Bay Terrace Apartments

Bay Terrace Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Prepared for: City of San Mateo September 16, 2011 Hexagon Office: 111 W. St. John Street, Suite 850 San Jose, CA 95113 Hexagon Job Number: 10MH08 Phone: 408.971.6100 Document Name: Bay Terrace Report 9-16-2011.doc

Bay Terrace Apartments September 16, 2011 Table of Contents 1. Introduction... 2 2. Existing Conditions... 6 3. Background Conditions... 10 4. Project Conditions... 13 5. Year 2030 Conditions... 22 6. Conclusion... 25 Appendices Appendix A: Appendix B: Traffic Counts Intersection Level of Service Calculations List of Tables Table 1 Level of Service Definitions at Signalized Intersections... 3 Table 2 Intersection Levels of Service Under Existing Conditions... 9 Table 3 Intersection Levels of Service Under Background Conditions... 12 Table 4 Project Trip Generation... 14 Table 5 Intersection Levels of Service Under Project Conditions... 18 Table 6 Parking Supply Comparison... 21 Table 7 Intersection Levels of Service Under 2030 Cumulative Conditions... 24 Table 8 Intersection Level of Service Summary... 26 List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location and Study Area... 4 Figure 2 Existing Traffic Volumes... 8 Figure 3 Background Traffic Volumes... 11 Figure 4 Project Trip Distribution... 15 Figure 5 Assignment of Project Trips... 16 Figure 6 Project Traffic Volumes... 17 Figure 7 2030 With Project Traffic Volumes... 20 Page i

Bay Terrace Apartments September 16, 2011 1. Introduction This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis conducted for the proposed residential development located at the southeast corner of La Selva Street and Casa De Campo in San Mateo, California. The project site is adjacent to and immediately west of Los Prados Park. The proposed project would demolish the existing 120-unit apartment complex on the site and build a new 228-unit apartment complex. The project site would include a multi-level parking structure with a total of 397 stalls. Access to the parking structure and loading and service areas would be from La Selva Street. The location of the project site and the surrounding study area are shown on Figure 1. Scope of Study This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential traffic impacts related to the proposed development. The impacts of the project were evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of San Mateo. The traffic study includes an analysis traffic conditions at one signalized intersection in the vicinity of the project site during the weekday AM and PM peak hours as well as the Saturday peak hour. The study intersection is identified below. Study Intersection E. Hillsdale Boulevard and S. Norfolk Street Traffic conditions at the study intersection were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours because it is during these periods that the project will have the greatest impact on traffic conditions. In addition, because the study intersection serves Los Prados Park, which is heavily used on weekends, the peak hour on Saturday also was evaluated. Analysis Scenarios Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios: Existing Conditions Year 2010 Background Conditions Existing Conditions plus approved projects in the study area Project Conditions Background Conditions plus trips associated with the proposed project 2030 With Project Conditions Cumulative 2030 conditions with the proposed project Page 2

Bay Terrace Apartments September 16, 2011 Analysis Methodologies and Level of Service Standards Traffic conditions were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or forced-flow conditions with extreme delays. A general description of level of service (LOS) is provided in Table 1. Table 1 Level of Service Definitions at Signalized Intersections Level of Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (sec.) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression Up to 10.0 and/or short cycle lengths. B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or 10.1 to 20.0 short cycle lengths. C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression 20.1 to 35.0 and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable 35.1 to 55.0 progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long 55.1 to 80.0 cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due Greater than 80.0 to oversaturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p10-16. Level of service at signalized intersections in the City of San Mateo is evaluated based on the average control delay for all movements at the intersection. The City of San Mateo has established mid-level LOS D (with an average delay of 45 seconds or less) as the minimum acceptable level at the signalized study intersection. Significance Criteria The traffic impacts of the project are evaluated against the following criteria to determine whether the impacts are significant. Page 3

Bay Terrace Apartments September 16, 2011 City of San Mateo Level of Service Per the City s General Plan Policy C 2.7, all projects are required, at a minimum, to pay a transportation mitigation fee. The transportation mitigation fee is used to fund planned transportation improvements that are identified in the City of San Mateo Traffic Mitigation Program. In addition to paying the transportation impact fee, a development project may be required to fund off-site circulation improvements that are needed as a result of project generated traffic if: a) The acceptable level of service at a signalized intersection (mid-level LOS D with an average delay of more than 45 seconds) is exceeded by 4 seconds or more when the project traffic is added, and b) The intersection is subject to an increase in delay of 4 or more seconds, and c) The needed improvement of the intersection(s) is not funded in the applicable five-year City Capital Improvement Program from the date of application approval. The cost of the off-site improvements may be reimbursed by the City if a reimbursement program is established throughout the timeframe of the City of San Mateo s current Traffic Mitigation Program or at the time when the improvement was initially scheduled. Page 5

