact -size parking stalls can be made. Also included in th is analysis are the impacts of other developments in the area that are approved, or have a good possibility of being developed, including the assumption of 100 percent occupancy of the entire Peninsula Office Park Complex. A lost of these developments that have been reviewed in the course of the study is as follows: 2 Bay Ridge Heights 40 condominium units (included) San Mateo Woods Sugarloaf 200 units (included. 160 units included in original report; 40 units added to this addendum) 383 units approved to date (included) College of San Mateo No expansion expected (not included). See Enclosure #1 (Addendum Traffic Report, May 25, 1979) Callan Property Peninsula Golf and Country Club California Casualty Environmental assessment to be forthcoming. One access to this property, although perhaps not the only one, would be a link to Campus Drive. If the property is developed for residentual use as presently zoned, the flow of traffic would be counter to peak -hour flows and would have minimal impact. Commercial office use would require rezoning. Since denisities and uses have not yet been developed, this property is . not included. No plans for development (not included). Expansion planned but undetermined (not included) The locations of these possible developments are shown on . Exhibit 1. 3 Study Methodology The study procedure followed the usual sequence of work tasks followed in all previous studies during the development of the Peninsula Park. Two basic components were required: the establishment of existing traffic conditions, and the forecast of future traffic patterns. The establishment of the existing traffic conditions required the collection and collation of traffic data from various sources. These sources and the data provided are as follows: City of San Mateo - 1978 Hillside/Campus Drive Traffic Counts City of San Mateo - 1978 Hillside/Highway 92 Partial Traffic Counts Cal -Trans - 1975 Hillsdale/Highway 92 Full Traffic Counts The older 1975 counts were used only to estimate the 1978 volume on noncritical traffic movements. For all the critical movements that dictate traffic service levels, the City's latest December 1978 counts were used. The City's counts were also spot-checked and confirmed by the Consultant in April and May 1979. In addition, parking -field data were collected by the Consultant. These data included a ten-day parking accumulation count at the Borel's restaurant parking lot, a six -day accumulation count at office building POP 2, and a survey of the number of compact cars in relation to full-sized cars actually parked at all the office lots in the project on a typical weekday. The accumulation counts were conducted during 1978, which, according to the restaurant owners, was one of their highest -volume months. The compact car survey was conducted during December 1978. 4 The accumulation counts were taken with the original concept of sharing parking spaces between the restaurant and the office building. Since then, the applicant has revised the plan so that the total number of required spaces will be provided for the office building without sharing of any spaces with the restaurant. For data on the parking survey, reference is made to the earlier traffic report of February 1979. The forecast of traffic patterns employed the usual sequential work tasks of trip generation, trip distribution, and traffic assignment. Trip generation was based on research counts conducted by the California Department of Transportation (Cal -Trans) at similar types of developments throughout the Bay Area. These research counts were summarized and appropriate averages computed. The City traffic Engineer also made an automatic vehicle count on Campus Drive to determine the generation rate for the existing office sites. These counts confirmed the average Cal -Trans data. The generation rates used for this study, based on a measuring parameter of 1000 square feet (TSF), are as follows: Per TSF Average Daily Traffic* 11.9 AM Inbound 1.4 AM Outbound 0.2 PM Inbound 0.3 PM Outbound 1.3 *Weekdays, total in and out 5 The next step was to determine the geographical orientation of these generated trips. The distribution was based on data received earlier from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) which was used in previous studies for the Borel Development. A summary of this distribution to the surrounding highway facilities is as follows: Hillsdale Boulevard East 20% Hillsdale Boulevard West of Highway 92 . . 6% Highway 92 East 44% Highway 92 West 30% 100% These percentages were then applied to the peak -period trip generation (both A.M. and P.M.), and the resulting volumes were assigned to the appropriate street sections and freeway ramps. The increases in traffic volumes and turning movements at the critical intersection were noted. 6 Existing Conditions During the morning peak period, the highest directional traffic flow on Hillsdale Boulevard is westbound. Most of this A.M. peak condition is attritubable to the College of San Mateo. Westbound volumes range from 400 vehicles per hour east of 31st Avenue, gradually increasing to 930 vehicles per hour between Campus Drive and Highway 92. Between Highway 92 and Clearview Way, the volumes increase to 1870 vehicles per hour. This increase is the result of the heavy westbound off -ramp movement from Highway 92. Of this westbound volume east of Campus Drive, 100 vehicles per hour are attributed to the existing Peninsula Office Park development. Assuming full occupancy of the existing office space and the building of other developments —most notably the Sugarloaf 380 dwelling units —an additional 10 cars per hour will be added east of Campus Drive, and 50 cars per hour between Campus Drive and Highway 92. Exhibit 2 illustrates the existing A.M. traffic flow on Hillsdale Boulevard and also indicates the increase of traffic caused by 100 percent occupancy of the Office Park and the Sugarloaf development. Exhibit 3 is similar to 2 and illustrates the afternoon peak hour flow. The situation is similar to the morning peak, with the heavy direction reversed. It should be emphasized that the traffic counts indicated on these exhibits were taken in December 1978, with supplementary counts in April and May 1979. Earlier counts taken in August 1978 have been disregarded. On Campus Drive, the existing daily traffic volumes are in the range of 4000 vehicles per day on the section just north of Hillsdale Boulevard. The peak 7 flow on Campus Drive is 830 vehicles per hour inbound in the morning, and 810 vehicles per hour outbound in the evening. To put these volumes in perspective, one standard traffic lane can carry between 1200 to 1500 vehicles per hour under uninterrupted flow conditions. Usually, the critical locations on any street -and -highway system will occur at intersections where uninterrupted flow cannot exist because of signalization or other conflicting traffic movement —such as turning movements, crossing and through movement. For example, if a through movement at an intersection is allotted 70 cercent of the available green -signal time, the capacity per lane is reduced to 840 to 1050 vehicles per hour. After reviewing these current traffic counts and turning volumes, it was evident that only two locations would exhibit significant traffic impacts. These locations were the Campus/Hillsdale intersection, and the ramp connection from Highway 92. At these critical locations, an evaluation was made of actual traffic demand in relation to the amount of' traffic that could be carried at a "D" level of service. Level of service "D" is somewhat below the absolute capacity of an intersection. At this level of service there will be occasional periods of congestion at short intervals during the peak hour. This level of traffic service is considered acceptable in the traffic engineering field, and is generally the basis for geometric design of new facilities in urban areas. A more detailed description of traffic service levels (A through F) is included in the appendix to this report. 8 The results of this investigation indicate that the Campus/Hillsdale intersection is apparently operating at an acceptable level of service and could accommodate additional volumes at a "D" service level. During the morning peak, this intersection is operating at 79 percent of level "D," and 56 percent during the evening peak. The intersection at the west -side ramp connections operates at an acceptable 80 percent of level "D" during the morning peak. During the evening peak, however, this location operates at 116 percent of level "D," or about at absolute capacity. This condition is caused mostly by the substantial left -turning volumes from the off -ramp to Hillsdale Boulevard, and from Hillsdale Boulevard to the westbound on -ramp. These traffic -service levels are based on a peak -hour average. A more congested situation can occur during a short ten -to fifteen -minute period within the peak hour. Although the intersection of Hillsdale Boulevard and Campus Drive appears to be . operating at an acceptable service level over the average P.M. peak hour, there is, in fact, some delay to traffic for short periods within this peak. From field observations it appears that this period of traffic congestion is caused more by the inadequacy of left -turn storage capacity for the move to Highway 92 westbound, rather than a deficiency of capacity in the Hillsdale/Campus intersection. This period of congestion will be extended when traffic from POP 8 is added to current volumes with no miitigation measures. However, any mitigation provided for the Hillsdale/Highway interchange will provide some upstream relief to this intersection. 9 Traffic Impacts The trip -generation parameters previously listed were applied to the total revised floor area plan, resulting in the following volumes: Average Daily Weekday Traffic A.M. Inbound A.M. Outbound P.M. Inbound A.M. Outbound . 1080 per day 130 per hour 20 per hour 30 per hour 120 per hour The peak -hour trips were then loaded to the adjacent street and highway facilities in accordance with the estimated geographical distribution. The result of this work task is shown in Exhibits 4 through 7. These exhibits indicate the existing traffic volumes summarized from sources previously cited, and the incremental volumes attributable to POP 8. Using the volumes indicated in these exhibits, an estimate of the traffic impact was made. These impacts are described as changes in intersection utilization, computed at the "D" servuce level, on important elements of the nearby street system. First, an estimate of the existing utilization was calculated; then the same calculation was made using the total existing and the increased traffic due to POP 8. A summary of these utilizations estimates is indicated in Table 1. The detailed capacity work sheets were included in the February 1979 Report. As indicated in Table 1, the nearby intersections are operating well within the "D" service level and are actually within the "C" or better service level based on an hourly demand volume. The major exception is at the freeway ramp 11 intersections with Hillsdale Boulevard on the west side of Highway 92. This particular intersection is currently operating at the lower range of "E" service level, which is close to absolute capacity. With the addition of the volumes from POP 8, this intersection will be operating at 19 percent over the average "D" service level. It should also be noted that although the Campus/Hillsdale intersection is theoretically operating at an acceptable level of service, it is, in effect, undergoing some periods of congestion as the result of the adverse effect of conditions at the west -ramp intersection. This period of congestion is for a very short duration during the evening peak hour. Exhibit S 4, in an earlier traffic report (Addendum to the February 1979 Traffic Impact Analysis) indicates the hourly flow rate of vehicles approaching the intersection of Hillsdale Boulevard and Campus Drive from three critical direc- tions. These critical directions are southbound on Campus, westbound on Hillsdale, and left turn from Hillsdale to Campus. That chart illustrated the hourly traffic demand between 7 A.M. to 6 P.M. Also shown on the exhibit are two levels of estimated capacities: The lower capacity is what now exists; the higher capacity (approximately +100 vehicles per hour) is the estimated capacity after Mitigation Measure 2 is instituted at the Hillsdale/Highway 92 interchange.1 This capacity estimate is an empirical value based on observations in the field and represents the traffic demand at which some congestion and back-ups will occur. The capacity at this intersection is dependent —especially during the evening peak -on the number of vehicles that can be processed at the interchange ramp connection. 1 Mitigation Measure 2 is described in the next section of this report. 12 1 1 1 1 t t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 The hourly flow rates in that earlier exhibit were shown separately: (1) for existing conditions, (2) increases due to full occupancy of the office park and other approved residential development, and (3) the impact of POP site Number 8. When the hourly flow rate exceeds the indicated capacity, some traffic back-ups are likely to occur. As can be seen from this chart, the traffic demand exceeds the capacity for only short intervals during the morning and evening peak periods. For most of the remainder of a typical weekday, the intersection will operate at "C" or better level of traffic service. Since this exhibit was developed, a further cutback in the size of the office building has been proposed. This will result in the further reduction of the indicated time of traffic congestion. One additional concern is the problem of vehicles cutting through the shopping center to avoid traversing the Campus/Hillsdale intersection. The magnitude of this problem is difficult to quantify; however, with the implementation of Mitigation 2, and additional staggering of work hours, this problem should be greatly reduced. 13 Mitigation Measures —Physical Improvement Based on the volume -capacity ratios calculated in the previous section of this report, some mitigation measures are indicated for the intersecton of Hillsdale Boulevard and the Freeway ramps on the west side of Highway 92. At the other impacted locations, the level of traffic service will not exceed the "D" level, so no mitigation is indicated. Any mitigation measures on the west side of Highway 92 will have a secondary beneficial effect on the Hillsdale/Campus intersection. At the terminals of the freeway ramps west of Highway 92, the major problems are caused by the left -turn movements from Highway 92 to the east on Hillsdale Boulevard, and from Hillsdale Boulevard westbound on Highway 92. During the P.M. peak, these two movements alone consume almost all the available capacity at this location. A number of physical improvements forthis location were considered, and these were discussed in the February 1979 traffic report. Afterdiscussions with City staff, the California Department of Transportation, and the owner, it was decided that Mitigation Measure Number 2 would be the most feasible and desirable. This mitigation is financially feasible from the owner's point of view; he has agreed to fund the improvement. It is also the least disruptive to existing conditions. Mitigation Measure 2 is a plan to increase the capacity of the left -turn on -ramp movement from Hillsdale Boulevard to the west on Highway 92. In order to accomplish this, the westbound off -ramp from Highway 92 to east on Hillsdale 14 1 Boulevard is widened to two lanes. This would then allow a 20 percent reduction 1 1 1 1 1 1 i in the green -time allocation for this movement, while still being able to carry the total traffic demand at current service levels. This 10 percent reduction in green time for this movement could then be reassigned to the left -turn on movement, increasing the effective hourly capacity. This is illustrated graphically on Exhibits 8 and 9, which indicate the maximum theoretical capacity for each conflicting traffic flow (100 percent green -signal time), the actual green -signal time allocation, and the actual hourly capacity. Exhibit 8 is for the existing condition, and Exhibit 9 is after the addition of a lane on the off -ramp. As indicated, this results in an increase of 100 vehicles per hour to theleft-turn on -ramp. This increase in capacity for this critical turn movement will have a beneficial upstream effect at the intersection of Hillsdale Boulevard and Campus Drive. The increased ability to handle traffic demand on this left -turn movement will alleviate most of the back-up of vehicles across the Hillsdale - Campus intersection. Table 2 is presented to show the effects of Mitigation Measure 2 for a number of assumed traffic conditions in relation to the existing volumecapacity ratio at the intersection of Highway 92 west side ramps and Hillsdale Boulevard. 15 Table 2 Summary of Impact Hillsdale Boulevard and Highway 92 Ramps Volume/Capacity Ratios (PM Peak) (Level of Service "D") Condition Volume -Capacity Ratio Existing Existing + Buildoutl Existing + Building + POP 82 Existing + Buildout + POP 8 With Mitigation Measure 1 1.16 1.20 1.24 1.15 1 Buildout includes: 100% occupancy of the Peninsula Office Park Bay Ridge Heights San Mateo Woods Sugarloaf 2POP 8 = 90,700 square feet of office space. 16 Mitigation Measures —Traffic Management Certain traffic management measures could provide some relief to the existing periods of traffic congestion. These measures include car pools, van pools, better use of public transit, and staggering of work hours. Staggered work hours are currently in the process of implementation and have a good potential for spreading out the peak -hour traffic flow in the future. Before March 1979, 60 percent of all employees in the Peninsula Office Park had a scheduled departure of 5:00 P.M. This amounts to 994 employees scheduled to leave the development at 5:00 P.M. Of these 994 employees, 400 are attributable to one employer, Arthur G. McKee and Company. The McKee Corporation has recently changed their working hours so that scheduled departures are at 4:30 P.M., rather than at 5:00 p.m. This change was in effect as of March. 1, 1979. As a result of this action on the part of the McKee Corporation, considerable traffic relief has been realized during the 5:00-5:15 time period, improving the level of traffic service from an "F" (forced flow) to an "E" level. If some additional employees would agree to shift their departure times to the 4:45 or 5:15 periods, traffic back-ups would be almost nonexistent. It is estimated that a shift of about 300. employees to these departure times, rather than at 5:00 P.M., would accomplish this purpose. Exhibit 10 illustrates graphically the estimated hourly flow rates during peak periods if such staggering were to be accomplished. Table 3 further documents the departure times (1) for employees prior to March 1979, (2) after the McKee change of hours, and (3) after the switch of an additional 300 employees to 4:45 or 5:15 time period. Under these conditions the traffic service would always be within a "D" level. 17 Table 3 Summary of Staggered Work Hours Employee Departure Time Feb. 1979 March 1979 After additional staggering 4:30 P.M. 4:45 P.M. 5:00 P.M. 5:15 P.M. 5:30 P.M. Total: 323 187 994 -0- 98 1,602 723 187 594 -0- 98 1,602 723 337 294 150 98 1,602 18 An additional mitigation measure that has been suggested is a traffic signal at the intersection of Campus Drive and the entrance to Borel's Restaurant. Such a signal would not really increase the capacity on campus Drive. It would result in the metering of traffic approaching the Campus/Hillsdale intersection perhaps resulting in a more orderly flow at this location. However, with the implementa- tion of Mitigation 2 and additional staggered work hours, such a signal would be of limited value. Another traffic management measure that is currently under investigation is the RIDES program. This is a program that assists employees to form van pools that will result in a decrease in the number of vehicles in the area during peak periods. It has been estimated by City staff that the provision for four van pools would provide the desired mitigating effect. This has been a staff recommendation that has been agreed to by the applicant. 19 Compact Car Survey The final field investigation was a survey of the percentage of compact cars in relation to the total number of parked cars. This survey was again conducted over a two-day period between 2 and 3 P.M. Full—size and compact vehicles were counted for all seven office buildings. The results of this survey are shown in Table 4, indicating an over-all average of 43 percent compact cars. A compact car, as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency, is a vehicle that has less than 110 cubic feet of passenger and luggage space. Naturally, in a survey of this type, this standard had to be estimated by a field observer. However, the surveyor was instructed to consider any marginal -sized car as as full-sized vehicle. 1 20 1 1 Table 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Compact Car Survey Address (Campus Drive) Total Vehicles Compact Cars Percentage 2888 134 60 44% 2855 172 94 54 2800 128 39 30 2755 165 75 45 2700 187 52 28 2655 93 42 45 2600 145 78 54 TOTAL 1,024 440 43% 21 List of Exhibits 1. Area Map 2. Traffic Volumes Hillsdale Boulevard - A.M. Peak Hour 3. Traffic Volumes - Hillsdale Boulevard - P.M. Peak Hour 4. Campus/Hillsdale Intersection - A.M. Peak Volumes with POP & Incremental Traffic 5. Hillsdale/Highway 92 - A.M. Peak Volumes with POP & Incremental Traffic 6. Campus/Hillsdale Intersection - P.M. Peak Volumes with POP & Incremental Traffic 7. Hillsdale/Highway 92 - P.M. Peak Volumes with POP & Incremental Traffic 8. Capacities: Existing Conditions 9. Capacities: With Mitigation Number 2 10. Peak Flow Rates, After Additional Staggered work Hours asaysum R F- I M. r• / to r ED um IMO .�`��,► Vii . -4. r IMO 112 . on us " tl�_ti1;ii Na ,P0 2O 0 30' GO' a `i0 ' 201 0 E-- 93O 4- aS 6 - 00 Li ?0 -� .5'G 4 ?30-'' "? "a —'' 6°i 120 20' IQ' 10 2 I l0°` 102 10 a '201 4- 900 110 --3 10' IG� -Tr aCS( C H. M. pea 1' 000 Ex, s{�h� (') (,,i;, oo+ poP )00`/ hd aI) oftjer dev )q,v)2vU 00 a M-111111 ON GM NM l-- — NI ON I N A MN I V On 102 701 E- 610 soo -. 30' N2 ►02 .301 5b0 102 20' U U 102 20 <- 5 c 10 o� 690 -> 3a ?0' 301 301 7ga- 2o' 302 CG fr(y$ s �_ e 201 x--260 G20- 2pr 302- WSv� 1Ot iY & .CS (' c V U 1(4 n1 £ Ies`t HL 1(.s k 1e 8 )v l p .p a P 100 f Occ+.ito? n e j ahci 9H 'Lis,'r lopmPy (L 0 C) p0, f � lel t) (4 G1 V U I r t Nn 11. 8111 11111 1111 NM 1111 SI on no no no no UM S ON M 1 1 1 C20) '2Cb0 NO • • 0 a S a. V 0 0 CO (2o E30 ' r75`0 9CC) (Ho) 9' O — 1 1 t 1 220 Bivc 230. EXHIBIT 4 Campus —Hillsdale Intersection 7:30— 8:30 AM 000 Existing Traffic (oon) P.0.1). 8 Incremental Traffic S MO MI MO E OM W M M MI N OM MO OM In MR OM OM WM C io ) ( r0) (to\ 0 ti L ♦ o , 6 (2 o) oteo (2o) 9 a (80) 0 11j, k (Is cl� Ie (3 Ivd 9so (ri o (, p 04 EXHIBIT 5 Hillsdale -Highway 92 Interchange 7:30-8:304 M oOp (o co) Existing Traffic POR8 Incremental Traffic 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V CI CG as ( o) C/o) 19$-0 SS'1 5-9 (2o) a 0 '7 10 0J C !-l‘ II le Blvd 920 (-30' EXHIBIT 6 Campus -Hillsdale Intersection 4:30- 5:30 PM 000 Existing Traffic (000) P.O.P. 8 Incremental Traffic 11 r— — ME MN r r MI M OM MN— r— r r MUM NM IIIIII +C' n° EXHIBIT 7 Hillsdale -Highway 92 Interchange 4:30-5:30 PM (20) 000 Existing Traffic (o 0 o) P.O.P. 8 Incremental Traffic rr r EN r r-- i r MI all r! M MN NM INN V(�ROYe `t ty Cr( ct �✓ Lprrett Ti ,+�``Q �Ilocb'€ f0h %1C ? tto Ck ' f wy1Lt 1.t'f*;v4,, 1So0 v4 h/hr ( ?LIZ 36,0 Vet) / 3 � 1 dr1e E?•ct 60 ,,c1 i RrardLtep1 Crprt+ � j y000 V`k /c," �r�e�, 7t�,♦ I�Ii 4 [uh I1 % fAc{ki) v i.1 Crriz-f y SG0 VPI'llhr C _cl I tleOrri 10e ,fnrrrh L. rpt.cr1� (iacz in, ko"r 1 L I is G WO AI - 6 °/0 (20 vg-Lliv exkLioct Xz - by Cn ditLOPIS I M = 1 r n 1 r r O M M E r 1 , j O S 5 - 1 - R o , w L n r ��r c �� M i ( i G 4 t G h A c 4 . 4 1 T l P o . , 1 9 C r p , : c s - 4 . 7 3 6 0 V e t r i ) r a r ) 0 0 v ����, / ��W E 2 , 6 ( 0 - 1 0 i 1 ��. 1 . 1 s d t . l e E l I [ c o r P ����c s �� C r . ��T c i l e y " q 0 6 . 0 V e / r F ����, - r L m G 4 M I o c t - 4 t i c H o t i v C r N - 1 - 1 L I S - 6 0 V e l , A v " t o o , d , a �� E y i n A L 5 " 7 r r ' L ��i e r i . A c t t i r l P h C r p r c r ��t �� I A 0 r ) c l o t . C I A , l l I C G ( v c i 1 0 0 0 V P / 1 h h 1 7 2 / 7 2 0 v e t , 1 1 , r j - I f i n c r e r S e r C r p 1 4 e j j - 1 0 0 V c - % ) 1 r P O P f f h c v e a s e d t i c ) v e g h r C P 1 1 P e t I l i E ! — — — — — — — NE i NM In ON Critical Approach Volume 2,000 1,900 1,800 1,700 1,600 1,500 1,400 1,300 1,200 1,100 1,000 4•;. 1 Jar nips Peak Flow Rates After Additional Staggered Hours 8:00 8:30 TOTAL Volume D Level of Servi Volume after additional staggered hours 300 employees or 210�cars 9:00am Time of Day 4 00pm 4:30 5:00 Exhibit 10 5:30 6:00pm 8-10 r APPENDIX MI 11011 EN mi Ma IIMI MINI 1111 MO M IMO IIMI MO N MN NM MB EMI MIN At Jevel of service A, there are no loaded cycles (i.e., the load factor is 0.0) and few are -even close to loaded. No approach phase is fully util- ized by traffic and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. Load Factor Level of service B represents stable operation, with a load factor of not over 0.1; an occasional approach phase is fully utilized and a substantial number are approaching full use. In level of service C stable operation continues. Loading is still intermittent, but more frequent with the load factor ranging from 0.1 to 0.3. Cc- cassionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red signal indication. Level of service 0 encompasses a .zone of increasing restriction approaching instability in the limit when the load factor reaches 0.70. Delays to ap- proaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks within the peak period, but enough cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clear- ance of developing queues, thus preventing exces- sive back-ups. Capacity occurs at level of service E. It repre- sents -the most vehicles that any particular inter- section approach can accommodate. Although theor- etically a load factor of 1.0 would represent ca- pacity, in practice full utilization of every cycle is seldom attained, no matter how great the demand, unless the street is highly friction -free. A load factor range of 0.7 to 1.0 is more realistic. At capacity there may be long queues of vehicles waiting up -stream of the intersection and delays may be great (up to several signal cycles). Level of service F represents jammed conditions. 2/ Measure of degree of utilization of an intersection approach roadway during one hour of peak traffic flow. 1/ Source: HRB Special Report 87. Highway Capacity M �"1 t: d 1965 I Mckee 1 wKe 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T X 910-374-9M. 11X 34.9'3N, CMLE:'7.ECO NOTICE February 8, 1979 TO: ALL EMPLOYEES The Peninsula Office Park had a study made of the traffic flow and requested our cooperation in changing our working hours so as to help relieve the traffic congestion at the beginning and end of the work day. Based on this request, coupled with similar requests from many of our people, we have decided to change our working hours effective March 1, 1979. The new hours are: 7:45 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. Lunch will be the same as before: 11:45 A.M. to 12:30 P.M. '. 'ESTERN KNAPP ENGINEER!NC • A .:,)!V15ON OF .APT1 UR v v4 KEE & COMPANY Time Period 7:30- /3;30 ANl INTERSEG CION CAPACITY • Conditions Ex, s +, +..ks -two Weyi No R.,pft"5 Work Sheet — 111011 •1 w NM NM MN e me i Min III M i Date 19/1).ht LOCATION 4(.14 d r'e (31, d a. Fr -pc wr,) R-&., - r-. t Made by R ti Approach Name -- Direction Phase Phase Diagram and Volumes • Critical Volume Width Adjust- ments Basic Capacity Adjusted Capacity Vol. Cap. N,. 11 s cue I e 1311 , tt E--- 930 930 3a' , I.S° d5-00 3750 0. 2? FreeM.f, OS Rip t„ H411sdr1e Al',d w.3. 3k 0 coS �i 650 (4c1) I� -- iadU lao0 __--(a._SI) 0,(-I . --. ---- -... - Load Factor 0.7 0) 0.e`; ADJUSTMENTS: P.n. F., Pop. 1.05 Q 0Z . NOTES: RL5 't Tie' v.. Amber 0.10 (.9+ Tu►►,$) 307o Peak Hour Factor Utilization O. 06>Area Coi-gti)_ Factor I. a Population 75-0)000 T..un4 1.'grtnr 1 /) 0 r - • Bus Factor /, 0 0 Local Factor 1. d 0 J. D. 1)I; . 'IIt1AN ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 111111t 1111. 1110111 NIS MI II= NM MI NM NIPS 11.1 MI Pill IIIIII In Time Period 7, U_ g:30 A INTER SECTION CAPACITY Work Sheet N1. ((s C1r (e j31 vcl a Conditions Fite( tis I k,M WCv j 90 ??v 1'i' `, LOCATION Approach Name — Direction Phase Phase Diagram and Volumes i4,0( litre f3iV Left Ttir., Oh i Frec.wry Critical 1Width Date Ion/Q /r)fi Made by Pc-w,tS -West 07 Fr ee 4.0r Volume ?Y� id Adjust- ments 1 /0 R N� fins c Capacity Joaa Adjusted Capacity to, 00 Vol. Cap. a, a y .1-1w1 -T9Z 4" ocS- Ica zi no t ►saa 0,!7 N� lli cirl a 13lvci FesiyuoNLI 14rovs4 C 470 --'1 yao CD a sso Coto o.tt Ilsdr(e tI" ba..,d 71h.•45 A t E-- X90 aa' I� r� ,V,10 b(90 a,2) �• �. Load Factor 0.9o(o) Peak Hour Factor ats Population '?SU pap ADJUSTMENTS: P. H. F.. Pop. Area Factor Truck Factor h0 Bus Factor /, DO Local Factor 1, 00 0 NOTES: OZd R'9t't `i L.4t Tc,rkS .% 990 -- .a11(9ro) [kres Ott COhLYD) co Amber 6.9 Utilization a? 0 J. D. DRACHMAE ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS M M M N 11111 MN M MB MN MI N 11101 8111 NM NM lie INTERSECTION CAPACITY Work Sheet T wv W tJy IIr I y � �� LOCATION � L (i c� r �e � v d Cam �u c Time Period 7;30 - Conditions kX414(•,� - POP rG Date Ia1re 1-)s Made by f3I Approach Name — Direction Phase Phase Diagram and Volumes Critical Volume Width Adjust- menta Basic Capacity Adjusted Capacity Vol. Cap. o,D 9 11,IIsdrle aIv d Wert 6044 c( i ttroN 5 I) :I' 'C__ ��0 �^ 75O ?o,, ^--, 8 7 0 ? It ' 0 1.96 9 D o o .??30 PLiisdaVe 11,Iv czst 610,j610,j-rti.��stio<<�t �3 450 860 X 60 aai — 1�YG lq�o 0.3 Czvv, S , pi Drive SO4 -ti'+ hO4..d 110 to L U© S 0'�3I I.g, 11S-0 11,40 0,03 Load Factor O,') o ( D ADJUSTMENTS: P. H. F., Pop. 1, ,i . 0 0% �1 Asst.., �'J NOTES: tyrhS `c 6 k Amber 0, (a tnes{ 14,$) Is* r'0t Spy go on A- t 4 Re �f Ito, v/� L�� 5 Peak Hour Factor 11,91 Utilization r f�, 6 7 Area Factor 1, aC Population 7so 000 Truck Factor 1. 00 T Bus Factor 1 00 Local Factor ► • 0 b T. D. DRACHMA ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 11,11111 NM NW NM OM MI NM NW NM M IMO NM MNM all IIIIM M gm Time Period r7:30- '3O ,411 INTERSECTION CAPACITY Date 1 a/rY%7 Conditions Eyt s ti Pa A Work Sheet T+,.a r)o (err Made by pH LOCATION tic 11i dire B?I» 4 ►FYepwL l Rrov - FM -6 ° Frr#-may Approach Name — Direction Phase Diagram and Volumes Critical Volume Width Adjust- Basic Adjusted manta Capacity Capacity N%1(s6(p 131„ In ro 54 j=ve wty O Pry., b +0 I-ki(s drlp 41i,d W.b. SCA—� 650 520 65O (Roo) 3a' ?so a5oo 37sa )20 , a.a Vol. Cap. 0,73 o,s-y Load Factor 0,')0 I' Peak Hour Factor 0, 1/ Population '75O; do o ADJUSTMENTS: P. H. F.,Pop. by, Area Factor I. 9 r Truck Factor /, 00 Bus Factor /, Ua Local Factor /, 00 NOTES: C Oaf' L•St 7a►,,s:3o%, 4,i51,t1446 ,64 Amber o Utilization 0.07 (Les') J. D. DRACHMAN ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS N M O N I L g i l t - - - M M I O M O M a m s p o t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I U M W I T i m e P e r i o d 7 : 3 0 - e : 3 0 A M I N T E R S E C T I O N C A P A C I T Y D a t e i ? f i o C o n d i t i o n s E x , c i t , + P O P 8 W o r k S h e e t I 'o W A , N v P A v r l h S M a d e b y I R L O C A T I O N 4 L t k 0 1 1 - l e F r r r 4 . r , R T �% r �� - W e S t o ' F v r r i v t , R . v : P I P t I ' ��y A p p r o a c h N a m e P h a s e D i r e c t i o n P h a s e D i a g r a m a n d V o l u m e d C r i t i c a l W i d t h V o l u m e A d j u s t - m e n t s B a s i c C a p a c i t y A d j u s t e d C a p a c i t y . h I t s d r l e B l v d L , c l i * r t L i I o , r r " ' p a s o a S G 1 0 , / 0 0 0 / 0 0 0 V o l . C a p . 4 . . 1 1 9 D ��- t " c o b , o 5 - 1 3 3 3 0 / C " O G 1 o , a a , r i d i s ( r I e 1 I v 6 L = a s ���%��o . e d T I , 0 $ , t ) C - 1 3 0 1 1 3 6 I 1 1 0 1 0 0 , ! t S t , t i c c a r t e l ! , v d 9 7 u 1 g 0 0 a e . 3 0 L o a d F a c t o r 0 . 9 0 ( b ) P e a k H o u r F a c t o r a f s - P o p u l a t i o n t 7 S o y 0 0 e A D J U S T M E N T S : N O T E S : P . H . F . , P o p . / , U % A r e a F a c t o r / , a C 4 . T r u c k F a c t o r / , d 0 1 1 9 0 _ . 9 C ( 9 9 0 ) - 7 ' 7 ( 4 � B u s F a c t o r L o a L o c a l F a c t o r 1 . O v D O . e S P . " t C a t i " t P � 1 A m b e r U t i l i z a t i o n a F r r n . 0 n A C H M A N A S S O C I A T E S T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O N S U L T A N T S 1.11 1111111 1111. 1111111 111111 111_ 1/11* MI MB MN MIR MIMI OM Time Period 7;30 :3d AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY Date. ►a/r.9he Conditions Fp f P P 8 Work Sheet wit l) fdic{c 5etiG+t fr C LOCATION Plitt kk tad a rw,y R AC 4'ecrt o rverwC) Approach Name — Direction Phase Phase Diagram and Volumes Critical Volume Width Made h} R.M Rev : O jib /r%9 Adjust - mente 1.j,, 11sar to B1,. d 1„•e5 -t A 1 aso as° 21' !basic Adjusted Vol. Capacity Capacity Cap. 000 p9oC 0,13 Few y 9� cG 7MrT OSS Rt..,e N,t1ccicle g1. d E t.st 4)0y 61d 74,04454 330 330 10 14, liscl&le thin A� kSt /e 9diticf 11,-045 030 ---� 430 1I ` . /re," Isoo O. Pa - 0 a S C-0 a, I IS Load Factor C, riO (0) Peak Hour Factor 0,81; Population 5-0,0 ADJUSTMENTS: P. H. F., Pop. 5. 0 Area Factor Truck Factor L, d o Bus Factor 1,0d Local Factor /#00 Q NOTES: o% Le t 1. R`5�t 7ur+L 490 — (, t3) 990 _ r�o OZ Le4f• p,,,1,11-- T u r h‘ Dol-s h a16 co*► -f o i Amber o. 13 Utilization I, O_ J. D. URJ ('HMAN ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS UN -- NM I R OEN 111111 M M Milli fint 11111111 1110 ' M NM M GNI Time Period _T so qM INTERSECTION CAPACITY Darr ( /// Conditions Exi.s ,; p P ' � Work Sheet Made by 1 MLitt') Mi,-bi,�t:t4•oh z: 2 LOCATION PLUS ((S L"t•(e ivC (1.'hp - 64/e.t- OE• rrfe.wc, Rev: a /a6/ �y Approach Name — Direction Phase Diagram and Volumes Critical Width Adjust - Basic Volume ments Capaclt'.• }l,lItdo(e gIvd TN P is oh Rasp Nw7 9a c, e St 7M yh ofr 9S0 A a r0 /0 /a400 Adj.!sted Vol. Capacity Cap. /UU<J al 7C" 330 33o Pico aloo A,Iisdcte Rlvd 1/eCLb?rr, -UNS �-- — 1'9 o cd rwa� 2? ' (•sr) /000 9 eao Loati Factor 0,70 ( \ Peak flour Factor eJ►$ Population -)S-0)000 ADJUSTMENTS: NOTES: P. H.F.,Pop. 0 GfU Lt3f t d Ri.S1f �e Area Factor 0 990 — ,as(99o) = 7Mo Truck Factor Bus Factor Local Factor h S Amber 0.1 Utilization J. D. i)RAcitmAN ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATJoN CONSULTANTS -- -- I. I — NM I MI WA MI len ail NM MN Time Period 7'30- (5":30 R M INTERSECTION CAPACITY Date 1 /t9 (-)Y Conditions f POP Work Sheet 'lade by. , -L1, - 4 Q LOCATION 1_1_c I kk(Ic-/e tj1vc1 ct, F•,/ Pr‘IC _lt/ aF Fre'cwr" Approach Name — Direction Phase Diagram and Volumes Critical Volume Width Adjuei- ments 4 1Jcde to P)vo l.cY 7vP►, O., Ram 3wy 9? t &`tug., C C. c 2 O asa a Rev: 2/a6 / Basic Adjusted Vol. Capacity Capacity Cap. 70 0 0 ?ef0 0 o, 13 330 Pt6U 9.40 O. IS' - H l lS cl a l e l,B I + be d 710 c10 0,50 Load Factor Peak Hour Factor Population ADJUSTMEN P. H. F.. Pop. Area Factor TS: GD 0440 1..e --t 1 R1/21-,1 Tie v u NOTES: Truck Factor Bus Factor Local Factor 91d_ ,i )(34'v �y0 Amber O. id - Utilization J. 1). DRACHMA ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS all ..:—..._—_--Nit/ 111111 S EN 111111 1111 111111 1.111 111111 1 I inn Time Period 1,30- :.3O PF'1 Conditions ) 1J� Pt• r1 5 LOCATION INTERSECTION CAPACITY Work Sheet NI. Us. Ar_ fe (311/c1 Q vt'v e Approach Name — Phase Direction Phase Diagram and Volumes Critical Volume Width Date Made t'//D !') E by RM Adjust- ments 004 title tNly'1 rHo —40 'gyro (13;) `p Basic I Adjusted Capacity Capacity aoo0 Vol. Cap. 3ayo o,2 HLlls (e blvd LQ4t rtu.h -to Cry pvj CrmpH S 1 rlv I 'WO no JL 28 , N as 700 0110 ;leo 1?B0 O,ty toidio g 3 ,.GP )9 E0 140 o.08 Agmaaal• 011•11..a. Load Factor 0.7 0 (o Peak Hour Factor 0.2; Population 7S0 000 ADJUSTMENTS: P. H. F. , Pop. Area Factor 1.1a Truck Factor 1.00 Bus Factor 1, 0 0 Local Factor 1, p 0 NOTES: o'/, 7te r r, s It I, ' I i, '-)0 o = app r 0.0 ti Amber Utilization .i. n. 1►ItACW'IAN ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS se. r ai -NO -iat 11x1 -III on as -,r on no sup la O UM SO + m a• Time Period 'f :3°- 5' No INTERSECTION' CAPACITY Date Conditions Exi.st Work Sheet Made by. Pu wo e' r IO pr" 11.""y LOCATION 0,1k cIzIe Blvc1 Frrrwr) PzMrc. - trst Approach Name -- Phase Direction Phase Diagram and Volumes Critical Volume T Width Adjust- Basic ments Capacity 4Jkscir�e ��d T1•lre ti A da co 3a ),5-06 asap Adjusted Vol. Capacity Cap. 3r)sc 0,33 FreewT, 054 PwAlp to Fa,.t(sdt1e 11).8 w.r� Rdo 00 Load Factor 0,',0(D 1 Peak flour Factor O, °,'M Population 11 5-0,0.0(i ADJUSTMENTS: P. N. F., Pop. 1. G q Area Factor I.a Truck Factor 1. 0 o Bus Factor 1• o a Local Factor 1.00 NOTES: i Amber olr Locit T4v.,$) lo7 flia�i�'i4� 0, IC) . Utilization o. C` ; J. D. 1RACFTMAN ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 1,10 -111111 - 111111 MIN IND MN UPI ANN MN -NO IMMI 111. MN MN NM MIN NM AIN INTERSECTION CAPACITY Date 17) /r Time Period N;3°- P Conditions Ext s 41,5 Work Sheet LOCATION 1/ s d r Ie B) cl d Fr EeLv-t) R - GJ4%4 Q rr Frw^) Approach Name — Phase Direction Phase Diagram and Volumes Critical Volume Width Made by 1RM Adjust- 1-0isdrle PIvcl L_.E,S t Tub h O h N, Hs at• L + r rh C.)c• A 10 ments Basic Adjusted Capacity Capacity !000 too0 Vol. Cap. Q 380 (goo) 1500 / coo 0, 19 o, lc N,11sdafo 13Iv8 Crs4 ac.1 ro�j C t 56U Sal 1.5-7 csb 1 Load Factor 0,')0(4) Peak Hour Factor 0, Population 75-0 000 ADJUSTMENTS: P. H. F. , Pop. 1. 