Bay Terrace Apartments September 16, 2011 2. Existing Conditions The project site is located at the southeast corner of La Selva Street and Casa De Campo. Automobile access to the proposed on-site parking garage would be provided via a single driveway on La Selva Street. A separate driveway on La Selva Street would serve loading, move-in, and trash pick-up. Site Access and Surrounding Roadway Network Regional access to the site is provided via US 101. US 101 is an eight-lane north-south freeway with auxiliary lanes in the vicinity of the site. US 101 extends northward through San Francisco and southward through San Jose. Access to the project site is provided via an interchange at East Hillsdale Boulevard. Local access to the site is provided by various roadways in the project vicinity as discussed below. Hillsdale Boulevard is an east-west arterial that extends from the College of San Mateo near SR 92 through San Mateo to Foster City, where it terminates at Beach Park Boulevard near the bay. The roadway cross section varies from six lanes in the vicinity of the proposed project to two lanes west of Edison Street. Hillsdale Boulevard has a full access interchange with US 101. Norfolk Street is a north-south roadway that functions as an arterial street between Hillsdale Boulevard and 3 rd Avenue. It continues as a collector street northward to Huron Avenue and southward to Los Prados Street. In the vicinity of the project site, it has four lanes. North of Hillsdale Boulevard it narrows to two lanes. La Selva Street is a two-lane street immediately west of the project site. This collector street extends westward from Norfolk Street and then turns south to front US 101. South of Los Prados Street, it functions as a local street terminating at Kimberley Way. The proposed project would have direct vehicular access via La Selva Street. Casa De Campo is a local two-lane east-west street adjacent to the northern edge of the project site. Immediately east of the project site, Casa De Campo turns northward forming a J shape with both ends terminating at La Selva Street. An entrance to Los Prados Park is located on Casa De Campo just east of the project site. Page 6

Bay Terrace Apartments September 16, 2011 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities According to City of San Mateo Bike Map, there are numerous city-designated bikeways within the vicinity of the project site. The following streets in the project area have on-street bike lanes: Norfolk Street from Waters Park Drive to Ciro Avenue, La Selva Street from Norfolk Street to Los Prados Street, and Los Prados Street from Norfolk Street to La Selva Street. In addition, the following streets in the project area are designated as bike routes: Hillsdale Boulevard from Edison Street to Foster City, and Norfolk Street from Hillsdale Boulevard to La Selva Street. Pedestrian facilities near the site consist of sidewalks along all streets in the area. The portion of La Selva Street that fronts US 101 has a sidewalk on only the east side of the street immediately adjacent to the project site. The remaining streets in the study area have sidewalks along both sides of the street. Existing Transit Service Existing transit service to the study area is provided by the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans). SamTrans Bus Service There are five bus lines that operate in the vicinity of the project site. These are described below. Line 250 provides service between the College of San Mateo and the San Mateo Caltrain Station. In the vicinity of the project site, Line 250 operates on La Selva Street, Hillsdale Boulevard, and Norfolk Street. Line 250 operates with 30 minute headways on weekdays and Saturdays and 60 minute headways on Sundays. Line 251 provides service between the Hillsdale Shopping Center, the Hillsdale Caltrain Station, and the Bridgepoint Shopping Center. In the vicinity of the project site, Line 251 operates on Hillsdale Boulevard. Line 251 operates on weekdays and Saturdays with 60 minute headways. Line 54 operates on a limited schedule with a maximum of eight trips per day on weekdays only. It serves various attractions in San Mateo and Foster City including Hillsdale High School, the Edgewater Place Shopping Center, the Marin Cove Shopping Center, and the Foster City Library. In the vicinity of the project site, Line 54 operates on Hillsdale Boulevard. Line 359 provides service between the intersection of Hillsdale Boulevard and Norfolk Street and the Millbrae Transit Center with stops at the Beach Park Shopping Center, the Foster City Post Office and the Foster City Library. Line 359 operates only during the weekday AM and PM commute hours with 30 minute headways. Existing Traffic Volumes The existing peak-hour intersection volumes were obtained from traffic counts conducted in September and October 2010. The existing traffic volumes are shown on Figure 2. The new traffic counts conducted for this study are included in Appendix A. Page 7

Bay Terrace Apartments September 16, 2011 Existing Levels of Service The results of the intersection level of service analysis under existing conditions are summarized in Table 2. The results indicate that the study intersection currently operates at an acceptable level of service during all analysis periods. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Table 2 Intersection Levels of Service Under Existing Conditions Existing Int. Peak Count Avg. # Intersection Name Hour Date Delay LOS 1 E. Hillsdale Boulevard and S. Norfolk Street AM 9/23/10 34.0 C PM 9/23/10 35.7 D SAT 10/30/10 37.5 D Page 9

Bay Terrace Apartments September 16, 2011 3. Background Conditions This chapter describes background traffic conditions. Background conditions are defined as conditions just prior to completion of the proposed project. Traffic volumes for background conditions comprise volumes from the existing traffic counts plus traffic generated by approved developments in the vicinity of the site. This chapter describes the procedure used to determine background traffic volumes and the resulting traffic conditions. Any planned and funded transportation improvements in the study area are included in background conditions. Background Roadway Network It is assumed that the transportation network under background conditions would be the same as the existing transportation network. Approved Developments Lists of approved projects were obtained from the City of San Mateo and the City of Foster City. There are four approved projects in the vicinity of the project site, as listed below. Kaiser Medical Office Building Bay Meadows Specific Plan Phase 2 Gilead Sciences (Foster City) Pilgrim Triton Phase 1 (Foster City) Background Traffic Volumes Traffic from the approved development projects were added to existing traffic volumes to yield traffic volumes for background conditions. Background traffic volumes are shown on Figure 3. Page 10

Bay Terrace Apartments September 16, 2011 Background Intersection Levels of Service The results of the intersection level of service analysis under background conditions are summarized in Table 3. The results indicate that the small number of trips generated by nearby approved projects would not affect the average intersection delay. The study intersection would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Table 3 Intersection Levels of Service Under Background Conditions Existing Background Int. Peak Avg. Avg. # Intersection Name Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 E. Hillsdale Boulevard and S. Norfolk Street AM 34.0 C 34.0 C PM 35.7 D 35.7 D SAT 37.5 D 37.5 D Page 12

Bay Terrace Apartments September 16, 2011 4. Project Conditions Project conditions are represented by background conditions with the addition of traffic generated by the project and include any project-related transportation improvements. The proposed project is located at the southeast corner of La Selva Street and Casa De Campo in San Mateo, California. The project site is adjacent to and immediately west of Los Prados Park. The proposed project would demolish the existing 120-unit apartment complex on the site and build a new 228-unit apartment complex. The project site would include a multi-level parking structure with a total of 397 stalls. Access to the parking structure and loading and service areas would be from La Selva Street. Significance Criteria The traffic impacts of the project are evaluated against the following criteria to determine whether the impacts are significant. City of San Mateo Level of Service Per the City s General Plan Policy C 2.7, all projects are required, at a minimum, to pay a transportation mitigation fee. The transportation mitigation fee is used to fund planned transportation improvements that are identified in the City of San Mateo Traffic Mitigation Program. In addition to paying the transportation impact fee, a development project may be required to fund off-site circulation improvements which are needed as a result of project generated traffic if: a) The acceptable level of service at a signalized intersection (mid-level LOS D with an average delay of no more than 45 seconds) is exceeded by 4 seconds or more when the project traffic is added, and b) The intersection is subject to an increase in delay of 4 or more seconds, and c) The needed improvement of the intersection(s) is not funded in the applicable five-year City Capital Improvement Program from the date of application approval. The cost of the off-site improvements may be reimbursed by the City if a reimbursement program is established throughout the timeframe of the City of San Mateo s current Traffic Mitigation Program or at the time when the improvement was initially scheduled. Page 13

Bay Terrace Apartments September 16, 2011 Project Traffic Estimates The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours on weekdays and the Saturday peak hour. As part of the project trip distribution step, an estimate is made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip assignment step, the project trips are assigned to specific streets and intersections in the study area. These procedures are described further in the following sections. Project Trip Generation The trip generation associated with the proposed residential development is based on the trip generation rates for apartments (land use #220) published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Eighth Edition. After subtracting the trips generated by the existing use on site, the proposed project is estimated to generate 718 new trips on weekdays with 55 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 67 trips occurring during the PM peak hour. On Saturdays, the proposed project is estimated to generate 690 new trips with 56 trips during the peak hour. The project trip generation estimates are presented in Table 4. Table 4 Project Trip Generation Weekdays Saturdays Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Mid-day Peak Hour Trips Trips Trips Land Use Size Rate 1 Trips Rate 1 In Out Total Rate 1 In Out Total Rate 1 Trips Rate 1 In Out Total Proposed Use Apartments 228 units 6.65 1516 0.51 26 91 116 0.62 92 49 141 6.39 1457 0.52 64 55 119 Existing Use Apartments (120) units 6.65 (798) 0.51 (13) (48) (61) 0.62 (48) (26) (74) 6.39 (767) 0.52 (34) (29) (62) Net Project Trips 718 12 43 55 44 23 67 690 30 26 56 1 Rates expressed in trips per dwelling unit. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 8th Edition. Project Trip Distribution and Assignment The project trip distribution pattern was estimated based on existing travel patterns on the surrounding roadway system and the locations of complementary land uses. The project trip distribution pattern is shown on Figure 4. A majority of trips to and from the proposed residential dwellings are expected to approach and depart to and from the west via the Hillsdale Boulevard, which provides direct access to US 101. The peak-hour trips generated by the proposed project were assigned to the roadway system in accordance with the estimated trip distribution pattern. The project trip assignment is shown on Figure 5. Project Traffic Volumes Project trips, as presented in the above project trip assignment, were added to background traffic volumes to obtain background plus project traffic volumes. Background traffic volumes plus project trips are typically referred to simply as project traffic volumes; this is contrasted with the term project trips, which is used to signify the traffic that is produced specifically by the project. The project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 6. Page 14

Bay Terrace Apartments September 16, 2011 Project Intersection Level of Service Analysis The results of the intersection level of service analysis under project conditions are summarized in Table 5. The results indicate that with the addition of project trips, the study intersection would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. Table 5 Intersection Levels of Service Under Project Conditions Background Project Int. Peak Avg. Avg. Change # Intersection Name Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS in Delay /a/ 1 E. Hillsdale Boulevard and S. Norfolk Street AM 34.0 C 34.9 C +0.9 PM 35.7 D 36.2 D +0.5 SAT 37.5 D 37.9 D +0.4 Notes: /a/ Change in delay is measured relative to background conditions. Project Impacts on Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities It is reasonable to assume that bicycle trips will comprise no more than two percent of the travel mode share to the site. Based on the gross trips generated by the project, the project is estimated to generate at most three bicycle trips per hour. As a result, no new off-site bicycle facilities would be required. It is reasonable to assume that pedestrian trips will comprise no more than five percent of the travel mode share (including the share that walks to transit) to the site. Thus, the project is estimated to generate no more than seven pedestrian trips per hour. This volume of pedestrian trips is not expected to exceed the carrying capacity of sidewalks along the site frontage or of sidewalks on streets surrounding the site. Thus, the project-generated pedestrian trips are not expected to require new sidewalks. The existing sidewalks should be adequate to accommodate all pedestrian traffic on and around the project site. Project Impacts on Transit Service Although no deduction for transit usage was applied to the estimated vehicular trip generation for the project, there is likely to be some transit use by residents. Assuming a transit mode share of three percent, the project would generate no more than four transit riders per hour. These riders could be accommodated by the existing bus routes that serve the project vicinity. Congestion Management Program The project would add traffic to US 101 a CMP roadway. CMP guidelines specify that a project must implement travel demand management (TDM) measures if the project produces 100 or more new peakhour trips on CMP roadways. Since the project would produce fewer than 100 trips on CMP roadways in any hour, it would not have a CMP impact. Site Access Vehicular access to the proposed parking garage would be provided via a single driveway on La Selva Street. In addition, a separate driveway on La Selva Street would be used for loading, move-in, and trash pick-up. The existing traffic volumes along La Selva Street are low enough that the addition of project trips would not disrupt traffic operations on this roadway. Page 18