1 Area Factor Truck Factor 1.0 Bus Factor 1,0 0 Local Factor 1.0 0 NOTES: 0% L S4 d R1SL t l L.1.• Amber Utilization x.16 .1 . D. l)f;At.ta. "Tm(CIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS - .1111- MI • 11111111— OM UM MI OM 11111 MI 111111 Time Period q; s o INTERSECTION CAPACITY Date 1a//b("6. Conditions ky�•ttvi5 + PoP 8 Work Sheet Made by RM -rain GZrt� Nq f4vr LOCATION fitf/c I31vd ¢ C pcft D Rev : a/P /P7 Approach Name — Direction Phase Phase Diagram and Volumes Critical Width Adjust- Basic Volume ments Capacity Adjusted Capacity I►t ll cli.i' 71) v d T h v a.v 1) its dtfe Blvd 1.e 'Nth :6 Ct., i+3►.; C?...+1pict br€ve ho '(0 --� Soo Vol. Cap. a Y i, GD d as a a yG of a 036) 00 sat (3ia) I? 00 c gao a31 ty&� 1jC0 3(CQ Load Factor d, "gib Peak Hour Factor 0, Population 7 9)) a Da ADJUSTMENTS: d P. H. F. , Pop. 1, l of Area Factor a Truck Factor (, DO Bus Factor /, a O Local Factor /, 00 NOTES: o7, tr4t Rt5Vt T4I 3160 0.10 Amber Utilization O. 5'9 ,T. O. I)itACEfMAti ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS R MIN AIM IMO IIIIII SIN IIIIIII INS MINI NO NM 1111111 MI MID SIN MI Time Period q:10-s;3i Pr"! INTERSECTION CAPACITY Oa Le Conditions FK<<-{ ( t Po P Work Sheet Made i;Y _Let_ 7wu _Cary r tilo LOCATION i lkrI ( d F f�T� S- 17 --Mt ups �'t-�rwr 7 �Iv 4 rrr�v�`1 �' y Rev : a %;6 � Approach Name — Phase Direction Phase Diagram and Volumes Critical Volume Width Adjust- menta Capacity Wilsct e 131�c� `rhrow5t) 13,0 3a ' i, s p, TO0 Adjusted Capacity 3,0 Vol. Cap. 61.36 rreetory GS rr RrM a '+o Utlisc ktvd w . <-1lyo r NOM Poo 000 a� �a Load Factor. D,70 (v) Peak Hour Factor G,V1 Population -)S--6j 0 U 0 ADJUSTMENTS: P. H. i•'. , Pop. 1.0 , Area Factor Truck Factor Bus Factor 1 0� I. U D Local Factor OU NOTES: D 04 teS4 T4.» S 30Z R,S4t Amber 0,(0 Utilization S 9 J. U. l)RA(.'HMA' ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS -a -N -' .1111 — -WO OS -N -In — -- -111111 US MN MN — Time Period 3o-Sk-; o pr/ INTERSECTION CAPACITY Conditions Ex s c by t Pa P 8 Work Sheet LOCATION RE IIS r/ 1e [?Iva + Frreq..,e, Rasp s -West rrerGo +Jaw r.a/1e/7t Made by R M R4,.: 2/ 'Cr-if Approach Name — Direction Phase Diagram and Volumes Critical Volume Width Adjust - ments iia.5 i c Capacity I(Sdzle 13 iv ct T 4,,.., 0v) G9a 690 10' /G00 Adjusted Vol. Capacity Cain. NL IIsdOe Blvd L 4+ -7urti 0C-Cr 3 9'0 90 1s 0� !coo 0.9 6 1�1�I(s4Ie/ Boyd Frst bUM h b I rO C S6 0 O ls? C�a 110/0 0.ry Load Factor 0,00 C OJ i Peak !lour Factor 0, Population 7 SO ova ADJUSTMENTS: P. H. F., Pop. ,12 Area Factor , C Truck Factor L 0 Bus Factor , a d Local Factor , 0 U NOTES: I Amber 0 O7 1.e 4t 4 Rc,t,t Tw o.is Utilization J. U. DR ('HMAN ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS -i -- .— OM I NM -r s MINI -- -- NIS OM — -- M 111111 Time Period 1-{;30- 5-;3O PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY Date Idfict f)t Conditions Pps-t-,,,5 +POP a 6 Work Sheet M).4tgc 1ah ti I LOCATION u. (I clete t31L G Fw,, (rw,p DC- Frecwcy Approach Name — Direction Phase Phase Diagram and Volumes Critical Volume Width Adjust ments Made by Q,v; 2/'I y Basic Capacity tti t selc to t3t... Lect 7t.r►, G) 690 6 go x000 Adjusted Vol. Capacity Cap. .3at H ((Scit-lc. Btvtt LeCt 7ao-h GCS t-1t(tsdi,(e i3kk,d r. 1.4Gu h►ui,5 14c, IRsdefe mv( je LaorAcc t& o.,5 C A 3 90 too 90 SAO /t/a /Coo / DO o 3a' 2 nso w/o 1t - ),c-2 9cU IKgO ,g)•6 0, CI a o, Load Factor 0,D0 (0) Peak Hour Factor d. {, Population 7 c01000 ADJUSTMENTS: P. H.F.,Pop. /,1; Area Factor Truck Factor 1, 0 Bus Factor /10 o Local Factor VO6 NOTES: !i Tug �S %I Ca Lust t- alp — ,36 a��� = lyo 0690 Le t 4 R,yLt 7-141'445 Dols h CO ktv01 Amber Utilization 0,66 7. t`,. DR IIMAN ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS -1111111111,0.111111-11111111-11111111..:.—. --U1111 — _ 111111_ `..-- - -- —mor — E on um se a Approach Name — Direction Time Period Lt;3o-S"30 P'I INTERSECTION CAPACITY conditions -I PoP Work Sheet LOCATION i i <<S (lc % 131„(4 fq.h Peojr.s - 01eSt o<- rieewe" Date lall/ `-)0 Made by R M Rev . P/P4/1f Phase Diagram and Volumes Critical Volume Width Adjust - ments 1.1i, 11O1e fe 6 Bi, 1. 4+ Tt•r.i A - c9a 90 /0 Basic Capacity (000 Adjusted Capacity / 060 Vol. Cap. N1kd�(e Bf r 6 Tun O N, its do l a I?/»C Ft -Si- b o w 1.4 390 L 3 90 9q 2160 t 60 0,18 szo 5'6 t% 0 3d' 1.$) °. / 1 Load Factor Ond__ 6) ) Peak Hour Factor 044 Population -70/0$0 ADJUSTMENTS: P. H. F. , Pop. 1.1 Area Factor ).> r Truck Factor I, D 0 Bus Factor 1.0 0 Local Factor /. Oa NOTES: L. TN.kS © O% teS Amber O, t"). Utilization f,l3 .1. I). !MAC HM.% ASSOCIATT TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Time Period r -•--MI r11M1 NIS — r r- r! In ell I• MN UM IN OMB 11111 SU Pr -I INTERSECTION CAPACITY Date OM he Conditions EY4t'Eah.5 -i Po �' f Work Sheet frit t.1 .24t 1.&1•1 l a LOCATION Made b,; (� M Fit (IC de ( Blvd) R1`" -6eeSt aS Free ? Rev : ?/dGl? Approach Name — Direction Phase Diagram and Volumes Critical Volume Width Adjust - Basic Adjusted manta Capacity Capacity Cap. ar' ' ^ 2pod c)006 O.3't Nt,lts cirle RI,. L.. e &± `i' r h Oil 6 70 Vol . 1-41(6 dr t' j31v 390 a u' a (6U -pro oie 141.1 d- 131v4 L cst ow1,d 1.5) acs() rioo Load Factor ____ D ) Peak Hour Factor 04 Population 7 so oo ADJUSTMENTS: P. H. F., Pop. I.L Area Factor L a C Truck Factor lie 0 Bus Factor J, 0 0 Local Factor I. Po NOTES: OGid t"e4t, ► Ptsilt Taal, Amber Utilization J. 1). 1)RAC11MA;s: ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 1988 TRAFFIC COUNTS IN THE CITY OF SAN MATEO By TJKM Transportation Consultants 4637 Chabot Drive. Suite 214 Pleasanton, California 94566 (415) 463-0611 June 1988 rhm 005-0328.1 SW 6 r. o ira d. W •CCs a ie B C va. 6 5hvpf2 i r c cy if( C (a 1 Q e /fc:( r� 1 rNI RI a T es Q Iv( Shoe? Ce.L.,A.ef if R • a I Et' JP— R� �f73Ji/c.c..etc j= 1r(2it- fr7el.S rs670d avd. I �✓ l t.:C. 1 ft c9 ;i lurk" (ahe nLj r J 1.- k- Ts (0 d "- $()_0- CP, (c"c,e- 6.1 f 4-`+..1( tc) r; 0('6( s&(/c e(/( - —17 C.. 3 IS p/ . /it 'GCsd e ti .eA d. CCU (0 -re( J 6 (.c (r.). i-r �(=r te- c' f<Jc ft '16/Ns 61J i /-f (•C(dL2i& r3 i r ri (c.7 ✓•O GU. /r.� •. / i O etc 66, STUDY INTERSECTIONS 17. Alameda De Las Pulgas at Parrott Drive 18. Alameda De Las Pulgas at Barneson Avenue 19. Alameda De Las Pulgas at 20th Avenue 20. Alameda De Las Pulgas at 31st Avenue 21. Alameda Dc Las Pulgas at West Hillsdale Boulevard 28. North Delaware Street/Dwight Road at Peninsula Avenue 29. North Delaware Street Poplar Avenue 52. Hillsdale Boulevard at Glendora Drive 54. Hillsdale Boulevard at Clearview Way TJKM INTERSECTION VOLUME LISTING 6/9/88 CONDITION : A.M. PEAK HOUR - EXISTING FILE 5-032 SOUTH BOUND WEST BOUND NORTH BOUND EAST BOUND INT RIGHT THRU LEFT RIGHT THRU LEFT RIGHT THRU LEFT RIGHT THRU LEFT 17 46 312 4 3 22 77 83 271 9 18 47 76 18 7 632 37 118 25 164 201 583 51 134 37 43 19 222 444 317 143 35 39 94 752 55 8 2 34 20 99 190 32 32 199 20 29 439 29 47 98 61 21 35 161 76 83 189 84 84 326 119 65 166 71 28 5 98 48 61 502 62 155 74 65 72 576 7 29 58 151 115 106 334 88 32 288 68 39 346 11C 52 32 5 10 30 492 48 99 16 214 33 230 65 54 2 0 22 317 1102 41 183 26 5 1 166 3 INTERSECTION: 52 GLENDORA DR. and HILLSDALE BL. SAN MATEO COUNT DATE: 5/17/88 TIME: 7:30-9:30 AM ****:******** CUMULATIVE COUNTS *************** CUMULATIVE COUNTS ***********:* END SB W8 NB ----- ED LINE TIME RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT TOTALS 7:45 8 2 1 9 100 4 20 5 58 10 60 18 306 8: 0 18 2 4 15 259 17 60 13 113 17 120 35 673 5:15 25 5 9 23 386 40 79 15 156 25 170 46 979 0:30 32 5 10 30 492 40 99 16 214 33 230 65 1274 0:45 37 8 15 34 582 56 106 22 246 45 277 79 1507 9: 0 47 12 13 37 654 60 114 27 290 56 341 91 1777 9:15 56 14 22 39 740 63 119 29 313 69 380 107 1951 9:30 66 10 24 44 013 74 129 36 330 74 428 120 2164 ****::►********:* PERIOD COUNTS :******************* PERIOD COUNTS ************** END S8 --- WB ----- NB ----- ED ----- LINE TIME RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT TOTALS 7:45 0 2 1 9 100 4 20 0 58 10 60 18 306 8: 0 10 0 3 6 151 13 40 5 55 7 60 17 367 0:15 7 3 5 0 127 23 19 2 43 E 50 11 306 8:30 7 0 1 7 106 8 20 1 50 0 60 19 2`a5 0:45 5 3 5 4 90 0 7 6 32 12 47 14 233 9: 0 10 4 3 3 102 4 0 5 44 11 64 12 270 9:15 9 2 4 2 56 3 5 2 23 13 39 It 174 9:30 10 4 2 5 73 11 10 7 25 5 40 13 213 :k{*.*.*:4:****:* * *:4 *: HOUR COUNTS a:**:a:*:***:******:*:**:*:* a *: HOUR COUNTS **:*****:E**:*4. t * BEGIN ----- SB WB ---- ----- NB - .-...— ED ----- LINE TIME RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT TOTALS 7:30 32 5 10 30 492 48 99 16 214 33 230 65 1274 7:45 29 6 14 25 474 52 06 14 100 35 217 61 1201 8: 0 29 10 14 22 425 43 54 14 177 39 221 56 1104 0:15 31 9 13 16 354 23 40 14 157 44 210 61 972 0:30 34 13 14 14 321 26 30 20 124 41 198 55 890 PEAK HOUR PERIOD: 7:30 TO 0:30 VOL= 1274 PEAK 15 MIN PERIOD: 7:45 TO 5: 0 VOL: 367 INTERSECTION: 29 N.DELAWARE ST and POPLAR AVE. SAN MATEO COUNT DATE: 05/10/88 TIME: 7:00-9:00 AM ****f*::c*****: CUMULATIVE COUNTS *****:********** CUMULATIVE COUNTS 4*********:+#: END SB WB NB EB LINE TIME RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT TOTALS 7:15 4 9 25 13 36 3 2 25 5 3 66 10 209 7:30 10 29 52 29 72 16 5 61 9 5 146 37 471 7:45 16 55 74 48 120 23 15 125 19 9 240 55 807 8: 0 31 87 112 74 176 47 21 184 37 22 331 76 1198 8:15 41 131 140 97 253 56 27 231 49 40 424 98 1587 8:30 54 170 166 115 337 70 34 275 64 51 519 119 1974 8:45 67 201 197 144 408 95 42 377 78 54 600 148 2411 9: 0 89 238 227 180 510 135 53 472 105 61 677 186 2933 **********:*:*:** PERIOD COUNTS ***********:******** PERIOD COUNTS **:************ END SB WB NB EB LINE TIME RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU. LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT TOTALS 7:15 4 9 25 13 36 3 2 25 5 3 66 18 209 7:30 6 20 27 16 36 13 3 36 4 2 80 19 262 7:45 6 26 22 19 48 7 10 64 10 4 102 18 336 8: 0 15 32 38 26 56 24 ti 59 18 1: 83 21 391 0:15 10 44 u LJ 77 9 6 47 12 12 93 22 529 8:30 13 39 26 18 04 14 7 44 15 11 95 21 587 8:45 13 31 31 29 71 25 8 102 14 3 81 29 437 9: 0 22 37 50 36 102 40 11 95 27 7 77 38 522 ***1****a"4“ HOUR COUNTS ***:**:4:4:f:**:*:;::I**:a:*t**: HOUR COUNTS 1:*f'!yt. 4 i is* BEGIN SB NB NB EB ----- LINE TIME RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT TOTALS 7: 0 51 07 112 74 176 47 21 184 37 ';',2 331 7b 1190 7:15 37 122 115 84 217 53 25 206 44 37 358 00 1570 7:30 44 141 114 ;t 265 54 29 214 55 46 373 82 1503 7:45 51 146 123 '+6 ?8C 72 27 252 5'? 45 352 93 1604 8: 0 58 151 115 106 334 80 32 288 68 39 346 110 1735 PEAK WIUR PERIOD: 0 TO 9: 0 VOL= 1735 PEAK 15 MIN PERIOD: 8:45 TO 9: 0 VOL= 522 INTERSECTION: 54 CLEARVIEW WY. and HILLSDALE EL. SAN MATEO COUNT DATE: 5/17/00 TIME: 7:30-•9:30 AM ************ CUMULATIVE COUNTS **:$***:********* CUMULATIVE COUNTS :#*********:#:# END SB WB NB CB ----- LINE TIME RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT TOTALS 7:45 0 0 3 47 187 9 52 5 0 1 45 I 350 8: 0 0 0 6 114 600 23 100 16 2 1 94 2 958 8:15 0 0 11 215 962 29 131 23 4 1 139 3 1510 0:30 2 0 22 317 1102 41 183 26 5 1 166 3 1860 8:45 2 0 29 392 1226 53 218 30 6 2 193 4 2155 9: 0 3 0 33 449 1440 61 248 30 7 4 243 5 2523 9:15 4 0 43 480 1636 71 266 32 8 4 346 5 2095 9:30 5 0 53 499 1891 Cl 288 32 9 4 421 6 3209 *•#*•*****•*****4 PERIOD COUNTS **v:**************:** PERIOD COUNTS *************4 END SB WE --- NB EE ----- LINE TIME RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT TOTALS 7:45 0 0 3 47 127 9 52 5 0 1 45 1 350 0: 0 0 0 3 67 413 14 48 11 2 0 49 1 608 0:15 0 0 101 362 6 31 7 2 0 45 1 560 8:30 2 0 11 102 140 12 52 3 1 0 27 0 350 2:45 0 0 7 75 124 12 35 4 1 1 27 1 207 9: 0 1 0 4 57 214 8 30 0 1 2 50 1 360 9:15 1 0 10 31 196 10 18 2 1 0 103 0 372 9:50 1 0 10 14 255 10 22 0 1 0 75 1 394 **;+*:4:.#*t:***.:t*t: HOUR COUNTS t:******:#*: ****:******:t. HOUR COUNTS *:.t:f•*4*tt*a}; 4** BEGIN SA WE ---- -- -- NG ----- ----- ER EB ----- LINE TIME RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT TOTALS 7:30 2 0 22 317 1102 41 103 26 5 1 166 '> 1068 7:45 2 0 26 345 1039 44 166 25 6 1 148 3 1805 0: 0 3 0 27 335 840 30 140 14 5 3 149 3 1565 x:15 4 0 32 265 674 42 135 9 4 3 207 2 1377 8:30 3 0 51 102 739 40 105 6 4 3 255 3 1421 • J PEAK HOUR PERIOD: 7:30 TO 8:30 VOL: 1060 PEAK 1S MIN PERIOD: 7.45 TO 0: 0 VOL= 600 TJKM INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 6/9/88 INTERSECTION 52 GLENDORA DR. and HILLSDALE BL. SAN.MATEO COUNT DATE/TIME: 5/17/88 7:30-9:30 AM PEAK HOUR: 7:30-8:30 AM CONDITION : A.M. PEAK HOUR - EXISTING FILE 5-032 = = == s-- R ==================== = RIGHT THRU LEFT 32 5 10 ^ I I I I A I I I A NORTH I <--- v ---> I LEFT 65 --- 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 --- 30 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 230 ---> 2.1 (NO. OF LANES) 2.1<--- 492 THRU HILLSDALE BL RIGHT 33 --- 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 48 LEFT SPLIT PHASE? 1 <--- A ---> I N v 1 I I v 1 I I 214 16 99 LEFT THRU RIGHT STREET NAME: GLENDORA DR. SPLIT PHASE? N =============_=================_==========__-gym _ __ ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL -MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 99 99 1500 0.0660 THRU (T) 16 16 1500 0.0107 LEFT (L) 214 214 1500 0.1427 T + R 115 1500 0.0767 T + L 230 1500 0.1533 T + R + L 329 1500 0.2193 0.2193 SB RIGHT (R) 32 32 1500 0.0213 THRU (T) 5 5 1500 0.0033 LEFT (L) 10 10 1500 0.0067 0.0067 T + R 37 1500 0.0247 T + L 15 1500 0.0100 T + R + L 47 1500 0.0313 EB RIGHT (R) 33 33 1500 0.0220 THRU (T) 230 230 3150 0.0730 LEFT (L) 65 65 1500 0.0433 0.0433 T + R 263 3150 0.0835 WB RIGHT (R) 30 30 1500 0.0200 THRU (T) 492 492 3150 0.1562 LEFT (L) 48 48 1500 0.0320 T + R 522 3150 0.1657. 0.1657 ==== ====_= ==== ===== _-_========= ==-========== --= VOLUME -TO -CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTION: 0.43 ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST YELLOW TIME: 0.10 TOTAL VOLUME -TO -CAPACITY RATIO: 0.53 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED Developed by TJKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA, 1987 TJKM INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 6/10/88 INTERSECTION 54 CLEARVIEW WY. and HILLSDALE BL. SAN MATEO COUNT DATE/TIME: 5/17/88 7:30-9:30 AM PEAK HOUR: 7:30-8:30 AM CONDITION : A.M. PEAK HOUR - EXISTING FILE 5-032 LEFT 3 THRU 166 RIGHT 1 A --> RIGHT THRU LEFT 2 0 22 I I I I I I 1.0 1.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 (NO. OF LANES) 1.1 1.1 2.2 1.1 <--- A ---> I I I I I I 5 26 183 LEFT THRU RIGHT STREET NAME: A A NORTH 317 RIGHT STREET NAME: 1102 THRU HILLSDALE BL. 41 LEFT SPLIT PHASE? CLEARVIEW WY. SPLIT PHASE? N _______=_sue-= == sari -= N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 183 183 1500 0.1220 0.1220 THRU (T) 26 26 3000 0.0087 LEFT (L) 5 5 1500 0.0033 T + R 209 3000 0.0697 T + L 31 3000 0.0103 T + R + L 214 3000 0.0713 SB RIGHT (R) 2 2 1500 0.0013 THRU (T) 0 0 1500 0.0000 LEFT (L) 22 22 2700 0.0081 0.0081 T + R 2 1500 0.0013 T + L 22 2700 0.0081 T + R + L 24 2700 0.0089 EB RIGHT (R) 1 1 1500 0.0007 THRU (T) 166 166 4800 0.0346 LEFT (L) 3 3 1500 0.0020 0.0020 T + R 167 4800 0.0348 WB RIGHT (R) 317 317 1500 0.2113 THRU (T) 1102 1102 4800 0.2296 LEFT (L) 41 41 1500 0.0273 T + R 1419 4800 0.2956 0.2956 VOLUME -TO -CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTION: 0.43 ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST YELLOW TIME: 0.10 TOTAL VOLUME -TO -CAPACITY RATIO: 0.53 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED Developed by TJIM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA, 1987 INTERSECTION: 52 GLENDORA DR. and HILLSDALE BL. SAN MATEO COUNT DATE: 5/25/20 TIME: 4:15-6:15 PM t***t CUMULATIVE COUNTS *:*****: v:4:vt*:i:** CUMULATIVE COUNTS rv:v:**v:v:vI*** END SE WE NE EB LINE TIME RGHT TURD LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT TOTALS 4:30 20 S 5 6 82 12 8 3 20 27 84 20 295 4:45 51 21 15 18 1;4 25 25 10 43 75 196 61 724 5: 0 71 31 22 22 248 41 30 17 59 108 305 87 1047 5:15 99 37 40 30 327 61 47 21 79 147 447 121 1456 5:30 122 49 50 40 420 85 b3 24 91 168 583 159 1862 5:45 150 56 60 54 531 109 74 30 114 199 718 196 2291 6: 0 124 b5 69 58 639 136 82 35 139 229 960 233 2229 6:15 213 70 03 65 721 154 94 44 152 250 1060 201 3195 • *****“**t**** **** PERIOD COUNTS *****:i::* **:****v:**** PERIOD COUNTS r****.�***4.i.. .i.a END SE WE NB EB LINE TIME RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT TOTALS 4:30 20 0 �� 5 6 82 12 8 3 20 27 84 29 295 4:45 31 15 10 12 102 13 17 7 23 48 112 41 429 5: 0 20 10 13 4 64 16 5 7 16 33 109 2. 323 5:15 .28 2 , 7' 7 n , 142 34 9 ��, 6 !� � , . 0 17 4 .:0 � 40. 5:30 29 12 10 10 101 24 16 3 12 21 136 30 412 5:45 10 14 103 24 11 t. 23 31 135 :+7 423 6: 0 34 'a 9 4 100 27 8 5 25 .30 242 37 530 t.. '- 13 tY 4^ 1':, 12 9 13 21 100 4. 366 I:.I v:.l r, i i , .i i::i:*:i: F HOUR COUNTS * :r:r:rv:v**.i i..i.....i.***** I..l. HOUR COUNTS .L:I. .) I. ii i *4:ia:*v:i* BEGIN ------ SE --- - ---- WE NB -- -- EE ---- LIME TIME RGHT THRU LEFT rGGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THEO LEFT TOTAU; -. 4:15 9+ • 40 30 327 4:50 100 41 ,5 34 546 4:45 `'4 3,` 45 36 347 5: +n.' 117 •i 41 76 :91 5:15 114 41 43 35 394 61 47 21 7'a 147 44' 121 1'56 73 55 21 71 141 499 159, 1575 04 49 20 71 124 522 135 1567 52 10 O0 121 t:55 146 1702 93 47 23 73 103 613 160 1739 95 PEA.Y, HOUR PERIOD: 0 TO 6: 0 VOL= 1722 PEAK 15 MIN PERIOD: 5:45 TO t.: 0 VOL= 538 INTERSECTION: 53 CAMPUS DR. anti HILLSDALE BL. SAN MATEO COUNT DATE: 05/28/28 TIME: 4:15-6:15 PM *4v:4:i444**:4::4 CUMULATIVE COUNTS t4:t***4*t.:t444** CUMULATIVE COUNTS +14444*4*i'U: END SE WB NB EB --•--- LINE TIME RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT TOTALS 4:30 114 0 12 4 113 0 0 0 0 0 176 61 480 4:45 257 0 27 16 260 0 0 0 0 0 350 119 1037 5: 0 373 0 46 26 308 0 0 0 0 0 563 194 1590 5:15 593 0 67 56 512 0 0 0 0 0 752 260 2220 5:30 734 0 08 49 842 0 0 0 0 0 942 322 2777 5:45 865 0 109 67 778 0 0 0 0 0 1126 392 3337 6: 0 992 0 119 73 907 0 0 0 0 0 1302 460 5853 6:15 1079 0 130 84 1056 0 0 0 0 0 1482 526 4357 **i:****a**4*:44 PERIOD COUNTS 4::1:4:*»:*:t:t:t*4: :x::4:** :** PERIOD COUNTS :t4:*:**4:******:tt END SE WB NB EB LINE TIME RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT TOTALS 4:30 114 0 12 4 113 0 0 0 0 0 176 61 400 4:45 143 U 15 12 147 0 0 0 0 0 102 50 557 5: 0 11b 0 14 10 128 0 0 0 0 0 205 75 553 5:15 220 0 21 10 124 0 0 0 !1 0 109 t.6 630 5:30 141 0 21 13 130 0 0 0 0 0 190 62 557 5:45 131 0 21 1C 13e C 0 0 0 0 104 70 560 6: U 127 0 1_ii 6 129 0 0 0 0 0 176 62 516 6:15 c.? 0 11 11 14.; 0 0 0 0 0 100 66 504 ti l i .l t..4$:.4 :.t .t4 $ 4. HOUR Ci:.1NTS 4i t::4.,:.::t.4 ).4.,4;4::►:.y44:.t44 HOUR COUNTS +.4*44 t.t:.4.4,4 4. .4: .444 BEGIN SS ----- WB Na ----- EB LINE TIME RGHT THRU LEFT 6;GHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT TOTALS ---- 4:15 5;7 E,12 n 752 2 2220 4:30 620 0 7o '1iJ 529 0 0 0 0 0 761 2E.1 2 4:45 tO 0 82 51 518 0 0 0 0 0 76E. 273 2300 5: 0 o1:4 3 73 47 519 0 0 0 0 0 739 266 22E.3 5:15 4016 0 63 40 544 0 0 0 0 0 730 266 2177 PEAK HOUR PERIOD: 4:45 TO 5:45 VOL- 2300 PEAS 15 MIN PERIOD: 5: C TO 5:15 VOL= 630 INTERSECTION: 54 CLEARVIEW WY. and HILLSDALE BL. SAN MATEO COUNT DATE: 05/23/00 TIME: 4:00-6:00 PM **********44 CUMULATIVE COUNTS 4************** CUMULATIVE COUNTS 1 '++AAA * t *t l +: END SB WB NB EB LINE TIME RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT TOTALS 4:15 0 1 20 lU 43 19 13 0 0 0 99 0 210 4:30 0 3 40 17 90 41 28 0 0 1 171 0 399 4:45 2 4 77 25 140 63 39 0 0 1 312 1 664 5: 0 2 6 140 41 209 92 47 0 0 1 304 2 924 5:15 5 16 227 46 264 128 60 1 0 1 459 2 1209 5:30 5 21 339 64 325 170 73 1 0 2 532 2 1534 5:45 5 25 397 89 407 194 91 1 0 4 585 3 1801 6: 0 5 28 447 109 467 217 105 1 0 5 626 3 2011 *****'* ***:+** PERIOD COUNTS ******************* PERIOD COUNTS ***********:**+: END SB WB NB EB LINE TIME RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT TOTALS 4:15 0 1 20 10 48 19 13 0 0 0 999 0 210 4:30 0 2 20 7 42 22 15 0 0 1 72 0 149 4:45 2 1 29 8 50 22 11 0 0 0 141 1 265 5: 0 0 2 63 16 69 29 0 0 0 0 72 1 260 5:15 3 10 87 5 55 36 13 1 0 0 75 0 285 5:50 0 5 112 12 61 42 13 0 0 1 '3 0 :25 5:45 0 4 52 25 82 24 10 0 0 2 53 1 267 6: D 0 50 20 60 2J 12 0 0 1 41 0 210 .+ 14 :+ :i 1 i: :i i i 1::+ :+ i :i: VAR C o 1J N T 5 .1. t..1..+ :+ :+ *t+ .+ *: * * t. :1: *E i::1. 1::+ HOUR COUNTS :wits 1 .1 BEGIN SB WB NB EB LINE TIME RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT RGHT TIIRU LEFT RGHT THRU LEFT TOTALS 4: 0 2 6 140 41 209 92 47 0 0 1 384 2 924 4:15 15 207 a6 216 109 47 1 0 1 360 4:50 5 18 291 47 235 129 45 1 0 1 3n1 2 1155 4:45 3 21 320 64 267 131 52 1 0 3 275 2 1137 5: 0 3 ^_2 5507 258 125 56 1 0 4 242 1 1087 999 PEAK HOUR PERIOD: 4:45 TO 5:45 VOL= 113? PEAK 15 MIN PERIOD: 5:15 TO 5:550 VOL= 325 TJKM INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 6/9/88 INTERSECTION 52 GLENDORA DR. and HILLSDALE BL. SAN MATEO COUNT DATE/TIME: 5/25/88 4:15-6:15 PM PEAK HOUR: 5:00- 6:00PM CONDITION : P.M. PEAK HOUR - EXISTING FILE 5-032 .RIGHT THRU LEFT 113 34 41 I I I A I I I 1 <--- V ---> 1 LEFT 146 --- 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 --- 36 RIGHT STREET NAME: THRU 655 ---> 2.1 (NO. OF LANES) 2.1<--- 391 THRU HILLSDALE B: RIGHT 121 --- 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 --- 95 LEFT SPLIT PHASE? 1 <-_- A I 1 I V I 1 1 80 18 52 LEFT THRU RIGHT STREET NAME: GLENDORA DR. SPLIT PHASE? N A 1 NORTH :___________________ _ .=== ========== ================ == ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C CRITICAL MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO V/C NB RIGHT (R) 52 52 1500 0.0347 THRU (T) 18 18 1500 0.0120 LEFT (L) 80 80 1500 0.0533 0.0533 T + R 70 1500 0.0467 T + L 98 1500 0.0653 T + R + L 150 1500 0.1000 SB RIGHT (R) 113 113 1500 0.0753 THRU (T) 34 34 1500 0.0227 LEFT (L) 41 41 1500 0.0273 T + R 147 1500 0.0980 T + L 75 1500 0.0500 T + R + L 188 1500 0.1253 0.1253 EB RIGHT (R) 121 121 1500 0.0807 THRU (T) 655 655 3150 0.2079 LEFT (L) 146 146 1500 0.0973 T + R 776 3150 0.2463 0.2463 WB RIGHT (R) 36 36 1500 0.0240 THRU (T) 391 391 3150 0.1241 LEFT (L) 95 95 1500 0.0633 0.0633 T + R 427 3150 0.1356 _ = ===== = ===== == VOLUME -TO -CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTION: 0.49 ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST YELLOW TIME: 0.10 TOTAL VOLUME -TO -CAPACITY RATIO: 0.59 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED Developed by TJI4i Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA, 1987 TJKM INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS '6/9/88 LEFT 273 --- THRU 768 ---> RIGHT 0 --- v INTERSECTION 53 CAMPUS DR. and HILLSDALE BL. SAN MATEO COUNT DATE/TIME: 05/26/88 4:15-6:15 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:45- 5:45PM CONDITION : P.M. PEAK HOUR - EXISTING FILE 5-032 .s..��==:cam==== RIGHT THRU LEFT 608 0 82 I I I A I I I <--- v ---> 2.0 2.5 0.0 1.0 2.0 (NO. OF LANES) 0.0 STREET NAME: 0.0 0.0 < - - - A 0 0 LEFT THRU 0.0 0 RIGHT A A NORTH 1.1 --- 51 RIGHT STREET NAME: 2.1<--- 518 THRU HILLSDALE BL. 0.0 --- 0 LEFT SPLIT PHASE? N v CAMPUS DR. SPLIT PHASE? N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* V/C CRITICAL CAPACITY RATIO V/C SB RIGHT (R) 608 255 * LEFT (L) 82 82 2700 0.0944 1500 0.0547 0.0944 EB THRU (T) 768 768 LEFT (L) 273 273 3300 0.2327 2700 0.1011 0.1011 WB RIGHT (R) 51 51 THRU (T) 518 518 T.+ R 569 1500 0.0340 3150 0.1644 3150 0.1806 VOLUME -TO -CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTION: ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST YELLOW TIME: 0.1806 0.38 0.10 TOTAL VOLUME -TO -CAPACITY RATIO: 0.48 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED Developed by TJKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA, 1987 TJKM INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 6/10/88 INTERSECTION 54 CLEARVIEW WY. and HILLSDALE BL. SAN COUNT DATE/TIME: 5/23/88 4:00-6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: CONDITION : P.M. PEAK HOUR - EXISTING =======access=============s====ama=ss=s===ac=s RIGHT 3 A LEFT 2 --- 1.0 1.1 THRU 273 ---> 3.1 RIGHT 3 --- 1.1 1.1 2.2 1.1 V A THRU LEFT 21 320 I 1 I I v ---> 1.1 2.1 MATEO 4:45-5:45 PM FILE 5-032 A 1.1 --- 64 RIGHT (NO. OF LANES) 3.1<--- 267 THRU NORTH STREET NAME: HILLSDALE BL 1.0 --- 131 LEFT SPLIT PHASE? I N I I I I I I 0 1 2 LEFT THRU RIGHT STREET NAME: CLEARVIEW WY. SPLIT PHASE? N ORIGINAL ADJUSTED V/C MOVEMENT VOLUME VOLUME* CAPACITY RATIO CRITICAL V/C NB RIGHT (R) THRU (T) LEFT (L) T + R T + L T + R + L 2 1 0 2 1 0 3 1 3 1500 3000 1500 3000 3000 3000 0.0013 0.0003 0.0000 0.0010 0.0003 0.0010 0.0000 SB RIGHT (R) THRU (T) LEFT (L) T + R T + L T + R + L 3 21 320 3 21 320 24 341 344 1500 1500 2700 1500 2700 2700 0.0020 0.0140 0.1185 0.0160 0.1263 0.1274 0.1274 EB RIGHT (R) THRU (T) LEFT (L) T + R 3 273 2 3 273 2 276 1500 4800 1500 4800 0.0020 0.0569 0.0013 0.0575 0.0575 WB RIGHT (R) 64 THRU (T) 267 LEFT (L) 131 T + R 64 267 131 331 1500 4800 1500 4800 === NZ 0.0427 0.0556 0.0873 0.0690. 0.0873 VOLUME -TO -CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTION: ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST YELLOW TIME: 0.27 0.10 TOTAL VOLUME -TO -CAPACITY RATIO: 0.37 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: A * ADJUSTED FOR RIGHT TURN ON RED Developed by TJKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA, 1987 15 MINUTE, 1 CANNEL VEHICLE COUNT REFERENCE: SAN MATEO CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 LOCATION: S.R. 92 LB OFF RAMP AT WEST HILLSDALE BLVD. MACH.I 9 WEATHER: CLEAR OPERATOR: MIETEY. PAGE 1 OF 2 • FILENAME: (NO FILE) MONDAY 6 / 6 / 88 HOUR MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY WEECDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 7 DAY BEGINS 6 7 S 9 10 AVERAGE 11 12 AVERAGE 12:00 AM * 11 10 t t 11 t t 12:15 * 6 10 $ t 8 * * 11 12:30 4 4 10 t * 7 t * 7 12:45 * 4 1 22 6 36 * 5 * * 4 30 * * t t 4 30 1:00 * 4 5 * t 5 * * 5 1:15 4 2 2 * * 2 * t 2 1:30 4 4 0 * * 2 t * 2 1:45 * t 12 4 11 * * t t 3 12 t 5 t * 3 12 2:00 4 4 1 $ * 2 * $ 2 2:15 4 0 1 * t 1 # * 1 2:30 t 1 0 t t 1 t * 2:45 4 4 1 5 3 5 * * t $ 2 6 t * t t 2 6 3:00 4 2 3 t * 3 3 3:15 2 2 $ t 2 4 t 2 3:30 t 0 0 t * 0 * * 0 3:45 * 4 2 6 2 7 t 4 t 4 2 7 2 7 4:00 ► 0 0 t t 0 * t 4:15 4 0 0 * * 0 4 t 0 4:30 4 1 2 t * 2 * * 2 4.45 * 4 5 6 4 6 4 * * * 5 7 t * * 4 5 7 5:00 t 5 4 t * 5 * * 5 5:15 ± 2 * t 5 t t 5 5:30 ► i, 7 4 4 7 4 * 7 5:45 t 4 21 39 15 28 t * * * 10 35 4 * * * 12 35 6:00 4 20 19 4 * 20 4 * 20 6:15 + 56 27 4 t 32 * * 32 G:30 4 39 39 4 * 39 t * 39 6:4S ► ► 96 191 95 160 * 4 4 * 96 187 t * * 4 96 187 7:00 t 0 86 t * 58 * t 68 e:. 7:15 4 147 172 * t 160 4 * loo 7:30 * 201 25'4 4 4 230 4 * 230 7:45 4 + 313 750 '1 '00 * 4 t 4 352 830 * t , 4 t 352 830 `;:OD + ^',5 221 4 4 258 4 4 25 , 8:15 i 2 5 4 4 225 4 t 223 5: 0 4 165 141 t 4 167 t t 167 _ 8:45 4 4 201 897 134 32 4 4 * 4 li,t, 816 4 t * 4 160 8'16 9:00 ► 165 134 * * 160 * * 160 9:15 ► 153 80 * * 120 * * 120 9:30 4 166 109 * * 1;:8 * * 138 9:45 4 * 159 663 109 438 * * * * 154 552 * t t * 134 552 10:00 4 129 99 * 4 114 * 4 114 10:15 x 93 91 t * 92 * * 92 10:30 ► 89 111 t t 100 t 1 100 10:45 t t 119 430 110 411 t t * 5 115 421 * * * * 115 421 11:00 122 115 4 t * 119 4 4 119 11:15 61 91 t * * 86 * * 66 11:30 09 99 t 4 4 94 t $ 94 11:45 148 440 125 430 t * * * t 4 137 436 1 * * * 157 436 AM TOTALS 429 3451 2?61 * * 3339 * * 3339 PEAL: HOUR BEGINS 11:00 7:30 7:30 t * 7:30 t 4 7:30 VOLUME 440 1045 1080 4 4 1063 t * 1063 PHF 0.74 0.85 0.69 4 4 0.75 * 4 0.75 Tar.M 15 MINUTE, 1 CHANNEL VEHICLE COUNT REFERENCE: SAN MATEO CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 LOCATION: S.R. 92 LB OFF RAMP AT WEST HILLSDALE BLVD. MACH.1 9 WEATHER: CLEAR OPERATOR: MIETEK PAGE 2 OF 2 FILENAME: (NO FILE) MONDAY 6 / 6 / 88 HOUR MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY WEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 7 DA BEGINS 6 7 8 9 10 AVERAGE 11 12 AVERA . 12:00 FM 117 134 * 4 t 126 * * 126 12:15 94 102 t # * 98 * t 9, 12:30 105 107 * t * 106 * t6 12:45 120 436 119 462 * * t * t * 106 1:00 117 131 * * * 120 450 * $ t 4 120 1:15 95 102 * * * 124 * 4. 190 99 * 4 1:30 89 111 * * $ 100 t # 100 1:45 105 406 113 457 t * * * 4 * 109 432 * * * 4 109 2:15 81 88 * 4 $ EE 2:30 77 C3 $ * 4 80 * t 80 2:45 97 334 107 375 * $ t * * * 102 355 * * * # 102 3:00 96 100 * * t 96 # 8 98 3:15 102 8? * t t 95 t t 95 3:30 103 86 # * t 97 * 4 97 3:45 131 437 121 394 * * t * * * 26 416 # * t * 126 4:00 113 99 t 4 4 06 4 * 106 4:15 13.E 124 4 4 * 31 4 4 4:20 133 130 4 4 4 131 4:45 129 518 149 502 4 * * * * 4 39 510 4 1 4 t 151394 9 5:00 153 179 * 4 4 66 4 4 5:15 176 160 4 4 * 6:: I 4 162 166 n 5:30 172 153 * 4 t• 0 4 4 165 5:45 156 687 199 696 4 4 4 4 * 4 95 692 4 4 4 # 192 6:00 154 174 4 4 4 64 4 4 164 t.:1_`• 142 193 4 4 # 70 4 1 17C 6:30 146 174 4 4 4 0 4 4 16C 6:45 1:.3 575 165 711 * 4 4 4 4 4 49 643 4 * 4 4 149 7:00 .16 103 4 * 4 90 '4 4 90 7:15 66 83 * 4 4 75 4 # 75 30 5 77 # * * 68 4 i 6B 7:45 02 69 Gr' 2Gu 7i 234 * * 4 4 4 t 69 30 t 4 4 4 ..:00 50 co * 4 4 54 # 4 51 8:15 45 J.J 4 4 4 4v 4 1 4`Y 0:20 37 46 4 4 4 42 i 4 42 8:45 33 165 44 201 * 4 4 4 4 4 29 1u4 4 t t * 39 9:00 ° 42 4 4 4 35 * 4 35 Q:15 * 4 4 25 * 4 25 4:30 29 24 4 it 4 27 4 t 27 9:45 21 101 37 130 # * * * * 4 29 116 * * i * 29 .10:00 21 22 * * 4 22 t * 22 10:15 18 22 * * 4 20 4 4 20 10:20 23 26 4 4 4 L5 * 4 25 10:45 23 85 12 87 4 4 * 4 4 4 20 87 * 4 4 # 11:00 12 21 4 * 4 20 20 * 4 20 11:15 12 13 4 t t 13 4' t 13 11:20 20 8 4 4 4 14 1 t 14 11:45 18 68 9 51 * * * 4 i 4 14 61 * * 4 4 14 PM TOTALS 4020 4400 4 t + 4248 4 4 PEAK HOUR EEGINS 5:15 5:45 4 4 4 5:011 4 4 VOLUME d88 745 4 t $ 692 4 t PHF 0.42 0.94 # 4 t 0.90 4 1 TJKM 15 MINUTE, 1 CHANNEL VEHICLE COUNT REFERENCE: SAN MATEO CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 LOCATION: S.R. 92 ES )N LOOP AT WEST HILLSDALE BLVD. MACH.I S WEATHER: CLEAR OPERATOR: RICHARD PAGE 1 OF 2 FILENAME: (NO FILE) MONDAY 6 / 6 / 8S HOUR MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY WEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 7 DAY BEGINS 6 7 8 9 10 AVERAGE 11 12 AVERAGE 12:00 AM t 9 7 12:15 * 7 15 * * 11 * 4 11 12:30 t 16 23 t t PO $ * 12:45 * 4 7 39 11 54 t 4 t t 9 47 t * 4 t 209 47 1:00 t 4 8 8 4 6 * * 6 1:15 t 5 3 * s 4 * * 1:30 4 4 4 t * 4 * * 4 1:45 * * 4 17 10 25 t * t * 7 21 * t I a 4 21 2:00 * 4 5 t * 5 * s 5 2:15 4 6 1 * t 4 * * 2:30 4 0 1 t t 1 4 1 2:45 4 * 1 11 8 * t t t 3:00 4 5 1 11 * * * t 1 11 3:15 4 2 1 4 2 * 4 4 t 3:30 t 1 1 4 *2 3:45 ► * 21 10 1 6 * * * 4 9 * * t * 2 9 4:00 4 1 2 * 4 2 1 t 2 4:15 t 1 1 t 4 1 4 4 1 4:30 i 1 1 4 4 1 1 t 4:45 # ; 6 1 5 t 1 4 4 2 6 * 4 4 t 2 6 5:C0 t 0 2 t 4 1 5:15 * 3 0 * 4 12 * 4 2 5:30 4 0 0 4 40 5:45 t ► 0 3 4 6 4 4 4 4 2 5 # 4 * t 0 5 6:00 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6:15 4 'J 6 4 t 7 t t 7 6:30 1 11 11 t t 11 4 t 11 6:45 4 # 4 27 11 32 t 4 * t 8 30 t t 4 1 8 30 - 7:DO * 22 10 4 4 16 t t 16 7:15 t 17 19 4 4 1E: ► 4 13 7:30 # 23 30 t 4 27 4 4 27 7:45 4 4 26 30 33 `+2 t t 4 ► 30 91 4 t 1 4 33 91 . 42 v.OG 4t. 3 4 4 42 t ► 0 5' 45 4 45 .•.1 , V_i 47 3 4 t 8:30 50 4 t 65 4 4 65 8:45 t 4 51 211 66 209 4 4 1 4 59 211 t 4 4 4 59 211 9:00 ► 43 43 t t 43 t t 43 9.15 t 55 56 4 t 56 t t 56 9:30 4 55 55 t t 55 t 4 55 9:45 4 4 84 237 52 206 * 1 8 1 68 222 t 4 a 4 62 222 10:00 * `3 70 4 it 72 4 4 72 10:15 * i4 7, t * 75 * 4 75 10:50 4 70 78 4 t 74 t 4 74 10:45 * 100 317 86 310 4 * t 4 93 314 t * 4 t 93 314 11:00 20 74 77 * t 77 4 * 77 11:15 75 65 4 4 t 70 4 4 70 11:50 29 110 4 t t 100 t * 100 11:45 162 406 142 391 4 77 4 4 * 4 152. 399 4 4 t 4 152 399 AN TOTALS 395 13C7 1030 t 4 1366 4 4 1366 PEAL: HOUR BEGINS 11:00 11:11 10:15 4 * 11:00 t * 11:00 VOLUME in' X91 31? 4 4 3 9 4 t 399 PHF 0.63 0.69 0.92 * 4 0.6e t 4 0.66 TJKf1 15 MINUTE, 1 CHANNEL VEHICLE COUNT REFERENCE: SAN MATEO CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 LOCATION: S.R. 92 EB ON LOOP AT WEST HILLSDALE BLVD. MACH.1 5 WEATHER: CLEAR OPERATOR: RICHARD PACE 2 OF FILENAME: (NO FILE) MONDAY 6 / 6 / 68 HOUR MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY WEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 7 DA BEGINS 6 7 5 9 10 AVERAGE 11 12 AVERA 12:00 FM 86 00 t t $ 83 * 4 95 12:15 135 92 t t t 114 * t 114 12:30 150 120 * 4 4 135 $ 4 135 12:45 235 606 194 496 * * * * t * 215 547 * * * * 215 1:00 123 109 * * * 119 t 4 119. 1:15 93 117 t * * 105 t t 105 1:30 110 104 * t * 107 1:45 193 524 97 427 * * t * * * 145 476 t * * * 145 2:00 98 76 * 4 * 87 * t 8? 2:15 74 111 4 * * 93 * * 93 2:30 88 107 t * * 98 r * 48 2:45 121 301 91 335 * * * * * * 106 324 * * * * 106 3:00 78 115 * * * 97 4 * 97 3:15 127 79 It * 4 103 t 4 103 3:30 73 t:6 t 4 t 70 4 1 70 3:45 72 350 85 345 t 4 4 4 * 1 79 J49 1 4 4 4 79 4:00 66 65 t t 4 66 4 4 66 4:15 56 68 4 t 4 62 4 t 62- 4:30 68 46 4 4 4 S7 4 4 57 4:45 79 269 61 240 4 4 * * 4 4 70 255 * 4 a * 70 5:00 77 t4 4 4 t 71 t' t 71 5:15 ,5 '12 + 4 t y4 5 4 Y4 5:30 76 84 i 4 4 60 t 4 90 5:45 '5 ;43 96. 376 4 4 t 4 4 i '6 341 4 * * 4 96 6:00 60 66 4 4 t 63 4 4 65 6:15 51 72 4 4 4 62 4 t 6 o:3O 45 48 4 4 4 47 4 1 47 6:45 40 i=6 61 247 4 4 4 * 4 4 51 223 * i 4 4 51 7:00 34 `L 4 4 t 43 4 4 43 7:15,11 en .,2 4 4 4 52 4 52 :30 5? C 1 4 t * 54 4 1 5 J4 7:45 60 _._ 71 226 4 4 4 4 4 4 66 215 1 I 1 1 66 :2 51 67 4 4 4 59 i 4 50 2:15 5' 51 + 4 4 55 4 55 ;3:al 7'a i.4 4 4 4 -2 4 1 72 8:45 262 95 277 4 4 4 * 4 4 Y4 220 i 4 i I 94 9:00 72 78 i 4 4 75 4 4 75 9:15 85 74 4 * 4 84 4 1 84 :30 5: 45 -t * 4 52 4 4 52 9:45 59 272 71 .:: � 27+ . 1 4 t t * 4 65 2?6 * it * 4 65- 10:00 51 4o 4 4 4 55 4 4 55 10:15 J? :L 4 4 4 55 4 1 55 10:30 53 5:9 4 4 4 5o 4 4 56 10:45 45 186 02 251 * 4 4 t * 4 54 220 4 t 4 4 54 11:00 31 50 t 4 4 31 1 4 37 11:15 17 19 t 4 * 12 4 1 18 11:30 16 11 4 4 4 14 * t 14 11:45 15 77 12 72 t 4 t t 4 t 15 76 * t it 1 13 Pi TOTALS 3195 3565 t * 1 3642 4 i PEAK. HOUR BEGINS 12:15 12:30 4 4 4 12:15 4 i VOLW E 648 540 4 4 4 563 1 4 PHF 0.69 0.70 4 1 4 0.62 1 t T3KM 15 MINUTE, 1 CHANNEL VEHICLE COUNT REFERENCE: SAN MATE! C RCECTION FACTOR 1.00 LOCATION: S.R. 92 WB ON RAMP AT WEST HILLSDALE BLVD. MACH.1. 7 WEATHER: CLEAR OPERATOR: RICHARD PAGE 1 Of 2 FILENAME: RICH MONDAY 6 / 6 / 03 HOUR MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY WEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 7 DAY BEGINS 6 7 t1 9 10 AVERAGE 11 12 AVERAGE 12:00 AM t ? 14 * 4 12 * 4 12 12:15 * 5 5 * t 5 * * 5 12:30 * b 2 t * 5 * t 5 12:45 * t 5 27 2 23 * t * t 4 26 t t t t 4 26. 1:00 4 2 9 4 4 6 * t 6 1:15 t 5 2 t * 4 * * 4 1:30 t 0 4 4 * 2 t * 2 1:45 t t 1 8 1 16 * * * * 1 13 * * t 4 1 13 2:00 * 1 3 * 4 2 t * 2 2:15 t 0 3 4 * 2 t t 2 2:30 * 4 2 * * 3 * * 3 2:45 t t 1 6 1 9 4 * $ 4 1 8 4 t * * 1 8 3:00 + 3 0 * 4 2 t * 2 3:15 + 1 3 t * 2 * t 2 3:30 * 0 4 t + 4 t 2 3:45 4 t 0 4 1 0 1 4 t i 1 7 4 4 4 4 1 7 4:00 4 4 2 4 ► 3 4 4 3 4:15 } 4 2 4 t 3 1 4 3 4:-.30 4 1 1 4 t 1 4 4 1 4:45 4 4 0 9 6 11 4 * + 4 3 10 * * 4 * 3 10 5:00 4 7 2 4 4 5; t . 5 5:15 4 7 q 4 4 4 t 8 5:50 1 6 n 3 4 6 4 4 6 5:45 4 4 15 35 13 30 4 4 1 4 14 33 4 t t 4 14 33 6.00 4 27 26 t ► 27 1 4 27 6:15 4 42 44 t 1 43 ► 4 43 t: 30 1 5? Si t t 55 ► * 55 6:45 1 4 51 179 81 202 4 4 I 4 bo 191 .4 * 4 * 66 191 ':00 4 110 95 4 4 105 4 4 103 :1. 1 136 124 • 1./J $ t 130 7:30 • 128 114 t 4 . 124 1 + 124 • :;` 1 t 114 .83 ,- -6 4 i ! '°r 483 4 1 4 1 126 433 •!l•� .1. •;•.., 4 1L . ?0 1 1�n 123 1 4 '15 1 * 115 :15 + `+;'s 111 4 4 10 5 ! t 105 '', ♦ — .:ii 4 4 :2 4 * 02 :=5 1 02 359 82 407 4 $ / 1 02 324 4 4 4 4 02 334 r:00 1 74 77 4 * .'a 4 4 70 +:15 + 75 Jl t + 02 4 + 82 +:50 4 e6 ;0 t t 72 t t 72 4:45 1 4 80 298 04 330 4 4 4 4 82 314 t t t 4 82 314 10: C0 45 07 t 4 4 91 4 4 91 10:15 01 71 t 4 4 7e t t 76 10::0 N 09 4 t 4 07 1 4 87 10.45 121 321 134 301 t t * * 4 4 128 302 * * 4 * 120 322 11:00 125 157 + t t 140 4 t 140 11:15 89 134 * t t 112 t 4 112 11::0 423 130 4 t 4 127 t # 127 11:45 205 540 117 530 + t t t t t 161 540 t t t 4 161 540 An FOALS +11 2332 1510 4 4 2391 4 • t 2391 PEAK HOUR BEGINS 10:45 10:45 7:15 4 4 11:00 4 t 11:00 t� Vt' Urc 233 421 ne 4 ► 540 1 t 540 FHA 0.63 0.67 0.?. 4 ► 0.04 t t 0.34 I- '• IV al in CD •. :.n • tn•• C7 •.nn •- C •:: .-C.Itn '•./ C3 4. s nr C.. ) • a�4. i. Cn r'. ) G L C r. ih .. 1.. 7 F•J Cn C. 1 1.- r 4..• • -. •--•0000 G v G• LC 7: •^A 6 'it:" O•O . 7 •T CA CM CPI Cr. 4. A. g„.4 Vl rp L+(.4••-• C•1• --00 •N• -• •t7 4. C 1.- CD 4.C .J.-OJ<. C.1. 'CJJ`•C.I-.04-CC .J►-O i. C .-4 ) ►C./�- C) C -I �-•O Cn U cm O Cn CJ Cn O C.n G CM O Cn CJ CM O Cn U is U CJ• O t.n v Cn o Cl. O Cn Ci Cn O t/• O CJ. O t l. O Cal O C.r.O Cn O C!. O •te n> r•� •- .-- C .J C. J C.10 C O O Cn ,1 C •• . r. O ...3 • •- r-- -S . C .- •-. nd 0 r�•'-•If I C.: ••1 C"• �_ • .. C .'. C"1-- • n_ • 4. c-t.Ir_V ' 44. Jt a.C CJdn7.-+C.JC.IfJPJ/-' •O Cnf •,)1 .�•.. . O-Cn �CJ •••4--•I".) .• J. Cn.�I-ii G:. 4. 11.,P '�•C•7r-1. nrJ.•_n.-. rte. i. 4. . 4.. 3_-IC^4. P34. ..- C)L 1-- •►+i. r-7 •- J. n. '•J C a C_1 t.I C -• C1 Cn r_n Cn O 1 U C J. U Cn Cn •-- Cw t -r .) n.7 r .p .-.-._.�.- •_ ►-r ., •-f.1fJ/ •) fJ i.?C . ._ :I `.) •.1 a -• • � :F. C.: . J• C.7•a ..n.7 '.I•J r - - l '••) C. 5..I t.J C74 h� J. C.1 rJh2 n•7 C- ft. -- -,IA. 4 . i+Cn .-a-.--. �/ i 9' 1 ••• C.J•. ICJrf0 C./O••- •C./ [: r.] L•: i t•.• 0-C�O ..n l.J C •rJ•7 4 •..Jto00- 0 -n>OPN•a OC .J J-d'rIA. fJ C .1 C.1 .v `•J .y rJ • ►+ rn C� '•J C 1- +'e • rt } ••• a r. i J. 4 4. t • O? IJ. rr CJC tlt O Cn 6 Jr. 1J « rr•. as w * + J. 4. M •C- H- .- 4. /•F R M ►-rJ.-• -• -••JC.. i.. 0 0. 0• -•-407 ::• C': 6:• C7 ' 4 C• 4. C .1L�.1^'.--•CIO C?L Cn rn L4 O CJ .•+C.Jw NCf•+ C. Jan h. WM C"C n !...p O p• +Jc. C.a •-••0 U0 C• 1 .1. A J••-•1•Da- 10C' •-•r za-c or a•-4oc.J372 cn np A CA •L Q 7?- CM Cn l`D T .--•OC.Jt ►- f � rrl Cl.J+ Cr ' •J Cn Cn CJt Cn • 4 rJ f.. 7 y n, )• - 0 J:. N N 07 s C.J P. • •J 0- • .7 .0 Cr La. 0: . •.0 nJ a w - a. « r., C JI r .