Bay Terrace Apartments September 16, 2011 Parking Parking supply for the proposed development was evaluated using the City of San Mateo Zoning Code parking standards as well as established rates from commonly cited parking references. For apartment uses, the City of San Mateo requirements are as follows: Studio: 1.3 spaces per unit 1 Bedroom: 1.6 spaces per unit 2 Bedroom: 1.8 spaces per unit 3 Bedroom or over 1,400 sf: 2.0 spaces per unit Guest Parking: Additional 0.2 spaces per unit A summary of the required parking supply by unit type using City of San Mateo standards is shown in Table 6. Based on City requirements, the project would need a total of 423 parking spaces (377 resident spaces and 46 guest spaces). The proposed parking supply for the project is 397 spaces (355 resident spaces and 42 guest spaces), which results in an average rate of 1.56 on-site resident parking spaces per unit and 0.18 on-site guest parking spaces per unit. Thus, the project is proposing 26 fewer parking stalls than required by City Zoning Code standards. However, actual parking demand does not always match City parking supply standards. For comparative purposes, the project s parking needs were estimated using rates from the following publications: (1) Parking by Weant and Levinson and (2) Parking Generation, 3 rd Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). According to the parking ratios recommended in Parking, the project should provide a total of 374 parking spaces. Based on ITE rates, it is estimated that the project would need a total of 367 spaces. These publications, which are widely referenced by transportation and planning professionals, suggest that the overall project parking supply would be adequate. Additional parking also is available on the adjacent streets. The project site plan shows that there are a total of 62 parking spaces available adjacent the project site on the south side of Casa De Campo and on both sides of La Selva Street. Currently, these spaces are used by (1) existing residential land uses around the project site and (2) residents of the existing 120 apartments on the project site (which would be demolished should the proposed project move forward). The western side of La Selva Street abuts Highway 101 therefore the parking is available primarily for the project site. Hexagon conducted a parking demand survey on Thursday, September 15, 2011 at 4:00 AM to determine how many of the on-street spaces directly adjacent to the project site are currently being used. According to the Urban Land Institute s Shared Parking, parking demand for residential uses typically peaks between the hours of 11:00 PM and 5:00 AM. Thus, the survey reflects peak parking conditions for the adjacent residential uses. Hexagon s survey showed that 49 of the 62 on-street spaces were occupied. During the observations, there were vacant on-street parking spaces directly adjacent to many of the surrounding residential properties. This is a strong indication that most of the parking in front of the project site was being used by existing residents of the project site. It is unlikely that residents from nearby properties would pass on vacant parking spaces that are closer to their residences in favor of parking spaces in front of the project site, which are father away. Thus, given the distribution of parking on La Selva Street and Casa De Campo, most of the existing parking demand observed can likely be attributed to the existing apartments on the project site. To be conservative, it is estimated that at least 25 of the 49 vehicles parked adjacent to the project site belong to residents of the project site, and as many as 24 vehicles may belong to residents of adjacent properties. Thus, Hexagon estimates that there would be at least 38 onstreet parking spaces (62-24) available for residents of the proposed project, which would more than compensate for the shortfall of 26 spaces when compared to the City s parking code. While the City of San Mateo does not allow on-street spaces to count towards meeting the parking requirements set forth in the Zoning Code, the availability of ample on-street parking supports the case for the reduction in parking as allowed under the State Density Bonus Law provisions. In conclusion, the proposed project parking supply is expected to be adequate based on the parking rates recommended by two widely referenced parking publications. Using City of San Mateo parking standards, the on-site parking supply as proposed would be 26 spaces short, but there would be at least Page 19

Bay Terrace Apartments September 16, 2011 38 on-street parking spaces available. For these reasons, it is concluded that the parking supply for the project would be adequate. Page 20

Bay Terrace Apartments September 16, 2011 Table 6 Parking Supply Comparison City of San Mateo Zoning Code "Parking" Published Rates 2 ITE Published Rates 3 Unit Size Proposed # Units Rate Per Unit 1 Total Parking Required Rate Per Unit Total Parking Required Rate Per Unit Total Parking Required Provided onsite 4 Studio 22 1.3 28.6 1.0 22.0 1.61 35.4 22 1 BR 121 1.6 193.6 1.5 181.5 1.61 194.8 163 2 BR 74 1.8 133.2 2.0 148.0 1.61 119.1 148 3+ BR or any units >1,400 sf 11 2.0 22.0 2.0 22.0 1.61 17.7 22 Guest 45.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 42 Total 228 423.0 373.5 367.1 397.0 1. Excludes 0.2 guest parking spaces per unit- shown separately 2. Rates per "Parking" by Weant and Levinson. Gross rates per unit type include guest parking. 3. Rates per ITE (land Use 221) "Parking Generation, 3rd Edition," 85-percentile, plus 10%. Gross rates per unit type include guest parking. 4. Average of 1.56 res. spaces/unit & 0.18 on-site guest spaces per unit Page 21

Bay Terrace Apartment September 16, 2011 5. Year 2030 Conditions The Year 2030 traffic volumes were obtained from the Year 2030 forecasts prepared for the 2008 City of San Mateo Traffic Mitigation Report Update. Year 2030 model forecasts include the traffic generated by the proposed project. Year 2030 forecasts are not available for the Saturday peak hour. Therefore, the analysis of levels of service in the year 2030 includes only the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The 2030 with project AM and PM peak-hour volumes are shown on Figure 7. Intersection Levels of Service Under Cumulative Year 2030 with Project Conditions The results of the intersection level of service analysis under Cumulative Year 2030 with Project Traffic Conditions are summarized in Table 7. The results indicate that under Cumulative Year 2030 conditions the study intersection would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (mid-level LOS D or better). The AM peak hour level of service for year 2030 is expected to deteriorate from LOS C to LOS D because the travel demand model forecasts a significant increase in through traffic along Hillsdale Boulevard in the year 2030. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Although the project will not create any new impacts, it will be required to pay Traffic Impact Fees based on the cumulative traffic increase. Impact: Mitigation: The project will contribute to the growth in cumulative traffic demand. The project will be required to pay Traffic Impact Fees based on the cumulative traffic increase. Page 22

Bay Terrace Apartment September 16, 2011 Table 7 Intersection Levels of Service Under 2030 Cumulative Conditions Year 2030 w/ Project Int. Peak Avg. # Intersection Name Hour Delay LOS 1 E. Hillsdale Boulevard and S. Norfolk Street AM 36.7 D PM 34.8 C Notes: 2030 forecasts are not available for the Saturday peak hour. Therefore, this analysis includes only the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Page 24

Bay Terrace Apartment September 16, 2011 6. Conclusion The project would not cause a significant impact at the signalized study intersection. However, the project would, as a result of its contribution to cumulative increases in traffic, be required to pay its fair share to the City of San Mateo Traffic Impact Fee. Off-Site Impacts and Mitigation Impact: Mitigation: The project will contribute to the growth in cumulative traffic demand. The project will be required to pay Traffic Impact Fees based on the cumulative traffic increase. The intersection levels of service for all study scenarios are shown in Table 8. Page 25

Bay Terrace Apartments September 16, 2011 Table 8 Intersection Level of Service Summary Year 2030 w/ Existing Background Project Project Int. Peak Count Avg. Avg. Avg. Change in Avg. # Intersection Name Hour Date Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay /a/ Delay LOS 1 E. Hillsdale Boulevard and S. Norfolk Street AM 9/23/10 34.0 C 34.0 C 34.9 C +0.9 36.7 D PM 9/23/10 35.7 D 35.7 D 36.2 D +0.5 34.8 C SAT 10/30/10 37.5 D 37.5 D 37.9 D +0.4 n/a n/a Notes: /a/ Change in delay is measured relative to background conditions. /b/ 2030 forecasts are not available for the peak hour on Saturday. Page 26

Bay Terrace Apartments Transportation Impact Analysis Technical Appendices September 16, 2011

Appendix A Traffic Counts

AM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet AUTO-CENSUS Traffic Monitoring and Analysis Date: 9/23/10 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Counter: Logan & Huy Los Gatos, CA 95032 Intersection Name: Norfolk & Hillsdale Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 Weather: Clear City:San Mateo Norfolk Hillsdale Norfolk Hillsdale North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Start Time Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total 7:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 31 3 3 37 5 228 12 245 3 7 74 84 33 76 23 132 7:30 92 9 7 108 12 638 20 670 6 16 201 223 53 163 39 255 7:45 155 15 12 182 27 1,081 46 1,154 12 45 331 388 100 330 97 527 8:00 241 28 21 290 36 1,517 58 1,611 17 86 498 601 158 585 167 910 8:15 296 54 33 383 53 1,905 72 2,030 23 109 592 724 235 892 238 1,365 8:30 354 74 46 474 77 2,378 89 2,544 31 128 674 833 290 1,124 302 1,716 8:45 413 90 57 560 101 2,810 112 3,023 43 144 744 931 349 1,318 350 2,017 9:00 468 107 68 643 113 3,164 140 3,417 52 169 830 1,051 409 1,547 399 2,355 Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hour 7:00-8:00 241 28 21 290 36 1,517 58 1,611 17 86 498 601 158 585 167 910 3,412 7:15-8:15 265 51 30 346 48 1,677 60 1,785 20 102 518 640 202 816 215 1,233 4,004 7:30-8:30 262 65 39 366 65 1,740 69 1,874 25 112 473 610 237 961 263 1,461 4,311 7:45-8:45 258 75 45 378 74 1,729 66 1,869 31 99 413 543 249 988 253 1,490 4,280 8:00-9:00 227 79 47 353 77 1,647 82 1,806 35 83 332 450 251 962 232 1,445 4,054 Peak Volumes: 262 65 39 366 65 1,740 69 1,874 25 112 473 610 237 961 263 1,461 4,311 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 473 112 25 39 65 262 263 961 237 69 1,740 65 Norfolk Out In Total 440 366 806 Right Thru Left 262 65 39 Total 3936 Left 263 Total 2899 Right 65 In 1,461 Thru 961 Hillsdale In 1874 Thru 1740 Out 2475 Right 237 Hillsdale Out 1025 Left 69 473 112 25 Left Thru Right 371 610 981 Out In Total