~ v. r r to bZ a C -7c r- c• rt 70 rn 7e. fcc, r'1 r ca . - c b •�A S ao r ,) O C) ti e� O} 15 MINUTE, 1 CHANNEL VEHICLE COUNT REFERENCE: SAN MATEO CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 LOCATION: S.R. 92 WB OFF RAMP AT WEST HILLSDALE BLVD. MACH 1.1 WEATHER: CLEAR OPERATOR: RICHARD FILENAME: (NO FILE) MONDAY 6 / 6 J 88 HOUR MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY WEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 7 DAY BEGINS e 7 8 9 10 AVERAGE 11 12 AVERAGE 12:00 AM * 12 11 t t 12 t t 12 12:15 * 21 17 * $ 19 t 4 19 12:30 t 9 11 * * 10 * * 10 12:45 t 4 7 49 5 44 4 * t t 6 47 * I * 4 6 47 1:00 t 5 7 t t L t * 6 1:15 t 11 7 * 4 9 t t 9 1:30 t 6 7 * $ 7 t 4 7 1:45 4 4 2 24 5 26 t * * t 4 26 t t t 4 4 26 2:00 t 3 6 $ t 5 t t 5 2:15 t 7 4 t t 6 t t 6 2:30 * 4 3 t * 4 t * 4 2:45 t t 3 17 2 15 * * * t 3 18 t it t * 3 18 3:00 * 4 2 t t 3 t t 3 3:15 t 1 5 t t 3 t 4 3 3:30 * 3 4 t t 4 t 4 4 3:45 t * 4 12 4 15 t * * t 4 14 t t t # 4 14 4:00 r 3 3 $ t 3 t t 3 4:15 1 3 2 t 4 3 t t 3 4:30 4 5 2 r $ 4 r t 4 4:45 i • 4 7 18 5 12 t 4 4 4 6 16 t i * * 6 16 5:00 i 12 6 4 4 9 4 t 9 5:15 ► 12 10 t 4 11 4 4 11 5:30 1 12 7 * 4 10 4 t 10 5:15 ► 4 24 60 17 40 4 r r t 21 51 4 t r 4 21 51 6:00 ► 19 16 4 4 1;: t t 1E: 6:15 t 38 33 t 4 36 4 t 36 6:30 4 52 50 r 4 51 ► t 51 6:45 r r 104 213 101 200 4 4 4 r 103 208 4 4 r t 103 208 7:00 + 103 113 4 4 102 t t 108 7:15 4 128 13? 4 4 13: r t 133 7:30 8 146 229 4 4 213 4 4 213 7:45 4 4 316 743 377 856 4 t r t 34? 301 4 It 4 t 34? 801 8:00 4 2v 353 4 4 323 r t 323 8:15 + %252 179 t r 216 4 * 216 8:30 4 PI 1i:7 * $ 109 4 4 184 8:45 4 4 1'' 955 147 666 4 4 4 4 173 901 r 4 r t 173 901 • 4.00 4 201 139 t t 170 r t 170 4:15 + 0 ,,1 r 4 139 i 4 139 4:30 4 144 98 4 r 1-t. 4 4 146 9:45 0 r 151 733 103 451 4 4 t 4 127 582 4 4 4 4 127 582. 10:00 149 142 4 * 4 146 t 4 146 10:15 112 120 4 r 4 116 4 t 116 , 127 r 4 128 4 1 ,L4 $ t 128 10:45 165 555 157 543 * t t 4 4 4 162 552 4 t 4 4 162 552 11:00• 169 164 4 t t 167 4 4 167 11:15 444 125 r $ * 124 * t 124 11:30 132 133 r t r 135 t 4 133 11:45 162 585 161 563 r 4 4 4 t # 162 586 $ * t # 586 162 AM TOTALS PEAK HOUR BEGINS VOLUME PHF 1130 10:45 ca4 .JJ 0.8? 5935 2505 t t 5802 r t 3802 7:30 7:30 t 4 7:30 * t 7.30 1057 1138 4 4 1099 t 4 109 0.84 0.75 * 8 0.79 4 # 0.79 15 MINUTE, 1 CHANNEL VEHICLE COUNT REFERENCE: SAN MATEO CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 LOCATION: S.R. 92 WB OFF RAMP AT WEST HILLSDALE BLVD. MACH 1.1 WEATHER: CLEAR OPERATOR: RICHARD I ;a:: LR FILENAME: (N0 FILE) MONDAY 6 / 6 / 28 HOUR MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY WEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 7 DA BEGINS 6 7 8 9 10 AVERAGE 11 12 AVERA 12:00 PM 162 164 t * * 163 * * 163 12:15 153 160 * * * 157 * * 157 12:30 148 178 * * 12:45 200 663 193 695 * * 4 * * * 197 680 * $ * * 197 197 1:00 207 199 * * * 203 1:15 157 16? * * * 162 x * 6 1:30 147 151 * * * 149 * 149 1:45 136 64? 144 661 * * * * * * 140 654 * * * * 140' 2:00 146 141 * * * 144 * * 144 2:15 112 123 * * * 120 * * 120 2:30 121 117 * $ * 119 * 119 2:45 131 510 117 503 * * * * * * 124 507 * * * * 124 3:00 96 113 * * * 105 * * 105 3:15 103 113 * * a 108 * 3:30 112 126 * * * 119 * * 19 119 3:45 118 429 139 491 * * * * * * 129 461 * * * 4 125 4:00 119 141 * * * 130 $ * 130 4:15 125 113 * * t I22 * * 122 4:30 122 143 * * t 133 * * 133 4:45 144 510 175 577 * * 4 4 t * 160 545 * * * 4 160 5:00 14b 155'8 4 * 4 152 *' * 152 5:15 175 189 4 * t 132 * 4 182 5:30 1M 193 * 1 t 1„9 * * 189 5:45 17; 670 186 726 * 4 4 t 4 4 100 703 * * * * 180 6:00 216 ^J1 4 4 4 209 4 4 2C 6:15 10 231 4 * * 211 4 * 211 b:30 239 t 3 t 224 4 t 224. 6:45 02 81' 22 899 * * * 4 4 4 216 860 t * * * 216 7:CO 1 O 171 * t t 131 * 4 131 7:15 10I 120 4 4 * 111 4 4 11I 7:30 73 t * t 80 4 t 80 7:45 S'D 4,6 77 401 4 4 4 4 4 4 03 405 4 * 4 4 83 8:00 53 95 4 * 4 74 t * 74- 8:15 S5 ' 68 4 t 4 62 4 * 62 C:3J 69 78 4 4 I 74 4 4 74 o:45 65 22 .72 313 4 4 4 4 4 4 6Q 279 4 4 41 69 '4:00 62 t.'y 4 4 4 66 * 4 bt. 9:1. 59 '3 4 4 4 tt, 4 4 66 9:70 3<< 55 * 4 4 52 t 4 52 Q:45 45 214 43 240 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 223 t 4 ti 44 10:00 47 47 4 * 4 47 * 4 47 10:15 40 45 4 * * 43 4 4 43 10:30 34 35 4 4 4 35 * * 35 10:45 21 14_' 40 lo? * 4 * * * 4 31 156 * * * * 31 11:00 2o 22 * t * 24 * * P4 11:15 24 32 4 4 4 28 4 * 28 11:.10 1? 21 * 4 4 19 t * 19 11:45 17 84 24 99 4 4 1 * 4 4 21 92 * t 41 21 PM TOTALS 5342 5772 4 4 4 5570 * * PEAK HOUR FEGINS 6:00 0:00 * 4 4 6:00 * 4 VOLUME 817 899 4 i 4 800 4 4 PHF 0.95 0.94 4 1 * 0.96 * 4 TRH 15 MINUTE. 1 CHANNEL VEHICLE COUNT REFERENCE: SAN MATE? CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 LOCATION: S.R. 92 EE :)N RAMP AT WEST HILLSDALE BLVD. MACH.# 3 WEATHER: CLEAR OPERATOR: RICHARD PAGE 1 OF 2 FILENAME: (HO FILE/ MONDAY b 1 6 / 88 HOUR MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY WEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 7 DAY BEGINS o 7 8 9 10 AVERAGE 11 12 AVERAGE 12:00 AM * 9 15 4 4 12 t 4 12 12:15 4 4 6 a * 5 a a 12:30 t a 9 * t 9 t s 9 12:45 * t 3 25 8 38 4 t t 4 6 32 * t * $ 6 332 1:00 t 4 3 t t 1:15 4 4 3 4 * 44 t t 4 4 1:30 4 1:45 # * 10 22 33 17 t t * t 4 21 * t * * 4 21 2:00 4 7 5 t t 6 # s 2a 2:45 2:30 4^ 63 t a 4 * * 3 * 1 12 1 15 t t t t 1 14 # * t * 14 5:00 4 3 2 t t 3:15 4 1 5 t # 3 t t 3 3:30 4 0 1 4 t 3 * t 3 3:45 4 t 2 6 3 11 t a t t 1 « t 1 4:00 ,; 2 * t 3 ID * * * 4 3 IC 3 t * 4:15 4 3 3 t 43 4:50 4 6 6 * * 6 4:45 4 4 4 16 5 16 4 4 4 * 5 17 6 * t * * 5 12 5:00 4 8 3 r 4 6 4 * 6 16 8 4 4 12 4 # 5:15 12 5:30 4 13 13 4 4 5:45 r 2n. 4 61 14 30 t * 4 1 13 S0 * 4 # # 13 50 6:00 4 in lG 15 4 t 15 18 t * 15 �" 6:15 4 30 20 * / 25 * * 25 6:30 4 45 37 4 4 41 * t 41 6:45 4 ' 03 150 63 133 4 4 4 t 63 144 * 4 t # 63 144 7.00 r 4`' 62 4 4 56 t t 56 7:15 1 75 64 t ► ?0 4 t 70 2.30 i .:J;, i1 4 4 84 t t 84 7:45 i i i;? 307 09 2i;6 4 4 4 c=o 293 4 4 t i 08 2,a2, P.:00 75 _:3 4 4 7c. I t 70 0:15 5 t 4 77 4 t 77 B:50 4 73 76 i t 75 4 4 75 5:45 * 4 ,i7 312 03 317 i t 4 i 05 315 t # 4 4 85 515 5 a:00 4 59 71 4 4 t,j 4 t 65 9:15 4 57 69 4 4 63 4 t 9:30 4 56 69 4 t 63 9:45 4 4 71 280 i 4 t 4 63 ^ 7 t t 10:00 4 61 `'` 66 �5� t * * t 63 66 257 5? 66 4 4 62 62 10:15• 4 56 61 4 4 59 * f S9 10:;0 4 7L 75 t 4 74 4 * 10:45 * 4 n'? 254 73 275 4 4 t t 71 266 t # t 4 71 266 11:00 73 70 4 4 4 72 t * 72 11:15 76 70 4 t 4 77 * * 77 11:30 76 91 4 4 t 84 11:45 79 304 113 3352 t t t i t 4 96 329 * t * 4 049 329 AM TOTALS 293 -1749 1430 4 4 1753 * 4 1753 PEAK HOUR BEGINS 11:00 11:00 7:45 r 4 11:00 t 11:00 VOL'ME 304 352 323 r 4 . 329 t 4 329 PHF 0.96 0.78 0.91 4 t 0.86 * 4 0.06 TJKM 15 MINUTE, 1 CHANNEL VEHICLE COUNT REFERENCE: SAN MATEO CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 LOCATION: S.R. 92 E6 ON RAMP AT WEST HILLSDALE BLVD. MACH.J 3 WEATHER: CLEAR OPERATOR: RICHARD PAGE 2 OF 2 FILENAME: (NO FILE) MONDAY 6 / 6 / 88 HOUR MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY WEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 7 DAY BEGINS 6 7 8 9 10 AVERAGE 11 12 AVERAG 12:00 PM 12:15 12.50 12:45 1:00 1:15 1:30 1:45 2:00 2:I5 2:50 2:45 3:00 3:15 3:50 3:45 4:00 4:15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:15 5:30 5:45 6:00 6:15 6:455 7:80 7:15 7:45 x::00 2:15 8:30 8:45 4:00 9:15 9:30 9:45 10:00 '10:15 10:30 10:45 11:00 11:15 11:50 11:45 124 99 t t 4 112 * t 112 95 109 t t $ 102 * t 102 104 103 * * * 86 409 95 406 * * * * $ * 191 409 4 * i t '9i 82 97 * t t 40 t t 90 85 99 t t * 92 t t 92 76 E7 * 4 t S2 # # 82 67 310 79 362 $ * t * t * 73 337 t t t t 73 81 91 t * $ 86 t $ 86 80 78 t t t 79 t t 79 63 68 4 t 4 66 t t 66 59 233 85 322 * t * 4 * * 72 303 1 4 t 4 72 65 88 t * t 77 t t 77 57 65 t * * 60 t t 60 72 66 t 4 * 69 $ 4 69. 281 85 3302 1 4 4 * 4 4 86 292 $ * 4 $ 86 81 96 t * 4 89 t t 29 79 co 4 * 4 G4 t t 84 101 10? 4 t 4 104 4 t 104 8o 349 87 373 4 4 * t 4 4 08 .365 t 4 4 4 88 151 151 4 t 4 151 4 4 151 102 105 4 t 4 1C4 * t 104 87 09 4 * 4 3$ t t 28 82 422 88 433 4 t 4 t 4 4 85 428 4 t t 4 e5 88 76 t t 4 82 4 4 82 60 63 4 t 4 b2 t t 54 66 4 t # 6` 60 * 4 60 65 26? 69 274 * t 4 t 4 t 67 271 4 t 4 t 67 49 00 rt, 4 4 4 54 t 4 54 60 50 4 4 4 55 4 4 55 43 55 4 4 t 48 4 4 48 51 203 44 205 4 4 4 4 4 ' 4 40 205 4 4 4 4 40 51 �ri 4 4 4 v5 4 4 35 .:6 2r. 4 4 4 31 4 4 31 35 45 4 4 4 40 4 t 40 J2 134 43 152 t 4 4 4 4 4 50 144 4 5 4 .4 30- 29 36 t 4 4 33 t 4 33 30 41 ► 4 4 3b 4 4 36 26 34 * t # 30 4 4 30 28' 113 31 142 4 * t 4 * * 30 129 4 4 * 4 30 19 21 4 4 4 20 4 * 20 27 27 $ $ 4 27 4 t 27 20 15 t 4 4 18 4 4 18 18 04 19 002 4 * 4 * * 4 19 84 4 4 4 t 19 15 19 t * t 17 * * 17 15 9 4 * 4 12 t t 12 1? 14 4 4 t 16 t 4 16 1 J 60 14 56 * 4 * 4 * 4 14 59 4 * 4 4 14 PM TOTALS 2915 3114 t t t 3026 t * PEAK HOUR EEGINS 4:30 4:30 4 * t 4.30 4 4 V !FUME 0442 0+55 4 4 4 447 4 4 0.74 4 ► CACPREF $*UIP Oats Set 1 Residentldl, Institutional, and Sal uses 09/03/89 .. n 3 E1en. 4 Single Multi- fiata Traffic Family Fossils Church last. Pre- Middle Nigh Schools Sch.oli Schools + Parks Senior Set Zone (DU) (IU) (WO (SF7) (STUDENTS) (STl>MM! (STWEWIS) (ACtS) Mousing 1 097 0 j 107 0 0 0 0 G 1 098 0 .26e-2,21 0 0 a .0 0 I 059 28 i1 r 0 0 0 0 0 .0 1 100 86 7 0 0 0 .0 p 1 101 10 163 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 1 102 93 122 ,.0( 3 0 0 .0 0 1 103 gz 0 0 a a o 0 .0 0 1 104 166 a 0 4 0 0 0 0 .0 0 a 105 14 0 0 ¢ 0 01.,05-.0 p 1 106 170 0 0 .0 Cl 1 108 166 0 � 0 0 C 0 0 .0 p ! 109 120 a a 0 0 0 0 .0 0 1 110 96 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 1 III 54 122 0 0 0 0 135 �. a .o 1 112 11,698 0 ,30' 2.-3 0 0 .o 0 0 ! 113 286 99 0 ! 11; 22 64 0 a 0 0 .0 p 0 0 a .0 0 1 115 319 42 0 0 0 - G., 5 2 0 _ .o 1 116 112 0 0a 1 177 0 0 0 0 0 � 0 .0 9 1 0 0 0 0 .0 0 f13 0 1 119 !d2 0 0 0 0 0 0 •0 0 1 120 152 0 0 0 a 0 0 6 .0 0 1 121 26 10 0 0 0 0 _0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 .4 C 1 122 323 27 0 0 0 0 1 12S 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 1 124 108 0 )11/1° 0 10.2 0 43 0 0 1 125 69 0 0 0 o 0 0 .0 0 1 126 0 .0 55 . 0 0 1,1T7 0 m '3 ' 0 1.2 0 I fir 145 0 0 0 0 1 128 p a 0 0 ° o .0 o 129 0 250 p 0 0 ) 0 .0 0 ) 0 .0 0 2. 40 ,(0 10.2 i N! IFUFF11H CITY OF �HI•1 NH 1 b d'_+ .five -- CACPREF ,.wura Data Set 1 testdenttat, institutional, and School Uses 49/03/89 Elsa. t Slra0le Multi- Public Pre- 14i-4:ile 1091 Data Traffic 'amity Family Clhwxh /tat. Schools Schools Schools % Parko Senior Set Iona (DU) (DU1 (=FT) (SOFT) (STUDENTS) (STUDE11TS1 (STUDENT (OCRs) Housing 1 162 0 0 0 0 0 p } .0 O # 163 318 156 3),513 0 ,iS''-Q 0 1 .0 0 1 (64 231 9 0 0 0 0 t .3 0 t 165 441 13 0 3,500 0 y,ir 5-15 Gft 1 1!_2 0 1 166 0 149 0 146,C64 0 0 f .0 1 :67 0 23�i 60 0 0 0 0 t .0 0 1 168 3913 49 0 0 0 0 t .0 0 ( 164 884 • 134 !,000 0 4-0 j ( 14 0 1 170 0 0 0 242.434 ir0 0 C .0 0 1 Ili 254 10 0 5,710 0 0 4 .0 0 1 T12 969 404 0 0 0 0 0 229.1 0 1 173 236 0 1 174 494 0 0 0 0 0 1 ti b.0 0 D 0 a 0 0 .0 0 1 175 197 0 42,265 0 0 0 0 .0 0 1 176 89 189 19,134 4,908 0 Tr� 0 .0 0 1 177 0 3 0 0 0 0 Ti 0 0 0 1 178 117 46 0 0 0 0 0 1 119 0 0 0 0 1 1E0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 3 181 0 0 a 25,172 0 n 0 .0 0 1 182 71 104 0 0 A 0 1 133 563 0 30,31? a .S' 4-4c, ,54/1 5-7 2- 0 4 0 1 184 595 t 41,845 6,861 0 .154 .Z I c a 27 0 1 115 3 150 0 3 0 0 0 .0 0 1 156 30 473 0 ) 0 0 0 .1 0 1 187 20 208 0 0 0 0 1 188 155 0 .) 0 0 0 6,46! 0 a L 1., e 1 189 117 0 0 s 4 0 1 190 455 0 2.1 0 0 0 d 0 0 0 .1 D 1 191 54 J.84!' 1 70 0 4 0 0 ) 1 192 g 8 0 1 0 f 0 C ,) ,i 0 1 193 81 0 0 c a • a d d 0 (G) native •• CACPRUF K'Rir9 Oats Set 1 Resldent1e(, Instftutlaml. rd School Uses 09/03/89 1.71 C) Elem. & Single Multi- Pvbtic Pct- tlicidi# Nish Data Traffic family Family Chur,h Inst. Schools Schools Schools Parka Safer Z Set Zane (an (DU) (Wf') (Safr) (STU)EIfts) CSTVENT1) (S11OENTS) (ACRES) llov4ira j - 1 194 279 250 6,13 0 0 0 0 .0 ) — 1 195 5 00 0 0 0 0 0 .0 1 1 196 1,021 0 0 0 0 51 *- 0 1.4 4 LI 1 197 357 812 0 0 0 0 C1 5.3 1 6 1 190 317 772 0 9 0 0 0 12.9 I LLI . 2 1 199 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 - 1 200 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 ,I 1 201 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 451 1 202 0 0 ) 0 rl.e 0 0 .0 j 1 US 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 .0 ( >- 1 204 0 0 ) 0 0 ) 1-- 0 .0 C �� • 1 205 0 0 1 10900 0 1 0 .0 0 1 206 46 dad' / 5"0 4.21' 2,177 0 1 0 .0 0 1 ZOT 0 154 • 1 0 0 0 0 .0 0 1 208 5 140 i 0 0 0 0 .0 0 1 209 21 127\ 4 0 0 $ a .0 0 1 no a 192 1 0 0 f 0 .0 0 el 1 211 0 0 1 0 0 I 0 43.1 0 I 212 0 0 25.604 0 0 0 0 .0 0 1 213 0 ( 100, C 0 C C 0 4(� 0 0 1 214 11 `'.' 0 ( 0 0 0 20 ' .0 0 0-, 1 215 0 4 t 0 0 t 0 .0 0 0, 1 216 87 184 C 0 0 C 0 .0 0 r 1 217 60 r" Jr S3- C 0 0 c o .0 0 1 218 28 116 C 11,173 o a 0 .0 0 • 1 219 54 181 3,434 0 0 0 0 .0 0 1 220 0 33 C o C' 0 0 .0 0 1 221 4 0 a '0 a 0 0 .0 0 21,921 litfoco 601.543 928,172 . ,bl "" 832.9 to 4ZIG4--t r,gtO 1,010 70111 J J 5 it i r L 3 J ,ri,ative CACPR€F mouTP Data Set 2 Ceoa,ercial Uses 09/03/89 0 Page P�9� 0 !0 Nedi<ai Auto Service Manuf. Not -1 Da:a Traffic Retail Service Office Office Sees Station guuse Storage (mistrial 1lotel Parking Set Zone (SOFT) (SOFT) (StFt: (SOFT) (SOFT) (SOFT) (S(FT) (SOFT) (SOFT) (ROOMS) (STALLS) 2 N)a 2 101 2 102 2 101 2 104 2 105 2 106 2 108 2 109 2 110 2 111 2 172 2 113 2 114 2 115 2 116 2 117 2 118 2 119 2 120 2 121 2 122 2 123 2 124 2 125 2 126 2 727 2 128 2 129 2 130 2 131 2 132 2 133 5.745 a 0 0 T8,618 0 a a 0 a 95,303 48,023 5,252 0 O 10,376 5,966 0 O 0 O � 0 O 0 O 0 a 0 O 0 o a 9.9E6 4.954 95,507 18,519 45,178 2.926 O 0 13,9i2 3.800 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,164 0 0 0 a 0 0 15.616 46,584 0 13.561 S,453 0 0 0 o a 0 0 0 T.T27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 12,844 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 L' O 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 3 0 0 0 a 0 0 i) O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95,116 0 0 0 12,.83 0 0 0 0 38,114 1,70 3 0 '3 o 0 0 0 3,245 1,647 0 0 5,514 0 0 12 0 1,643 0 10,462 0 Si,',14 0 19,086 0 0 5,349 0 3,040 C S),(10 a 4,015 0 22 a 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 45,27) 3 0 C i.,$7 0 0 0 0 35.0)0 3 0 0 0 131,584 0 0 G 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 D 0 20.76 0 0 0 :'.419 0 a 0 0 O 0 0 0. 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,283 0 0 0 0 a o 3 0 o a o a o 0 0 i 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C a 0 0 0 0 a o 0 0 0 0 0 .scerrsit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.636 7,712 1.826 6. 7-8 0 0 It 0 0 0 2,044 ) 0 0 0 250 ��, ��, e r e " - C A C P R E F w a l i P o a t . S e t 2 C c r ' a r c i a t U s e : 0 9 / 0 3 / 3 9 P a g e 0 M e d i c a l A u t o S e r v i c e I l i M l u f - H o t e l D a t a 1 " a f f i c R e t e l l S e r v i c e ( f f i c e O f f i c e S a t e s S t a i ' o n W a r e h o u s e S t o r i r ) e f n t l U s t r 1 a i M o t e t P a r k i n g S e t Z a n e ( S O F T ) ( S O F T ) ( S O F T ) ( S O F T ) ( S Q F 1 ) ( S O T ) ( S O F T ) s ( S O F T ) ( S O F F ) ( R O O M S ) ( S T A L C S 1 2 t i 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 Z 1 : 5 0 0 : 7 5 , 9 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 2 1 : 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 ' . " 7 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 ) 0 0 0 2 1 ' S 0 ' , 1 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 ) 0 0 0 j 2 1 _ ' 9 0 3 : , 0 1 0 5 1 : , 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 a 2 1 4 0 1 8 3 , 7 4 5 ; , 6 1 0 ' , m a 0 0 4 , 5 1 6 0 0 0 1 1 L 0 2 1 4 1 3 1 , 5 2 0 1 , 6 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 2 1 4 2 3 1 , 8 9 0 + , 9 2 3 6 , 1 0 3 ( ( Q 1 I N O 0 1 6 , 1 7 1 1 , 0 5 9 4 5 , 8 3 2 1 2 , 5 6 5 1 7 3 O 2 1 6 0 4 2 , 7 5 0 0 3 2 1 - ; . 0 0 0 4 - C i f i f i g H 0 5 0 0 1 �%8 0 0 0 0 0 D 2 I 4 4 1 7 , 2 5 0 1 ( , 1 4 6 1 1 ( , 9 9 0 0 6 , 5 9 9 0 0 ( 0 S 7 Q 2 ' 4 5 9 , 5 0 0 1 : 4 , 1 6 6 2 6 � , 2 3 7 ( 0 1 , 4 ; 6 0 ( 0 0 0 �% 2 1 4 5 1 0 , 7 8 9 1 8 6 ? 2 , 0 0 0 2 4 , 3 6 E 0 0 1 1 9 , 9 2 0 C 0 0 7 6 J 2 1 4 �% 0 2 3 , 7 5 o 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 2 1 4 0 0 0 2 6 5 , 2 7 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 2 1 4 0 j 5 1 i b ! d 2 " 4 ' 0 2 0 1 0 6 0 0 S ) 0 0 0 0 0 C 2 1 5 1 0 S g a 1 3 - 1 r 1 0 3 0 2 , 5 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 1 5 : 0 0 1 2 7 , 1 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T �� 2 1 5 : 0 0 L 9 , 5 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Y 2 1 S ) - ' 3 0 d e ' T 7 ' , ' 8 > ; r } 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 9 4 0 2 1 i l 0 0 0 t { 0 ' 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 0 2 I 5 ! 0 0 2 5 5 9 1 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 ) 2 1 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 ) ] 2 1 5 1 0 6 7 , 9 4 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 . 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 5 5 1 4 , 2 5 0 1 9 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 �% 2 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 , 8 0 ; 0 0 a 0 0 2 1 6 1 0 3 2 7 , 6 1 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 6 2 0 6 4 4 6 , 7 0 ) 0 0 0 ( 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 6 3 1 6 , 3 1 2 7 . 4 4 0 0 , 0 1 1 0 0 2 , 6 3 ; 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 ' 2 1 6 6 7 8 , 2 0 9 2 1 , 2 4 5 " 5 0 0 9 - 0 4 0 0 4 - 1 , - - , 1 7 " - 0 0 4 , 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 . 6 G 1 1 4 , L 4 ' i , z 9 0 1 P - t 1 ,_ LT▪ . u_ CITY OF SAN MATEO. ,,etive CACFEEF ,.riurP oats Set 2 Commercial Uses 09/03/89 Data Traffic Set zone Rrtsit Service (Sari) (SOFT) 2 167 2 168 2 169 2 *70 2 171 2 172 2 173 2 174 2 175 2 176 2 177 2 178 2 179 2 180 2 181 2 182 2 183 2 184 2 185 2 186 2 187 2 195 2 139 2 190 2 191 2 192 2 193 2 194 2 195 Z 1% 2 197 2 1913 2 199 • Neditat Auto Office O i1ct Sates (!$2FT) (SQFr) (SOFT) 5errice stati:a Werehsoize (SOFT) (Safi) O 0 0 3 13 0 3 0 0 0 0 ) 0 0 0 a 0 ) O 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 o 0 p s O 0 0 a a 0 a 0 a a a i 0 0 a t 0 o 0 0 73,323 4,0 C 4 27.887 22 415 0 296,665 16,619 25,000 6.468 45,9:6 1,735 0 0 0 o 0 n ss 14 , s b4, �� o 0 0 .1.5.1411551577-1-10,060 0 0 0 z � 4"o 76,000 0 0 0 Q 0 46,512 0 22,934 0 14,915 4,769 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 24,258 p 0 0 0 0 0 >1 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 oi 1Z 0 0 �` 6gbi43 0 0 X72 18,403 i 0. T�6 5,,;94 0 2,514 71.38$ 1,415 2;2,814 0 0 0 66,561 0 s26 0 a 0 t,a1 17 8,276 68U 0 0 3,f26 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,721 9,010 0 0 0 0 ii 0 3,493 0 0 0 0 7,125 37,916 0 0 0 0 3,258 O 3%669 0 0 0 Planuf. Noel Storage tnckntrial fleet Parting (SQfr) (SOFT) (14013S) (STA-l1/ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 9 0 0 a 0 ) 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 1 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 (3 i 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 0 i 5,636 176,60 0 0 ?li o 0 0 0 t o 0 D 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 1 0 a 0 0 1 0 o 0 0 f 0 a 0 0 0 O 0 0 , 0 a 0 0 t 9 O 0 0 , a o o 0 0 a 4 0 t 0 O 0 0 199' 0 54,073 G 4,085 1 0 0 0 0 t a 0 0 0 ( a 0 0 0 92 0 O 0 a t 1) 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 tfve CACCREf ,uurP cots Set 2 Cawserrial Uses 0 V 09/03/59 Data Traffic 54t tome 'E 2 200 ti 2 201 ▪ 2 202 I 2 203 lj 2 204 J 2 205 UJ 2 206 . 2 207 2 208 I 2 209 li_ 2 210 . 2 211 i- 2 222 2 273 2 214 2 2t5 2 216 2 21; * a 2 2)8 _r 2 219 -t - 2 220 2 221 J+ O) 0 r.� Ii Medical.Mail Servlcx Office Office (SQfi) (SUET} (SOFT) 1SOFr) , O 1295 0 0 O 0 3a0,G13 t�{G�Z 5Z?t 0 26,664 0 0 1,423 12,461 T 0 2,822 0 0 Q ',360 104,659 ! &SS 274.779 11,400 8.132 0 17.912 31,471 1,337 0 58,443 4,750 0 0 O 0 0 0 O a 0 0 O 0 245,520 0 19,137 24,71)0 0 0 O 9 0 0 O 0 0 0 8,6430 5612-i�' > o 351116 0 0 175 1 175 0 c ) 52, 63x3 0 0 0 ? 0 :::°:517:54 2,016 0 6,331 0 17,654 13,430 13,928 G Service Station (S0f1) UAWehasse (SOFT) ti Storage (SOFT) 0 0 a (I 3.454 0 0 0 0 2.100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B,;35 9,100 0 100,145 0 •S4g4;4?'S 1 Ip l.ocv.665 544 $43 5goy7 73 4G.S ) 11,0 24(1(is r 2.221 0 0 0 10,535 0 0 0 3,367 2.685 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40,885 6,365 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 13,956 11,502 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4),„ 0 Rote) Motel. (003115) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5, '31 0 0 441,'90 SeAcIt -e C1, 119,521 671,816 389,314 195,911 ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 Parking (STALLS) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G a 0 0 0 0 a 0 C 0 0 739 'omt. 1 'l- . Y J. D. Drachman Associates Transportation Consultant 1918 Bonita Avenue Berkeley, California 94704 (415) 548-2873 August 17, 1972 Mr. Frank L. Henry General Partner The Borel Companies 2988 Campus Drive San Mateo, California 94403 T E EIVED AUG 18 1972 ENGINEERING DEPT„ Subject: Peninsula Office Park Building Two Supplemental Traffic Study Dear Mr. Henry: In accordance with your request and letter of authorization to proceed dated July 17, 1972, we are pleased to submit this letter report concerning the supplemental analysis of vehicular access to the ongoing Peninsula Office Park project. This report presents our analysis, findings, conclusions, and recommendations on the subject study. Introduction On October 1970, we were engaged by your firm to provide transportation consulting services in connection with the proposed development of a 54 acre Gilmore Estates property into an office park complex. During the month of November 1970, we sub- mitted to you a final report entitled "Gilmore Estates Traffic Access Study" con- cerning the vehicular access to the then proposed Peninsula Office Park Project. The study report was accompanied with meetings involving staff of the affected jurisdictions, in order to explain the scope of performed studies and context of the report. Shortly thereafter, on January 18, 1971, the subject study application for Special Permit and Reclassifications was approved by the San Mateo City Council, subject to several conditions. One of these conditions entailed the development of a supplemental traffic study between the first and second buildings in order to corroborate or update the assumption of the overall study with actual field data from first building tenants. This report is an update to our previously cited re- port, and is intended to fulfill the requirements of the reclassification condition. Concurrent with the approval for the construction of the "Gilmore Estates Planned Executive Development" the City Council noted the existence of an additional 99 acres of undeveloped land adjacent to the J. Arthur Younger Freeway (Route 92) and Mr. Frank L. Henry August 17, 1972 The Borel Companies Page Two f a f 0 i W. Hillsdale Boulevard interchange in various stages of development planning. Be- cause of the potential traffic bottleneck at this interchange, the City Council requested the City Engineering. Department to study the problem and at the same time requested a similar study by California Division of Highways through Resolution No. 9 (1971) "Requesting Official Study by the Division of Highways of the Impact Upon and the Modifications Necessary to the Interchange of Route 92 and Hillsdale Boulevard within the City of San Mateo Due to the Development of Certain Lands Adjacent to Said Route 92 Together with the Possibility of Providing Direct Access To and From Said Prop- erty to Said Route. 92." On March 1971 a report was published by the City of San Mateo Engineers office en- titled: "J. Arthur Younger Freeway - W. Hillsdale Boulevard Interchange, W. Hills- dale Boulevard and the Impact of Future Developments". The report summarized all available data to date including forecasts of intensity and staging of development of adjacent undeveloped lands throughout the area. It also incorporated the findings of our previous November 1970 report with regards to the Gilmore Estates project. The present letter report makes partial use of the findings of both of these previous re- ports and acknowledges their use in this study phase. Study Methodology The study procedure followed the methodology of sequencerequired in forecasts of this nature, when an established thoroughfare bisects areas of land as yet to be de- veloped. Two basic traffic components were required: the existing traffic volumes and the forecasts of future traffic patterns. A - Existing Traffic Conditions This work phase required the collection and colation of existing traffic data from various sources for recent years. A collection of new field data was discarded at this time since it would not be representative of the conditions that will exist during a normal school year where the college is in full operation. The various sources of data and respective assumptions were indicated. B - Future Traffic Forecasts The first step consists of a trip generation phase, indicating how many trips can reasonably be expected to be produced by any given land use intensity. The second step consists of a trip distribution phase. Trip distribution refers to the determination of geographical areas with which trips to or from the study area are associated. The third step consists of a traffic assignment phase whereby the trips that were generated by the development and distributed to the various geographical areas in the previous two phases are assigned to the street and and highway system. Elements of the system which constitute the best routes between the study area and ultimate destinations are usually assumed to be the minimum time path between points of origin and destination Mr. Frank L. Henry August 17, 1972 The Borel Companies Page Three The traffic assignment phase thus provides information as to vehicle turning movements at the various locations of traffic conflicts. With the knowledge of these traffic movements at critical locations a capacity estimate can be made to determine whether or not such locations will operate at a satisfactory level of service. If the existing intersection condition is unsatisfactory, various physical improvements can be tested in order to alleviate such a condition. These improvements include such possibilities as installation of a multiphase signal, traffic stripping, channelization, or sidening of the approach roadway. Existing Traffic Data Base The latest available complete ground counts in the vicinity of the project were col- lected in 1968. Since then the J. Arthur Younger (Route 92) Freeway has been ex- tended southward and a more uniform utilization of the freeway ramps has occured. In addition, traffic volumes on W. Hillsdale Boulevard have been increasing at a rate commensurate with the augmentation of development in the area which it serves. A complete ground count could not be instituted in conjunction with this report be- cause the College of San Mateo, a major traffic generator in the area, is not in full operation during the summer months. Instead, partial counts as available from the California. Division of Highways and the City of San Mateo were collected and an at- tempt made toreconstruct the existing traffic lane and turning volumes through the area. It should be noted that this reconstruction is not intended as an accurate pic- ture of existing conditions but rather as a conservative base of travel patterns onto which travel forecasts will be added. The scope of this study deals with defining the adequacy of the existing roadway network to handle traffic volumes up to and including the building of the second Peninsula Office Park Building. The approximation of the data base is therefore quite acceptable for the stated purposes. The existing traffic volumes during the year of 1968 are indicated in Sketch SK 1. More up to date partial counts are indicated in Sketch SK 2. The continuous Division of Highways counting program provided the base for these partial field counts. The existing through traffic volumes on W. Hillsdale Boulevard are presented in Tables 1 and 2 as obtained by the City of San Mateo Engineering Department.. Table 3 shows the determination of peak hour timeperiods and their relation to the measured ADT. Based on the indicated data and a comparison between 1971-72 partial counts and 1968 complete counts, the existing 1971 ADT traffic volumes were reconstructed and are indicated in Sketch SK 3. In a similar fashion, the AM and PM peak hour volumes were reconstructed for the base 1971 year and are indicated in Sketches SK 4 and SK 5. " " " S " ! " " " " W e s t H i l l s d a l e 0 0 L P 0 C 1 0 1 0 r 7 2 , 0 ' 6 N \ ` ? " \ X 0 0 q Q , , - ( 0 ` 2 ) c ) C o c o \ - o T o C o l l e g e 9 ) ( 0 A t l i 7 e . P m r 3 C . \ t O L v % ) , E 5 S 1 M . Z . o V , 4 - 1 P a U q ( 1 3 1 . c : 2 ) 1 i cts 0) • • S : j . oOSL 4A0 - GC►CQ 1.174iN\ t, acs; a A -0t CODS 0Q9'.\•M Gov v,crtA y_c;( '�1vc7s- • • • • • • a a a • a " " ! " f �% S T A B L E 1 " S " S " A M ( 1 L o c e t i n \ A , W E S T B O U N D T R A F F I C C O U N T S 7 C o u n t e d ` 2 n , - - M o ' 1 ) c h i n e N o , , C I T Y O F S A N M A T E C E n g i n e e r i n g D e p a r t m e n t T r a f f i c E n g i n e e r i n g D i v i s i o n T R A F F I C V O L U ; . E R E C O R D H o u r S u n . ? U % T u e . t . e d / L ) f " ) I T h u r . F r i . 7 / S a t . 1 , \ 1 T o t a l C ) t = 5 r 1 2 1 1 , , . - . : < z 4 - 4 \ A - \ C ) G 3 1 { I ' . I L I - 6 7 7 b _ ` J D J 1 1 1 1 1 2 ' ' ) ' 1 A . - - ? ) A < 7 . - ) - 1 _ , . . , . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ , . _ , _ 2 1 � n 2 _ " . 1 o r , V l ��L f " " " �% " . " " ! " ! " " T A B L E 2 E A S T B O U N D T R A F F I C C O U N T S I ; t L o c a t i o n L e g . , , , , D i r e c t i o n C o u n t e d c ��. , 1 t . , 1 Y a c h i n e N o , C ' _ C I T Y O F S A N r f 1 T E O E n g i n e e r i n g D e p a r t m e n t T r a f f i c E n g i n e e r i n g D i v i s i o n T R A F F I C V O L U L E R E C O R D H o u r S u n . M o n . T u e . ' W e d . " ) T h u r . 1 c 1 1 2 2 3 J 1 : I 2 0 , 1 1 S a t . } T o t a l 4 . l r �� 4 l 7 ( t t r L i 5 9 1 O 1 0 1 1 t 1 , 2 1 1 2 1 I 1 ' r 1 2 2 i s 5 6 6 7 1 7 0 - , 9 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 T o t a 1 _ " ��+ 0 r t \ 4 0 ( Z . A f i t : : ; t �� 1 4 ? _ - : > G , ( 1 . . R e m a r k s . 1 " I ( ��u c ) O C l " l 1 1 4 - . _ . r Page Eight TABLE 3 DETERMINATION OF PEAK HOURS.ON HILLSDALE BOULEVARD Direction on W. Hillsdale Boulevard Westbound Eastbound AM PERIOD 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 105 676 524 302 32 153 236 272 453 506 610 393 PM PERIOD 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 ADT 322 335 391 472 5420 5630 2 -way Totals 137 829 760 574 775 841 1001 865 11050 -8- " + �� " " 5 " " " " " " i p _ , 7 o r ) 3 0 t ( 2 . 2 , 3 6 ) - ' W . n �� 4 1 G t 4 3 t t 6 3 ; , T ; 1 r o I S U A I " k U N � M : 4 4 " . S P A . i s I a C O S L V o S K I - r c H S K t D o t I w o D R - t p . E Page T en .r. row ".1_•.S :' tw !M`9' .:".. kr erw rt kr: r v+ 7 K AtrztKRwV ;13w7C•uotnld t x tt l3.t" « .• . . eu... 'SeLAsto:i �Jr. 4t` room .ma •. .:. • • • • • • • i 4\/C (Ui.0 J. CAL QT 9a) I' f' .-•^ �"�+:: •.i. «.'r 'f «. Vr:.t n. 1 i:.LtlNi; :n 7,4K Mk'trStY'tC:L`.�1J'i .K,!:(':J".:4+�1�.?rA M sf ii ..ctML `J.Yt.SS`:,r .0% .1 !•1.tip. 3..v7[rc.1000.1Atil Rsa!'F�.14.`. ••� .: `: . a: .a ...'. �:.,.:«� Mt 0 /, ..... , O CD • • • • • { 1,0 rj arl Z • 1 P1 1 1 ,;,:'•rl. O.,r ,: .•A~�v: ,,! 'F+: .rK. .f .a .:7 t3lF.v/ .•-f J•is.^.C,!,,..`iyA,Mr,,tM.3.•b7U:1 Ct:� UCG} r1.o.Kd' l ...I t7AwM ..-N13.e .: .*4.N.;...- r h.2.1.. us 45c'0.ti1: .iwt vri.m5t.,-.N.Ni.J ' .;.... ,:-.1 ..........,xi•:. rage r wvu11 "w ar arallom.e - .n.pn r t-"'-:.zycm.."ar VITA ZA ;n2ttllt u• :Krrr•ar rt4tMrn .t+a atix -=:rrsz 1=1,:tr; rl:ktt si.' PrA :wvtitiAZ WM.4 =ir>cur�sW4.wS�,. is -i 'N i I� = =° ii .1 % ]n :J l 0�" V - ▪ 1r • w-4 ..- ✓ r Lu •t � CL 4 I; u4 41) is Cr) co QTt ..9a) • 1 r, Mr. Frank L. Henry August 17, 1972 The Borel Companies Page Twelve Future Traffic Volumes The development of the Peninsula Office Park is expected to be attained over an 8-10 year period. As each building is developed all the required facilities are to be provided to serve the needs of their daytime population. The present building schedule and respective building area are indicated in Table 4. As indicated, the second building is expected to be completed by mid 1973. This work task deals with the determination of additional traffic volumes resulting from this second Peninsula Office Park Building as well as other developments to be completed in the vicinity of the area between now and mid 1973. A - Trip Generation Transportation planning techniques usually require that land use distribution by location and intensity be collected and collated for existing conditions. In order to analyze future developments, land use distribution and intensity is further assumed for undeveloped lands in quantitative formats such as number of acres of industrial land or number of dwelling units by population density groups. Next, based on either synthesized data or statistical regresion techniques, the number of trips produced by each of these types and intensity of land use are estimated. These trips are then distributed to geographic areas, and assigned to the transportation facilities, followed by an evaluation of the impact of the traffic volumes on the highway network. As available from our research files as well as data published in the two reports acknowledged as sources for the present study, a table of trip generation rates for the land uses under study was compiled. Table 5 indicates the trip generation rates utilized in this study. Table 6 indicates the anticipated development time frame and the expected development picture by mid 1973 (target date for the com- pletion of P.O. P. Building #2). Table 7 indicates the forecasts of 1973 trip ge- neration by development areas. B - Trip Distribution and Assignment For the purpose of this study the trip distribution and assignment phases were combined into a single operation. The method and rationale of combining these two operations is indicated in the referenced reports. The resulting trip distri- butions patterns are indicated in Sketches SK 6 and SK 7. Sketch SK 6 shows the AM peak hour home to work distribution pattern for Executive development (El) land uses. Sketch SK 7 shows the AM peak hour home to work patterns for Residential (R2) land uses. P.M. peak hour trip distribution patterns are the same as the A. M. only in the reverse direction as it is assumed that the work to home travel route is the -same as the home to work AM route. The assignment of the forecasted traffic volumes (as indicated in the trip genera- tion section of this report) to the distribution routes indicated in this section Page Thirteen TABLE 4 PENINSULA OFFICE PARK BUILDING SCHEDULE Net Applicable Stalls Completion Building Gross to Parking Provided Date P.O. P. No. 1 42, 558 38, 302 154 Complete P, O. P. No. 2 76, 249 68, 624 275 Apr. 1, '73 P.O. P. Restaurant 15, 906 8.238 184 Feb. 1, '73 -13- Page Fourteen • • TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES • • • Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trip ends/day In Out In Out Offices* 13 2.25 0.35 0.75 2.80 Restaurants* 120 Closed Closed 9.00 6.00 R2 Residential** 2.8 0.06 0.18 0.19 0.07 * Trip rates are reported per thousand square feet of net building area ** Trip rates are reported per person Page Fifteen TABLE 6 ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT TIME FRAME FOR PRESENTLY UNDEVELOPED AREAS 1973 1973 Gross Forecast Area Per cent Development Zoning Floor Area Population 1 Borel 2 14.5 El 118,807 office 535 15,906 rest. 3 4 5 6 7 100.0 R2 333 100.0 R2 226 50.0 R2 475 50.0 El 200,000 900 -15- Page Sixteen TABLE 7 FORECASTS OF 1973 TRIP GENERATION BY DEVELOPMENT AREAS Area Generation Parameter AM -In AM -Out PM -In PM -Out 2(Borel) Offices 106,926 Net Floor Area (SF) 240 40 80 300 Restaurants 8, 238 Net Floor Area (SF) --- 74 49 6(Interland) 180,000 Net Floor Area (SF) 405 65 135 505 5(R2) 475 Persons 30 85 90 35 3(R2) 333 Persons 20 60 63 23 4(R2) 226 Persons 14 41 43 16 -16- Page Seventeen • F,V:yrs el..i.:• ••\.,+, r.'." rrr>v-;',"•..:'-._ i7:w' -"'""Vi•- :Kr5NraVe -7r:ktek%`r ''- ::i4. 1:4 t.17 1;S•dxrm3:11' err sithr4J.t.itrnfyigtMynct- Ke k.i lit?iZ .v3rit rJ ., yavr,e,.. x5 t? F;, 1R 'i-r_ 7.-.17' 3 W L �_ - 1 (11 Q t U u v r 1-0 • I n 1 11 • • • • • • • S r. Y .F.T :'i `��,1- - '- . i r;y J. j-). i: Cr' . � f :. i':.! 1''C17 ) •(--)'_ii;T J.i:' rJ-J .)11)' .5.' '. CO . ) T,m_rcn�s';,�; �)1.W.IMOPJ4VI T AREA 1133-1,1U t • I r (Z,G) DTF .:a) 2.) r1i?,O!':_S ESTATE a'T:CUT1 E -tr,-TOP;„r,-'flT loot, i l D1 ,51-1.21 burkOi ?3/71Q-1-74-414.- j 1 i• t t 31 4, i k tt 11 t$ l " . . . . " f . ����, . . ' - x [ ' ! 5 : : : . 4 , " . " ' : : �� I L j ��i i _ n Q I a d 1 I _ ) i O i i " O L - I O i i L i C i : 7 2 . 1 I Q o I 1 . 0 I L t i i i n ���� E 1 . i L o l ' t i _ " . - D i e ) " m N 4 ' �� i : i d " ' r " r 7 . 1 1 i \ V , Z ) 1 ) V ' E L ' g ` t ` O . . L S u M . : T S t l a : : e l f : 0 0 u a a t , 2 T I 0 2 1 3 d " " " " " " " " M r . F r a n k L . H e n r y 3 A u g u s t 1 7 , 1 9 7 2 T h e B o r e l C o m p a n i e s P a g e N i n e t e e n r e s u l t e d i n a s e r i e s o f a s s i g n m e n t s k e t c h e s . S k e t c h S K 8 i n d i c a t e s t h e 1 9 7 3 t r a f f i c v o l u m e s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e P e n i n s u l a O f f i c e P a r k . S k e t c h S K 9 i n d i c a t e s t h e s a m e d a t e d v o l u m e s f o r t h e I n t e r l a n d D e v e l o p m e n t P l a n . S k e t c h S K 1 0 i n d i c a t e s t r a f f i c v o l u m e s t o a n d f r o m R e s i d e n t i a l a r e a # 5 l o c a t e d a c r o s s W . H i l l s d a l e B o u l e v a r d f r o m t h e I n t e r l a n d P r o j e c t . S k e t c h S K 1 1 i n d i c a t e s t r a f f i c v o l u m e s t o a n d f r o m R e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s # 3 a n d # 4 l o - c a t e d a d j a c e n t t h e P e n i n s u l a O f f i c e P a r k P r o j e c t . T h e r e s u l t i n g t r a f f i c f o r e c a s t s a s i n d i c a t e d b y S k e t c h e s S K 8 t h r u S K 1 1 r e - p r e s e n t t h e a d d i t i o n a l t r a f f i c v o l u m e s t h a t c a n b e e x p e c t e d t o u t i l i z e t h e t r a n s - p o r t a t i o n n e t w o r k a t t h e t i m e t h e P . O . P . B u i l d i n g # 2 i s f i n i s h e d a n d o c c u p i e d . T h e s e v o l u m e s w h e n a d d e d t o t h e e x i s t i n g t r a f f i c o n t h e s y s t e m r e p r e s e n t t h e t o t a l v o l u m e s o n t h e s t r e e t a n d r a m p s . S k e t c h e s S K 1 2 a n d S K 1 3 e x h i b i t t h e s e t o t a l t r a f f i c v o l u m e s f o r m i d 1 9 7 3 d u r i n g t h e A M a n d P M p e a k h o u r s r e s p e c t i v e l y . C a p a c i t y A n a l y s i s T h e s e t r a f f i c a s s i g n m e n t s f o r m t h e b a s i s f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a d d i t i o n a l t r a f f i c c o n t r o l d e v i c e s . A s a r e s u l t o f t h e s e a s s i g n m e n t s i t i s c o n c l u d e d t h a t a t r a f f i c s i g n a l w i l l n o t b e w a r r a n t e d a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n o f C a m p u s D r i v e a n d W . H i l l s d a l e B o u l e v a r d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e i n a u g u r a t i o n o f t h e P . O . P . B u i l d i n g # 2 . E v e n t h e m i n i m u m w a r r a n t ( 2 ) w o u l d r e q u i r e t h a t t h e r e b e 1 0 0 v e h i c l e s p e r h o u r o n t h e m i n o r s t r e e t a p p r o a c h ( C a m p u s D r i v e i n t h i s c a s e ) f o r e a c h h o u r o f a n 8 h o u r p e r i o d d u r i n g a n a v e r a g e d a y . S u c h w i l l n o t b e t h e c a s e s i n c e o n l y t w o b u i l d i n g s w i l l b e d e v e l o p e d . H o w e v e r , t h e w a r r a n t s f o r a 3 w a y S t o p s i g n i n s t a l l a t i o n m a y b e m e t . T h e 3 o r 4 w a y S t o p w a r r a n t i s p r o v i d e d i n t h e M a n u a l o n U n i f o r m T r a f f i c C o n t r o l D e v i c e s . F o r m i n i m u m t r a f f i c v o l u m e s t h e y i n d i c a t e t h a t : a . T h e t o t a l v e h i c u l a r v o l u m e e n t e r i n g t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n f r o m a l l a p p r o a c h e s m u s t a v e r a g e a t l e a s t 5 0 0 v e h i c l e s p e r h o u r f o r a n y 8 h o u r o f a n a v e r a g e d a y , a n d b . T h e c o m b i n e d v e h i c u l a r a n d p e d e s t r i a n v o l u m e f r o m t h e m i n o r s t r e e t o r h i g h - w a y m u s t a v e r a g e a t l e a s t 2 0 0 u n i t s p e r h o u r f o r t h e s a m e 8 h o u r , w i t h a n a v e r a g e d e l a y t o m i n o r s t r e e t v e h i c u l a r t r a f f i c o f a t l e a s t 3 0 s e c o n d s p e r v e h i c l e d u r i n g t h e m a x i m u m h o u r . c . W h e n t h e 8 5 - p e r c e n t i l e a p p r o a c h s p e e d o f t h e m a j o r s t r e e t t r a f f i c e x c e e d s 4 0 m p h , t h e m i n i m u m v e h i c u l a r v o l u m e w a r r a n t i s 7 0 p e r c e n t o f t h e a b o v e r e q u i r e m e n t s . I n o r d e r t o c h e c k t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h e s e w a r r a n t s e a c h a p p r o a c h i n g l e g o f t h e i n - " t e r s e c t i o n o f C a m p u s a n d W . H i l l s d a l e B o u l e v a r d m u s t b e a n a l y z e d . T a b l e 8 i n d i c a t e s t h e e x p e c t e d a c c u m u l a t i o n o f v o l u m e i n e a c h l e g d u r i n g t h e p e a k e i g h t h o u r p e r i o d . " " " " A " " " " " " W e s t H i l l s d a l e ( . C " ) " 3 3 ( c . ) s _ 4 1 a ` o ( ( a ) T o C o 1 1 e t e S 1 1 1 0 A 1 j , 0 2 U c f C �� , Z c ��t i k A w l , . A N Q ����Z Q . \ t ' , ' U Z E ; O Pa ge Twen ty -On e S ye • • •'••" mat p.rM.L Cp . .-Vir SCRtcre" dne.. •T ort :=•Y V; J4' rrt ¢ three• n7!" . '6YtY>,Y t•t»ix +:Y. ',':A•fSZdt"-.YLY Il{.7,t:" Y.l.:iCS3XR2a al.M17JPsg Ca^7 4. C:: idh`rasaw2 ,_! 4 ,..-... ("9 I C.,1 N (r.% .O' aLi (i f • (H,1) 91 • I1 • it • • co 0 2 y • lid • ' !s� — I t'` < I ! 0 L.,)O i u fi vi a tl PJ• A \/ eI U. r �r CO • Li] C — _J (T9a) O n e,7 . J.y'y '5�::'•i✓A�. C. 1r.Y//. LSJA v`h Cn .f ‘,.. .n,rt►?T, •r rw A'�ArL..: .1 C�. '� LC°S:SrI,�F.R •rsy.tu N' Y�n.eFJ•�h r':2t h,Y' 7TiA: .l .14 IA' s. R: rS ..• ' r,:.`• �.. .'. n::••� " " " " " " " " . " " " i i W e s t H i i 1 s d a l e i i v d . i 3 1 3 C f f i c e a r k o m y - X ; u a n n y a u c i i • • • i • i i • • • 21 2°a l -d I LLSDAB 0 Za 2s (s; C •r. (0 fri • to 1 Sou c E A A C ►� �:i ta►�p Cot t �'-i k3 I " " " " " " " " " " A j . . N " T a b S i " " " " " " " " " " " 4 1 9 . " 9 \ ' 9 I L L S D A L " I l a I , s N ' % \ " " " " " " K j E l C C ) r - y . . . . , _ , " 3 3 ��} 7 " �� r " b C D C D [ C S Page Twenty -Six • • TABLE 8 FORECASTED PEAK 8 HOUR PERIOD TRAFFIC VOLUMES Peak • Peak Hour Approach Volume % of 1 -way 11 AM - 7 PM 8 hour Approach Leg Period Peak Hour • 1 -way ADT ADT 1 -way ADT Total Hillsdale -Eastbound PM 919 12.0 7600 .55 4200 • • Hillsdale -Westbound AM 828 12.5 6600 .52 3400 Campus -South PM 372 26.5 1400 .60 850 Mr. Frank L. Henry August 17, 1972 The Borel Companies Page Twenty -Seven The total traffic entering the intersection from all approaches is expected to reach an average of 1050 vehicles per hour during this period. The total vehicular traffic [..... from the minor street is expected to reach an average of 120 vehicles per hour du- ring the same period, if the average pedestrian demand of 80 units per hour and the average delay to Campus Drive of at least 30 seconds per vehicle materialize at the time, a three-way Stop sign will be warranted. The available right of way width will provide sufficient capacity to handle the develop- ment at this time and no other traffic improvements appear warranted due to the Peninsula Office Park development of Building No. 2. As. usual, please be assured that we will be ready to assist you- further and at your convenience. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, J. D. DRACHMAN ASSOCIATES } f: / !Jaime Drachrnan Senior Partner JD:ed c. c. Mr. Richard Hopper Traffic Engineer City of San Mateo Mr. David Robinson Robinson & Mills Architects GILMORE ESTATES TRAFFIC ACCESS STUDY j:1 J. D. Drachman Associates Transportation Consultant '') NOVEMBER 1970 1/4.111 J. D. Drachman Associates Transportation Consultant 53 Tunnel Road Berkeley, California 94705 (415) 548-2873 November 24, 1970 Mr. William Wilson I I I Bore! Development Corporation 1700 South El Camino Real San Mateo, California Subject: Gilmore Estates Traffic Access Study Dear Mr. Wilson: We are pleased to submit this final report concerning the problem of vehicular access to the proposed Gilmore Estates Executive Office Development. This re- port summarizes the forecast procedures, methodology, findings, and conclusions of the traffic study. During the course of this study we have worked closely with and appreciate the assistance given us by you and members of your staff as well as the architectural firm of Robinson, DeQuesada and Mills. In addition, we would like to express our appreciation to the governmental agencies who have supplied us with the necessary background and input information. We especially like to thank the following in- dividuals and agencies: Mr. Edward Ruzak San Mateo County Traffic Engineer Mr. Richard Hopper City of San Mateo - Traffic Engineer Mr. William Wilson I I I -2- November 24, 1970 Mr. Ty Tekawa City of San Mateo - Assistant Traffic Engineer Mr. Hanna Kollo Regional Transportation Planning Commission (Formerly Bay Area Transportation Study Commission) Without the assistance of the above mentioned persons this study could not have been accomplished. Please be assured that we appreciate your selection of our firm for participation in the planning of this project. Very truly yours, J. D. DRACHMAN ASSOCIATES 0 Richard J. Mayer P.E. Chief Engineer RJM:ed encl.- Registered professional Engineer California No. 15435 CONTENTS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1 INTRODUCTION 3 STUDY OBJECTIVES 3 PROBLEM STATEMENT 4 STUDY PROCEDURES 5 TRIP GENERATION 6 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT 9 CAPACITY EVALUATION 13 LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1 AREA WIDE TRIP DISTRIBUTION TO GILMORE ESTATES 10 2 LOCAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION AM PEAK TO GILMORE ESTATES 12 3 PLAN 1 EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY 14 4 PLAN 2 PARTIAL WIDENING OF W. HILLSDALE BOULEVARD 16 5 PLAN 3 HIGH TYPE CHANNELIZATION 18 LIST OF TABLES TABLE SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RESEARCH 8 ii SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS This study has investigated the impact on the street and highway system caused by the development of the Gilmore Estates to the proposed Executive Of- fice land use. The basic objective of the study was to establish the level of allowable development that would not cause a major problem of access to the study site and would not overburden the street and highway system in the sur- rounding area, The findings of this study are summarized as follows: * From available research data the num- ber of peak direction trips that can be expected to be produced in an of- fice development are 0.45 and 0.56 trips per employee during the morning and evening peak periods respectfully. # These generation rates can be related to floor area by the assumption of a rather intense and conservative em - employment density of 200 square feet per employee. * Based on data developed by the gay Area Study Commission it is fore- casted that 25 per cent of the work trips to this area will be associated with the northern peninsula area and 37 per cent with the southern penin- sula area. * Approximately 80 per cent of the tra- vel to the study area will make use of some portion of the 19th Avenue Freeway. # Because of the heavy use of the 19th Avenue Freeway the critical point of traffic conflict will be the left turning inbound vehicles from Hillsdale Boulevard to the study site during the morning peak hour. # A design service level D of traffic demand formed the basis for the in- tersection capacity calculations. This traffic service level provides a better than capacity condition while commensurate with recommended nation- wide urban design criteria. Calcu- lated maximum intersectional volumes and resulting allowable office space represent this service level rather than roadway capacity. # The analysis of various development support levels is based on the as- sumption of a single access point to the development at the extension of Campus Drive. Furthermore, it is assumed that the formerly state owned land parcel is land -locked between the development and the Golf Club and must therefore be given access via the same Campus Drive extension. Thus, this study assumes that a reverse type of peak hour development, such as a res- idential area will take place at said parcel. # A minimum improvement plan at the in- tersection of Hillsdale and Campus Drive could support a development of 570,000 square feet of office space. This plan would utilize the existing pavement width and would include the installation of a traffic signal and channelization. 1 * A second stage improvement plan which limit of office space development, based would include the widening of Hillsdale on the conditions set forth in this re - Boulevard through the intersection port, be limited to 850,000 square feet. with Campus Drive could support a de- velopment of 730,000 square feet of office space. # A higher type of channelization, at the intersection of Hillsdale and Campus Drive commonly referred to as a jug handle design, would theoreti- cally allow a development of 1,200,000 square feet of office space. # The intersection of Campus Drive and Hillsdale Boulevard can be designed to handle the trips generated by an intensive amount of office space de- velopment within the Gilmore Estates. However, is is recommended that a total square footage of considerably less than the 1,200,000 square feet be considered as the practional up- per limit of development because of constraints at other locations in the street and highway system. # Assuming that the intersection of Campus Drive and Hillsdale Boulevard can be designed to carry substantial traffic volumes, critical points on network will then arise at the free- way ramps and ramp terminals which will dictate the allowable level of office space development. * From an investigation of capacity of the freeway ramps and ramp terminals, it is recommended that the upper 2 INTRODUCTION The Bore! Development corporation is proposing to develop an area, known as the Gilmore Estates, to an Executive Office District land use in accordance with the recommendations of the San Mateo Executive Development Study Com- mittee. The Gilmore Estates is a 54 acre land parcel situated in the cen- tral area of San Mateo County approx- imately 20 miles south of San Francisco, and 25 miles north of San Jose. The exact location of the development site is near the interchange of the J. Arthur Younger Freeway, commonly referred to as the 19th Avenue Freeway (State Highway 92) and West Hillsdale Boulevard. This area is bounded on the west by the Free- way, on the north by the Peninsula Golf and County Club, on the east by residen- tial areas and on the south by West Hillsdale Boulevard. The completion of State Highway 92 to state freeway standards has greatly en- hanced the accessibility o.f this site to all areas of San Mateo County and, because of its direct connection to the San Mateo -Hayward Bridge, accessibility has been established with the entire Bay Area. In the near future, the Junipero Serra Freeway (Interstate Route 280) will be completed connecting the cities of San Francisco and San Jose with a north -south corridor located in the cen- tral part of San Mateo County. The com- pletion of this new route will increase the accessibility of the study area to the hillside residential areas of both San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. The Executive Development Study Committee STUDY OBJECTIVES in their report of September 19691 to the San Mateo City planning Commission has recognized the importance of acces- sibility for the successful development of an Executive Office District. The report indicates a number of specific areas as prime sites for executive use. Among the listed locations are "The interchange locations along the 19th Avenue Freeway". Gilmore Estates, in close proximity to the West Hillsdale Boulevard -19th Avenue Freeway inter- change, is ideally situated in accor- dance with the recommendations of said report. The primary objective of this study is to determine the type and intensity of land use that can be developed within the Gilmore Estates property, commen- surate with existing and future traf- fic conditions. More specifically, this study endeavors to calculate the amount of Executive Office floor space that can be built in the area, while maintaining a desirable level of traf- fic service to the development and ad- jacent residential areas. Maximum land use development for any land par- cel may be dictated by one or more of many variables. The underlying assump- tion of this report is that maximum de- velopment may be limited by local ac- cess considerations and traffic impact of such a development on the street 1Executive Development Study Committee. Executive Districts. Report to San Mateo City Planning Commission. 1969 3 PROBLEM STATEMENT and highway network in the immediate vicinity. A criteria for maximum de- velopment based on such an assumption is analyzed. In addittion, this study explores possible improvements of the street and highway system which would enhance the flow of traffic in the sur- rounding area and thus prevent a failure of the transportation system. Ultimate development of the area under study to a traffic measure of allowable executive office building area is included in the travel demands analysis of highway im- provements. As previously indicated, the area wide access to the development site via the existing and future regional facilities is more than adequate. The problem may arise when localized access is consid- ered. Specifically, automobile trips destined to the site via the 19th Avenue Freeway are expected to encounter a near free flow condition on the freeway itself because of the available lane capacity and the designed access control on such a transportation facility. Conversely, the freeway ramps and their at grade intersections with West Hillsdale Boule- vard indicate opposing traffic encounter locations, herein referred to as points of traffic conflict. Similar points of traffic conflict presently exist at the possible access locations to the devel- opment where vehicles turning onto the project will conflict with through traf- fic on West Hillsdale Boulevard. These conflicts would become critical during the morning peak hour period when traf- fic destined to the development would be arriving at the intersection in the same general time span as traffic des- tined to the College of San Mateo. The college is located approximately a half a mile due west of the Gilmore Estates site. Access to the development will be available only from West Hillsdale Boulevard. It is not desirable to provide access on the east side of the site because of the resulting traffic impact on the residential nature of this area. Access to the north and west will not be possible as a practi- cal consideration due to the adjacent location of the Gulf Club and the Free- way. Therefore, it is assumed that all ingress and egress to the Gilmore par- cel wilt be to and from West Hillsdale Boulevard. Presently, there are two possible access points on West Hillsdale Boulevard, one at Campus Drive and another at scenic Way. Due to the nature of the terrain and consequent engineering difficulties, the extension of Scenic Way to serve the development was not considered a feasible alterna- tive. For the purpose of this study all access was considered as provided by the extension of Campus Drive into the site. In summary, the problem to which this report is addressed pertains basically to an intersection capacity study. The study considers intersection lay- outs of varying degrees of sophistica- tion and the resulting traffic volume of peak hour vehicles which can be ac- commodated for the various alternatives 4 STUDY PROCEDURES within a desirable Level of service. These peak hour volumes are then co - related to allowable quantitative measures of Executive Office floor space which can be developed. Finally, as a result of the trips generated from these determined amounts of floor space, other points of conflict are investigated to ensure that a critical condition does not occur at some other location in the highway system. These other possible critical locations include, for the most part, the intersection of freeway ramps and West Hillsdale Boulevard and the freeway ramps themselves. The study procedures generally followed a methodology of analytical sequence required of all transportation planning studies. They follow a general and ac- ceptable format within the traffic en- gineering profession for access and cir- culation studies. A defined logical se- quence of four basic phases has been separated and ordered for convenience. The individual work phases are not in- dependent, and a feedback between sequen- tial phases is required in the study. The first step consists of a trip gener- ation phase, indicating how many trips can reasonably be expected to be pro- duced by any given land use intensity. The second step consists of a trip dis- tribution phase. Trip distribution refers to the determination of geograph- ical areas with which trips to or from the study area are associated. The third step consists of a traffic assignment phase whereby the trips that were gener- ated by the development and distributed to the various geographical areas in the previous two phases are assigned to the street and highway system. Elements of the system which constitute the best routes between the study area and ultimate destinations are usually assumed to be the minimum time path between points of origin and destina- tion. For a small area study such as this, the traffic assignment phase need not be done in great detail. It is only necessary to determine by what routes and from which directions are trips coming into or leaving the study site. For example, following the de- termination of what portion of trips leaving the area will be going east- ward on Route 92 Freeway, it is not necessary to know how many of these trips would subsequently go north or south on the Bayshore Freeway, although this could be determined from the ear- lier trip distribution data. The traffic assignment phase thus pro- vides information as to vehicle turning movements at the various locations of traffic conflicts. With the knowledge of these traffic movements at critical locations a capacity estimate can be made to determine whether or not such locations will operate at a satisfac- tory level of service. If the existing intersection condition is unsatisfac- tory, various physical improvements can be tested in order to alleviate such a condition. These improvements include such possibilities as installation of a multiphase signal, traffic stripping, channelization, or widening of the ap- proach roadway. 5 TRIP GENERATION Transportation planning techniques usually require that land use distri- bution by location and intensity be collected and collated for existing conditions. In order to analyze future developments, land use distribution and intensity is further assumed for unde- veloped lands in quantitative formats such as number of acres of industrial land or number of dwelling units by population density groups. Next, based on either synthesized data or statisti- cal regresion techniques, the number of trips produced by each of these types and intensity of land use are estimated. These trips are then distributed to geographic areas, and assigned to the transportation facilities, followed by an evaluation of the impact of the traf- fic volumes on the highway network. In this study, the procedure is slightly different in that an intensity of land use for the study area is not pre- determined. Instead, the highway net- work is analyzed and evaluated as to the volume of vehicles that can be accoom- modated, with a desirable service level of traffic capacity. This analysis is followed by the conversion of this de- sirable vehicle volume into an allowable intensity of land use. Regardless of whether land use intensity represents an input to or a result of the traffic study, it is necessary to establish the mathematical relationships between the intensity of land use and the production of trips. The generation of trips by a given land use is usually based on either an aver- age day or a shorter specified time pe- riod of peak characterisrics such as one hour. In the design of access cri- teria, the morning and evening peak hour periods represent the critical times. These critical periods control the physical requirements of a given intersection. The production of trips can be correlated to different para- meters depending on the type of land use under study. In a residential area, for example, the number of trips gener- ated would be dependent on total popu- lation, total dwelling units, and ve- hicle ownership. In a commercial area, trip generation can be correlated with net leased area, total acreage and gross sales. For an industrial area or office building it has been found that total employment usually represents the most statistically stable parameter. Employ- ment thus becomes the most reliable parameter for the determination of trip generation for this land use. There- fore, for the Gilmore Estate Traffic Study, it was decided that trip volumes be related to employment. The total employment could later be converted to floor areas based on commonly used and generally acceptable planning ratios. In recent years much attention has been devoted to the relationship between land uses and trip generation. A num- ber of research projects have been completed or are underway in various parts of the country. In particular, 6 an extensive survey has been in progress for the last five years within the San Francisco Bay Area. This survey has been undertaken by the California Division of Highways - District 4 with federal financial assistance. Other studies that were concerned with trip generation characteristics of office developments include a report from the Illinois Chapter of the Institute of Traffic Engineers, and a study by W. A. Alroth in Niles, Ill inois, as reported in Highway Research Board Report 237. The summarized results of these investi- gations are presented in Table 1. As can be seen from this Table, the trip generation rates per employee show con- siderable stability among reported sources. It was recommended that the calculated median rates indicated in the Table be utilized in this study. By using a median rate rather than an average rate, the effects of a single wide variance observation, such as in- dicated by Study 29, are dampened. It should be noted that the studies per- formed by the California Division of Highway mostly represent a combined count of both directions. in order to convert these values to directional generation rates, it was assumed that the morning directional distribution represented 86 per cent inbound and 14 per cent out- bound traffic volumes and that the eve- ning directional distribution represented 23 per cent inbound and 77 per cent out- bound traffic volumes. The assumed di- rectional percentage distributions re- present average conditions as have been found to exist in the traffic flow of a variety of employment centers. The indicated generation rates per em- ployee can be directly related to floor space by the assumption of an employee density on a square footage basis. The San Mateo Executive Development Study Committee surveyed a number of office buildings in the region. The reported employment densities ranged from 190 to 288 square feet per employee. These values are in general agreement with a nationwide average of 200 square feet per employee. It is likely that an Executive type of- fice development as proposed for the Gilmore Estates site will result in a substantially lower density, such as that reported for Foster City of 288 square feet per employee. Such an employment density would result in up to 30 per cent lower generation rates per thousand square feet. However, in order to provide a built in safety factor it was decided to assume a high density of 200 square feet per employee for the purpose of this study. In summarizing this trip generation section of the report, the following generation rates were established: 7 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RESEARCH Study Sample Size (Employees) Vehicle Generation per Employee AM AM PM PM in Out In Out W. A. Alroth Highway Research Record 237 Chicago - institute of Traffic Engineers Cal ifornia California California California California California Division Division Division Division Division Division of Highways Dist. 4 -study 29-1966 of Highways of Highways of Highways of Highways of Highways Dist. 4 -Study 67-1968 Dist. 4 -Study 73-1968 Dist. 4 -Study 88-1969 Dist. 4 -Study 111-1969 Dist. 4 -study 113-1969 Computed Median Rates 85 .48 .05 .05 .72 NA NA NA NA .46 305 .91 .17 .36 .59 80 .43 .07 .23 .77 180 .39 .06 .11 .39 139 .48 .09 .10 .36 413 .45 .08 .15 .53 100 .43 .07 .18 .62 .45 .07 .15 .56 (NA - not available) 8 TRI P DISTRIBUTION AND TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AM inbound 0.45 Trips/Employee 2.25 Trips/1000 Square Feet AM Outbound 0.07 Trips/Employee 0.35 Trips/1000 Square Feet PM Inbound 0.15 Trips/Employee 0.75 Trips/1000 Square Feet PM Outbound 0.56 Trips/Employee 2.80 Trips/1000 Square Feet For the purpose of this study the trip distribution and assignment phases were combined into a single operation. This task was accomplished by identifying geographical areas with appropriate travel routes of maximum service area. Fbr example, trips from the north wes- tern sector of the San Francisco -San Mateo peninsula were assumed to arrive at the study site via the Junipero Serra Freeway southbound and Route 92 west- bound. In 1965 the Bay Area Transportation Study Commission (BATS) was formed for the pur- pose of developing a region wide trans- portation plan for the entire San Francisco Bay Area. As part of that study, a home interview travel survey was conducted based on a statistical sample of dwelling units throughout the area. The entire nine county study area was subdivided into 291 zones and existing travel patterns determined for travel interchange between al l sub -areas. These travel patterns were also stratified by trip purpose, such as work, shop, school trips, etc., and by travel mode, such as public transportation and private ve- hicles. A similar table was also de- veloped for the forecast year of 1990 based on nationwide accepted statistical forecasting techniques. This 1990 trip table reflects not only the changing land use pattern forecasts for the fu- ture, but also the expected changes in the area wide transportation network system. For the purpose of this study the 291 zones developed by the Bay Area Trans- portation Study were compressed onto 8 geographical areas. From these eight areas, a distribution of home based work oriented trips to a zone in central San Mateo County, was summarized from the BATS trip tables. The central San Mateo County analysis zone encompassed the Gilmore Estates study site. The actual total number of trips reported in these tables do not apply to the specific study area. However, the calculated percentage distribution is indicative of the geo- graphical orientation of work trips as- sociated with the proposed development of the Gilmore Estates. The distribution for a short range projection, based on existing patterns, and a long range pro- jection, based on a 1990 forecast, is shown graphically on Figure. 1. The distribution as illustrated in Figure 1 is the result of changes in land use intensity expected for the future. Based on existing travel 9 IMO NIP OM MI II. MI MN INN F- r '1o\1" Half Moon a Bay la San Francisco Bay 1 AREA WIDE WORK TRIP DISTRIBUTION TO GILMORE ESTATES 00% Short Range Distribution 00% Long Range Distribution Redwood City ' Palo Alto r 5 Route 1 From North via Route 280 2 From North via Route 101 3 From East via Bridge 4 From South via Route 101 5 From South via Canada Road or Route 280 6 From West via Route 92 7 Local- Northside 0 8 Local - Southside r\d9e 3 patterns approximately 28 per cent of al l work trips from the study area are presently associated with the northern peninsula area. In the future this dis- tribution is expected to change with 25 per cent of the trips traveling from and to the north, and 37 per cent from and to the south. The trips originating in the local area around the Gilmore Estates site (Sectors 7 and 8 which in- clude an area approximately 3 miles to the north and south of the study area, and 1.i miles to the east and west) are expected to become a decreasing per- centage of trips in the future. This change wil l be caused in part by the overall improvements to the street and highway systems which will allow future longer distance trips to be made in ap- proximately the same travel time as to- day's shorter distance trips. Another source of data pertinent to the trip distribution phase of this report is a study completed in 1962 by George Nolte and Associates, Inc. and Stanford Research Institute for San Mateo County. The purpose of said report was to de- velop a comprehensive street and highway plan for the county. In the course of this study a trip table was developed for the 7 to 9 AM home to work trips. Because of the differences in zonal structure it is difficult to compare this distribution directly to the Bay Area Transportation Study trip table. However, on an approximate directional basis, this earlier study indicated that somewhere in the range of 30 per cent of the work trips were oriented to the north and 35 per cent to the south. This is in the same general range as shown on Exhibit 1. The more current, home interview based BATS data was selected as the basis for this study. The BATS established per cent regional distribution of work trips to and from the Gilmore Estates, was then assigned to the surrounding street and highway network. The assignment was based on a minimum time route associated with each of the 8 regions. This resulted in a percentage allocation of trips to the various transportation facilities serving the study area. Figure 2 pre- sents this allocation of trips to the surrounding street and highway network. As expected, the vast majority of trips to and from the proposed development will utilize the 19th Avenue Freeway both for the short and long range time projections. The major difference be- tween the short and long range traffic distribution will be an increasing per- centage of trips taking place to and from the west, utilizing the 19th Avenue Freeway. This percentage increase re- flects the future completion of the Junipero Serra Freeway as well as other element of the Freeway System, and a re- sulting increase in land developing ac- tivity in their service areas. In the end result, both the short and long range distributions show that between 82 and 84 per cent of all traffic will be coming from or going to the west on Hillsdale Boulevard. The traffic impact on other sections of Hillsdale Boulevard will be minor. 11 2 LOCAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION A.M. Peak to Gilmore Estates 1 Immediate Future West Hillsdale Blvd. 18% 16% Gilmore Estates 3% (ERNE. 4% To College of San Mateo 12 CAPACITY EVALUATION The assignment of traffic to and from the Gilmore Development to the local streets makes it evident that the cri- tical element on the street system will be the left turn inbound volume from Hillsdale Boulevard onto campus Drive during the morning peak hour. This turning movement will exhibit demand of more than 80 per cent of the arriving vehicles. A recent gound count by the State of California, Division of High- ways of the traffic in the morning peak on Hillsdale Boulevard going toward the freeway and the college showed a volume of 500 vehicles per hour. Therefore, the development inbound turns volume will be in conflict with these 500 ve- hicles per hour going through, west- bound, on west Hillsdale Boulevard. The present 500 vehicles peak hour volume going through on Hillsdale Boulevard is not expected to show any substantial growth in the future. Ac- cording to a study completed by the California Division of Highways - Dis- trict 4, the average daily traffic on this section of Hillsdale Boulevard is only expected to show an increase of 10 per cent over todays volumes by the year 1990. It is therefore reasonable to ex- pect that the same growth rate would al- so apply to the peak period. In order to produce estimates of allow- able amounts of executive office develop- ment within the study site, three possible configurations of the intersection of Hillsdale Boulevard and Campus Drive were developed and analyzed. These three proposed intersection treatment repre- sent varying degrees of sophistication which can be accomplished with a minimum of new constraction and expense. in- herent in each of these plans is the as- sumption of the installation of a basic three phase traffic time signal at the intersection will be warranted, and pro- vided. Furthermore, a design service level D of traffic volume, as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual, formed the basis for the intersection capacity calculations. This service level pro- vides for a better than capacity condi- tion while commensurate with recommended nationwide urban design criteria. A first plan evaluated the channeliza- tion of the area within the existing 56 feet pavement width. This channeliza- tion could be accomplished in a number of ways wuch as stripping raised bars or physical islands. Figure 3 graphically illustrates this channelization solution. Basically the concept presented here is to reduce the through westbound traffic to one lane while maintaining appropriate through traffic capacity, and thus pro- vide a protected double left turn pocket for the morning peak hour volume demand entering the project from the 19th Ave- nue Freeway. According to established Highway Research Board procedures for the study of inter- section capacity, a single lane approach of 14 feet in an outlying business dis- 13 1 3 Plan 1 EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY Inbound Capacity - 1260 vehicles per hour 4- h MERGE y y ---------- 4-- 4— t 1 r� ill t1 Free right turn desireable 1 / for P.M. Peak Campus Drive J. D. Drachman Associates tuil Transportation Consultant 4 14 trict can be expected to carry 1500 ve- hicles per hour of green cycle time. Therefore, if the cycle is set to pro- vide one third (33 per cent) of the green cycle time to the through west- bound movement, the corresponding 500 vehicles per hour traffic demand can be accommodated on a single traffic lane. The amount of traffic leaving the pro- ject during the morning peak hours being the reverse of the heavy flow, is ex- pected to be minimal. However, it is good operational practice to provide at least 10 per cent of a signal cycle for any minor traffic movement having a separate phase, even if this allocation is not necessarily warranted by the volume demand. The afternoon peak hour volumes establish the warrants for a separate phase for this movement. With 33 per cent and 10 per cent of the green signal time assigned to the through and minor traffic movements respectively, the remaining 57 per cent green cycle time can be made available to the left turning vehicles onto Campus Drive and thus onto the Gilmore Estates site. For this turning volume, two left turn only lanes with a 12 foot width each are provided. Such a double left turn pocket has a minimum service volume of 1800 vehicles per hour of green signal time at the acceptable D level of traffic service. Since 57 per cent of the cycle time is available for this movement, then 57 per cent of 1800 or 1030 vehicles can enter the project from the freeway during the morning peak hour. The through east- bound traffic on Hillsdale Boulevard, which today amount to 100 vehicles per hour in the morning peak, can easily be handled during the left turn and through signal phases. The calculated 1030 left turning ve- hicles allowed through the signal during the morning peak hour represent in ex- cess of 80 per cent of the total traffic according to the traffic distribution il- lustrated earlier in this report. There- fore, the total number of morning peak destinations arriving at the site would be 1030/0.82 or 1260 inbound vehicles during the peak hour. Referring to the earlier section of this report concerning trip generation this volume of vehicles would indicate a total employment of 2850 persons. Finally, assuming an em- ployment density of 200 square feet per employee this number of employees is equivalent to 570,000 square feet of al- lowable office space, which can be de- veloped with this intersection plan. A second plan, illustrated in Exhibit 4 is similar to plan 1 except that acne lane widening of Hillsdale Boulevard is pro- posed through the Campus Drive intersec- tion. The amount of widening required is between 12 and 14 feet. This increase in cross section of Hillsdale Boulevard at the intersection would allow the re- tention of two lanes for the westbound through traffic. The availability of these two lanes would increase the ca- pacity per green cycle time for this movement so that for the same peak hour vehicular demand, the alloted green cy- cle time can be reduced. This through traffic green time reduction would al- low an increase in signal green time phase 15 4 Plan 2 PARTIAL WIDENING OF W. HILLSDALE Inbound Capacity - 1610 vehicles per hour E -- e- 11 VI - Campus Drive tfiJ. D. Drachman Associates Transportation Consultant 16 for the left turn movement from 57 to 73 per cent. The resulting morning peak hour left turn allowable volume into the project would be 73 per cent of 1800 or 1315 vehicles. Assuming the same 82/18 directional distribution of traffic the total morning inbound destinations would increase to 1600 vehicles per hour, indicating an allow- able floor area executive office de- velopment of 730,000 square feet. The third plan, illustrated by Exhibit 5, presents a so called jug -handle de- sign. This type of channelization brings the turning volume out from the right and intercepts the through volume in a manner similar to a conventional four leg intersection. The major ad- vantage of this type of design is the greater capacity available in a through lane of traffic as compared to a turning lane. While the double left turn lanes shown in Plans 1 and 2 (Exhibits 3 and 4) have a basic capacity 1800 vehicles per hour of green time, the two through lanes shown in this plan would have a capacity close to 3100 vehicles per hour of green time. The signal phasing for this design would be the same as for Plan 2. The net result is a total of 2740 inbound vehicles per hour that could be accommodated by this plan. This would indicate that 1,200,000 square feet of executive office space could conceivably be developed in the area without causing the intersection of Hillsdale Boulevard and Campus Drive to exceed capacity. Although Plan 3 can theoretically sup- port a much higher level of development, this intensity of land use is not re- commended. The capacity of the inter- section at Campus Drive and Hillsdale Boulevard will operate within capacity for this condition, however, the cri- tical point of conflicting traffic wil l be shifted to other locations in the local network. Two major points of con- flict will arise at the freeway ramp terminals. During the morning peak hour there will be conflicts between the col- lege oriented travel and trips to the study site at the two off ramps. During the evening peak there wi l l be a conflict between the left turning vehicles to the westbound on ramps and the through traf- fic on Hillsdale Boulevard. In addition, there is a practical upper l imit to the volume of vehicles that can be handled by the freeway ramps. A capacity investigation of these critical points in l ight of the traffic assign- ment illustrated in Figure 2 indicated that, al l other things being equal, the practional upper l imit of Executive Of- fice Development within the Gilmore Estates should be 850,000 square feet. This amount of development would result in the critical off ramp from the east operating just under capacity during the morning peak hour. The other con- flict points in both the morning and afternoon peak hours wil l operate at 85 to 90 per cent of capacity. Thus, un- less some additional points of access can be provided to the site, the street 17 5 'Plan 3 HIGH TYPE CHANNELIZATION Inbound Capacity - 2740 vehicles per hour From Freeway f F-_ 4-- -4 1 I 1. I Campus Drive 4- t Freeway Ramp ti3J. D. Drachman Associates Transportation Consultant 18 system with some improvements can sup- port a maximum development of 850,000 square feet. Most of the discussion in this section of the report has dealt with the morning peak hour. In the evening the absolute volumes leaving the area will be greater than the inbound morning traffic. How- ever, because of the nature of the traf- fic distribution, the evening peak period would not be as critical. The heavy flow of traffic would be right turning from the site onto Hillsdale Boulevard and right turning again to the eastbound freeway on ramp. Figure 3 shows a free right turn for the existing site move- ment to Hillsdale Boulevard. This would be desirable from an operational point of view, however, it is not absolutely necessary in terms of available capacity. The most critical movement in the evening peak is the left turn from Hillsdale Boulevard to the westbound on ramps. The calculated maximum development of 850,000 square feet would not exceed the available capacity for this traffic move- ment at this location. As a final note, it should be pointed out that the analysis of the various development support levels is based on a single access point to the develop- ment at the extension of Campus Drive. Furthermore, it is assumed that the formerly state owned land parcel is land locked between the proposed development and the Golf Club, and would therefore require access from Campus Drive inter- section. This study assumed a residen- tial type development for said land parcel. The outbound morning and in- bound afternoon peak hour flows typical of residential developments would make this development compatible to the pro- posed executive district land use of the Gilmore Estates site. Proposals for other land use types of development would require a re-examination and analysis of the conclusions of this re- port. 19 PENINSULA OFFICE PARK SITE NUMBER 8 TRAFFIC IMPACT AND PARKING STUDY FINAL REPORT J. D. Drachman Associates September 1979 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 STUDY METHODOLOGY 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 6 TRAFFIC IMPACTS 9 MITIGATION MEASURES - PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENT 13 MITIGATION MEASURES - TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 16 COMPACT CAR SURVEY 19 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Summary of Traffic Impacts Volume/Capacity Ratio Critical Locations 2 Summary of Impacts Hillsdale Boulevard and Highway 92 Ramps Volume/Capacity Ratios (PM Peaks) 3 Summary of Staggered Work Hours 10 15 17 4 Canpact Car Survey 20 1 Introduction In November 1970, J. D. Drachman Associates completed a traffic report entitled "Gilmore Estates Traffic Access Study." Thie report covered the expected traffic conditions for the over-all development of what is now known as the Peninsula Office Park. Since that time, we have been engaged to conduct traffic impact studies for individual office sites as the development progressed. This report is the latest of these impact reports covering the proposed Peninsula Office Park, Number 8. Peninsula Office Park, Number 8 (POP 8) will consist of one office building and a restaurant. The restaurant already exists and is in full operation. The office building will be a development of 90,700 square feet of space, with the required 330 parking stalls. The purpose of this report is to cover two main areas of concern in connection with the development of these buildings: First is the traffic impact onthe nearby street and highway system caused by the expected office trip generation, especially during peak periods. The second part of the study investigated the percentage of compact cars currently . parked at the existing development so that an estimate of the required full-size and compact -size parking stalls can be made. Also included in th is analysis are the impacts of other developments in the area that are approved, or have a good possibility of being developed, including the assumption of 100 percent occupancy of the entire Peninsula Office Park Complex. A lost of these developments that have been reviewed in the course of the study is as follows: 2 Bay Ridge Heights 40 condominium units (included) 1 r 1 r A 1 i 1 f t i 1 1 1 San Mateo Woods 200 units (included. 160 units included in original report; 40 units added to this addendum) Sugarloaf 383 units approved to date (included) College of San Mateo No expansion expected (not included). See Enclosure Callan Property #1 (Addendum Traffic Report, May 25, 1979) Environmental assessment to be forthcoming. One access to this property, although perhaps not the only one, would be a link to Campus Drive. If the property is developed for residentual use as presently zoned, the flow of traffic would be counter to peak -hour flows and would have minimal impact. Commercial office use would require rezoning. Since denisities and uses have not yet been developed, this property is not included. Peninsula Golf and No plans for development (not included). Country Club California Casualty Expansion planned but undetermined (not included) The locations of these possible developments are shown on Exhibit 1. 3 Study Methodology The study procedure followed the usual sequence of work tasks followed in all previous studies during the development of the Peninsula Park. Two basic components were required: the establishment of existing traffic conditions, and the forecast of future traffic patterns. The establishment of the existing traffic conditions required the collection and collation of traffic data from various sources. These sources and the data provided are as follows: City of San Mateo - 1978 Hillside/Campus Drive Traffic Counts City of San Mateo - 1978 Hillside/Highway 92 Partial Traffic Counts Cal -Trans - 1975 Hillsdale/Highway 92 Full Traffic Counts The older 1975 counts were used only to estimate the 1978 volume on noncritical traffic movements. For all the critical movements that dictate traffic service levels, the City's latest December 1978 counts were used. The City's counts were also spot-checked and confirmed by the Consultant in April and May 1979. In addition, parking -field data were collected by the Consultant. These data included a ten-day parking accumulation count at the Borel's restaurant parking lot, a six -day accumulation count at office building POP 2, and a survey of the number of compact cars in relation to full-sized cars actually parked at all the office lots in the project on a typical weekday. The accumulation counts were conducted during 1978, which, according to the restaurant owners, was one of their highest -volume months. The compact car survey was conducted during December 1978. 5 The next step was to determine the geographical orientation of these generated trips. The distribution was based on data received earlier from the. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) which was used in previous studies for the Borel Development. A summary of this distribution to the surrounding highway facilities is as follows: Hillsdale Boulevard East 20% Hillsdale Boulevard West of Highway 92 . . 6% Highway 92 East 44% Highway 92 West 3096 100% These percentages were then applied to the peak -period trip generation (both A.M. and P.M.), and the resulting volumes were assigned to the appropriate street sections and freeway ramps. The increases in traffic volumes and turning movements at the critical intersection were noted. 6 Existing Conditions During the morning peak period, the highest directional traffic flow on Hillsdale Boulevard is westbound. Most of this A.M. peak condition is attritubable to the College of San Mateo. Westbound volumes range from 400 vehicles per hour east of 31st Avenue, gradually increasing to 930 vehicles per hour between Campus Drive and Highway 92. Between Highway 92 and Clearview Way, the volumes increase to 1870 vehicles per hour. This increase is the result of the heavy westbound off -ramp movement from Highway 92. Of this westbound volume east of Campus Drive, 100 vehicles per hour are attributed to the existing Peninsula Office Park development. Assuming full occupancy of the existing office space and the building of other developments —most notably the Sugarloaf 380 dwelling units —an additional 10 cars per hour will be added east of Campus Drive, and 50 cars per hour between Campus Drive and Highway 92. Exhibit 2 illustrates the existing A.M. traffic flow on Hillsdale Boulevard and also indicates the increase of traffic caused by 100 percent occupancy of the Office Park and the Sugarloaf development. Exhibit 3 is similar to 2 and illustrates the afternoon peak hour flow. The situation is similar to the morning peak, with the heavy direction reversed. It should be emphasized that the traffic counts indicated on these exhibits were taken in December 1978, with supplementary counts in April and May 1979. Earlier counts taken in August 1978 have been disregarded. On Campus Drive, the existing daily traffic volumes are in the range of 4000 vehicles per day on the section just north of Hillsdale Boulevard. The peak 7 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 r flow on Campus Drive is 830 vehicles per hour inbound in the morning, and 810 vehicles per hour outbound in the evening. To put these volumes in perspective, one standard traffic lane can carry between 1200 to 1500 vehicles per hour under uninterrupted flow conditions. Usually, the critical locations on any street -and -highway system will occur at intersections where uninterrupted flow cannot exist because of signalization or other conflicting traffic movement —such as turning movements, crossing and through movement. For example, if a through movement at an intersection is allotted 70 cercent of the available green -signal time, the capacity per lane is reduced to 840 to 1050 vehicles per hour. After reviewing these current traffic counts and turning volumes, it was evident that only two locations would exhibit significant traffic impacts. These locations were the Campus/Hillsdale intersection, and the ramp connection from Highway 92. At these critical locations, an evaluation was made of actual traffic demand in relation to the amount of traffic that could be carried at a "D" level of service. Level of service "D" is somewhat below the absolute capacity of an intersection. At this level of service there will be occasional periods of congestion at short intervals during the peak hour. This level of traffic service is considered acceptable in the traffic engineering field, and is generally the basis for geometric design of new facilities in urban areas. A more detailed description of traffic service levels (A through F) is included in the appendix to this report. 8 The results of this investigation indicate that the Campus/Hillsdale intersection is apparently operating at an acceptable level of service and could accommodate additional volumes at a "D" service level. During the morning peak, this intersection is operating at 79 percent of level "D," and 56 percent during the evening peak. The intersection at the west -side ramp connections operates at an acceptable 80 percent of level "D" during the morning peak. During the evening peak, however, this location operates at 116 percent of level "D," or about at absolute capacity. This condition is caused mostly by the substantial left -turning volumes from the off -ramp to Hillsdale Boulevard, and from Hillsdale Boulevard to the westbound on -ramp. These traffic -service levels are based on a peak -hour average. A more congested situation can occur during a short ten -to fifteen -minute period within the peak hour. Although the intersection of Hillsdale Boulevard and Campus Drive appears to be operating at an acceptable service level over the average P.M. peak hour, there is, in fact, some delay to traffic for short periods within this peak. From field observations it appears that this period of traffic congestion is caused more by the inadequacy of left -turn storage capacity for the move to Highway 92 westbound, rather than a deficiency of capacity in the Hillsdale/Campus intersection. This period of congestion will be extended when traffic from POP 8 is added to current volumes with no miitigation measures. However, any mitigation provided for the Hillsdale/Highway interchange will provide some upstream relief to this intersection. 9 Traffic Impacts The trip -generation parameters previously listed were applied to the total revised floor area plan, resulting in the following volumes: Average Daily Weekday Traffic . . . 1080 per day A.M. Inbound 130 per hour A.M. Outbound 20 per hour P.M. Inbound 30 per hour A.M. Outbound 120 per hour The peak -hour trips were then loaded to the adjacent street and highway facilities in accordance with the estimated geographical distribution. The result of this work task is shown in Exhibits 4 through 7. These exhibits indicate the existing traffic volumes summarized from sources previously cited, and the incremental volumes attributable to POP 8. Using the volumes indicated in these exhibits, an estimate of the traffic impact was made. These impacts are described as changes in intersection utilization, computed at the "D" servuce level, on important elements of the nearby street system. First, an estimate of the existing utilization was calculated; then the same calculation was made using the total existing and the increased traffic due to POP 8. A summary of these utilizations estimates is indicated in Table 1. The detailed capacity work sheets were included in the February 1979 Report. As indicated in Table 1, the nearby intersections are operating well within the "D" service level and are actually within the "C" or better service level based on an hourly demand volume. The major exception is at the freeway ramp 10 Table 1 Summary of Traffic Impacts Volume/Capacity* Ratio at Critical Locations A.M. Peak Hour Volume/Capacity Location Existing With POP No. 8 Campus Drive and Hillsdale Boulevard Freeway Ramps: East of Highway 92 West of Highway 92 0.79 0.86 0.80 0.85 0.87 0.85 P.M. Peak Hour Campus Drive and Hillsdale Boulevard Freeway Ramps: East of Highway 92 West of Highway 92 0.56 0.55 1.16 0.58 0.57 1.19 *Level of Service "D" 11 intersections with Hillsdale Boulevard on the west side of Highway 92. This particular intersection is currently operating at the lower range of "E" service level, which is close to absolute capacity. With the addition of the volumes from POP 8, this intersection will be operating at 19 percent over the average "D" service level. It should also be noted that although the Campus/Hillsdale intersection is theoretically operating at an acceptable level of service, it is, in effect, undergoing some periods of congestion as the result of the adverse effect of conditions at the west -ramp intersection. This period of. congestion is for a very short duration during the evening peak hour. Exhibit S 4, in an earlier traffic report (Addendum to the February 1979 Traffic Impact Analysis) indicates the hourly flow rate of vehicles approaching the intersection of Hillsdale Boulevard and Campus Drive from three critical direc- tions. These critical directions are southbound on Campus, westbound on Hillsdale, and left turn from Hillsdale to Campus. That chart illustrated the hourly traffic demand between 7 A.M. to 6 P.M. Also shown on the exhibit are two levels of estimated capacities: The lower capacity is what now exists; the higher capacity (approximately +100 vehicles per hour) is the estimated capacity after Mitigation Measure 2 is instituted at the Hillsdale/Highway 92 interchange.1 This capacity estimate is an empirical value based on observations in the field and represents the traffic demand at which some congestion and back-upswill occur. The capacity at this intersection is dependent —especially during the evening peak -on the number of vehicles that can be processed at the interchange ramp connection. 1Mitigation Measure 2 is described in the next section of this report. 12 The hourly flow rates in that earlier exhibit were shown separately: (1) for existing conditions, (2) increases due to full occupancy of the office park and other approved residential development, and (3) the impact of POP site Number S. When the hourly flow rate exceeds the indicated capacity, some traffic back-ups are likely to occur. As can be seen from this chart, the traffic demand exceeds the capacity for only short intervals during the morning and evening peak periods. For most of the remainder of a typical weekday, the intersection will operate at "C" or better level of traffic service. Since this exhibit was developed, a further cutback in the size of the office building has been proposed. This will result in the further reduction of the indicated time of traffic congestion. One additional concern is the problem of vehicles cutting through the shopping center to avoid traversing the Campus/Hillsdale intersection. The magnitude of this problem is difficult to quantify; however, with the implementation of Mitigation 2, and additional staggering of work hours, this problem should be greatly reduced. 13 Mitigation Measures —Physical Improvement Based on the volume -capacity ratios calculated in the previous section of this report, some mitigation measures are indicated for the intersecton of Hillsdale Boulevard and the Freeway ramps on the west side of Highway 92. At the other impacted locations, the level of traffic service will not exceed the "D" level, so no mitigation is indicated. Any mitigation measures on the west side of Highway 92 will have a secondary beneficial effect on the Hillsdale/Campus intersection. At the terminals of the freeway ramps west of Highway 92, the major problems are caused by the left -turn movements from Highway 92 to the east on Hillsdale Boulevard, and from Hillsdale Boulevard westbound on Highway 92. During the P.M. peak, these two movements alone consume almost all the available capacity at this location. A number of physical improvements for this location were considered, and these were discussed in the February 1979 traffic report. After discussions with City staff, the California Department of Transportation, and the owner, it was decided that Mitigation Measure Number 2 would be the most feasible and desirable. This mitigation is financially feasible from the owner's point of view; he has agreed to fund the improvement. It is also the least disruptive to existing conditions. Mitigation Measure 2 is a plan to increase the capacity of the left -turn on -ramp movement from Hillsdale Boulevard to the west on Highway 92. In order to accomplish this, the westbound off -ramp from Highway 92 to east on Hillsdale 14 Boulevard is widened to two lanes. This would then allow a 20 percent reduction in the green -time allocation for this movement, while still being able to carry the total traffic demand at current service levels. This 10 percent reduction in green time for this movement could then be reassigned to the left -turn on movement, increasing the effective hourly capacity. This is illustrated graphically on Exhibits 8 and 9, which indicate the maximum theoretical capacity for each conflicting traffic flow (100 percent green -signal time), the actual green -signal time allocation, and the actual hourly capacity. Exhibit 8 is for the existing condition, and Exhibit 9 is after the addition of a lane on the off -ramp. As indicated, this results in an increase of 100 vehicles per hour to the left -turn on -ramp. This increase in capacity for this critical turn movement will have a beneficial upstream effect at the intersection of Hillsdale Boulevard and Campus Drive. The increased ability to handle traffic demand on this left -turn movement will alleviate most of the back-up of vehicles across the Hillsdale - Campus intersection. Table 2 is presented to show the effects of Mitigation Measure 2 for a number of assumed traffic conditions in relation to the existing volumecapacity ratio at the intersection of Highway 92 west side ramps and Hillsdale Boulevard. 15 Table 2 Summary of Impact Hillsdale Boulevard and Highway 92 Ramps Volume/Capacity Ratios (PM Peak) (Level of Service "D") Condition Volume -Capacity. Ratio Existing Existing + Buildoutl Existing + Building + pop 82 Existing + Buildout + POP 8 With Mitigation Measure 1 1.16 1.20 1.24 1.15 1 Buildout includes: 100% occupancy of the Peninsula Office Park Bay Ridge Heights San Mateo Woods Sugarloaf 2POP 8 = 90,700 square feet of office space. 16 Mitigation Measures —Traffic Management Certain traffic management measures could provide some relief to the existing periods of traffic congestion. These measures include car pools, van pools, better use of public transit, and staggering of work hours. Staggered work hours are currently in the process of implementation and have a good potential for spreading out the peak -hour traffic flow in the future. Before March 1979, 60 percent of all employees in the Peninsula Office Park had a scheduled departure of 5:00 P.M. This amounts to 994 employees scheduled to leave the development at 5:00 P.M. Of these 994 employees, 400 are attributable to one employer, Arthur G. McKee and Company. The . McKee Corporation has recently changed their working hours so that scheduled departures are at 4:30 P.M., rather than at 5:00 p.m. This change was in effect as of March 1, 1979. As a result of this action on the part of the McKee Corporation, considerable traffic relief has been realized during the 5:00-5:15 time period, improving the level of traffic service from an "F" (forced flow) to an "E" level. If some additional employees would agree to shift their departure times to the 4:45 or 5:15 periods, traffic back-ups would be almost nonexistent. It is estimated that a shift of about 300 employees to these departure times, rather than at 5:00 P.M., would accomplish this purpose. Exhibit 10 illustrates graphically the estimated hourly flow rates during peak periods if such staggering were to be accomplished. Table 3 further documents the departure times (1) for employees prior to March 1979, (2) after the McKee change of hours, and (3) after the switch of an additional 300 employees to 4:45 or 5:15 time period. Under these conditions the traffic service would always be within a "D" level. 17 Table 3 Summary of Staggered Work Hours Employee Departure Time Feb. 1979 March 1979 After additional staggering 4:30 P.M. 4:45 P.M. 5:00 P.M. 5:15 P.M. 5:30 P.M. Total: 323 187 994 -0- 98 1,602 723 187 594 -0- 98 1,602 723 337 294 150 98 1,602 18 An additional mitigation measure that has been suggested is a traffic signal at the intersection of Campus Drive and the entrance to Borel's Restaurant. Such a signal would not really increase the capacity on campus Drive. It would result in the metering of traffic approaching the Campus/Hillsdale intersection perhaps resulting in a more orderly flow at this location. However, with the implementa- tion of Mitigation 2 and additional staggered work hours, such a signal would be of limited value. Another traffic management measure that is currently under investigation is the RIDES program. This is a program that assists employees to form van pools that will result in a decrease in the number of vehicles in the area during peak periods. It has been estimated by City staff that the provision for four van pools would provide the desired mitigating effect. This has been a staff recommendation that has been agreed to by the applicant. 19 Compact Car Survey The final field investigation was a survey of the percentage of compact cars in relation to the total number of parked cars. This survey was again conducted over a two-day period between 2 and 3 P.M. Full—size and compact vehicles were counted for all seven office buildings. The results of this survey are shown in Table 4, indicating an over-all average of 43 percent compact cars. A compact car, as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency, is a vehicle that has less than 110 cubic feet of passenger and luggage space. Naturally, in a survey of this type, this standard had to be estimated by a field observer. However, the surveyor was instructed to consider any marginal -sized car as as full-sized vehicle. 20 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 e 1 1 1 1 Table 4 Compact Car Survey Address (Campus Drive) Total Vehicles Compact Cars Percentage 2888 134 60 44% 2855 172 94 54 2800 128 39 30 2755 165 75 45 2700 187 52 28 2655 93 42 45 2600 145 78 54 TOTAL 1,024 440 43% 1 21 List of Exhibits 1. Area Map 2. Traffic Volumes - Hillsdale Boulevard - A.M. Peak Hour 3. Traffic Volumes - Hillsdale Boulevard - P.M. Peak Hour 4. Campus/Hillsdale Intersection - A.M. Peak Volumes with POP & Incremental Traffic 5. Hillsdale/Highway 92 - A.M. Peak Volumes with POP & Incremental Traffic 6. Campus/Hillsdale Intersection - P.M. Peak Volumes with POP (Sc Incremental Traffic 7. Hillsdale/Highway 92 - P.M. Peak Volumes with POP & Incremental Traffic 8. Capacities: Existing Conditions 9. Capacities: With Mitigation Number 2 10. Peak Flow Rates, After Additional Staggered work Hours sass so um so smo um as us s us so so so = ea sr Ns us 2 N 30' 0 1. ) GO �- 930 20 '1v 4- as -0 9 `1S 0 230 12e)' 20� 700 10' 10' 10 2 IC) CountvLccde 2v2 2a' 4- /400 190 -� /D' 1°2 1 Y C7 T J e C V O l it 1/y1 Guest H /I sda16. Blvd x G, bt f�. M. Pea l� 000 00 G Poi) 2hd all '11 o& > )s1 r clev p ✓nn', n P, 17'6 DLIA OM ell OS MI I ON SIM OW OW ON OM OW Oa MO UM OND MN OW Ci 10z 70' 6 1 D a00 --y :30 N� 9o- 90, �- 1250 10 Sot S80 30 690 — �0, 02 6--q0 ? I!U 20? 302. Caae 102- 20' j20 G20 tar 302 QJ -M` IGz 20' f0� 2a2 VU / meS wes`{ HG 11S l Ce 8 )L'cd r^x L bt 3 P N1 Pet 000 x S-6. t• VC) i i v Ns ac? poi' /0 % Occunpicy 2!1 vttie" cleve'op mehiS a 00 .P. 0, P. Ac`clecl Vafuw�- 111111 WO OM NM OS NS On WM OM UM IMP MIN MI 111111 MN VIII MI 111111 (2 0) C 930 (fro) 9sa cbo 40 O 01 0- o o C,-` C') 75-0 r,, F1H,Ilscizie Blvd 220 > 230. EXHIBIT 4 Campus — Hillsdale Intersection 7:30— 8:30 AM 000 Existing Traffic (ooa) P O.P. 8 Incremental Traffic 9 r MN N IMO UM r— r1l■M NM M OM— MI NM IIIIII NO UM r (rat 1120 0 c 4J 4r) T (2 0) (2o) 9sfl (ti o ) EXHIBIT 5 Hillsdale -Highway 92 interchange 7:30-8:30 A M 000 Existing Traffic (0 00) PO,P8 Incremental Traffic o M eNCI (20) 0 j -)c iI (to) 790 drle "710 Fr 920 L30' EXHIBIT 6 Campus -Hillsdale Intersection 4:30- 5:30 PM coo Exist ing Traffic (0oo) POP. 8 Incremental Traffic 11 Ell E VIM M Mill I r it I r r MIS NM M UM r NM OM OM (to ) 6/0 (,v\ (+a) 1110 l (90) EXHIBIT 7 Hillsdale -Highway 92 Interchange 4:30-5:30 PM 000 Existing Traffic (000) P.O.P 8 Incremental Traffic -i/1,1000( f^1 3 °I 5111H 1.,,4f1 t.47ol ) t/ 41 1 7.1. C.1 J '1 5yoJf' 4t°3 £11757X; t aw )4 4nlia ia 49 (all i4140 i) L l , 1 Q 4-'`11%1X 7 .2 o1 93 '40 P4 °141 9- .44/4.>/\ 0 7$ f -q- »a Jai Cf .A /19-1 + a r n%1.71 \In711 30'Iti (200/ CT>)4GI QD to.1o.Ay_� r 4 1.�1 4,21 L guay b) AytaA p oSi fi' Li A -2 so f G Oct = N M UM US= MI M UM— S_ M O WM UM On I M 1111 UM O I I MI Ell NM 11111 6i/e4 N),d 11O S fez ip I ! PttcaJ CrV)t^fl,'F4 r1 Crl0is Vrh/t'1e ( /y^ 2" T r�PuY ! Gv,,,,, Ti.n,e Alloc i 16" lga/1 j /Ic�til l Dr ourly Crte`c'1., 6,0 Veil /kr L t. fr) l dz, E 6cp.4,c1 } gOOO UPI,/jar �)r^ar ett�tcti i�r��tt i Cr •nh Ilr c ���/✓CT� CC�h 1 6 a'7U r C N * Holy 1,.,1 1., r' 7`f { J toO V e r Ge/-b-E Kok tid , i Gtr Green --1 t Cr/rct4) 4r lbc2 t tvh 1 1.c cl l e l; Iv y .1000 VP 1) / hn '72 % AcC.LIrl IlGwr )) I,Pfe,C(,i C] 720 veil /1., 4( incrersec CAp�ci+ - /00 Vc-)) f r poP a the-ye,s F'c orm?h Ci ��o v,h f 17r C P 11 Pet, I'd r r---- S In E NM MN N MN I V MIN N— r Critical Approach Volume 2,000 1,900 1,800 1,700 1,600 1,500 1,400 1,300 1,200 1,100 1,000 Peak Flow Rates After Additional Staggered Hours 8:00 8:30 TOTAL Volume D, Level of Service Volume after additi staggered hours 300 employees or 210_cars 9:00am 4 00pm 4:30 5:00 Exhibit 10 5:30 6:00pm Time of Day 5-10 r A PPENDIX NM i i MI NM I I MI= N- - H MI I-- M MI At level of service A, there are no loaded cycles (i.e., the load factor is 0.0) and few are even close to loaded. No approach phase is fully util- ized by traffic and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. Level of service B represents stable operation, with a load factor of not over 0.1; an occasional approach phase is fully utilized and a substantial number are approaching full use. In level of service C stable operation continues. Loading is still intermittent, but more frequent with the load factor ranging from 0.1 to 0.3. 0c- cassionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red signal indication. Load Factor Level of service 0 encompasses a zone of increasing restriction approaching instability in the limit when the load factor reaches 0.70. Delays to ap- proaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks within the peak period, but enough cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clear- ance of developing queues, thus preventing exces- sive back-ups. Capacity occurs at level of service E. It repre- sents the most vehicles that any particular inter- section approach can accommodate. Although theor- etically a load factor of 1.0 would represent ca- pacity; in practice full utilization of every cycle is seldom attained, no matter how great the demand, unless the street is highly friction -free. A load factor range of 0.7 to 1.0 is more realistic. At capacity there may be long queues of vehicles waiting up -stream of the intersection and delays may be great (up to several signal cycles). Level of service F represents jammed conditions. 1/ Measure of degree of utilization of an intersection approach roadway during one hour of peak traffic flow. 1 Source: HRB Special Report 87. Highway Capacity Manual 1965 TVX 910-3743M, Tlx 3f493*i, CABLE: 51(ECO NOTICE February 8, 1979 TO: ALL EMPLOYEES The Peninsula Office Park had a. study made of the traffic flow and requested our cooperation in changing our working, hours so as to help relieve the traffic. congestion at the beginning and end of the work day. Based on this request, coupled with similar requests from many of our people, we have decided to change our working hours effective March 1, 1979. The new hours are: 7:45 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. Lunch will be the same as before: 11:45 A.M. to 12:30 P.M. 'WESTERN KNAPP ENGINEERING • A DVISIO!N Or ARTHUR G. 1,AcKEE & COMPANY n-re n A AN :C Nnn iC CAN] k A ATriTh r' o! ;CMn I A nA ens TO Cr Jnn IC A,c e�n_nrn MIN MI 1111, I I pop In E NM Time Period 7 30- 8;30 M INTER rION CAPACITY Date la/J?P?t Conditions » `T wp No Prrlllh5 Work Sheet LOCATION I -T1, r le (3iv d �rrcwr R?�., � - Est o rvrrwry Made by Rn Approach Name -- Direction Phase Phase Diagram and Volumes - Critical Volume � Width Adjust- ments Basic Capacity r r Adjusted Capacity Vol. Cap. N,. I is Sele I3ly o _ A, $ E--- tf3o 830 3a 1 0 1.so d5-00 3'3s0 0.7? F„.„,!" 05-5. Rrr►+p H 1I dole tied tv,13. to 0 5 Ts r-' ��r cos �056 (4G"i) la — 1DoU 1D 00 - - 0, C� -(-°_-S 1 . Load Factor 0.9d (.0) 0.0.4 ADJUSTMENTS: P. 1i. F. , Pop. r. 0 ? 0 �'o ! NOTES: T�P'►� Amber e7. 10 Loy� 7ewph s) 33074R�5kt Peak flour Factor Utilization O. 06 A_/11 _ Area Factor I.') Population %50 000 V.I.-d..,. I %I 0 j tr......11 Bus Factor j, 0 0 Local Factor 1, d a J. D. !)?;A('11\TAN ASSflCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Ili I A .MR MO -a l M I 111111 Mk MI MI M M UM ION NM INN Time Period '7,'3U- 8 :3o AtA INTERSECTION CAPACITY Date I?/Q f'7t1 Conditions _ Eke(' 4,5 Wp , Po P?v Pl, b9 Work Sheet Made by LOCATION 14, I iS c1 r (e givci d F✓'«wrs, �cw,i -west 05. Frerwry Approach Name — Phase Direction Phase Diagram and Volumes Critical ! Width Volume F.l,llttit le T3r„d e�f Tkr., Oti p Yo 10 Adjust- ments RM Bas Capacity /000 Adjusted Vol. Capacity Cap. /000 a, ay N w� 9 L .,e. c f ifs r «. o Nt its 13 ,:t h 1`tt 130.4 Ili -0'4s N� Itsdr(e 1310 ct �SU ya0 +v I' 15-00 15-66 t.10 /0 o, 7 0.10 A t 7SU aa' 00 0.27 Load Factor D,90 (o' Peak Flour Factor C 'S Population 7 S C/ aL6, ADJUSTMENTS: P. li. F., Pop. 1, d Area Factor Truck Factor (, 8 O Bus Factor fe OU Local Factor !, 00 NOTES: 07.. Rt i,-t d L . t Tt, r k5 - I, 0 990-- '1C99o)= 7"0 10 Does nit Coifrol Amber O. la Utilization .t. I). f)RA('HMAN ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS US — OS ■r — r ors 1r — *r ■r 1r us r um r SO M r Time Period 7:30- ',3° A, pi INTERSECTION CAPACITY Date 1 11 / Conditions xI it l •� 4. POP a Work Sheet Made by :6110,7T/yu CVNI JJ) I�r �`� LOCATION NL(lt cltj Iv 4• Cornr1�1S Drc�e Rev: 9 Approach Name — Phase Direction Phase Diagram and Volumes Critical Width Adjust - Volume ments Rasic Capacity Adjusted Capacity �LIkClb(e t I / tl wet 604 h c( 111ro4511 A )00 �--- 750 .;-Do 0 1.46 3000 dTho Vol. Cap. 4L IJS dbI'e t1IV d Ez•ct 138>+AJ Le7t Caw, pus1 brl'vc sd444 �oM tid it* 860�- Paray'� PO to L 190 SOa a3 1. G ,y �b 31 0 0.13 0, 03 1 Load Factor O,'7 0C D Peak Hour Factor C1=$ r Population 7r0,000 ADJUSTMENTS: P. H. F., Pop. 1, l o� Area Factor 1, a c Truck Factor Bus Factor I/ 00 Local Factor 1,06 NOTES: Q 0% �r ia..,s IO;) co% go oh 44 6 O1 4,A --t.4 R10-1- T4.‘-+.i Amber Utilization 0,67 3. I). I]RACIIMAN ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS I ME WM I Mk 110 MI - M 1110 M M U N 111.11 11111 NM Time Period i:30- V.30 AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY Date 1a//t/7 t Conditions E><t s -P0 p 8 T1v�+ 6t/t5) tJo Pry rit:;5 Approach Name — Direction ildt.s c l p j31 v j=rerwr7 OS" S• Pty., +, 4,11s drie► Blvd Load Factor O,70 0 Peak Hour Factor U. G�f Population '-)S-0, do a Work Sheet LOCATION 44 dde (3i+.d 4 IFvertvc Rmokiat [r5't y Phase Diagram and Volumes ADJUSTMENTS: P.H.F.,Pop• Area Factor I. o r Truck Factor j, o 0 Bus Factor 1,00 Local Factor I, 0° Critical Volume es -0 LNG 6S0 Soo) Adjust- Basic meats Capacity a 5 0 0 f'?0 NOTES: O 070 L.St 7a►,,5 )3o°4 I. •her fur Capacity Utilization Made by pm 9/. /'')9' Vol. Cap. 0,23 0,90 s) j. D. DRACHMAN ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS M_ -- NM- _-1111111 - - 111111- r- -- - I Ole MI M .— S M E N V Time Period 7;30-6'3o AP'I INTERSECTION CAPACITY Date h& Conditiona f'x,at," + P&P a Work Sheet Made by R ?� Z+vc a� No LOCATION HjISdzr 1114,d Prrr4.� R -twigs -West oc Fvrrcv?J R.r: a/a+ / Approach Name — Phase Phase Diagram and Volumes Direction N1.11S l.r4t 7tirh Gn rtt4,A Pr 330 Critical Volume a sa Width ,o' Adjust- Basic ments Capacity /000 Adjusted Vol. Capacity Cap. /000 0,2Sr 1411.4 9D Li)5-f `furb, osr� a 336 I�! /sot) o,aa N,i/sdt�� 111%4 C 760454 c (e mud tries( howitcl T hr 5d, C tCh i Load Factor 0.9 ooh) Peak Hour Factor 0.4S-_ Population r1so), aoo �.-- 97U ADJUSTMENTS: P. H. F., Pop. (,U9 Area Factor //? Truck Factor f,d° Bus Factor 1,0a Local Factor 1. U no rrto 37� aa' ♦ G3 Sr? a Ica 1,,7 igo0 tole) a6;a o,aG NOTES: a o`lam ir4--t i 14.54-t T«... trfro - .as -090)-7- `-)(40 Do'e t - Ceiti`I ra 4 Amber Utilization .1. t)- I)RAPHMAN ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS ���%r u s I I I N M M O V M B M I S M V I M O M - - V w s U M T i m e P e r i o d 7 ; 3 0 - 9 � 3 0 A M I N T E R S E C T I O N C A P A C I T Y D a t e ( a i r 9 0 6 C o n d i t i o n s k x , < 6 ` l 5 . P G A 8 w t , t i l c ' i t e t t & ' 1 1 I W o r k S h e e t L O C A T I O N I . - I L U ' e t c 1 3 ( L c 1 4 ' H w y ' 6 V e S t a E r v e r u A p p r o a c h N a m e D i r e c t i o n P h a s e P h a s e D i a g r a m a n d V o l u m e s C r i t i c a l V o l u m e w i d t h A d j u e - - m e n t s M a d e b y R R e v : a / 6 / ' 7 9 B a s i c C a p a c i t y 1 ��, , I s r t e . E h . d L e , S 4 . l u r k , O ? R t . . , �� A l a s s 2 0 0 0 t : A d j u s t e d V n l . C a p a c i t y C a p . P O " 0 , 1 3 L e t ` r ' 4 r 0 5 , 9 Q n 3 3 0 3 3 0 f o N J t C c I �� �� e g �%, . ' t r s 6 O a r h c ? T l r u w y t , t 6 / 3 0 H ` i t s d i e B i v e A l j / C ��d ��% , c / 1 k r a 4 , , , . X 3 0 E - - 9 5 0 I . C " ) ? c - C O 1 r o C O . ? a , y a i 0 0 , / I � L o a d F a c t o r O t ' 7 0 ( 0 ) P e a k H o u r F a c t o r 0 , & S . ' . P o p u l a t i o n ) S V & a t , A D J U S T M E N T S : P . H . F . P o p . I , 0 , A r e a F a c t o r T r u c k F a c t o r 0 B u s F a c t o r L o c a l F a c t o r b o a ' 0 N O T E S : � � L c 9 9 0 ( . 1 ) 9 9 0 g ' 6 0 Q 0 7 0 L e c t 4 ( P , s t 1 , 1 u r % S A m b e r 0 . t U t i l i z a t i o n J . I ` . D R A t ' H M A N A S S O C I A T E S T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O N S U L T A N T S r --- 1 IN NM —— RR r r— r IMO — V I — r Time Period r7',340 --c.,130 4F? INTERSECTION CAPACITY Conditions Ex,( 1:,.0 PAP tt 6 ztt LOCATION Work Sheet M t t ClJe 1 v � ¢ �w� ��, � C _ G1eSt oE rr etwt„4,_ Approach Name — Direction Phase Diagram and Volumes Critical Volume Width Adjust mente Liasic Capacity 14, Ocelot a 81vd `s -* Ti, •h Ram, Daft, (WI?.! "8 Made !-,y Rev: a /a6/7q Adjosted Vol. C'apacity Cap. 1Uw Gt7C" Nw/ 9a L. 'eft Tao ofr Rlvd Gv/e(6 ba1y„ d ' -r1 rawc rt, 330 4--- 790 330 .-- P16 0 a t6 d 4.1.( too 9ea° &2(' Load Factor 40,70 iD Peak Hour Factor l.),?5 Population ""SU)000 ADJUSTMENTS: P.H. F., Pop. Area Factor Truck Factor Bus Factor Local Factor NOTES: i Q CZ/ 1.c d F?,yit `tu r hS 990 — (q90 )= NP10 Amber Utilization .1. 1). JRAeliMAN ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS - NS -r +ter — — all — VIII- M MI MS INN r — I Time Period 7;30- u ;3O A M INTERSECTION CAPACITY witu, i /i9 (.2t Made by p conditions x,sl;' 3 ±POP 6 Work Sheet S!�{ 4 LOCATION 14t lsrie-(e fVvc1 c$ FN, D.61( _ 4'ect aF F-recwr, Rcv : P/abh9 Approach Name — Direction Phase Diagram and Volumes Critical Volume Width Adjust- ments Basic Capacity Nt,llcdt le Ph 8 L C4f 7w b., On Pon. I3wy 9? �.Sf `tu•►, 09i- 7so P sa 7C 0 Adjusted Capacity Vol. Cap. ?pc/ a 0.13 330 74/ U at P/40 9-16° ti,/14 de, le 1311, IN. St bow,d 1,•o»�y r7KO 11.0 0 0, s o Load Factor Peak Hour Factor Population ADJUSTMENTS: P. H. F.. Pop. Area Factor Truck Factor Bus Factor Local Factor NOTES: rV 04% Le- • Rt 5 Lit -r it v'.L O 910 — .13x54 _ -ni Amber Utilization J. D. DRAC1lMAN ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS US- .M -SIN... - - Time Period 1;30- n0 Ph Conditions EX' a 1. 5 7a,. w,,y ) NQ Pte• %., MB MI SIM MIN MI MIN MI NM NM US UM NIB INTERSECTION CAPACITY LOCATION Work Sheet I� tts dr_ fc (3II,d Cry,ptrs Approach Name — Direction Phase Phase Diagram and Volumes Critical Volume Width Date Ia1 r.) /r Made by F3 M wive Adjust - meets 14%.115 (1LIe tj\v� >~row.)k ssv rt to --� 7w Basic Adjusted Capacity Capacity O papa f Vol. Cap. 3ayo o.2 I-Ii1tfar(e blvd l.ectL Tt.►„ t.o Cramps$ Cr.-apw S 50,-ZI-, b0.4IsA POO ,00 11 D PP (o 0 I.C2 I 1-r go 1CO o.08 ..,.••r.ymomrdolor. Load Factor P. 0 (0) Peale Hour Factor O. Population 7SD 000 ADJUSTMENTS: P. ii. F. , Pop. !.1 Area Factor I, 2 Truck Factor 1.00 Bus Factor 1, O 0 Local Factor j, o 6 04'6 Lec€ '7 U Q It (.0 NOTES: Ri511t Torn S o.PP -0.14- 0.0t Amber Utilization 0.5'6 rQ__7U .1. i7. 11RACHI\1AN ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS ��I a l l M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M I N E M S I N M I a l l S M M U M D a t e 1 9 1 �%a / ' " T i m e P e r i o d f : 3 0 - s - ! - N o C o n d i t i o n s E x t s - y 7 w u w c - y ) t J o P t v k , . y I N T E R S E C T I O N C A P A C I T Y W o r k S h e e t L O C A T I O N U t 1 1 S d e 1 e R i k / C I c l F r r r w r ) 9 7 + 1 ) c - E T S t o f F r e , w t y A p p r o a c h N a m e D i r e c t i o n P h a s e P h a s e D i a g r a m a n d V o l u m e s C r i t i c a l V o l u m e M a d e b y R M W i d t h A d j u s t - m e n t s B a s i c C a p a c i t y N , 1 s c l r l e 1 1 . 1 4 T 1 , , r o K g 1 1 E - . t a c o A d j u s t e d C a p a c i t y - 3 7 7 - 0 V o l . C a p . 0 , 3 3 r r e e w i . , O 5 S 4 " R r ��p t o N i l �%s c i c i r B l v d r , J . g r i v I g o L o a d F a c t o r 4 . 7 0 ( 1 1 P e a k H o u r F a c t o r 0 . & y P o p u l a t i o n 1 1 S d 0 0 0 A D J U S T M E N T S : P " H " F " , P o p . 1 . 4 % A r e a F a c t o r I " a �� T r u c k F a c t o r 1 , 0 0 B u s F a c t o r I . 0 0 L o c a l F a c t o r 1 . 0 0 N O T E S ; 0 0 1 , , 1 . ; t T k " I s ) 3 0 7 7 A m b e r U t i l i z a t i o n 0 , I C ) o . C ` J . D . D R A C H M A N A S S O C I A T E S T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O N S U L T A N T S 1110 • MO 11111 - --11111F -INS- 11111 EN 1101 NB MI 11111 VIII MS 11111 INTERSECTION CAPACITY Date y /fir /r) Time Period 1,;3o- S : 30 P Conditions Ext s 4`.,y 11A, t) Work Sheet LOCATION L 1(S r]rre Blvd ctFrerc„-r, it►•,�,s- UJe QS. FYf'rw•y Approach Name — Direction Phase Phase Diagram and Volumes 344 1ls clr le 131v ci ILL ffs drfe Rtivci !_r4t -r-kb,, G - 65a c N� 4IQ 13iv8 rs4 v.d raw, t fb '5(.o Load Factor 0,70(4) Peak Hour Factor O. Population 95'0700a Critical 1 Width Volume C, S-0 10 , (��Ul 386 (=too) Adjust- ments I.3as is Capacity Made by r' Adjusted Capacity to 0 0 1500 I rob 0 157 a Csa ADJUSTMENTS: P. H. F., Pop. 1,1' Area Factor rd ' Truck Factor 1. U 0 Bus Factor 1,0 0 Local Factor I.O NOTES: a polo (-r-C4 d R t t ` i4 I 010 Vol. Cap. 0. G 5� (o, Qa' 0.9< (0.22) Amber Utilization 1.16 4,3111 i n- n ACilMAN ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS -- ter.... Mir—: r — r — r ME — N — -ter Time Period q '-s 30 PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY Date l?//6/?f& Conditions kyjchr� + POP b Tin WI", No ( '"rc 5 Work Sheet LOCATION /4t/(s ante Ajvc ci- Cr�p44 LJkrye Approach Name — Direction Phase Phase Diagram and Volumes Critical Volume Made by Rev . /P4/h2 Width Adjust- Rasic Adjusted ments Capacity Capacity 14tI c' fc� r)Vd T hrovsta #(.I(Sdt1e Blvd i e T4►e Cr-,, pits Crrti, p d b r r `'e Q9Iiiii130 11(1 --sso era 7/0 -- 30 0 'J gao l() Load Factor 0, `7�b Peak Hour Factor 0,g'9 Population "20)000 -7/U 03c) SOD (3P) 900 ay' i.6? P0O ° 3. Y6) 2?' V+�1. Cap. o,» odc a 3' )5C° 3r‘0 ADJUSTMENTS: P. li. F. , Pop, /, f a Area Factor ,a( Truck Factor /, DU Bus Factor /,0U Local Factor /,00 NOTES: 07d Le4t 4 I?ES►,'i 74r r,' goo 314$ °, id o.1 1, 0.10 o,ID Amber 0, I O� Utilization .T. U. I/RACEINIAN ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS B OM fall M NIB M MB MB NE W NM MI NM I IIIIIIII MIS MB INN INTERSECTION CAPACITY Time Period W130-.T:3U Pr -I tat t /21, g* Conditions EiLct ,,s t Po P Work Sheet Made b ' 71" l�Jr�� J IJo A*rL.1.11" LOCATION iii 1 kdo.% 1111,st Frr y RT ,p . - L st U? twee -wry Pt•y ; P/24 l"7, Approach Name — Phase Direction Phase Diagram and Volumes Critical Volume Width Adjust - ments Bas is Adjusted Capacity Capacity Ndistits (e r,l `P)ron511 -- �3 5-6) r3 ,a ?.TOO 3,0 Vol. Cap 0,36 rreewty as- p ut,lidde 414 01,13. <-1 r iyd 3Yr POU 000 0, l Load Factor. 0.10 (:) Peak Hour Factor 0,V11 Population 750)000 ADJUSTMENTS: P. H. F., Pop. / 0 Area Factor 1.02 Truck Factor /, 0 d Bus Factor O Local Factor NOTES: Q o`/v 1e.c4 T40-b,S 30. RtSlt 74.•3 Amber Utilization J. I). I)itAC'HMA"4 ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS MN MID IIIIIII UM -NB MS MIN MIN IIIII Time Period y:30-5:%0_ P>✓J INTERSECTION CAPACITY iiaic Conditions Ex s4. c � - Po P 6 Work Sheet Made by R Nj LOCATION N -/ f(' (?Lt"' 131ud `� rrrr�c.. R�ry�S- JAS o P.-yet-wry Re•. 21C/,,f Approach Name — J Phase Direction Phase Diagram and Volumes Critical Volume Width Adjust - ments y -- Ras ic Capacity 1-1t1kd&(e 131v 6 L e -+ Tkfrb Gb1 690 690 10� /000 Adjusted Capacity /ODD Vol. Cap_ o. Nolsdoe Blvd 7H►ti 04--- z 3 90 /51 1C" 0.9 6 Nt IIstit (e/ Bhid FegoLbQM h b ?rj r0w.y S60 /.57 asSO 10/0 0. IY Load Factor 0,r)0 C 0 ) Peak Hour Factor Q. Population ') SO ova ADJUSTMENTS: NOTES: P. H. F. • Pop. , 1 0� C) o74) e c* Tk r ti S Area Factor . C Truck Factor d 0a Bus Factor Local Factor , 0 G Amber a, rp. Utilization J. 91- J. D. 3)RA4 }IMAN ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS an -a a am -UM -i -- I -r — .:_ 1111111 N — M nil MINI i /e' f ) Time Period 141 0- 5-'30 PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY Date Conditions E---x,‘-t-t p,5 +IJUP e Work Sheet LOCATION 1-4..(1c.cicte ( 1{,d a iu,, [� ,p -l4 t JF'reewcy Made by 1?ev a/a� jig Approach Name — Direction Phase Diagram and Volumes Critical Volume Width Adjust- ments Basic Capacity (41 (cItte Blue L.e.'t Tkr1, G1', c- 690 690 9 ao00 Adjusted Vol. Capacity Cap. I P000 0.39 N� JUct-lc 'Rivet LeCt �rL, OCc" 390 90 le Hi, liar( e Blvd L rd" 'OM kd "1)0,1,4 C 5‘6 0 0,2 SI-0 (i0/O a, ry 1-4 (RSdr(e l31' ( kovhc1 No 1 11 +,5-? 9c0 pl%o o,o, Load Factor 0, 7O ()) Peak Hour Factor 0,K Population "c01000 ADJUSTMENTS: 13.11.F.. Pop. Iii: Area Factor (%7( NOTES: pro 1t1 Truck Factor Lo d �c�J 1.e t R. y i,t TN'' k5 Bus Factor /i0 0 Local Factor I.06 Duos nA COttvOl Amber Utilization T 0,66 J. D. UR1c'TIMAN ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Time Period 'ta30-S 33 P'I INTERSECTION CAPACITY Conditions F%(( t h5 -r Po," Work Sheet NM all UN 11111 I Date G/t9 Made by M LOCATION .141(k do (e 131vci. fwh Pt►)r.i - 61/44 O<" Frcrwt y Rev P/PAht Approach Name— Direction Phase Phase Diagram and Volumes Critical Volume Width ' Adjust- ments Basic Capacity Adjusted Vol. Capacity Cap. 14,� ((s/afe 1 % 9 L elf It....‘ Or) C 9� gi 6 g0 /0 - tv o U /000 0,6? Hiligckie B1i' L e + 7u1., O( - 390 3 90 ay' - ♦ 2160 2(60 o,18 + -._ . NL 1 is do l e 13��t�Rive G Fel + b h 6 s -6o --- 56 0 3?' O /. Si a SS0 L(pl0 0,1 If a _- - o 4 h h ro.5 - --$ ► Load Factor 0,04 6)) ADJUSTMENTS: NOTES: Amber 0)0 - --- (17 o% trSt- d. Ply‘t Tct►.4S Utilization 1. 13 P. H. F.. pop. I. l Peak }tour Factor 0. 4 1 Area Factor ) . ? S Population -7s-6,000 _ Truck Factor j, a 0 i -• — Bus Factor 1.0 0 Local Factor /00a .1. D. T)RA('11"T.\!ti ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Time Period Lft30--S-:'1.0 INTERSECTION CAPACITY Work Sheet Conditions EYictc++, -4 Po P t igz.t 6 &Ai l a LOCATION NE (rcdL le gltict (4- %i,. �+tit rreecd,T1 MN NM� j?l ry/-) Made b' R .l! Re. ; -2/aC,./? q Da Lc Approach Name — Direction N,,Its Brie Le SSt r'4 v b, C h Phase Phase Diagram and Volumes b 70 Critical Width Volume Adjust- Basic ments Capacity r ,-- 2aod Adjusted Vnl. Capacity Cap. .)oaG 0.3't NM& tv 13 Iu e--6 T4rv% 14 G Is de'e 13iv A `` II 3 std 3 90 aK� 7tCG vie T -G U I. S) ? SCO Load Factor 0*705 ) Peak Hour Factor O. Population 00 ADJUSTMENTS: P. H. F.. Pop._ i.l•. Area Factor Lk; S' Truck Factor bp 0 Bus Factor I, O o Local Factor ). d0 NOTES: Q Lect t (4,tyt,t is r%S 11 a C, I Amber L'tilization U. 12- .0,r7 J. 1). I MAC c' T i 1MA N ASSOCIATES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Planning - Bldg. #6 2r,nn r mn,,c nr; wp " F r o m B O B B E Z Z A N T P U B L I C W O R K S D E P A R T M E N T D a t e 4 7 1 3 / n T o D I V I S I O N - T I T L E I n i t . F Y I A c t i o n S e e M e R e s e a r c h / R e p o r t C I R E C T O R C I T Y E N G I N E E R g " S U P T . / M A I N T E N A N C E A D M I N I S T R A T I V E A S S T . C H I E F P L A N T O P E R . C H I E F I N S P E C T O R O F F I C E E N G I N E E R T R A F F I C P U B L I C W K S . S U P V . A U T O . S U P V . B L D G . S U P V . R E T A R I A L S T A F F , i q . , ' ( 0 F I L E P : 1 4 , / / t i b c r - ; i ' U c t i $ 6 4 1 & C j , P O P * 0 - 6 d a d P A e t e - c b & I P I P C t , T I P P 0 4 , 4 1 ) 4 4 1 1 / _ D 1 ' / P c r f 4 ) 4 4 4 1 1 � 2 4 . " 4 . ) a . R D d S a , x r " d 0 Engines ring Department Coordination Sheet Engr- Dept, Originator In t le -hILLSDALE/PENINSULA OFFICE PARK TRAFFIC PROBLEM talked to Ralph Thomas of District IV, Cal -Trans. He had been queried selves as to whether a more substantial contribution on the part of the Works Robert G. Bezzant, Dir. of Public i, 1Qf b C ty would bring the construction of signals at the off -ramps from the Route 92 f eeway at West Hillsdale Boulevard (near the College and the office parks) to flier date of construction. 1 M Thomas, through his supervisor Mr. Dick Gee, had queried Cal -Trans Headquarters i Sacramento about a possible sharing split of $100,000 City/$40,000 State to a celerate the construction of the signals at the off -ramps and 92. They had dicated that this would be acceptable to them, and that they would re -arrange it budgeting and increase the amount of money that.. they had committed toward ject from approximately $20,000 to $40,000, if the City would provide the r.st o the money for the signal system, and that a June, 1976 advertising date ••=sible. The time -governing instrument would be a cooperative agreement, as to the earliest time that the project could be ready for advertising for bid (the plans and specifications being prepared and approved by staffs at this time) . There is controversy over the traffic problem associated with. the construction of another office building at Peninsula Office Park. This action would tend to bring some resolution of the traffic situation along Hillsdale Boulevard, when Y coupled with the City's construction.of a third traffic signal at Campus and Hillsdale (just easterly of the freeway intersection), which is proposed between now. and June, using some City and much County and developer's funds. The $100,000 for the Freeway -Hillsdale signals would come from the County and the City. The County's help would come from the Section 2106 (Street and.Highway Code) gas tax monies, shared with cities on a two-thirds/one-third basis, using 1970-75 monies (that will be lost to the City after 1977). The City's one-third (or $33,000) would come from gas tax in next year's budget. Please be advised of this position of the State and if it is the Council's desire (when considering the recommendation of the Planning Commission with regard to Building Number Six of the Peninsula Office Park) they might approve the concept of a cooperative agreement with the State to install signals at the Route 92 -Hillsdale off -ramp. This would require appropriating $33,000 of City gas tax money and asking the County for $67,000 of Section 2106 funds from the 1970-75 grant (vice Laurie Meadows Drive underpass) and -entering into .a cooperative agreement with the State for the final $40,000 needed. to fund the project. Additionally, they should discuss requiring POP to contribute some toward this City portion of $33,000 and also require them to upgrade.their contribution to Campus Drive to equate to 42% of a larger project requiring more than just signal work. Specifically, this increase is the addition of another lane, by widening the sou 1 side lsdale Boulevard, to provide a double left - turn l into C mpu Drive astbound on ills alerliZabv ROBERT G. BEZZANT RGB:ad DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS " x _ G s " - i a 7 i �� d G " R T . 9 2 - H I L L S D A L E / P E N I N S U L A O F F I C E P A R K T R A F F I C P R O B L E M F U N D I N G C H A R T F O R S I G N A L P R O J E C T S C i t y ( 1 9 7 6 - 7 7 G a s T a x ) C o u n t y ( G a s T a x ) S t a t e F A U P e n i n s u l a O f f i c e P a r k S a n M a t e o I n v e s t m e n t C o . T O T A L S I C a m p u s D r . S i g n a l I I C a m p u s D r . C h a n n e l i z a t i o n I I I I V R t . 9 2 R a m p R t . 9 2 R a m p S i g n a l s S i g n a l s F A U $ 4 , 0 8 0 Y $ 2 , 9 2 0 $ 2 5 , 6 4 1 $ 9 , 3 5 0 3 1 , 7 5 0 1 8 , 2 5 0 * 6 6 , 7 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 , 0 0 0 0 1 6 , 1 5 0 1 1 6 , 1 4 0 ( 4 2 % ) * * 2 6 , 6 7 0 ( 4 2 % ) * * 1 5 , 3 3 0 ( 2 3 % ) * * 7 , 6 5 9 t i 1 , 0 0 0 $ 6 3 , 5 0 0 $ 3 6 , 5 0 0 $ 1 4 1 , 0 0 0 * * * $ 1 4 1 , 0 0 0 I & I I P r o j e c t c o s t f o r C a m p u s - H i l l s d a l e s i g n a l p l u s c h a n n e l i z a t i o n t o t a l s $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . O u r a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e C o u n t y i s f o r a 5 0 - 5 0 s p l i t . P e n i n s u l a O f f i c e P a r k ' s 4 2 % o f t h e t o t a l p r o j e c t c o s t l e a v e s t h e C i t y a n d o t h e r d e v e l o p e r s a n e t 8 % t o f i n a n c e . I I I P r o j e c t c o s t f o r R t . 9 2 - H i l l s d a l e s i g n a l t o t a l s $ 1 4 1 , 0 0 0 f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n . T h e S t a t e w i l l c o n t r i b u t e t o a l l c o s t s o v e r $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 ( $ 4 1 , 0 0 0 + e n g i n e e r i n g ) . T h e C o u n t y u n d e r i t s p r e s e n t p o l i c y w i l l c o n t r i b u t e o n a 2 / 3 - 1 / 3 s p l i t . D e v e l o p e r ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n i s 2 3 % o f t h e C i t y ' s 1 / 3 s h a r e . I V P r o j e c t c o s t s a m e a s I I I b u t f u n d e d t h r e e y e a r s h e n c e u n d e r F A U p r o g r a m , 8 7 % - 1 3 % s p l i t . T h e S t a t e p a y s f o r r o a d w a y c o n s t r u c t i o n p l u s 5 0 % o f t h e s i g n a l w o r k a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n e n g i n e e r i n g . C i t y p a y s f o r 5 0 % o f s i g n a l w o r k a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n e n g i n e e r i n g . * C o u n t y G a s T a x f u n d s t o c o m e f r o m f u n d s p r e v i o u s l y a s s i g n e d t o L a u r i e M e a d o w s G r a d e S e p a r a t i o n . * * D e v e l o p e r ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n ( % ) i s b a s e d u p o n t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f t r a f f i c t o b e g e n e r a t e d b y t h e t o t a l d e v e l o p m e n t . * * * D o e s n o t i n c l u d e e n g i n e e r i n g c o s t t o b e a b s o r b e d b y S t a t e . 3 / 9 / 7 6 r� R'I. 92 - HILLSD7ILE/PENINSULA OFFICE PARK TRAFFIC PROBLEM It r '�J FUNDING CHART FOR SIGNAL PROJECTS ad. . , City (1976-77 Gas Tax) County (Gas Tax) State FAU Peninsula Office Park San Mateo Investment Co. TOTALS 0 Campus Dr. Signal II Campus Dr. Channelization III IV Rt. 92 Ramp Rt. 92 Ramp Signals Signals FAU $ 4,080 $ 2,920 $ 25,641 $ 9,350 31,750 18,250* 66,700* 0 0 0 0 0 41,000 0 1.6,150 116,140 (42%) ** 26,670 (42%)** 15,330 (23%)** 7,659 1,000 $63,500 $36,500 $141,000*** $141,000 I & II Project cost fo/Campus-Hillsdale • al plus channelization totals $100,000. Our agreement with t eh County is for a 50-50 split. Peninsula Office Park's 42% of the total project cost leaves the City and other developers a net 8% to finance. III Project cost for Rt. 92 -Hillsdale signal totals $141,000 for. construction. The State will contribute to all costs over $100,000 ($41,000 + engineering). The County under its present policy will contribute on a 2/3-1/3 split. Developer's contribution is 23% of the City's 1/3 share. IV Project cost same as III but funded three years hence under FAU program, 87%-13% split. The State pays for roadway construction plus 50% of the signal work and construction engineering. City pays for 50% of signal work and construction engineering. * County Gas Tax funds to come from funds previously assigned to Laurie Meadows Grade Separation. ** Developer's contribution (%) is based upon the percentage of traffic to be generated by the total development. *** Does not include engineering cost to be absorbed by State. 3/9/76 Engineering Dep jrtmr,;ht Coo r din ati an Sheet Engr- Dept. Originator Init. Jcihn C. Lilly, City Manager March 1, 1576 X- .Zt•• Lyle D. Johns, \Iiiii rLE BOULEVARD AND ROUTE 92. RAMP iG.'aAI,S - PENINSULA OFFICE PARK eiplimis mimmeNo t • Since the inception of the Peninsula Office Park development project, the City has required the installation of signals at Campus Drive and Hillsdale Boulevard. -signals are closely tied to the signals at Hillsdale Boulevard and Route 92 freeway ramps. The State Division of Highways has undertaken the design of the signals at the freeway ramps and have those plans ready for bidding. However, funding for the signal is dependent upon allocation of Federal Aid Urban funds. In setting up FAU funds (funding for the next three years), this project fell in the. third r. As a result, the State is holding off construction until that time, the p imary reason being that the funding level for the State is only 17% of the t talzroject. This particular project has been estimated to cost $140,000. An additional $14,000 is alloted for engineering costs, for a total project cost of $154,000. The way the project is set up, the City of San Mateo is obligated to pay 50% of the cost of the signal installation. Under FAU in 1978, we would gain an 83% (of our 50%) grant for our portion of the project and would have to pay only 17% (of 50%) of the cost. An alternative available to us is to bring the project ahead by re -allocating local funds from other projects within the City. We anticipate that funds from Laurie Meadows Drive could be re -allocated to this project. $204,000 of 1970-75 2106 County Gas Tax monies, which are designated for use within the City of San Mateo, will revert to a "pool" of money at the County within two years. Since the Laurie Meadows Drive project will probably not proceed at that rapid a pace, it would be advisable to re -allocate those funds to the Hillsdale Boulevard -92 ramp signals, enabling us to pull that project forward to this next fiscal year. We have contacted the State Division of Highways to find out if they have funds available for the project, should we bring it forward. In those discussions, it was stated that they had the FAU 17% (of $154,000) contribution for their portion of the signals available and would allocate it towards the project. We then asked if they would allocate monies up to approximately $40,000. They have indicated that they felt they could and, further, could advertise the work by June let. We also discussed the matter with the County. Under the new procedures for contribution to projects by the County, the County will contribute 2/3 of the project's cost to be borne by the City, and the City would then contribute 1/3 of that portion of the project cost.. Usingthe figures indicated above ($154,000 total c v,.if the tate we to contribute $40,000, the County would put up $76,380 and the 4ty and dev loper, $37,6 O. 'We b‘liee t at •his s advisable route t take, a,id w uld ask t this mater be presented - e Ci Council for the r deliberati ns. / " " J o h n C . L i l l y , C i t y M a n a g e r - 2 - M a r c h 1 , 1 9 7 6 T h e C i t y P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n a t t h e i r m e e t i n g o f F e b r u a r y 2 3 , 1 9 7 6 , d e n i e d w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f B u i l d i n g N o . 6 f o r P e n i n s u l a O f f i c e P a r k . T h e p r i m a r y r e a s o n f o r t h e i r d e n i a l w a s t h a t t r a f f i c p r o b l e m s o n H i l l s d a l e . B o u l e - v a r d w e r e b e c o m i n g i n t o l e r a b l e a n d t h a t a d d i t i o n a l b u i l d i n g s w o u l d i n c r e a s e t h e p r o b l e m t o a n e v e n g r e a t e r u n d e s i r a b l e s t a t e . O u r t r a f f i c a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n s o f C a m p u s D r i v e a n d H i l l s d a l e , a n d H i l l s d a l e a n d t h e r a m p o f t h e f r e e w a y , a r e o p e r a t i n g a t a r e a s o n - a b l e l e v e l o f s e r v i c e d u r i n g t h e n o n - p e a k d e m a n d . H o w e v e r , t h e r e i s c o n s i d e r a b l e d e l a y t o t h e p u b l i c d u r i n g t h e p e a k h o u r s . T h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f t r a f f i c s i g - n a l s w i l l r e a l l o c a t e t h e t i m e a v a i l a b l e a t t h e d i f f e r e n t i n t e r s e c t i o n s , a l l o w i n g a s m o o t h e r m o v e m e n t o f t r a f f i c d u r i n g t h e p e a k h o u r s . W e a s k t h a t y o u p r e s e n t t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e C i t y C o u n c i l f o r t h e i r i n f o r m a - t i o n . T h e y m a y w a n t t o : A p p r o v e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f s i g n a l s o n a $ 4 0 , 0 0 0 C A L T R A N S / $ 7 6 , 3 8 0 C o u n t y / $ 3 7 , 6 2 0 C i t y ( d e v e l o p e r ? ) c o s t b a s i s a t a n e a r l y d a t e . T h e d e v e l o p e r o f P e n i n s u l a O f f i c e P a r k h a s i n d i c a t e d h i s w i l l i n g n e s s t o s h a r e i n t h e c o s t o f t h e s i g n a l s a t t h e f r e e w a y r a m p s a l o n g w i t h a l l o t h e r d e v e l o p - m e n t s i n t h e a r e a . B a s e d o n t h a t p r e m i s e , P e n i n s u l a O f f i c e P a r k w o u l d b e o b l i g a t e d t o p a y $ 8 , 6 5 0 ( 2 3 % ) a s t h e i r p r o p o r t i o n a t e s h a r e . T h o s e f i g u r e s w e r e a r r i v e d a t b y a l l o c a t i n g t r a f f i c g e n e r a t e d b y P e n i n s u l a O f f i c e P a r k t o t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n s . A s e c o n d m e t h o d o f f i n a n c i n g w o u l d b e f o r t h e C i t y t o a s s u m e . t h e e n t i r e o b l i g a t i o n , r e p r e s e n t i n g a c o n t r i - b u t i o n f r o m a l l t h e C i t y t o w a r d s t h e s o l u t i o n , p r i m a r y t r a f f i c c o n - t r i b u t o r s b e i n g t h e s c h o o l , o f f i c e d e v e l o p m e n t s a n d r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s i n t h e a r e a . 2 . A s k t h e d e v e l o p e r t o p r o v i d e p a r t o r a l l o f t h e C i t y ' s s h a r e a n d a l l o w h i s b u i l d i n g t o p r o c e e d . 3 . C o m m i t t h e d e v e l o p e r t o r e a d - w o r k c o s t s a t C a m p u s D r i v e - H i l l s d a l e B o u l e v a r d i n h i s 4 2 % s h a r e , a s . p e r t h e e a r l i e r s i g n a l d i s c u s s i o n . R e s p e c t f u l l y s u b m i t t e d , R O B E R T G . . B E Z Z A N T D I R E C T O R O F P U B L I C W O R K S L Y L E D . J O H N S O N C I T Y E N G I N E E R R G B : L D J : a d - h h c c : M r . J o h n W . L e y e r z a p h , T h e B o r e l D e v e l o p m e n t C o m p a n i e s , 2 9 8 8 C a m p u s D r i v e , S a n M a t e o , C A 9 4 4 0 3 T H I S I S A R E V I S E D P A G E 2 & V i s e " A a S e e d b . " ' e y e , - 2 2 4 1 1 i e o 4 1 1 / 4 / 7 4 " e e c z , ( 7 , w / 6 ? / - ? s < v O f ? g . < 2 4 1 1 . f o l $ o o 0 REs 2 Q•Zi\' '011j.••" CITY OF SAN MATED Din March 1, 1976 • ed.. FROM Engineer HILLSDALE BOULEVARD AND ROUTE 92 RAMP SIGNALS - PENINSULA OFFICE PARK Since the inception of the Peninsula Office Park development project, the City has required the installation of signals at Campus' Drive and Hillsdale Boulevard. Those signals are closely tied to the signals at Hillsdale Boulevard and Route 92 freeway ramps. The State Division of Highways has undertaken the design of the signals at the freeway ramps and have those plans ready for bidding. However, funding for the signal is dependent upon allocation of Federal Aid Urban funds. In setting up the FAU funds (funding for the next three years), this project fell in the third year. As a result, the State is holding off construction until that time, the primary reason being that the funding level for the State is only 17% of the total project. This particular project has been estimated to cost $140,000. An additional $14,000 is alloted for engineering costs, for a total project cost of $154,000. The way the project is set up, the City of San Mateo is obligated to pay 50% of the cost of the signal installation. Under FAU in 1978, we would gain an 83% (of our 50%) grant for our portion of the project and would have to pay only 17% (of. 50%) of the cost. . An alternative available to us is to bring the project ahead by re -allocating local funds from other projects within the City. We anticipate that funds from Laurie Meadows Drive could be re -allocated to this project. $204,000 of 1970-75. 2106 County Gas Tax monies, which are designated for use within the City of San Mateo, will revert to a "pool" of money at the County within two years. Since the Laurie Meadows Drive project will probably not proceed at that rapid a pace, it would be advisable to re -allocate those funds to the Hillsdale Boulevard -92 ramp signals, enabling.us to pull that project forward to this next fiscal year. We have contacted the State Division of Highways to find out if they have funds available for the project, should we.bring it forward. In those discussions, it was stated that they had the FAU 17% (of $154,000) contribution for their portion of the signals available and would allocate'it towards the. project. We then asked if they would allocate monies up to approximately $40,000. They have indicated that they felt they could and, further, could advertise the work by June 1st. We also discussed the matter with the County. Under the new procedures for contribution to projects by the County,' the County will contribute 2/3 of the project's cost to be borne by the City, and the City would then contribute 1/3 of that portion of the project cost. Using the figures indicated above ($154,000 total cost), if the State were to contribute $40,000, the County would put up $76,380 and the City and developer, $37,620. We believe that this is an advisable route to take, and would ask that this matter be presented to the City Council for their deliberations. " " J o h n C . L i l l y , C i t y M a n a g e r . - 2 - M a r c h 1 , 1 9 7 6 T h e C i t y P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n a t t h e i r m e e t i n g o f F e b r u a r y 2 3 , 1 9 7 6 , d e n i e d w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f B u i l d i n g N o . 6 f o r P e n i n s u l a O f f i c e P a r k . T h e p r i m a r y r e a s o n f o r t h e i r d e n i a l w a s t h a t t r a f f i c p r o b l e m s o n H i l l s d a l e B o u l e - v a r d w e r e b e c o m i n g i n t o l e r a b l e a n d t h a t a d d i t i o n a l b u i l d i n g s w o u l d i n c r e a s e t h e p r o b l e m t o a n e v e n g r e a t e r u n d e s i r a b l e s t a t e . O u r t r a f f i c a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t . t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n s o f C a m p u s D r i v e a n d H i l l s d a l e , a n d H i l l s d a l e a n d t h e r a m p o f t h e f r e e w a y , a r e . o p e r a t i n g a t a r e a s o n - a b l e l e v e l o f s e r v i c e d u r i n g t h e n o n - p e a k d e m a n d . H o w e v e r , t h e r e i s c o n s i d e r a b l e d e l a y t o t h e p u b l i c d u r i n g t h e p e a k h o u r s . T h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f t r a f f i c s i g - n a l s w i l l r e a l l o c a t e t h e t i m e a v a i l a b l e a t t h e d i f f e r e n t i n t e r s e c t i o n s , a l l o w i n g a s m o o t h e r m o v e m e n t o f t r a f f i c d u r i n g t h e p e a k h o u r s . W e a s k t h a t y o u p r e s e n t t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e C i t y C o u n c i l f o r t h e i r i n f o r m a - t i o n . T h e y m a y w a n t t o : 1 . A p p r o v e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f s i g n a l s o n a - $ 4 0 , 0 0 0 C A L T R A N S / $ 7 6 , 3 8 0 C o u n t y / $ 3 7 , 6 2 0 C i t y ( d e v e l o p e r ? ) c o s t b a s i s a t a n e a r l y d a t e . T h e d e v e l o p e r o f P e n i n s u l a O f f i c e P a r k h a s i n d i c a t e d h i s w i l l i n g n e s s t o s h a r e i n t h e c o s t o f t h e s i g n a l s a t t h e f r e e w a y r a m p s a l o n g w i t h a l l o t h e r d e v e l o p - m e n t s i n t h e a r e a . B a s e d o n t h a t p r e m i s e , P e n i n s u l a O f f i c e P a r k w o u l d b e o b l i g a t e d t o p a y $ 8 , 6 5 0 ( 2 3 % ) a s t h e i r p r o p o r t i o n a t e s h a r e . T h o s e f i g u r e s w e r e a r r i v e d a t b y a l l o c a t i n g t r a f f i c g e n e r a t e d b y P e n i n s u l a O f f i c e P a r k t o t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n s . A s e c o n d m e t h o d o f f i n a n c i n g w o u l d b e f o r t h e C i t y t o a s s u m e t h e e n t i r e o b l i g a t i o n , r e p r e s e n t i n g a c o n t r i - b u t i o n f r o m a l l t h e C i t y t o w a r d s t h e s o l u t i o n , p r i m a r y t r a f f i c c o n - t r i b u t o r s b e i n g t h e s c h o o l , o f f i c e d e v e l o p m e n t s a n d r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s i n t h e a r e a . 2 . A s k t h e d e v e l o p e r t o p r o v i d e p a r t o r a l l o f t h e C i t y ' s s h a r e a n d a l l o w h i s b u i l d i n g t o p r o c e e d . 3 . C o m m i t t h e d e v e l o p e r t o r o a d - w o r k c o s t s a t C a m p u s D r i v e - H i l l s d a l e B o u l e v a r d i n h i s 4 2 % s h a r e , a s p e r t h e e a r l i e r s i g n a l d i s c u s s i o n . R e s p e c t f u l l y s u b m i t t e d , R O B E R T G . B E Z Z A N T D I R E O R O F P U B L I C W O R M S Y L E D . ` O H N S O N C I T Y E N G I N E E R R G B : L D J : a d - h h c c : M r . J o h n W . L e y e r z a p h , T h e B o r e l D e v e l o p m e n t C o m p a n i e s , 2 9 8 8 C a m p u s D r i v e , S a n M a t e o , C A 9 4 4 0 3 T H I S I S A R E V I S E D P A G E 2 R e v i s e d P . 2 s e n t t o M r . L s y e r s a p h o n 3 / 3 / 7 6 John C. Lilly, City Manager -2- March 1, 1976 The ity Planning Commission at their meeting of February 23, 1976, den ,dd witho t prejudice the -application of Building Number Six for Peninsula office Park. a primary reason for their denial was that traffic problems/ n Hillsdale Boulevar were becoming intolerable and that additional buildings xould increase the proble,; to an even greater undesirable state. Our traffic ax and Hillsdale of service during public during thoss allocate the time av movement of traffic d lysis indicates that the intersections of C s Drive and Hillsdale, the ramp of the freeway, are operating a a reasonable level the peak demand. However, there is copsiderable delay to the peak hours. The installation of &fie signals will re - fable to the different intersect one, allowing a smoother g the peak hours. we ask that you present t°°s information to, They may. want to: 1. Approve installation f r ignals,,$on $37,620 City (develope ` ,' ` ...osj'bzr t puncil for their information. ,000 Cal-Trans/$76,380 County/ at an early date. 2. Ask the developer togzibvi4�e pr or all of the City's share and allow his building to pr eid ` 3. Commit the ev 1 a to roadwor•,costs at Campus Drive -Hillsdale ? 42% sl re, as pe:. the earlier signal discussion. Boulevard Respectfully submitte ROBERT G. BEZZANT DIRECTOR OP PUBLIC,vWORKS LYLE D. JO SON CITY ENG EER RGB: sad cc: Mr. John W. Leyerzaph, The Borel Development Companies, 2988 San Mateo, CA 94403 ampus Drive, .1 . " O F F I C E O F J O A N H I N C K L E Y C I T Y C L E R K S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 1 9 7 5 B o r e l E s t a t e C o . 2 9 8 8 C a m p u s D r i v e S a n M a t e o , C A 9 4 4 0 2 G e n t l e m e n : R 6 - 4 G k . 3 I 1 0 � 4 6 T ^ l ����' - _ 1 r ' ' : . t i - �� ����1 ' ' ��" 3 t C : i z z s ��' 7 ' C . . . C s a e r s ��. _ : 3 3 0 W E S T T W E N T I E T H A V E N U E S A N M A T E O , C A L I F O R N I A - 9 4 4 0 3 T E L E P H O N E : ( 4 1 5 ) 5 7 4 - 5 7 6 0 R e : I n s u r a n c e C e r t i f i c a t e P A 7 4 - 3 9 P e n i n s u l a O f f i c e P a r k Y o u r c e r t i f i c a t e o f i n s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e s u p p l i e d t o t h e C i t y o f S a n M a t e o o n t h e a b o v e p r o j e c t e x p i r e d o n A p r i l 1 5 , 1 9 7 5 , w i t h r e s p e c t t o y o u r w o r k m e n ' s c o m p e n s a t i o n . C o p y o f t h e c e r t i f i c a t e i s e n c l o s e d f o r r e f e r - e n c e . I t i s i m p e r a t i v e t h a t y o u p r o v i d e t h i s o f f i c e w i t h t h e r e n e w a l c e r t i f i c a t e f o r t h e c o v e r a g e i n d i c a t e d i m m e d i a t e l y . S i n c e r e l y y o u r s , J O A N H I N C K L E Y C I T Y C L E R K J H / d c E n c l . c c : D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c W o r k s v R E C E I V E D S E P 2 3 1 9 7 5 S A N M A T E O P U B L I C W O R K S D E P T , . i FRED° S. J OE S & CO. Insurance Brokers and Consultants Since 1858 Tertif hate if (7lnzurantre GffA MAURICE K. HAM1I TOiN _ Yf yr.,jyS This is to certify to CITY OF SAN MATEO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 330 WEST 20TH AVE., SAN MATEO CA ATTN: MAURICE K. HAMILTON That the following described Policy or Policies in force at this date have been issued to Assured: Address: BOREL ESTATE CO., ET AL (PENINSULA. OFFICE PARK) 2988 CAMPUS DRIVE SAN MATEO CA 94403 Type or insurance Policy Number Expiration Amounts WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION WC 9412666 4/15/75 $100,000 & EMPLOYERS LIABILITY' (AND RENEWAL) STATUTORY >- t— =') C3�= >--1--- (' J C) Ir tht_ev,-,t of any material change in or cancellation of said policies the Companies urtiil n( ;ri fy the parity to whom this Certificate is addressed of such change or cancellation. The Companies agree to give TEN (10) days written notice of cancellation. 1ikd 04!'' Dated at SAN FRANCISCO CA CENTRAL MUTUAL INS. CO. FEBRUARY 25, 1975 19 75 1. Signed ift y(e) (? ( r� , Signed d ;1 .i 4 Signed Signed Form 253 NAME STREET ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP RECORDING REQUESTED B. AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO /s\ SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANIES SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA HOME OFFICE: 4347 BROOKLYN AVE. N.E.. SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 58105 SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT BOND FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE (CALIFORNIA) Bond No 959f1RPJ Initial Premium $675.00 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That PENINSULA OFFTC.F P_ARI, A LIMITED PARTNERSHTP as Principal and the SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington and authorized to transact surety business in the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto THE CITY OF SAIL MATF:O , as Obligee, in the sum of Forty Five Thousand and no/100ths Dollars ($ )45,000 ), for the payment whereof, well and truly to be made, said Principal and Surety bind themselves, their heirs, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, That WHEREAS, the Principal on June 14, 19 76 entered into a certain Agreement or Contract with the Obligee wherein the Principal agreed to complete the following improvements: LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION AT PENINSULA OFFICE PARK as more fully set forth in said Agreement_ NOW, THEREFORE, if the Principal shall well and truly perform and fulfill all of the covenants, terms and conditions of the said Agreement, then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect. Provided, however: 1) That the consent of Surety shall be required for any extension of time to complete said improvements; 2) That no right of action shall accrue hereunder to or for the benefit of any person, firm or corporation other than the Obligee named herein. Signed, sealed and dated June 8, ,1976. PENINSULA OFFICE PARK, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SAFECO IN 1 �t.ytM fit_ By Principal W By G'eg CE COMPANY F AMERICA ribyl At rney-in-Fact 150 Sansome St., S. F., Ca. 911111 ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY SURETY Address STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Francisco } ss. On this 8th day of June. 1976, , before me, M. W. BENNING a notary public in and for the State of California with principal office in the County of San Francisco residing therein, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Gregory M. Pribyl known to me to be the attorney -in fact of Safeco Insurance Company of America, the corporation that executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHER_EOF#'Iltljwift �ffiit�iiii 1�n fi ff affixed my official seal, at my office in the aforesaid County, the day and year m f�11s certificate fifftvibommilffm - s- i NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA 5-821 R3 10/72 CITY AND COUNTY OF YE • �s SAN FRANCISCO MO MY COMMISSION exl,l,t MAR4M 27, 1977 M I SAFECO POI OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: SAFE NSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA HOME OFFICE: SAFECO PLAZA SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98185 No 4605 That Safeco Insurance Company of America and General Insurance Company of America, each a Washington corporation, does each hereby appoint - GREGORY M. PRIBYL its true and lawful attorney(s)-in-fact, with full authority to execute on its behalf fidelity and surety bonds or undertakings and other documents of a similar character issued in the course of its business, and to bind the respective company thereby. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Safeco Insurance Company of America and General Insurance Company of America have each executed and attested these presents this W.D.HAMMERSLA, SECRETARY 11th day of July ,.19 74 ,zdt GORDON H.SWEANY, PRESIDENT CERTIFICATE Extract from Article VI, Section 12, of the By -Laws of SAFECO Insurance Company of America and of General Insurance Company of America: "Article VI, Section 12, — FIDELITY AND SURETY BONDS . . . the President, any Vice President, and the Secretary shall each have authority to appoint individuals as attorneys -in -fact or under other appropriate titles with authority to execute on behalf of the company fidelity and surety bonds and other documents of similar character issued by the company in the course of its business . . . On any instrument making or evidencing such appointment, the signatures may be affixed by facsimile. On any instrument conferring such authority or on any bond or undertaking of the company, the seal, or a facsimile thereof, may be impressed or affixed or in any other manner reproduced; provided, however, that the seal shall not be necessary to the validity of any such instrument or undertaking." Extract from a Resolution of the Board of Directors of SAFECO Insurance Company of America and of General Insurance Company of America adopted July 28,1970: "On any certificate executed by the Secretary or an assistant secretary of the Company setting out, (i) The provisions of Article VI, Section 12 of the By -Laws, and (ii) A copy of the power -of -attorney appointment, executed pursuant thereto, and (iii) Certifying that said power -of -attorney appointment is in full force and effect, the signature of the certifying officer may be by facsimile, and the seal of the Company may be a facsimile thereof." I, Wm. Hammersla, Vice President and Secretary of SAFECO Insurance Company of America and of General Insurance Company of America, do hereby certify that the foregoing extracts of the By -Laws and of a Resolution of the Board of Directors of these corporations, and of a Power -of -Attorney issued pursuant thereto, are true and correct, and that both the By -Laws, the Resolution and the Power -of -Attorney are still in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the facsimile seal of each corporation CE COMP, v°RQort,�r� SEAL `' 1953 OF WASK� 5-974 R4 10/75 this 2 8th day of June , 19r-- ' CORPORATE SEAL x 1923 14' of Was% T W. D.HAMMERSLA, SECRETARY PRINTED IN U.S.A. " " S A F E C O I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N I E S S A F E C O I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y O F A M E R I C A G E N E R A L I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y O F A M E R I C A F I R S T N A T I O N A L I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y O F A M E R I C A H O M E O F F I C E . 4 3 4 7 B R O O K L Y N A V E . N . E . , S E A T T L E . W A S H I N G T O N 9 8 1 0 5 B o n d N o 2 5 9 8 8 8 8 - M M A I N T E N A N C E B O N D P r e m : $ 1 0 . 0 0 K N O W A L L M E N B Y T H E S E P R E S E N T S , T h a t w e , P E N I N S U L A O F F I C E P A R K , A L I M I T E D P A R T N E R S H I P a s P r i n c i p a l , a n d S A F E C O I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y O F A M E R I C A , a c o r p o r a t i o n o r g a n i z e d u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f W a s h i n g t o n a n d d u l y a u t h o r i z e d t o d o b u s i n e s s i n t h e S t a t e o f C A L I F O R N I A a s S u r e t y , a r e h e l d a n d f i r m l y h o u n d u n t o T H E C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O a s O b l i g e e , i n t h e p e n a l s u m o f S i x T h o u s a n d D o l l a r s a n d n o / 1 0 0 t h s 6 , 0 0 0 t o w h i c h p a y m e n t w e l l a n d t r u l y t o b e m a d e w e d o b i n d o u r s e l v e s , o u r a n d e a c h o f o u r h e i r s , e x e c u t o r s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , s u c c e s s o r s a n d a s s i g n s j o i n t l y a n d s e v e r a l l y , f i r m l y b y t h e s e p r e s e n t s . W H E R E A S , t h e s a i d P r i n c i p a l e n t e r e d i n t o a C o n t r a c t w i t h t h e C I T Y O F S A N M A T E O d a t e d J u n e 4 , 1 9 7 6 f o r P E N I N S U L A O F F I C E P A R K N O . 6 W H E R E A S , s a i d C o n t r a c t p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e P r i n c i p a l w i l l f u r n i s h a b o n d c o n d i t i o n e d t o g u a r a n t e e f o r t h e p e r i o d o f 1 . 5 y e a r ( s ) a f t e r a p p r o v a l o f t h e f i n a l e s t i m a t e o n s a i d j o b , b y t h e o w n e r , a g a i n s t a l l d e f e c t s i n w o r k m a n s h i p a n d m a t e r i a l s w h i c h m a y b e c o m e a p p a r e n t d u r i n g s a i d p e r i o d , a n d M E N W I E L V A X I X X X I C E U C C O M E O M M X P E C M C I E C I N E C O A D M I C r a C X N N O W , T H E R E F O R E , T H E C O N D I T I O N O F T I I I S O B L I G A T I O N I S S U C H , T h a t , i f t h e P r i n c i p a l s h a l l i n d e m n i f y t h e O b l i g e e f o r a l l l o s s t h a t t h e O b l i g e e m a y s u s t a i n b y r e a s o n o f a n y d e f e c t i v e m a t e r i a l s o r w o r k m a n s h i p w h i c h b e c o m e a p p a r e n t d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d o f 1 , 5 y e a r ( s ) f r o r n a n d a f t e r S A I D A P P R O V A L t h e n t h i s o b l i g a t i o n s h a l l b e v o i d , o t h e r w i s e t o r e m a i n i n f u l l f o r c e a n d e f f e c t . S i g n e d , s e a l e d a n d d a t e d t h i s 8 t h d a y o f J u n e , 1 9 1 _ P E N I N S U L A O F F I C E P A R K , A L I M I T E D ( S e a l ) P A R T N E R S H I P t I - s 0 1 S e a l ) ( S e a l ) S A F E C O I N R A N C E C O M P A N Y F A M E R I C A B y f L [ / G r o i b y l A t n e y - i n - F a c t 4 5 0 S a n s o m e S t . , S . F . , C a . 9 4 1 1 1 S - 8 4 3 R 2 1 0 / 7 2 P R I N T E D I N U . S . A . " " A C K N O W L E D G M E N T B Y S U R E T Y S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A C o u n t y o f S a n F r a n c i s c o s s . O n t h i s 8 t h d a y o f J u n e , 1 9 7 6 , b e f o r e m e , E m m a H a n e a n o t a r y p u b l i c i n a n d f o r t h e S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a w i t h p r i n c i p a l o f f i c e i n t h e C o u n t y o f S a n F r a n c i s c o r e s i d i n g t h e r e i n , d u l y c o m m i s s i o n e d a n d s w o r n , p e r s o n a l l y a p p e a r e d G r e g o r y M - P r i b y ] . k n o w n t o m e t o b e t h e p e r s o n w h o s e n a m e i s s u b s c r i b e d t o t h e w i t h i n i n s t r u m e n t a s t h e a t t o r n e y - i n - f a c t o f t h e S A F E C O I n s u r a n c e C o m p a n y o f A m e r i c a t h e c o r p o r a t i o n n a m e d a s S u r e t y i n s a i d i n s t r u m e n t , a n d a c k n o w l e d g e d t o m e t h a t h e s u b s c r i b e d t h e n a m e o f s a i d c o r p o r a t i o n t h e r e t o a s S u r e t y , a n d h i s o w n n a m e a s a t t o r n e y - i n - f a c t . I N W I T N E S S W H E R E O F , I h a v e h e r e u n t o s e t m y h a n d a n d a f f i x e d m y o f f i c i a l s e a l , a t m y o f f i c e i n t h e a f o r e s a i d C o u n t y , t h e d a y a n d y e a r l i t h i s l l u i l i t u l i f i n t n i n t i n i t i w r i t t e n . E M M A H A N E N O T A R Y P U B L I C - C A L I F O R N I A = s P R I N C I P A L O F F I C E I N ����C I T Y & C O U N T Y O F S A N F R A N C I S C O F . 1 2 M Y C O M M I S S I O N E X P I R E S J A N U A R Y 2 8 , 1 9 7 9 S - 1 4 2 6 2 / 7 5 = 1 t 1 u t l l t t l t l l l l i l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 f 1 1 l t l t l l t l ! ! 1 1 l I I i 1 1 t 1 U I t i ' N o t a r y P u b l i c 1 1 PO OF ATTORNEY SAFECO KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: SAFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA HOME OFFICE: SAFECO PLAZA SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98185 No 4605 That Safeco Insurance Company of America and General Insurance Company of America, each a Washington corporation, does each hereby appoint GREGORY M. PRIBYL its true and lawful attorney(s)-in-fact, with full authority to execute on its behalf fidelity and surety bonds or undertakings and other documents of a similar character issued in the course of its business, and to bind the respective company thereby. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Safeco Insurance Company of America and General Insurance Company of America have each executed and attested these presents this W, D.HAMMERSLA, SECRETARY 11th day of July , 19 74 GORDON 11.5WEANY, PRESIDENT CERTIFICATE Extract from Article VI, Section 12, of the By -Laws of SAFECO Insurance Company of America and of General Insurance Company of America: "Article VI, Section 12, — FIDELITY AND SURETY BONDS . . . the President, any Vice President, and the Secretary shall each have authority to appoint individuals as attorneys -in -fact or under other appropriate titles with authority to execute on behalf of the company fidelity and surety bonds and other documents of similar character issued by the company in the course of its business . . On any instrument making or evidencing such appointment, the signatures may be affixed by facsimile. On any instrument conferring such authority or on any bond or undertaking of the company, the seal, or a facsimile thereof, may be impressed or affixed or in any other manner reproduced; provided, however, that the seal shall not be necessary to the validity of any such instrument or undertaking." Extract from a Resolution of the Board of Directors of SAFECO Insurance Company of America and of General Insurance Company of America adopted July 28, 1970: "On any certificate executed by the Secretary or an assistant secretary of the Company setting out, (i) The provisions of Article VI, Section 12 of the By. -Laws, and (ii) A copy of the power -of -attorney appointment, executed pursuant thereto, and (iii) Certifying that said power -of -attorney appointment is in full force and effect, the signature of the certifying officer may be byfacsimile, and the seal of the Company may be a facsimile thereof." I, Wm. Hammersla, Vice President and Secretary of SAFECO Insurance Company of America- and of General Insurance Company of America, do hereby certify that the foregoing extracts of the By -Laws and of a Resolution of the Board of Directors of these corporations, and of a Power -of -Attorney- issued pursuant thereto, are true and correct, and that both the By -Laws, the Resolution and the Power -of -Attorney are still in full force and effect, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the facsimile seal of each corporation N this 8th CE COMP, f,I, RPOR4 SEAL 1953 QF WASH�� %OE COAT, ti t CORPORATE SEAL x 1925 4ofWasb*� O, ice' day of June , 197. W. D. HAMMERSLA, SECRETARY PRINTED IN V.S.A. S-974 R4 10/75 BUILDING DIVISION JOHN WATT ■UILDING OWIICIAL TELEPHONE. (415) 574.6750 PLANNING DIVISION PETER HATZLBERGER CITY ►I.ANNFR TELEPHONE (415) 574.6770 May 6, 1976 Borel Development 2988 Campus Drive San Mateo, CA 94403 Gentlemen: OFFICE OF RICHARD H. COLEMAN DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 330 WEST TWENTIETH AVENUE SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94403 Re: Peninsula Office Park #6 Reference is made to Condition #22 which appears on PA 76-08 for the reference structure reading as follows: "The applicant shall contribute 42% of the cost of the channelization necessary for the proper function of the new signal at Campus Drive and Hillsdale Boulevard (42% of channelization cost now estimated to be $15,330.00). The applicant shall contribute $15,804.00 as his share of the construction of the signalization and channelization of traffic at the intersection of Highway 92 and Hillsdale Boulevard." It is understood that these fees will be paid when these signalization and channelization projects go to bid, but not later than the date of issuance of an occupancy permit for Peninsula Office Park #6. Yours truly, John Watt Building Offi Approved: Approved: JW:bp • Development Company San Mateo City Engineer $ 750.00 5966649 Fidelity and eposit (!opany for the term thereof HOME OFFICE OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE 21203 SUBDIVISION PERFORMANCE BOND KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That we, PENINSULA OFFICE PARK, a Limited Partnership as Principal__.., and the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, a corporation created, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Maryland, as Surety, are held and firmly bound to CITY OF SAN MATEO FIFTY THOUSAND AND NO/100 50 000.0 in the sum of Dollars ($ ' �, lawful money of the United States of America, to the payment of which, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and successors, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITION OF THE ABOVE OBLIGATION IS SUCH, That WHEREAS, the following work, installation of 2600 Campus Dr. above Principal have agreed to do and perform the to -wit: landscaping and related site improvements at San Mateo, California #PA 76-08 NOW, THEREFORE, if the_above bounden Principal shall well and truly perform the above described work in accordance with all Plans and Specifications, all Cit Ordinances, within the times specified, this obligation shat a void, otherwise to remain .n full force and effect. Delivery Engineer Engineer shall be to the Principal of a statement signed by the City of the completion to the satisfaction - of the City of all the.improvements required to be done by the Principal evidence of the performance of said work. No right of action shall accrue under this bond to any person other than the named Obligee. Witness the hand and seal of the said Principal, and witness also the corporate seal of the said Surety and the signature of its duly authorized Attorney -in -Fact, attested by its duly authorized agents San Francisco, Californighis lAth day of ay OFF PARK FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND By_ Vaugl n F. I ivis Jr. Attorney-in- at 19... -76 (SEAL) (SEAL) CAL3112a-1M, 4-65 169481 Generai Form STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO On this 14th SS: day of May 1Q ----. ¢before me aforesaid, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument as the Attorney -in -Fact of the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, and acknowledged to me that he subscribed : name of Fidelity and Deposit pany of Maryland thereto as Surety and his own n e a Attorney -in -Fact. •," ' ARTHUR C. OOSTHUIZEN c'r'r Orb• `:0 1NTY OF San Francisco 1988 SAN _ My Commisson cL 5, .0 �� Expiry =--;� -rte- �c.c- z- Oct. 1979 -�=�cc�=` =:tea a Notary Public, in and for the City and County and State Vaughn F. Davis Jr. otary Public in and for the State California, ity and County of San Francisco RECEIVED MAY 11 1376 SAN MATEO PUBUC 4 }` iRKKS DEPT. Premium included in Performance Bond Fidelity and Deposit 5966649 eompany HOME OFFICE OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE, MD. 21203 SUBDIVISION MAINTENANCE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That we, PENINSULA___OEEICE Limited Partnership as Principal___, and the FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, a corporation created, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Maryland, as Surety, are held and firmly bound to CITY OF SAN MATEO in the sum of SIX THOUSAND AND NO/100 Dollars ($ 61000'00 ), lawful money of the United States of America, to the payment of which, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and successors, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITION OF THE ABOVE OBLIGATION IS SUCH, That WHEREAS, Principal has applied for a building permit from the City of San Mateo in connection with development of a new office building at 2600 Campus Dr.,and WHEREAS, the City has approved such application conditioned among other things upon Principal installing landscaping at such site and maintaining it for a period of eighteen (18) months following installation. NOW; THEREFORE, if the Principal, shall well and truly perform. the maintenance guarantee above described within the time specified, then this obligation shall be void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect. Witness the hand and seal of the said Principal, and witness also the corporate seal of the said Surety and the signature of its duly authorized Attorney -in -Fact, attested by its duly authorized agents at SiS rI�__F a�c_a. o , this 14th day of May PE i NSU FICE FIDELITY AND DEPO$17 COMPANY OF MARYLAND Vaugin Da Jr. Attest: 19 76 (SEAL) (SEAL) Attorney -in -Fa CAL3112a-1M, 6-69 182833 General Form A gent op • O z aforesaid, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared. known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument as the Attorney -in -Fact of the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, and acknowledged to me that he subscrib . . e name of Fidelity and Deposit pany of Maryland thereto as Surety and his own ram: as Attorney -in -Fact. 1I F Approved this STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO } Ss: On this. 14th day. of a 0 co May a -18 0 z 0 19 % before me ; RTH TPr-_C,_ 00M -WIZEN , a Notary Public, in and for the City and County and State Vaughn F. Davis Jr. '1ra r.V . 9i.. San Francisco 98398-^ SA ri My C3mmi s on E it 5. 19/9 Notary Public in and for the State of California,—' City and County of San Francisco RECFPIED 1. 1916 SAN MATEO PUBLIC WORKS. DEPT,:, LbTlagrwe 410 • 40 CITY OF SAN MATED CALIFORNIA 330 WEST TWENTIETH AVENUE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Date: April 12, 1976 Attention: PENINSULA OFFICE. PARK Mr. John W. Leyerzaph 2988 Campus Drive, San Mateo 94403 MINUTE ORDER # 131-76 In the matter of: PA76-08 PENINSULA -OFFICE PARK #6„ new office building, 2600 Campus Dr. (CP41-521-04) (Agenda Item 15) At the meeting of the City Council of the City of San Mateo on April 5, 1976 at which were present Council Members: WELCH, BAKER, CHALMERS, CONDON. MURRAY On motion: of Council Member CHALMERS Council. Member CONDON , seconded by , duly carried and entered on the minutes, it was ordered to approve PA 76-08 PENINSULA OFFICE PARK #6, new office building, 2600 Campus Dr. (CP41-521-04), including: A. Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPARS -2/76) to construct a new office building, subject to 18 original BoZA conditions, plus added conditions 19 through 23, as suggested by Department of Community Development, with Condition 19 revised to include the words, "...if deemed necessary by City staff within one year after occupancy,..." and Condition 20 revised to include the words "...and instructions not to park on residential streets."; B. Variance (VAR3-2/76) from the allowed number of parking spaces that may be for compact cars; and C. Negative Declaration (ND9-2/76) concerning environmental impact, revised on Page 2 to indicate 27% compact car parking stalls. JH/ps Attachments cc: Robert L. Beckwith, 794 - 26th Avenue, San Mateo 94403 Carolyn Goldstein et al, 623 Cuesta Avenue, San Mateo 94403 Planning Commission epDe artment Community Development artment Public Works (2) } j p Recreation R--1/ .`ice eTi Department Parks and �� �''. Fire Department; Building Division; JOAN HINCKLEY, CITY C:LI?1Tk Park Division; City Attorney cc 10 4271-04-1-47. 7 c-�-r • Of/ 71 ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL . APRIL 5, 1976 CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA PAGE 1 PA76-08 PENINSULA OFFICE PARK #6, new office building, 2600 Campus Dr. (CP41-521-04) A. Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPARS -2/76) to construct a new office building. B. Variance (VAR3-2/76) from the allowed number of parking spaces that may be for compact cars. C. Negative Declaration (ND9-2/76) concerning environmental impact. Property is 159,153 sq. ft., mol, Peninsula Office Park, Lot #4, zoned E-1. APPLICANT & OWNER: Peninsula Office Park by John W. Leyerzaph, 2988 Campus Dr. 94403. CONDITIONS: 1. Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Repair - The applicant shall repair all curb, gutter and sidewalk damaged during the course of work within the limits of his property in accordance with the latest City Standards and as approved by the City Engineer. 2. Parking - The applicant shall agree to install all required off-street parking lots and stalls in accordance with the City of San Mateo parking standards. 3. Permits, Bonds and Insurance - The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the.Public Works Department, posting all bonds and insurance required if it becomes necessary to do work in the public right of way. 4. General - All public improvements shall be made in accordance with the latest adopted City Standard Drawings and specifications. All work shall conform to the applicable City ordinances. Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times during the course of construction. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or street will not be allowed unless a special permit is issued therefor. The superintendent in charge of construction shall be at the job site during all, working hours. 5. Final Plans - The applicant shall submit three sets of final planting, automatic irrigation and other site improvement drawings in accordance with the "Site Improvement Guideline" of the Park Division with the application for the building permit. 6. Slope Planting - Any slopes in excess of 3:1 shall be planted with a permanent evergreen ground cover, excluding Ice plant, and shall be 'watered with an irrigation system acceptable to the Superintendent of Parks. 7. Soil Tests - Soil for proposed planting areas shall be tested for its suitability as a growing medium. Testing shall be conducted by a horti- cultural laboratory specifically experienced in work of this nature. Test results shall be used in preparing plans and specifications for the final planting and soil preparation. 8. Occupancy - All planting and installation of automatic irrigation system shall be completed before occupancy of the new building. ACTION OF THE CITY COUNC, • APRIL 5, 1976 PAGE 2 9. Curbing - All planting shall be protected from vehicular traffic by a six-inch concrete curb, or equal. 10. Installation and Maintenance Bonds - Applicant shall supply a performance bond in the amount of 1007. guaranteeing the installation of landscaping and related site improvements and maintenance cost for the eighteen -month period following installation. 11. Fire Access - Final plans shall reflect landscape planting and paved surfaces which shall meet the requirements of the Fire Marshal with regard to fire access. 12. Doors - Hinged doors to corridors or building exterior shall be a. wood - of solid core construction equipped with single cylinder deadbolt locks that have a minimum bolt throw of one inch. b. glass- shall be equipped with single cylinder deadbolts with minimum bolt throw of one inch. c. locks- as a recommendation these locks should have hardened steel insets in the bolt and should be equipped with beveled, hardened, rotating collars. d. frames -the door frames should be equipped with hardened strikes. 13. Fire Flow - The development will require a fire flow of not less than 2.500 GPM. 14. Fire Hydrants - The applicant shall provide on -site fire hydrant and and mains at locations approved by the Fire Department. 15. Emergency Vehicle Roadways a. Easement - Access by Fire Department equipment to and from on -site fire hydrants shall be provided. b. Design - Access roads for emergency equipment shall be designed to accommodate a vehicle laden weight of 37,000 lbs., have a surface capable of supporting fire apparatus regardless of weather and have a turning radius of forty (40) feet. c Temporary Driveway - If standard driveway access to roadways is not installed prior to start of buildin.g construction, then temporary driveways shall be provided for emergency vehicle use in accord with the recommendations of the Engineering Department of the City of San Mateo. d. Obstructions - Emergency vehicle roadways shall be maintained free of obstructions, such as stacked lumber, unattended vehicles and the like for a width of twenty (20) feet along the entire length and the owner shall be required to post approved signs where and when required by the Fire Department to prohibit parking or obstructing the roadway. The use of barricades, fences or gates across emergency vehicle access roads shall require prior approval of the Fire Department. It9Acc x: `h -t. � e a.t7 , ;J'y " " A P R I L 5 , 1 9 7 6 A C T I O N O F T H E C I T Y C O U N C I L P A G E 3 1 6 . B u i l d i n g I d e n t i f i c a t i o n - B u i l d i n g s n o t f r o n t i n g o n a r o a d w a y s h a l l b e r e q u i r e d t o h a v e t h e i r l o c a t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d a l o n g t h e v e h i c l e r o a d w a y n e a r e s t t h e b u i l d i n g o r a t o t h e r l o c a t i o n s a s d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e F i r e a n d P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t s . 1 7 . U . B . C . - T h e b u i l d i n g s h a l l c o m p l y w i t h a l l b u i l d i n g c o d e s i n e f f e c t a t t h e t i m e o f i s s u a n c e o f b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s . 1 8 . S o i l s R e p o r t - T h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l s u b m i t S o i l s R e p o r t , i n c l u d i n g r e c o m m e n - d a t i o n s f o r f o u n d a t i o n d e s i g n . 1 9 . T h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l c o n s t r u c t a f e n c e w i t h a n a p p r o v e d e m e r g e n c y g a t e a c r o s s t h e o p e n i n g f r o m P e n i n s u l a O f f i c e P a r k t o 2 6 t h A v e n u e i f d e e m e d n e c e s s a r y b y C i t y s t a f f w i t h i n o n e y e a r a f t e r o c c u p a n c y , s o a s t o p r e v e n t o f f i c e o c c u p a n t s f r o m p a r k i n g i n t h e 2 6 t h A v e n u e a r e a a n d w a l k i n g t o t h e i r o f f i c e s . 2 0 . T h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l s u p p l y t o a l l t e n a n t s f o r t h e i r e m p l o y e e s , a s i m p l e t r a f f i c m a p o f t h e a r e a d e s i g n e d t o s h o w a d v a n t a g e s a n d s a f e t y g a i n e d b y u s i n g H i g h w a y 9 2 , r a t h e r t h a n r e s i d e n t i a l s t r e e t s , a n d i n s t r u c t i o n s n o t t o p a r k o n r e s i d e n t i a l s t r e e t s . 2 1 . T h e o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t f o r B u i l d i n g N o . 5 s h a l l n o t b e i s s u e d u n t i l t h e H i g h w a y 9 2 / H i l l s d a l e s i g n a l i z a t i o n i s c o m p l e t e . 2 2 . T h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l c o n t r i b u t e 4 2 ` , 0 o f t h e c o s t o f t h e c h a n n e l i z a t i o n n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e p r o p e r f u n c t i o n o f t h e n e w s i g n a l a t C a m p u s D r i v e a n d H i l l s d a l e B o u l e v a r d ( 4 2 % o f c h a n n e l i z a t i o n c o s t n o w e s t i m a t e d t o b e $ 1 5 , 3 3 0 . 0 0 ) . 1 2 3 . T h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l c o n t r i b u t e $ 1 5 , 8 0 4 . 0 0 a s h i s s h a r e o f t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e s i g n a l i z a t i o n a n d c h a n n e l i z a t i o n o f t r a f f i c a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n o f H i g h w a y 9 2 a n d H i l l s d a l e B o u l e v a r d . P h c c i Planning - Bldg. ff5 2755 Campus Drive Address of Surety: SAFECO INSURANCE CONY OF AMERICA GENERAL INSURANCE ANY OF AMERICA FIRST NATIONAL INSUR, E COMPANY OF AMERICA HOME OFFICE: SAFECO PLAZA, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98185 s SUBDIVISION OR OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT BOND STATUS INQUIRY 417 Montgomery Street, Suite 424 San Francisco, CA 94104 1-57824 Date. City of San Mateo 330 W. 20tk_-Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 Without prejudicing- your rights or effecting our liability under the bond, we would appreciate whatever progress information is now available concerning this subdivision or offsite improve- ment bond. A business reply envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Very truly yours, • SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANIES RECFNED APR 11 SAN MATED Project Description:pU, I j C .4 Bond No. 4140144 DescritionPA`° ` + , P.O.P. #8,2929 Canons .••. ,; :4 t _..1 CA For Street" Besarf ing Work Including Slurry Seall Coatiic Principal Peni & Park 2755 ' Canoue Drive San Mateo, CA 94403 Obligee City of San Mateo Bond Amount $27,000.00 Effective Date 8--581 IF IMPROVEMENTS ARE COMPLETED, PLEASE STATE: IF IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT COMPLETE, PLEASE STATE: L? ‹- C /-7,Y0 1. Date completed _ I. Percentage of work completed 2.,Date accepted__ I 2. Probable date .of completion- - 3. Is progress satisfactory? Remarks: (If any) /2. rg r°,e g Li Date: Signature :</G,6Cd O.4S74.047/p Kf fAISee‘TaRZ/ 4 Title RETAIN THIS COPY " r A C T I O N O F T H E P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N R E Q U E S T F O R T I I N A E E X T E N S I O N A . F o r s i x m o n t h s t o D e c e m b e r 1 0 , 1 9 7 5 : P A 7 4 - 3 9 P E N I N S U L A O F F i C E P A R K , B u i l d i n g 1 1 5 , 2 7 5 5 C a m p u s D r i v e ( C P 4 i - 5 2 2 - 0 2 ) A . S i t e P l a n a n d A r c h i t e c t u r a l R e v i e w ( S P A 2 8 . 4 7 4 ) t o c o n s t r u c t O f f i c e B u i l d i n g 6 5 A n E I R ( E I R 9 - 4 / 7 4 ) h a s b e e n c e r t i f i e d f a r t h i s p r c l e c t . P r o p e r t y b e i n g 2 1 9 , 0 9 3 s q . f t . , i m a l , L o t 6 o f P e n i n s u l a O f f i c e P a r k , . V o l 7 8 , P a g e 3 3 , S o n t o t e o C o u n t y , z o n e d E - 1 . A C T I O N : M o v e t h a t t h e r e q u e s t f o r a n e x t e n s i o n b e g r a n t e d f o r a p e r i o d o f o n e y e a r a n d t h a t t h e - f o l � o t i v i n g a m e n d e d c o n d i t i o n s b e m a d e a p a r t o f t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s c o n d i t i o n s : 4 a . T h e s i g n a l a t C a m p u s D r i v e a n d H i l l s d a l e B o u l e v a r d ' s h a l l b e i n s t a l l e d . p r i o r t o t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h e o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t . T h e a m o u n t o f t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n b y t h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l b e d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e C i t y C o u n c i l . 1 6 . , " T h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l c o m p l y w i t h p r o v i s i o n s o f a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n c o d e s " ( B u i l d i n g , . P l u m b i n g , M e c h a n i c a l , E l e c t r i c a l , e t c . ) i n e f f e c t a t t h e t i m e t h a t t h e . b u i l d i n g p e r m i t t h a t r e s u l t s i n c o n s t r u c t i o n i s o b t a i n e d . M o t i o n : C o m m i s s i o n e r - R a i - t i S e c o n d : C o m m i s s i o n e r R e i l l y V O T E : 5 - 0 D A T E O F H E A R I N G : . M a y 2 7 , 1 9 7 5 A D D I T I O N A L H E A R I N G : F i n a l w i t h t h e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n u n l e s s a p p e a l e d w i t h i n t e n d a y s . C O N D I T I O N S : 1 . C u r b , G u t t e r a n d S i d e w a l k R e p a i r - - T h e . a p p l i c a n t s h a l l r e p a i r a l l b r o k e n o r m i s a l i g n e d c u r b , g u t t e r a n d s i i . e w a � k w i t h i n t i e l i m i t s o f h i s p r o p e r t y i n a c c o r d a n c e v " t t h t h e l a t e s t C i t y S t a n d a r d s a n d a s a p p r o v e d b y t h e C i t y E n g i n e e r . " T h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l C r e e i n i n s t a l l a l l r a e u i S C d o i f - s t m c e t p a : k n i q l a y s u n C i s t a l l s u - i a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e C i t y o f . S e n M a t e o p . c n k n g s t a n d S r d . . ��, T r a f ' c S t u d y t t . . . a p p l i c a n t s h a l l . u b m ; l t " a c o m p l o t e t ' a f f i c s t u d y f o r v a I , i j r k ' : , a p p r o v a l f �� t h e �� ��s C , Z ' ; ' ��l t ' I f I " l l l s ` . > I _ I ; . �� . A l i , e ��> ( - s l l , . I C ' . ��. . t r I " l . ' . V ? i , : ' V r f : C . C i i S ��r C . . b y t l ) ' ? C i } ' j o f _ i n ! ' + : A ; a t e o F r ' i a ' r i o t h e i s s u a n c e o f a L u i l d i r l t 7 l e r i n l l . 4. Traffic Signals - The app+ant shall contribute towards the cast of installing traffic signals at the freeway off -ramps and West Hillsdale Boulevard. The amount contributed shall be based on the traffic to and from Peninsula Office Park, using these ramp/street intersections as compared to the total traffic through the intersection. _ _ 4a. The signal at Campus Drive and Hillsdale Boulevard shall be installed prior to the issuance of the occupancy permit. The amount of the contribution• by the applicant shall be determined by the City Council. 5. Drainage - All drainage shall be directed to the public street with a minimum grade of 1% over landscaped areas and 0.5% over paved•areas. Where necessary, sidewalk drains shall be provided to direct the water through the curb. • G. Assessment District -The applicant and owner shall agree to join any existing public improvement assessment district which includes the subject property and shall further agree to join any future assessment district,. if and when formed, and to pay an equitable share of any.assessrnent.levied thereby. 7, Underground Utilities - The applicant must agree to install all utility service, including telephone, electric power and other communications lines under- ground in accordance with City of San Mateo policy. 8. General •• All public improvements shall be made in accordance with the latest adopted City Standard Drawings and specifications. Ait work shall conforra.ta the applicable City ordinance,_ Good housekeeping practices.sbaoll be observed at all times during the course of construction. The storing of goods and materials on the- sidewalk and/or street will not be allowed unless a special permit is issued therefor. The superintendent in charge of construction shall he at the job site during all working hours. 9. Applicant shall submit two sets of -final planting, automatic irrigation and other site improvement drawings in accordance with the "Site Improvement Guideline" of the Park Department with the application for the building permit. .10, Applicant shall supply a perfo:'mance bond in the arnaur.it of 100% guaranteeing the installation of landscaping and related site impravements and maintenance r cost for the eighteen -month period following installation. 11. Permanent slopes and surfaces shall be planted with a permanent evergreen ground cover, excluding ice plants, and shall be watered with permanent automatic irrigation systems. 12. All' planting and installation „t eatemofe irrigation system shall be completed before occupancy of the building. 13. Dcvelapincnt will require a fire flow of not lees than 22b0 cmM. Biased on Type I construction. 14. Applicant shall provide on -site fire hydrants and mains at locations approved• by the Are Department. (Two locations) 15. Access roads for emergency equipment shall be designed to accommodate a vehicle laden weight of 37,000 lbs., have a surface capable of supporting fire apparatus regardless of weather andhave a turning radius of 40'. 16. The applicant shall comply with provisions of all construction codes (Building, Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical, etc.) in effect at the time that the building permit that results in construction is obtained. 17. The loading space location shall be moved to either the front. entrance parking area or in the landscape area adjacent to the building. • '1&. Provision should be rnade to provide relatively flat spaces in the landscaping at fifty foot intervals and within 5 'fio 10 feet from -the Campus Street face of the building suitable for use with Fire Department ladders. • Signed I r /� �%` "-z" Peter K¢tz ber•e , City P4bnner I!!OTV OF SAN MATEO" 330 WEST 20TH AVENUE v - SAN MATEO. CALk 0RNIA 94403 Mr. Frank L. ile..nry The Bore! Development Co ;:ponies 29C8 Campus Drive San Mateo, California 94403 Dear Mr. Henry: October 21, 1974 +6 I �. .o„ in reply) your let r r of �'^.tot-. '6, The. Public Works Commission • will discuss Tiiw? Cif:.'U'�33�.`i+fi j% S'it"s7;_2lEisdc% EIVd. Si njl s'`� i 11jS71'('...o fr ot their meeting on V:re' nes*y, l``lov�?+"i:.:'t r - �, 19Y4, ot l :�i0 P. M., in one Publiie r � r r"� o : is �`• � s Works In �. the vie:es Con:' ` :: ce'Rooro '�'�ich adiacet to f's'C+P Public Works Dep.;rtmcnt a the City Hall.. Please bring our files ttithe meeting. 'here will he a .*nerd us':�u sion. +hjuld there La any 'a in the neet'irQ dote, you will be notified. Very truly yours, \'ill'scnt J. Hamm r, Choirm i F`0l:!io Works Commission ley it . uno 1; L4', ,trek'. THE DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES 2988 Campus Drive San Mateo, California 94403 (415) 349-7770 Mr. Robert G. Bezzant Director of Public Works City of San Mateo 330 West 20th Avenue San Mateo, California 94403 Dear Mr. Bezzant: 1. � t: thsn 'C f OCT 101974 ENGINEERING DEPT. October 8, 1974 At last night's City Council meeting item #21, "Appeal of Council Decision of August 5, 1974, regarding Campus Drive & West Hillsdale Blvd. Signal Installation Costs," was referred to the Public Works Commission for action. On behalf of the Borel Development Companies I wish to request by this letter that you advise me on the time and place of that meeting so that I and our various representatives can be prepared to discuss the subject of the appeal. I would also appreciate your advising me on what materials we should have on hand and the manner in which we should present them. Very truly yours, BOREL DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES Frank L. Henry General Partner FLH : l a cc: Maurice K. Hamilton, Esq. Mr. Lyle Johnson, City Engineer Mr. Richard Hopper, Traffic Engineer Real Estate Development • Investment • Management Borel Development Company • Borel Estate Company • Peninsula Office Park Spear Street Investment Company • San Jose Airport Office Center Company " R ��' C E I V ��p ��# P 7 4 _ o a J . D . D r a c h m a n A s s o c i a t e s T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o n s u l t a n t 5 7 5 M i s s i o n S t . - 3 r d F l o o r S a n F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 1 0 5 ( 4 1 5 ) 4 9 5 - 6 6 5 0 1 5 J a n u a r y 1 9 7 6 M r . J o h n W . L e y e r z a p h B o r e l D e v e l o p m e n t C o m p a n y 2 9 8 8 C a m p u s D r i v e S a n M a t e o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 4 0 3 S u b j e c t : P e n i n s u l a O f f i c e P a r k B u i l d i n g S i x T r . f f i c R e p o r t S u p p l e m e n t D e a r M r . L e y e r z a p h : J A N 2 3 1 9 7 6 S A N M A T E O P U B L I C W O R K S D E P T , D E P T . O F C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N N I N G J A N 2 I 1 9 7 6 A C T I O N : I n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h y o u r r e q u e s t a n d a u t h o r i z a t i o n , w e a r e p l e a s e d t o s u b m i t t h i s t r a f f i c r e p o r t c o n c e r n i n g a c c e s s t o t h e P e n i n s u l a O f f i c e P a r k D e v e l o p m e n t . T h i s . r e p o r t a n a l y z e s t h e e f f e c t o f B u i l d i n g S i x i n a d d i t i o n t o p r e v i o u s l y a p p r o v e d r e s t a u r a n t a n d o f f i c e b u i l d i n g s . I n t r o d u c t i o n O n O c t o b e r 1 9 7 0 , w e w e r e e n g a g e d b y y o u r f i r m t o p r o v i d e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o n s u l t - i n g s e r v i c e s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t o f a 5 4 a c r e G i l m o r e E s t a t e s p r o p e r t y i n t o a n o f f i c e p a r k c o m p l e x . D u r i n g t h e m o n t h o f N o v e m b e r 1 9 7 0 , w e s u b m i t t e d t o y o u a f i n a l r e p o r t e n t i t l e d " G i l m o r e E s t a t e s T r a f f i c A c c e s s S t u d y " c o n c e r n i n g t h e v e h i c u l a r a c c e s s t o t h e t h e n p r o p o s e d P e n i n s u l a O f f i c e P a r k P r o - j e c t . T h e s t u d y r e p o r t w a s a c c o m p a n i e d w i t h m e e t i n g s i n v o l v i n g s t a f f o f t h e a f - f e c t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n s , i n o r d e r t o e x p l a i n t h e s c o p e o f p e r f o r m e d s t u d i e s a n d c o n t e x t o f t h e r e p o r t . S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , o n J a n u a r y 1 8 , 1 9 7 1 , t h e s u b j e c t s t u d y a p p l i c a - t i o n f o r S p e c i a l P e r m i t a n d R e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s w a s a p p r o v e d b y t h e S a n M a t e o C i t y C o u n c i l , s u b j e c t t o s e v e r a l c o n d i t i o n s . O n e o f t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s e n t a i l e d t h e d e - v e l o p m e n t o f a s u p p l e m e n t a l t r a f f i c s t u d y p r i o r t o t h e a p p r o v a l o f e a c h b u i l d i n g i n o r d e r t o c o r r o b o r a t e o r u p d a t e t h e a s s u m p t i o n o f t h e o v e r a l l s t u d y w i t h f i e l d d a t a o n t r a f f i c p a t t e r n s a n d s u r r o u n d i n g l a n d d e v e l o p m e n t s . C o n c u r r e n t w i t h t h e a p p r o v a l f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e " G i l m o r e E s t a t e s P l a n n e d E x e c u t i v e D e v e l o p m e n t " t h e C i t y C o u n c i l n o t e d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a n a d d i t i o n a l 9 9 a c r e s o f u n d e v e l o p e d l a n d a d j a c e n t t o t h e J . A r t h u r Y o u n g e r F r e e w a y ( R o u t e 9 2 ) a n d W . H i l l s d a l e B o u l e v a r d i n t e r c h a n g e i n v a r i o u s s t a t e s o f d e v e l o p m e n t p l a n n i n g . Letter to Mr. John W. iterzaph 15 January 1976 Page 2 • Because of the potential traffic bottleneck at this interchange, the City Council requested a similar study by California Division of Highways through Resolution No. 9 (1971) "Requesting Official Study by the Division of Highways of the Impact Upon the Modifications Necessary to the Interchange of Route 92 and Hillsdale Boulevard within the City of San Mateo Due to the Development of Certain Lands Adjacent to Said Route 92 Together with the Possibility of Providing Direct Ac- cess to and From Said Property to Said Route 92." On March 1971, a report was published by the City of San Mateo Engineers Office entitled: "J. Arthur Younger Freeway - W. Hillsdale Boulevard Interchange, W. Hillsdale Boulevard and the Impact of Future Developments." The report sum- marized all available data to date including forecasts of intensity and staging of development of adjacent undeveloped lands throughout the area. It also incorpor- ated the findings of our previous November 1970 report with regards to the Gilmore Estates Project. Supplemental traffic reports have been submitted and approved prior to the devel- opment of each building in the Peninsula Office Park. A supplemental traffic re- port for POP Building Two and a Restaurant was submitted on August 17, 1972. Shortly thereafter the POP Building Two and Restaurant study application was approved by the San Mateo City Council. On March 5, 1973, a supplemental traf- fic report for POP Building Three was submitted. Based upon a request by Mr. Richard K. Hopper, City Traffic Engineer, an addendum to the POP Building Three traffic report, dealing specifically with the determination of traffic signal warrants for the intersection of West Hillsdale Boulevard and Campus Drive, was submitted on March 21, 1973. Consequently on March 27, 1973, and with the con- currence of the City Traffic Engineer, the POP Building Three application was approved by the San Mateo City Council, with conditions. The traffic condition specifically stated that: "On occupancy of Building Three the applicant shall install signalization on Campus Drive and Hillsdale Boulevard if traffic counts taken at this time warrant signalization." On September 6, 1973 a traffic report was submitted concerning Building Four. It was the conclusion of that report that traffic signal warrants at the intersection of Campus Drive and Hillsdale Boulevard would be met upon occupancy of POP Building Four. Lastly, a traffic report on proposed Building Five was submitted on April 1, 1974 and approved shortly thereafter. The analysis of traffic impact and this supplemental report for POP Building Six is again based and directly re- lated to all previous work on this project. Study Methodology The methodology for this study follows the same general format of previous reports. Traffic volumes for existing conditions and for the first five buildings are isolated. To these volumes the additional traffic from Building Six is superimposed. With these data an evaluation of the Volume Capacity ratio is made and the need for traffic control devices are investigated. Letter to Mr. John W. L yerzaph 15 January 1976 Page 3 • Traffic Forecasts Sketch A indicated the AM peak hour traffic existing conditions during the month of February 1975. Sketch B similarly indicates the PM peak hour traffic exist- ing conditions on February 1975. Both Sketches A and B were prepared from field count data collected by the City of San Mateo traffic department and the State of California Transportation Department (CALTRANS). These two data bases were merged and adjusted in order to approximate the composite traffic flow pictures during the two peak periods. During the month of February 1975, the first three POP office buildings and the Borel restaurant building were already built and occupied. At the same time POP Building Four had just been completed and was partially occupied. It has been estimated that about 20 percent of POP Four was occupied at that time. Therefore, Sketch C indicates the AM peak hour traffic volumes previously fore- casted for the same time period of February 1975, assuming POP 1, 2, and 3 occupied, the restaurant in operation, and a 20 percent occupancy of POP 4. Similarly, Sketch D indicates the PM peak hour traffic volumes previously fore- casted for the same time period. Comparison of Sketches B (counted) and D (forecasted) indicates that during the afternoon peak hour actual traffic volumes related to the Peninsula Office Park are similar to or somewhat lower than forecasted volumes, although through traffic and college related traffic seems to have increased faster than was antici- pated in previous forecasts. A similar comparison of Sketches A (counted) and C (forecasted) indicates that during the morning peak hour actual traffic volumes related to the Peninsula Office Park are again similar to forecasted volumes in the outbound direction, but are higher inbound than were forecasted. In fact, the AM peak hour inbound measured traffic flow is equivalent to the PM peak hour outbound forecasted flow. On previous reports the morning peak generation rates have been assumed to be lower than the afternoon rates, therefore it appears that future traffic forecasts for office buildings within the POP development should assume a higher AM peak inbound generation rate and that this rate should be made equal to the previously assumed PM peak hour outbound rate. Table 1 summarizes the trip generation for POP Building Six. The analysis in- cludes the previously accepted rates for the afternoon peak hour and reflects the resultsof existingvs. forecasted volume comparison for the morning peak hour. The trip distribution is assumed to be as concluded in previous reports. This distribution indicates that about 79 percent of the office park generated traffic will use the 19th Avenue Freeway interchange. Sketches E and F present the morning and evening traffic forecasts directly attributable to building six only. Sketches G and H present the total traffic forecast for each peak period when buildings five and six are built and completely occupied. They were calculated by adding to the existing conditions (Sketches A and B) plus the forecasted traffic increments attributable to full occupancy of buildings four, five and six. SKCTat B PMVtt kiR. " �� 2 1 0 w . $ ��o C D , t o I g o 5 0 0 G e 4 0 \ m o o f 9 �� E " i f F ) a 0 G o 4 - 5 0 5 L V D . \ 0 2 s 5 ' o J 2 4 3 o " S K . E 1 C 1 C . 0 M P n t . k l e o g : g c - t s ' F o e ' E $ - ' 1 5 S o v e C E + 9 . 0 % ? O R 4 < : P k ep . \►e T-0 QEcksm Tocz. t; SOVeGE : it OCCupt,UCM F I33S • Sk VCHCOute a PR'PLAY- Nz Soo e.0 E OCCOPaut.y o� Po P (34\AA 4 -S-( I Table 1 - Summary of Trip Generation for Building 6 Gross Building Area Net Building Area Parking Stalls Provided Office Trip Generation Rates: AM Peak Hour Inbound AM Peak Hour Outbound PM Peak Hour Inbound PM Peak Hour Outbound POP Building #6 Trip Generation: AM Peak Hour Inbound AM Peak Hour Outbound PM Peak Hour Inbound PM Peak Hour Outbound 61, 350 square feet 55, 210 square feet (estimate) 220 spaces 2.80 trips/thousand square feet of net building area 0.35 trips/thousand square feet of net building area 0.75 trips/thousand square feet of net building area 2.80 trips/thousand square feet of net building area 155 vehicles/hour 20 vehicles/hour 40 vehicles/hour 155 vehicles/hour Page 12 Letter to Mr. John W.'Leyerzaph 15 January 1976 Page 13 Traffic Analysis • The impact of the total traffic volumes as shown on Sketches G and H are dis- cussed as follows. In our previous reports it was concluded that upon occupancy of Building Four a traffic signal at the Campus Drive intersection would be warranted. However, the traffic warrants for a signal were marginal and field counts indicated that a three-way stop sign may suffice for an interim period. From the additional trips generated by Building Five the need for a traffic signal became more evident. Therefore, occupancy of Building Five is conditional upon installation of a traffic signal at Campus Drive and West Hillsdale Boulevard. This signal is currently under design under the auspices of the City of San Mateo Public Works Department and installation is expected in the near future. On a related subject, traffic signals at the intersection of State Route 92 and West Hillsdale Boulevard are also currently under design by CALTRANS and their respective installation are also expected in the near future. An assessment of the available right-of-way width indicates that there will be available capacity to handle the peak demands. However the additional traffic from Building Six will raise the Hillsdale -Campus intersection utilization to about 75 percent of capacity during the afternoon peak hour and approach 90 per- cent capacity utilization during the morning pe hour. Furthermore, in con- junction with the required signal a revised stri Is plan will be required for the eastbound Hillsdale Boulevard approach to Cam s rive. STupio A new San Mateo Public Transportation System has been recently instituted, with service to both the Peninsula Office Park and the College of San Mateo. This public transportation system is probably diverting a portion of the auto- mobile traffic to and from these two developments and thus reducing the actual traffic volumes in the area. However, because of the short time since the implementation of the system, traffic counts reflecting the new transit system impact are not available at this time. Therefore, the revised AM peak hour inbound generation rates represent a conservative approach. Based on pre -transit system implementation parameters, the left turn inbound traffic flow to the Peninsula Office Park is expected to read about 800 vehicles per hour. This flow will be opposed by the through traffic flow of about 700 vehicles per hour traveling westbound on Hillsdale Boulevard. Without a signal these conflicting traffic flows would consume the entire capacity of the intersection causing a back-up of vehicles turning left from Hillsdale Boulevard. This situation can be alleviated by the installation of a signal with a special phase to accommodate the turning volumes, and the chanelization and upgrading of this intersection by restripping the eastbound approach. It is recommended that the center lane be made optional for through and left turn movements, and keeping the right lane for through movements only and the left lane for left turns only. The proposed solution would result in about a 90 percent capacity utilization during the morning peak hour. The PM peak will not be as critical because the heavy movement will be turning right from the project and can be more easily accommodated. Letter to Mr. John Aleyerzaph 15 January 1976 Page 14 • In conclusion, it is our opinion that the Campus -West Hillsdale intersection requires the installation of a three-phase signal and the proper chanelization with protected left turn lanes. This recommendation is consistant with the "Maximized development of existing intersection W. Hillsdale Boulevard and Campus Drive" solution as presented in the City of San Mateo Engineers' Report: "J. Arthur Younger Freeway - W. Hillsdale Boulevard Interchange, W. Hillsdale Boulevard and the Impact of Future Development," March 1971. As usual, if you have any questions please contact us. We stand ready to assist you further at your convenience. Very truly yours, J.D. DRACHMAN ASSOCIATES Richard J. Mayer, P. E. Partner RJM:fld cc: Robinson & Mills, Architects 1.1 INTER -OFFICE COMMUNICATION Oa CITY OF SAN MATEO To File (P.O. P) RE: FROM DATE October 2, 1974 Richard K. Hopper, Traffic Engineer Peninsula Office Park Subdivision (Formerly Gilmore Estate) Item Chronology: Land Use Request 1. SP142 - 11/70 Planned Executive Development and Reclassification 2. Bldg. #1 SPAR 127-7/71 3. Restaurant Bldg. SPAR 188-4/72 4. Bldg. #2 SPAR 214-8/72 5. Bldg. #3 SPAR 252-3/73 6. Bldg. f4 SPAR 289-9/73 7. Bldg. #5 SPAR 28-7/74 Item Action PENINSULA OFFICE PARK CONDITIONS RELATIVE TO TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT HILISDATT 1. SP142-11/70 PhD and Reclassification Condition 15: "Improvements for traffic including lane channeli- zation and signalization shall be made on Hillsdale Boulevard as required by the City Engineer in order to handle traffic problems created by the project." Building #1 SPAR 127-7/71 Condition #12: "All other public improvements required for the develop- ment of the subdivision shall be as stipulated in the Special Permit and Site Development Permit now existing on the property." 3. Restaurant Building, SPAR 188-4/72 No mention of Traffic Signals in conditions. 4. Building #2 SPAR 214-8/72 Same as #3 above, except under "Findings D" - mention was made of traffic - control measure to be taken by city to install a 3 -way stop at Hillsdale Boulevard and Campus Drive when traffic counts warrant them. No new traffic - control measures are required at this time based on traffic study submitted. by applicant. 5. Building #3 SPAR 252-3/73 Condition #3 states on occupancy of Building 6: "The applicant shall install signalization on Campus Drive and Hillsdale Boulevard if traffic counts taken at this time warrant signalization. " P e n i n s u l a O f f i c e P a r k ( C o n t d . ) - 2 - O c t o b e r 2 , 1 9 7 + I t e m A c t i o n E . B u i l d i n g ; + S P A R 2 8 9 - 9 / 7 3 U n d e r " F i n d i n g s , " r e f e r e n c e w a s m a d e t o p a r a g r a p h ' 5 a b o v e a n d i t w a s s t i p u l a t e d t h a t " A c o n d i t i o n w o u l d g o w i t h t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t a t r a f f i c a n a l y s i s t o i n d i c a t e t h e n e e d f o r a s i g n a l w o u l d b e p e r f o r m e d * b e f o r e t h e o c c u p a n c y o f B u i l d i n g 1 , i f t h e a n a l y s i s f o r B u i l d i n g # 3 d i d n o t i n d i c a t e a n e e d a t t h a t t i m e . " * C o p y o f l e t t e r f r o m R . K . H o p p e r , T r a f f i c E n g i n e e r , t o R i c h a r d H . C o l e m a n , D i r e c t o r o f C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t r e g a r d i n g B u i l d i n g ; ' j ? s t a t e s i n p a r t : " A t r a f f i c s t u d y f o r P e n i n s u l a O f f i c e P a r k , B u i l d i n g ? ; + , w a s r e c e i v e d b y t h e c i t y o n S e p t e m b e r 1 2 , 1 9 7 3 . T h e c o n c l u s i o n s p r e s e n t e d i n t h e s t u d y a n d c o n c u r r e d i n b y t h i s d e p a r t m e n t w e r e t h a t 1 ) a t r a f f i c s i g n a l a t C a m p u s a n d H i l l s d a l e w o u l d m o r e t h a n l i k e l y b e n e e d e d u p o n c o m p l e t i o n o f B u i l d i n g A a n d , 2 ) n o a d d i t i o n a l t r a f f i c i m p r o v e m e n t s w o u l d b e r e q u i r e d . A t r a f f i c s i g n a l i s r e q u i r e d a s a c o n d i t i o n o f d e v e l o p m e n t f o r B u i l d i n g # 3 . I t i s t o b e p r o v i d e d b y t h e c i t y w i t h t h e c o s t s p l i t b e t w e e n t h e C a m p u s D r i v e d e v e l o p m e n t ( s ) a n d t h e c i t y . T h e s i g n a l w i l l b e i n s t a l l e d w h e n w a r r a n t s f o r s i g n a l i z a t i o n a r e m e t . " 7 . B u i l d i n g 7 1 1 5 S P A R 2 8 - x . / 7 4 P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n m e e t i n g o f J u n e 1 0 , 1 9 7 ! , C o n d i t i o n A s t a t e s " T h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l c o n t r i b u t e t o w a r d s t h e c o s t o f i n s t a l l i n g t r a f f i c s i g n a l s a t t h e f r e e w a y o f f - r a m p a n d . W e s t H i l l s d a l e B o u l e v a r d . T h e a m o u n t c o n t r i b u t e d s h a l l b e b a s e d o n t h e t r a f f i c t o a n d f r o m P e n i n s u l a O f f i c e P a r k u s i n g t h e s e r a m p / s t r e e t i n t e r s e c t i o n s a s c o m p a r e d t o t h e t o t a l t r a f f i c t h r o u g h t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n s . " C o n d i t i o n 1 + a s t a t e s " T h e C a m p u s D r i v e s i g n a l s h a l l b e i n s t a l l e d p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f t h e o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t . C i t y t o c o n t r i b u t e i n p a r t t o w a r d s i n s t a l l a t i o n . " R K H : j c R I C H A R D K . H O P P a l i T R A F F I C E N G I N E E R Engineering Department Coordination Sheet ,mgr. Dept, )riginator Init. *y 2,3 19Th Mbr. Dons Walker 888 West Hillsdale Boulevard San Mateo, California 94403 Re: Peninsula Off ee Park Traffie (Council late comer 214-74) Dear Mr. Walker: Regarding the traffic reports for the development of Peninou1a Office Park, the City has required a traffic study for each new building in Peninsula Office Park prior to the issuance of a building permit. We Mara on file in our office copies of all of time traffic studies and our commits concerning them. We invite you to our department office to look over these studios at your convenience. Very truly yours, ROBERT G. BRUNT Dl RECIOR ca" PUBLIC WOE RICHARD K. HER TRAFFIC ENGINEER RGB:i2ICt: *lc cc: City Clerk City Manager Director of Community Development I E OP" CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 330 WEST TWENTIETH AVENUE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Date: May 20, 1974 Commum Attention: CITY MANAGER/ °2( ►44'. MINUTE ORDER # 214-74 In the matter of: Traffic Reports for Borel Development (Agenda Item 36) 7 At the meeting of the City Council of the City of San Mateo on May 6, 1974 at which were present Council Members: CHALMERS, MURRAY, WELCH, BAKER and CONDON On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , duly carried and entered on the minutes, it was ordered by the Mayor that this matter be reviewed further by the -staff to determine if there was a condition on this project requiring that a traffic report be developed after each building is completed, as stated in Mr. Walker's letter. JH:es cc: Director of Community Development Mr. Donald Walker Y3 AY 2 3 1974 ENGINLERING DEPT.. JOAN HINCKLEY, CITY CLE JI V TIE To FILE I) • -OFFICIE COMMUNICATION CITY OF SAN MATEO FROM DATE TONY LOPES Gi geile C h , 1974 RE• PENINSULA OFFICE PARK SUBDIVISION (Fontierly Gilmore Estate) ITEM CHRONOLOGY: LAND USE REQUEST 1. SP142 - 11/70 Planned Executive Development and Reclassification 2. Bldg. a SPAR 127-7/71 3. Restaurant Bldg. SPAR 188-4/72 4. Bldg. f2 SPAR 214-8/72 5. Bldg. #3 SPAR 252-3/73 6. Bldg. 7#4 SPAR 289-9/73 7. Bldg. #5 SPAR 28-7/74 PENINSULA OFFICE PARK CONDITIONS RELATIVE TO TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT HIILSDALE ITEM ACTION 1. SPI42-11/70 PED and Reclassification Condition 15:'� Improvements for traffic including lane chan- nelization and signalization shall be made on Hillsdale Blvd. as required by the City Engineer in order to handle traffic problems created by the project.' 2. Bldg #1 SPAR 127-7/71 CCND.*I2... "All other public improvements required for the development of the subdivision shall be as stipulated in the Special Permit and Site Development Permit now existing on the property.' 3. Restaurant Bldg. SPAR 188-4/72 No mention of Traffic Signals in conditions. 4. Bldg -,f SPAR 214-8/72 Same as #3 above except under "Findings D" - mention was made of traffic control measure to be taken by City to install a 3 -way stop at Hillsdale Blvd. and Campus Drive when traffic counts warrant them. No new traffic control measures are required at this time based on traffic study submitted by applicant. Peninsula Office cont'd • Page 2 6/24, 74 5. Bldg. ;`3 SPAR 252-3/73 Condition ; 3 states on occupancy of Bldg. #3.he applicant shall install signalization on Campus Drive and Hillsdale Blvd. ii' traffic counts taken at this time warrant signal- ization. 6. Bldg. . SPAR 289-9/73 Under "Findings", reference was made to paragraph 75 above and it was stipulated that "a condition would go with this application to the effect that a traffic analysis to indicate the need for a signal would be performed *before the occupancy of Bldg. 4, if the analysis for Bldg. #3 did not indicate a need at that time." * Copy of letter from R. K. Hopper, Traffic Engineer to Richard H. C leman, Director of Community Development.St‘, regarding Bldg. #1...S41 4 in pa4 ; lip A traffic study for Peninsula Office Park, Building A was / received by the City on September 12, 1973. The conclusions 11 ! presented in the study and concurred in by this department tr 4a t were that 1) a traffic signal at Campus and Hillsdale would r4p`, more than likely be needed upon completion of Building , and, 1 2) no additional traffic improvements would be required. A traffic signal is required as a condition of development for Building #3. It is to be provided by the City with the cost split between the Campus Drive development(s) and the City. The signal will be installed when warrants for signalization are met. " 7. Bldg. #5 SPAR 28-x+/74 lot19`i4,, Coma di 4' s40-411.$ lir Planning Commission meeting esk, itnireaape refit-i '--" �tw-`_ "The applicant shall contribute towards the cost of installing traffic signals at the freeway off -ramp and. West Hillsdale Blvd. The amount contributed shall be based on the traffic to and from Peninsula Office Park using these ramp/street intersections as compared to the total traffic thru the intersection CAn i.arri4»o.. 4 e5 tin s�� 1�gd prior GC- -O •L l kfilL "Thy us Driva, si na.t shall 6e. vs 0 (1,0,4(.4, !! t� 0Q - h Q. o dot ( h0r %i ti tn. del rt" A-o.K.l r- S l n `3'#"zo t 0 -10,, l { 4 Engineering Department Coordination Sheet Engr- D�e,�$ t. Origins Init. To (13 • October 2, 19''4 Ri :bard K. Hopper, Traffic laginesr Pa* Sebdivieion (Perusrly ailnan ) 10MY:. Land Uoe Deem sd 42 - 11/70 Planned ftecative Deve10 m sal Beclessifloatioa 2. . SPAR 12`t»7/7l. 3. Restaurant Bldg. SPAR 188-4/72 Bldg. ie SPAR 214-8/72 5. SPAR 2552.3/73 6. 14. , SPAR 289-9/73 4. 45 SPAR 28.z/74 Ac ISMINA tmz PARK CONDITIONS BELAIS'B TOIMAPIIC SIGNALS AT P T T.SDALE 1. SP1k2..,U/70 PED end Reclassification Condition 15: "leprovements for traffic including Inns ishmamial. ration and signaltsation shall be node on Hillsdale Bocce se required by than City Engineer in order to handle 'Waffis problems crested By the Project." 2. Building ft SPAR 127*'Tf T1 Condittaa 2: "All other public .iMproesints required for the develnA- aent at the eabdivision shall be as stipulated is the Special Permit and Site Development Permit nay existing on the property." 3. He 6aweent wing, SPAR 188-4/72 Ho mention of Traffic Signals in conditions. 4. Building i e SPAR 214.8/72 Same as ib shove, except under !FindingsD" - mention wan node of traffic- ccnterml wears to be tam by city to install a 3•►say steep at =Adel• Bowlevord end Campus trial' yhun traffic counts aarrent them. DAD new traffic - control measures are reed at this tine based oa traffic study sarmdtted by applicant. 5. Bellittag #3 SPAR 252-3/73 Centitian It states on occupancy of Building i3: "fie applicant .tall install Oigna1isation on Campus Drive and Ulllsdais Boulevard if traffic counts taken at this time warrant signelisetio i. / L L COPY " " P e n i n s u l a O f f i c e P a r k ( C o n t d . ) A c t i o n . 2 - O c t o b e r 2 , 1 9 7 4 6 . B u i l d i n g S P A R 2 8 9 - 9 / 7 3 U a d a r a , " r e f e r e n c e w a s m a d e t o p a r a g r a p h , ' i 5 a c m e a n d i t v a s s t i p u l a t e d t h a t " A c o n d i t i o n v o u l d g o v i t h t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t a t r a f f i c n p a l y s i e t o i n d i c a t e t h e n e e d f o r a s i g n a l w o u l d b e p e r f o r m e d * b e f o r e t h e o c c u p a n c y o f B u i l d i n g i k , i f t h e a n a l y s i s f o r B u i l d i n g h 3 d i d [ n o t i n d i c a t e a n e e d a t t h a t t i m e . " * C o p y o f l e t t e r f r o m R . K . H o p p e r , T r a f f i c L b g i n e e r , t o R i c h a r d H . C o l n , D i r e c t o r o f C o m i t y D e v e l o p m e n t r e s p r d i n g B u i l d i n g i 4 s t a t e s i n p a r t : " A t r a f f i c s t u d y f o r P e n i n s u l a O f f i c e P a x k , B u i l d i n g i 4 , v a s r e c e i v e d b y t h e c i t y o n d e r 1 2 , 1 9 7 3 . T h e c o n c l u s i o n s p r e s e n t e d i n t d i e s t u d y a n d c o n c u r r e d i n b y t h i s c l e m e n t w e r e t h a t 1 ) a t i c s i e a a l a t C a r p u s a n d H i l l s d a l e w o a d m o r e t h a n l t h e l y b e m o l d e d s p a n c o m p l e t i o n o f B u i l d i n g 1 4 a n d , 2 ) n o a d d i t i o n a l t r a i n * i m p r o v e m e n t s w o u l d b e r e q u i r e d . A t r a f f i c s i g n a l i s r e q u i r e d a s a c o n d i t i o n o f d e v e l o p m e n t f o r 1 ' i 1 r i i n g # 3 . I t i s t o b e p r o v i d e d b y t h e c i t y w i t h t h e c o s t s p l i t b e t w e e n t h e C a m p u s D i v e O w l n t ( a ) a n d t h e c i t y . T h e s i g n a l w i l l b e i n s t a l l e d w h e n w a r r a n t s f o r s i g n e l i n a t i o n a r e m e t . " 7 . B u i l d i n g S P A R 2 8 . 4 / 7 4 M a n i a ' C o m m i s s i o n m e e t i n g o f J u n e 1 0 , 1 9 7 4 , C o n d i t i o n ; ; - s t a t e s " T h e a p p l i c a n t # b a l l c o n t r i b u t e t o w a r d s t h e c o s t o f i n s t a l l i n g t r a f f i c s i g n a l s a t t h e f r e e w a y o f f - r a m p a n d W e s t H i l l s d a l e B o u l e v a r d . T h e a m o u n t c o n t r i b u t e d s h a l l b e b a s e d o n t h e t r a f f i c t o a n d P r a m P e n i n s u l a O f f i c e P a r t u s i n g t h e s e t i p / s t r e e t i n t e r s e c t i o n s a s c o v e r e d t o t h e t o t a l t r a f f i c t h r o g g h t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n s . ' C o n d i t i o n P i a s t a t e s " T h e e C a n g p u s D r i v e s i g n a l s h a l l b e i n s t a l l e d p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f t h e o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t . C i t y t o c o n t r i b u t e i n p a r t t o w a r d s i n s t a l l a t i o n . " R I C H A R D K . H O P P E R ` S A Y I C E N G I N E E R R E : H : 3 e i Engineering Department Coordination Sheet October 2, 197# Engr- Dept, Origi or ZntillnUe#r3r,, Assistant City *nadir Department of Public Works ' 1 & West Hillsdale Boulevard Cignalization# Planning Conditions Relative Thereto Attached hereto is a oopy of a memorandum listing ell of the conditions of 0DPeeval for toapgroved buildings to Hors].' $ Peninsula Office Pies. The deportment's intent in i pruur A all of the applied conditions relative to the signelization has consistently been that 'JPaalosatalatriee Perk pay its pro rata share of the spa on based on trafficgen- erated by P.O.P. the the intention of Campus and Hillsdale. A coedition of approval for the expansion of the Rau .v Center at 3150 Campus Drive stated that "The applicant shell contribute an amount towards the installation of a tretTic sib at Ceti Drive and Hillsdale Boulevard; amOunt to be based on daily traffic generated but shall not a $10000." On August 1, 3$? &, one 11ars wa;s deposited with the city by the developer, Sam Mateo Investment W The depertemmtte position with regard to the 12.6 acre undeveloped site north of P. a. P, (Callan property) is that should development occur, the developer of that site also oontributetowards the cost of sign Ligation at Campos and Billae le and that tribution go to offset a portion of the city's initial cost. The following is as estate for the pro rate distribution of pro4ect estimate of 163,200: Hillsdale Boulevard at Campus Drive Cameos Drive (full dew nt) Callao Pfopetr.y Bore 's Resttetraut lea tents * 3150 Caeca* Devebnment Avg.. rodlar Warne UsE00 AZT 8,900 1,100 11000 400 700 Total: 231100 Aft!' * woo not conditioned for contribution to signalization. Pro rata share of costs: City Cayce Horn's Onkview 3105+' 0 Ca as By Percent Share 31,000 241,000 2,500 2,500 1,300 14900 Total: $63,20 based on a total P i L l COPY of Total. 38 100% Actual 2+:000 2,500 2:500 0 $03,2110 11/ John L. deRuasy, Assistant City Manager -2- October 2, 1974 The approved FY 74-75 Capital Improvement Program provides for this slgnalization project with $20,000 fray city gas -tax funds and $20,000 from contributions for a total of $40,000. This estimated cost vas recently revised upwards to $63,200 based upon actual costs of similar -type traffic signals installed of late. ROBERT G. BEZZAN1 DIRECTOR EN' PUBLIC WOR; RICHARD K. HOPPER TRAFFIC ENGINEER MCB:RKfi: jc