PM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet AUTO-CENSUS Traffic Monitoring and Analysis Date: 9/23/10 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Counter: Logan & Huy Los Gatos, CA 95032 Intersection Name: Norfolk & Hillsdale Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 Weather: Clear City: San Mateo Norfolk Hillsdale Norfolk Hillsdale North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Start Time Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total 4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 43 23 16 82 19 264 33 316 24 16 92 132 88 211 59 358 4:30 95 38 30 163 41 493 60 594 33 30 183 246 190 456 127 773 4:45 149 52 48 249 50 716 87 853 45 55 298 398 131 686 173 990 5:00 194 70 61 325 58 959 113 1,130 66 78 408 552 413 976 258 1,647 5:15 243 100 77 420 79 1,264 154 1,497 82 100 515 697 529 1,289 347 2,165 5:30 301 132 96 529 87 1,655 204 1,946 98 115 608 821 647 1,562 426 2,635 5:45 358 158 112 628 104 1,931 234 2,269 121 132 723 976 821 1,915 527 3,263 6:00 412 184 122 718 122 2,254 270 2,646 136 152 808 1,096 936 2,221 611 3,768 Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hour 4:00-5:00 194 70 61 325 58 959 113 1,130 66 78 408 552 413 976 258 1,647 3,654 4:15-5:15 200 77 61 338 60 1,000 121 1,181 58 84 423 565 441 1,078 288 1,807 3,891 4:30-5:30 206 94 66 366 46 1,162 144 1,352 65 85 425 575 457 1,106 299 1,862 4,155 4:45-5:45 209 106 64 379 54 1,215 147 1,416 76 77 425 578 690 1,229 354 2,273 4,646 5:00-6:00 218 114 61 393 64 1,295 157 1,516 70 74 400 544 523 1,245 353 2,121 4,574 Peak Volumes: 209 106 64 379 54 1,215 147 1,416 76 77 425 578 690 1,229 354 2,273 4,646 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 425 77 76 64 106 209 354 1,229 690 147 1,215 54 Norfolk Out In Total 485 379 864 Right Thru Left 209 106 64 Total 4122 Left 354 Total 2785 Right 54 In 2,273 Thru 1,229 In 1416 Thru 1215 Out 1849 Right 690 Hillsdale Hillsdale Out 1369 Left 147 425 77 76 Left Thru Right 943 578 1,521 Out In Total Norfolk

Saturday Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet AUTO-CENSUS Traffic Monitoring and Analysis Date: 10/30/10 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Counter: Patti and Ryan Los Gatos, CA 95032 Intersection Name: Norfolk & Hillsdale Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 Weather: Clear City:San Mateo Norfolk Hillsdale Norfolk Hillsdale North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Start Time Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total 11:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:15 46 27 15 88 8 265 29 302 26 18 118 162 92 194 34 320 11:30 88 63 24 175 17 562 67 646 50 26 253 329 173 392 79 644 11:45 121 93 38 252 30 899 109 1,038 77 40 371 488 278 624 153 1,055 12:00 161 119 51 331 39 1,172 135 1,346 112 72 490 674 377 824 192 1,393 12:15 236 134 62 432 51 1,459 169 1,679 156 119 620 895 500 1,030 256 1,786 12:30 291 163 81 535 64 1,750 207 2,021 191 146 767 1,104 594 1,238 305 2,137 12:45 333 185 98 616 75 2,012 240 2,327 218 168 903 1,289 700 1,429 365 2,494 1:00 379 207 109 695 84 2,291 270 2,645 253 192 1,031 1,476 809 1,616 403 2,828 Peak Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total PK Hour 11:00-12:00 161 119 51 331 39 1,172 135 1,346 112 72 490 674 377 824 192 1,393 3,744 11:15-12:15 190 107 47 344 43 1,194 140 1,377 130 101 502 733 408 836 222 1,466 3,920 11:30-12:30 203 100 57 360 47 1,188 140 1,375 141 120 514 775 421 846 226 1,493 4,003 11:45-12:45 212 92 60 364 45 1,113 131 1,289 141 128 532 801 422 805 212 1,439 3,893 12:00-1:00 218 88 58 364 45 1,119 135 1,299 141 120 541 802 432 792 211 1,435 3,900 Peak Volumes: 203 100 57 360 47 1,188 140 1,375 141 120 514 775 421 846 226 1,493 4,003 Cut and Paste NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 514 120 141 57 100 203 226 846 421 140 1,188 47 Norfolk Out In Total 393 360 753 Right Thru Left 203 100 57 Total 3398 Left 226 Total 2419 Right 47 In 1,493 Thru 846 Hillsdale In 1375 Thru 1188 Out 1905 Right 421 Hillsdale Out 1044 Left 140 514 120 141 Left Thru Right 661 775 1,436 Out In Total

Appendix B Level of Service Calculations

COMPARE Fri Dec 03 16:40:28 2010 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing AM Intersection #50: Norfolk Avenue and Hillsdale Boulevard Signal=Split/Rights=Include Final Vol: 262 65*** 39 Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 9/23/2010 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 120 263*** 2 0 65 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 1 961 2 Critical V/C: 0.731 2 1740*** 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 38.5 0 237 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 34.0 1 69 LOS: C Lanes: 2 0 0 1 0 Final Vol: 473*** 112 25 Signal=Split/Rights=Include Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Volume Module: >> Count Date: 23 Sep 2010 << Base Vol: 473 112 25 39 65 262 263 961 237 69 1740 65 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 473 112 25 39 65 262 263 961 237 69 1740 65 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 473 112 25 39 65 262 263 961 237 69 1740 65 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 473 112 25 39 65 262 263 961 237 69 1740 65 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 473 112 25 39 65 262 263 961 237 69 1740 65 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 473 112 25 39 65 262 263 961 237 69 1740 65 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.88 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 2.00 0.82 0.18 1.00 0.40 1.60 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.89 0.11 Final Sat.: 3502 1511 337 1805 665 2679 3502 5031 1677 1805 4975 186 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.19 0.14 0.04 0.35 0.35 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.48 0.48 0.10 0.48 0.48 Volume/Cap: 0.73 0.40 0.40 0.16 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.39 0.29 0.39 0.73 0.73 Uniform Del: 46.1 43.1 43.1 46.0 49.9 49.9 52.2 19.7 18.6 50.9 25.1 25.1 IncremntDel: 7.1 3.5 3.5 1.4 10.1 10.1 12.3 0.4 0.2 6.5 1.9 1.9 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 53.2 46.5 46.5 47.4 60.0 60.0 64.5 20.1 18.8 57.4 27.0 27.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 53.2 46.5 46.5 47.4 60.0 60.0 64.5 20.1 18.8 57.4 27.0 27.0 LOS by Move: D D D D E E E C B E C C HCM2kAvgQ: 10 5 5 1 7 7 6 8 6 3 20 20 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose

COMPARE Fri Dec 03 16:40:28 2010 Page 3-2 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Approved AM Intersection #50: Norfolk Avenue and Hillsdale Boulevard Signal=Split/Rights=Include Final Vol: 263*** 65 39 Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 9/23/2010 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 120 264*** 2 0 65 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 1 981 2 Critical V/C: 0.735 2 1753*** 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 38.7 0 238 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 34.0 1 69 LOS: C Lanes: 2 0 0 1 0 Final Vol: 475*** 112 25 Signal=Split/Rights=Include Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Volume Module: >> Count Date: 23 Sep 2010 << Base Vol: 473 112 25 39 65 262 263 961 237 69 1740 65 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 473 112 25 39 65 262 263 961 237 69 1740 65 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Approved Pr: 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 20 1 0 13 0 Initial Fut: 475 112 25 39 65 263 264 981 238 69 1753 65 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 475 112 25 39 65 263 264 981 238 69 1753 65 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 475 112 25 39 65 263 264 981 238 69 1753 65 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 475 112 25 39 65 263 264 981 238 69 1753 65 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.88 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 2.00 0.82 0.18 1.00 0.40 1.60 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.89 0.11 Final Sat.: 3502 1511 337 1805 663 2681 3502 5037 1679 1805 4977 185 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.19 0.14 0.04 0.35 0.35 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.49 0.49 0.10 0.48 0.48 Volume/Cap: 0.73 0.40 0.40 0.16 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.40 0.29 0.40 0.73 0.73 Uniform Del: 46.2 43.1 43.1 46.0 50.0 50.0 52.3 19.7 18.4 51.0 25.1 25.1 IncremntDel: 7.3 3.5 3.5 1.4 10.3 10.3 12.6 0.4 0.2 6.8 2.0 2.0 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 53.4 46.6 46.6 47.5 60.2 60.2 64.8 20.0 18.6 57.8 27.1 27.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 53.4 46.6 46.6 47.5 60.2 60.2 64.8 20.0 18.6 57.8 27.1 27.1 LOS by Move: D D D D E E E C B E C C HCM2kAvgQ: 10 5 5 1 7 7 6 8 6 3 20 20 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose

COMPARE Fri Dec 03 16:40:28 2010 Page 3-3 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Project AM Intersection #50: Norfolk Avenue and Hillsdale Boulevard Signal=Split/Rights=Include Final Vol: 263 67*** 39 Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 120 264*** 2 0 65 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 1 981 2 Critical V/C: 0.748 2 1753*** 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 39.5 0 246 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 34.9 1 71 LOS: C Lanes: 2 0 0 1 0 Final Vol: 513*** 120 33 Signal=Split/Rights=Include Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 475 112 25 39 65 263 264 981 238 69 1753 65 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 475 112 25 39 65 263 264 981 238 69 1753 65 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Tri: 38 8 8 0 2 0 0 0 8 2 0 0 Initial Fut: 513 120 33 39 67 263 264 981 246 71 1753 65 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 513 120 33 39 67 263 264 981 246 71 1753 65 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 513 120 33 39 67 263 264 981 246 71 1753 65 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 513 120 33 39 67 263 264 981 246 71 1753 65 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.88 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.91 Lanes: 2.00 0.78 0.22 1.00 0.41 1.59 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.89 0.11 Final Sat.: 3502 1443 397 1805 679 2665 3502 5031 1677 1805 4977 185 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.19 0.15 0.04 0.35 0.35 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.48 0.48 0.10 0.47 0.47 Volume/Cap: 0.75 0.42 0.42 0.16 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.41 0.31 0.41 0.75 0.75 Uniform Del: 45.4 42.3 42.3 46.2 50.2 50.2 52.5 20.5 19.3 51.0 25.9 25.9 IncremntDel: 7.3 3.6 3.6 1.5 11.0 11.0 13.5 0.4 0.2 7.0 2.2 2.2 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 52.7 45.9 45.9 47.7 61.2 61.2 66.0 20.9 19.5 58.1 28.1 28.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 52.7 45.9 45.9 47.7 61.2 61.2 66.0 20.9 19.5 58.1 28.1 28.1 LOS by Move: D D D D E E E C B E C C HCM2kAvgQ: 11 5 5 1 8 8 7 8 6 3 21 21 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose

COMPARE Fri Dec 03 16:40:28 2010 Page 3-4 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Cumulative 2030 AM Intersection #50: Norfolk Avenue and Hillsdale Boulevard Signal=Split/Rights=Include Final Vol: 242*** 76 77 Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 120 265*** 2 0 39 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 1 1246 2 Critical V/C: 0.827 2 2048*** 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 42.1 0 251 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 36.7 1 101 LOS: D Lanes: 2 0 0 1 0 Final Vol: 572*** 63 31 Signal=Split/Rights=Include Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 572 63 31 77 76 242 265 1246 251 101 2048 39 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 572 63 31 77 76 242 265 1246 251 101 2048 39 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 572 63 31 77 76 242 265 1246 251 101 2048 39 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 572 63 31 77 76 242 265 1246 251 101 2048 39 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 572 63 31 77 76 242 265 1246 251 101 2048 39 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 572 63 31 77 76 242 265 1246 251 101 2048 39 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.89 0.81 0.92 0.89 0.83 0.95 0.91 0.90 Lanes: 2.00 0.66 0.34 1.00 0.45 1.55 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.94 0.06 Final Sat.: 3502 1191 586 1805 750 2387 3502 5057 1580 1805 5074 97 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.25 0.16 0.06 0.40 0.40 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.47 0.47 0.11 0.49 0.49 Volume/Cap: 0.83 0.27 0.27 0.35 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.52 0.34 0.52 0.83 0.83 Uniform Del: 46.2 40.8 40.8 48.2 51.4 51.4 53.6 22.2 19.9 50.6 26.4 26.4 IncremntDel: 10.9 1.9 1.9 4.3 18.1 18.1 21.1 0.7 0.2 9.7 3.3 3.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 57.1 42.7 42.7 52.5 69.5 69.5 74.7 22.8 20.1 60.3 29.6 29.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 57.1 42.7 42.7 52.5 69.5 69.5 74.7 22.8 20.1 60.3 29.6 29.6 LOS by Move: E D D D E E E C C E C C HCM2kAvgQ: 13 3 3 3 8 8 7 12 6 4 26 26 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose

COMPARE Tue Nov 30 13:49:08 2010 Page 3-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative) Existing PM Intersection #50: Norfolk Avenue and Hillsdale Boulevard Signal=Split/Rights=Include Final Vol: 209 106*** 64 Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1 Signal=Protect Signal=Protect Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 9/23/2010 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol: Cycle Time (sec): 120 354 2 0 54 Loss Time (sec): 12 0 1 1229*** 2 Critical V/C: 0.653 2 1215 1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 35.6 0 690 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 35.7 1 147*** LOS: D Lanes: 2 0 0 1 0 Final Vol: 425*** 77 76 Signal=Split/Rights=Include Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Volume Module: >> Count Date: 23 Sep 2010 << Base Vol: 425 77 76 64 106 209 354 1229 690 147 1215 54 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 425 77 76 64 106 209 354 1229 690 147 1215 54 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 425 77 76 64 106 209 354 1229 690 147 1215 54 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 425 77 76 64 106 209 354 1229 690 147 1215 54 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 425 77 76 64 106 209 354 1229 690 147 1215 54 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 425 77 76 64 106 209 354 1229 690 147 1215 54 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.86 0.86 0.95 0.90 0.90 Lanes: 2.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.67 1.33 2.00 2.56 1.44 1.00 2.87 0.13 Final Sat.: 3502 884 873 1805 1152 2272 3502 4190 2352 1805 4936 219 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.25 0.25 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.45 0.45 0.12 0.41 0.41 Volume/Cap: 0.65 0.47 0.47 0.25 0.65 0.65 0.61 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.61 0.61 Uniform Del: 45.3 43.6 43.6 45.9 48.8 48.8 46.3 25.8 25.8 50.1 28.0 28.0 IncremntDel: 5.1 4.8 4.8 2.4 6.7 6.7 4.6 1.1 1.1 13.9 1.3 1.3 InitQueuDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 50.3 48.3 48.3 48.3 55.5 55.5 50.9 26.9 26.9 63.9 29.3 29.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 50.3 48.3 48.3 48.3 55.5 55.5 50.9 26.9 26.9 63.9 29.3 29.3 LOS by Move: D D D D E E D C C E C C HCM2kAvgQ: 8 5 5 2 7 7 7 15 15 6 14 14 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose