APPENDIX A. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND PEER REVIEW

Appendix A

APPENDIX A. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND PEER REVIEW

16055-D Caputo Drive, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 (408) 778-2818 * FAX (408) 779-6879

email: [email protected]

May 27, 2003 (rev. August 4, 2003) Project 1899 EG Ms. Paula Hartman BY EMAIL [[email protected]] & MAIL Thomas Reid Associates P.O. Box 880 Palo Alto, CA 94301 SUBJECT: PEER REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation Report Proposed Serramonte Condominiums Daly City, California REFERENCES:

1. Geotechnical Investigation for the Serramonte Condominiums, Serramonte Boulevard Between Gellert and Callan Boulevards, Daly City, California, prepared by Kleinfelder, Inc., dated April 8, 2002.

2. Bonilla, M.G., 1971, Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South Quadrangle

and Part of the Hunters Point Quadrangle, California: U.S. Geological Survey MF-311; also HUD Basic Data Contribution #29, scale 1:24,000, 1971.

3. Kennedy, D.G., 2002, Neotectonic Character of the Serra fault, Northern San Francisco

Peninsula, California: unpub. M.S. Thesis, San Francisco State University. Dear Ms. Hartman: INTRODUCTION As requested, we have completed our review of the geologic and geotechnical aspects of Reference 1, in accordance with our proposal dated March 12, 2003. Reference 1 is a geotechnical investigation report prepared by Kleinfelder, Inc. for the proposed Serramonte Condominiums project. To date, our services have included:

• Review of published and unpublished literature we have in our files, and literature we obtained through contacting researchers familiar with the site vicinity.

• Analysis of stereoscopic aerial photographs on file at the U.S. Geological Survey.

May 27, 2003 Project 1899EG (rev. August 4, 2003)

• Site reconnaissance to observe current site conditions and conditions as described in the Kleinfelder report.

• Report review. • Preparation of this letter.

Kleinfelder may not have had access to plans detailing a specific proposed project. As described by Kleinfelder, the proposed project consists of the construction of a condominium and hotel complex in hillside terrain, in an area generally surrounded by urban development. Kleinfelder’s site plan conceptually shows six rectangular building outlines, and retaining wall between the buildings and the upper (south) property line. However, none of the other proposed improvements are shown, no proposed grading, and no proposed drainage control measures are shown. The report describes cuts that will require retaining walls up to approximately 25 feet high, and states that the proposed buildings would be located entirely on cut pads. The buildings would be up to 4 stories high, with up to 3 levels of parking beneath each building. No grading volumes are provided, and the extent of offhaul and import therefore is not known. The Initial Study and Checklist prepared by the City of Daly City (dated September, 2002) describes a somewhat different project involving five structures, with retaining walls up to 60 feet high. Regional maps show most of the site as being underlain by Upper Pleistocene-age bedrock of the Merced Formation, consisting primarily of sandstone, with lesser siltstone, claystone, conglomerate, volcanic ash, and shell breccia. Gullying and shallow landsliding are fairly common in this unit, with deeper, more regionally extensive landsliding observed locally, such as near Mussel Rock. The site is not contained within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Special Studies Zone). Historic topographic maps indicate that the site is located in approximately the area of a north-draining swale complex. More recent topographic maps, and the site topographic base shown on Kleinfelder’s site plan, indicate that extensive grading (cut) has greatly altered the site. Currently, the site topography consists largely of a benched slope that descends northward to Serramonte Boulevard. The slopes descend at approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), and are locally punctuated by nearly level graded benches. The uppermost portion of the site appears to preserve a portion of the natural swale topography. The site is bordered on the upslope (south) side by an undeveloped portion of an existing cemetery. The site is bordered on the west by an existing Shell gas station, on the east by an existing McDonald’s restaurant, and on the north by Serramonte Boulevard. Kleinfelder’s report describes an area of landsliding on the site. The report notes that the weak bedrock will necessitate both extensive temporary shoring during construction, and permanent retaining structures. Several conceptual approaches to constructing both the temporary and permanent retaining structures are discussed in the report. Grading and foundation recommendations are also provided.

Serramonte rvw 1 052703 2


COMMENTS Based on our review, we have the following comments.

1. Our general impression is that earth materials at the site were treated in the report as a single homogeneous unit, when in fact the site geology is more complex. Given the importance of slope stability to the project, and the potential for geologic aspects of bedrock materials to play a major role in slope stability, engineering geology should play a larger role in characterization of the site.

2. The report should contain a site geologic map and geologic cross-section(s). The map

should show the limits of the areas of landsliding and existing undocumented fill described in the text, and should show the limits of proposed cut. The cross-sections should show the existing ground surface, proposed ground surface, depths of borings, bedding orientation, proposed retaining walls, proposed buildings and conceptual depths of foundations.

3. Kleinfelder should update their recommendations to reflect the current project concept.

Possibly the most significant of the differences between the project concept described in Kleinfelder’s report and the City’s Initial Study is the proposed use of retaining walls up to 60 feet high. There may not be enough existing subsurface information to develop the appropriate conclusions and recommendations for project design, depending on required depth of wall foundations, tiebacks, etc.

4. Bonilla (1988; Reference 2) shows the Merced Formation as significantly folded in the

site vicinity, likely in association with the Serra fault, as mapped by a recent UCSF thesis (Kennedy, 2002; Reference 3). No structural data is presented in the report, and there is at present an unknown potential for the presence of adversely oriented interbeds of siltstone and claystone. The presence/absence and orientation of these should enter into the evaluation of slope stability. The claystone interbeds are described on regional engineering geologic maps as “severely expansive,” and if present could require consideration in foundation design.

5. The Merced Formation is variously described in the report as poorly cemented, or

uncemented. Leaching and weathering of exposed cuts apparently can weaken or remove whatever cement is present. The formation regionally consists of stacked sequences, with each sequence typically capped by especially weak and erodible dune sand. Are any such weak intervals present at the site and how would they be addressed if they daylight in cut slopes?

6. Based on Kennedy (2002), the site is in the hanging wall of the mapped Serra fault,

which has experienced Holocene (geologically recent) ground rupture, possibly in association with major events on the nearby San Andreas fault. What is the potential for distributed deformation and/or ground cracking at the site, and are any special measures needed to address this potential?

7. The site is located very close to the San Andreas fault, and very strong earthquake ground

shaking should be anticipated during the design life of the proposed improvements. The stability of site slopes under earthquake shaking conditions should be discussed further,



with reference to the California Geological Survey’s Special Publication 117 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California). Coastal bluff exposures may be the best indication of past performance. These exposures also suggest that adversely oriented bedding is a factor in the deepest landslides.

8. Detailed recommendations should be provided by Kleinfelder in coordination with the

project civil engineer for drainage control which would address the highly erodible materials which would be exposed on slopes. Kleinfelder recommends interception of drainage from the property upslope of the site, however, no details are provided. It is unclear where berms at the brow(s) of slopes described in the text are proposed. Are V-ditches proposed as well, or in different locations?

9. If bedrock cuts are left exposed, weathering, shallow sloughing and gullying of the

resultant sandy colluvial veneer is expected by Kleinfelder. Kleinfelder should comment on the extent/nature of anticipated maintenance. The applicant and the City should establish whose responsibility this will be, and how it will be administered and funded. How will access to slopes requiring maintenance be provided?

10. Although shoring is typically the responsibility of the contractor, the proposed temporary

slope retention system should be submitted by the contractor to Kleinfelder and to the City for review, in part to confirm that support for adjacent properties is maintained. Kleinfelder should provide additional detail regarding any recommended construction monitoring of adjacent properties.

11. It is not clear whether the proposed cuts will remove the described landslide (“Mostly the

…slide will be entirely excavated…”). Will surficial deposits near the upslope limit of the site daylight in the proposed cuts? What is the maximum allowable thickness of unretained surficial deposits?

12. Relatively shallow groundwater was encountered in some borings. The effect on

construction stabilization and any need for dewatering should be discussed.

13. The report states that wall backdrains will be needed for retaining walls which will likely form the upslope wall of at least the parking levels. Kleinfelder should elaborate on their statement that “localized moisture areas may occur” -- what does this mean and how severe are these “moisture areas?”

14. The report states that access roads and landscaping will require retaining walls up to 6

feet high. Kleinfelder will need to confirm that geotechnical design criteria are provided to address construction of these walls in areas of both bedrock cut and surficial soil.

15. Design criteria should be provided for all retaining walls; currently recommendations

only address landscaping walls up to 6 feet high. The report indicates that surcharges may be imposed by one wall on another. Once a specific project concept is settled on, Kleinfelder should identify any surcharge areas.

16. Kleinfelder’s report discusses the effect of “significant differential fill” on

design/construction. This should be defined so that the grading contractor will know what is acceptable, and what overexcavation will be required.




17. Kleinfelder should confirm our understanding that existing fill is to be entirely

subexcavated. CONCLUSIONS In our judgment, the referenced report does not contain sufficient information to adequately address the geologic and geotechnical issues, although based on our review we are not aware of conditions that would render the project infeasible. In part this reflects the lack of detail regarding the specific development proposal; Kleinfelder may not have been provided with a specific project configuration at the time they performed their work. RECOMMENDATIONS The project applicant’s design team should formulate a specific development proposal. Kleinfelder should then provide supplemental information and recommendations addressing that specific project. The supplemental report providing that geologic and geotechnical information should address the above comments, and should be signed by both the project geotechnical engineer and project engineering geologist. The supplemental report should be reviewed by the City or its geologic/geotechnical reviewer. We trust that this provides you with the information that you require at this time. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, PACIFIC GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING G. Reid Fisher Daniel J. Peluso CEG 1858 GE 2367 Exp. 9/30/04 GRF/DJP:grf

Appendix B

Serramonte Condominiums and Hotel—Administrative Draft EIR City of Daly City—October 2003

APPENDIX B. FISCAL ANALYSIS

APPENDIX C. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AND PEER REVIEW

Appendix C

Serramonte Condominiums and Hotel—Administrative Draft EIR City of Daly City—October 2003

June 3, 2003 Ms. Christine Schneider Thomas Reid Associates 560 Waverley Street, Suite 201 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: Peer Review of the Serramonte Condominium/Hotel Traffic Impact Study Dear Ms. Schneider: This letter report presents the results of Hexagon’s peer review of the traffic impact study prepared by RKH for the Serramonte Condominium/Hotel development. The purpose of this review is to ensure that the traffic report conforms to Daly City and San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP) methods and standards, and to ensure that the recommendations contained in the report adequately address project impacts. The project site is located on the south side of Serramonte Boulevard between Gellert Boulevard and Callan Boulevard. The project as proposed consists of a 200-unit residential condominium development and a 137-room hotel. A traffic impact study, dated April 26, 2002, was prepared by RKH for the proposed development. The key findings of our peer review of this document are presented in the following sections.

Scope of Review The following issues were reviewed in the traffic study as part of the peer review:

1. Site Traffic Projections 2. Trip Distribution Pattern 3. Project Trip Assignment 4. Adequacy of Study Area 5. Level of Service Calculations 6. Peak-Hour Volume Traffic Signal Warrants 7. Identification of Significant Project Impacts 8. Site Plan Review 9. Sight Distance Evaluation 10. Project Parking Needs 11. Compliance with CMP Requirements 12. Adequacy of Study Recommendations

Review Results Each of the key issues of the peer review is discussed below along with the results of the peer review.

40 South Market Street, Suite 600 • San Jose, California 95113 phone 408.971.6100 • fax 408.971.6102 • www.hextrans.com

Ms. Christine Schneider June 3, 2003 Page 2 of 8

Site Traffic Projections A review of the trip generation estimates contained in the traffic report was conducted to verify that they are accurate and that the rates are based on the appropriate land use data as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). A review of the site traffic projections finds that the trip generation rates used in the traffic study correspond to the appropriate ITE land use categories and that the trip generation calculations are accurate.

Trip Distribution Pattern The directional distribution of project traffic was reviewed for consistency with existing travel patterns and the relative locations of complimentary land uses. The trip distribution patterns for the residential and hotel land uses on the site are consistent with existing traffic patterns in the area and the relative locations of complimentary land uses. The AM trip distribution percentages for the residential portion of the project, shown on Figure 6, adds up to only 99%. This would not affect the results of the traffic analysis.

Project Trip Assignment The assignment of site-generated traffic on the local roadway network was reviewed for accuracy and consistency with the trip distribution pattern contained in the traffic report. The assignment of project traffic is consistent with the trip distribution pattern contained in the traffic report. However, a review of the project trip assignment contained in the traffic report finds that trips between the project site and the SR 280 southbound interchange at Hickey Boulevard are assigned in a circuitous manner. Project trips to and from the SR 280/Hickey Boulevard interchange are assigned to travel to and from Hickey Boulevard via Callan Boulevard, west of the project site. The shortest path between the project site and the SR 280/Hickey Boulevard interchange includes Gellert Boulevard, east of the project site. The trips affected by this assignment include 9 outbound and 19 inbound trips in the AM peak hour and 9 outbound and 24 inbound trips during the PM peak hour. The only study intersections that are affected by this assignment are the Gellert Boulevard/Serramonte Boulevard intersection and the Gellert Boulevard/Hickey Boulevard intersection. A review of the levels of service at these two locations under project conditions finds that the conclusions of the traffic analysis would not change if the trip assignment were modified to include Gellert Boulevard as the route between the project site and the SR 280/Hickey Boulevard interchange.


Adequacy of Study Area The study area and study facilities included in the traffic impact study were reviewed to ensure that potential project impacts on the local transportation system are accurately identified. The list of study intersections considered in the traffic analysis covers a sufficiently wide geographic area to accurately identify the potentially significant project impacts associated with the proposed project. The intersection of Saint Francis Boulevard and Serramonte Boulevard would experience an increase in traffic in the southbound left-turn movement of 12 trips in the AM peak hour and 24 in the PM peak hour. A general rule-of-thumb is to include any intersection that would experience an increase of 10 or more project-generated trips in any single lane. City staff should be consulted to determine if this intersection should be included in the traffic analysis.

Level of Service Calculations The TRAFFIX level of service calculation output pages were reviewed for accuracy. The results of the review indicate that the level of service calculations are consistent and accurate.

Peak-Hour Volume Traffic Signal Warrants The traffic signal warrant checks for the unsignalized study intersections were reviewed for accuracy. This review is based on the Caltrans peak-hour volume signal warrant. A review of the traffic study indicates that the results of the signal warrant checks are accurate.

Identification of Significant Project Impacts The results of the various analyses in the report were reviewed to ensure that all significant project impacts are correctly identified. Based on Hexagon’s review, the locations listed below would be significantly impacted by the project. These impacts were not specifically identified in the traffic study, however, some mitigation was recommended. Listed below are the locations with significant project impacts identified by Hexagon along with the type of impact and the recommended mitigation measure. Serramonte Boulevard and Callan Boulevard

Impact: (LOS impact, Signal Warrant). With the addition of project traffic, the level of service at this location would degrade from LOS E under baseline conditions to LOS F under project conditions. This constitutes a significant impact for which the project is fully responsible. Peak-hour traffic volume levels at this intersection under project conditions are high enough to warrant the installation of a traffic signal. However, it should be noted that baseline traffic volume levels also are high enough to warrant the installation of a traffic signal. This constitutes a significant impact for which the project is partially responsible.


Recommended Mitigation: The recommended improvement at this intersection is to add a traffic signal. Since the project only contributes to the need for a traffic signal, and is not solely responsible for the need for a traffic signal, a fare-share contribution should be made toward the cost of the signal based on the amount of project traffic added to the intersection. However, it should be noted that this mitigation measure is needed to mitigate the level of service impact at this location. Thus, the signal should be operational before the project is occupied to be sure that all project impacts are fully mitigated.

Serramonte Boulevard and SR 1 Northbound Ramps

Impact: (Signal Warrant). Peak-hour traffic volume levels at this intersection under project conditions are high enough to warrant the installation of a traffic signal. However, it should be noted that baseline traffic volume levels also are high enough to warrant the installation of a traffic signal. This constitute a significant impact for which the project is partially responsible. Recommended Mitigation: The recommended improvement at this intersection is to add a traffic signal. Since the project only contributes to the need for a traffic signal, and is not solely responsible for the need for a traffic signal, a fare-share contribution should be made toward the cost of the signal based on the amount of project traffic added to the intersection.

Site Access and Circulation Review A review of the project site plan was performed to determine if the conclusions drawn in the traffic study, with respect to site access and on-site circulation issues, are accurate. The evaluation of recommended design of the site driveways is based on the procedures contained in Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual. The levels of service reported for the site driveways under project conditions are accurate. The traffic study recommends that the left-turn pocket at the westerly project driveway be designed to be 225 feet, including 100 feet of storage space and a 125-foot deceleration length. According to Section 405.2-Left-Turn Channalization and Table 505.2B-Deceleration Lange Length of the Highway Design Manual, at an approach speed of 40 mph (64.4 kph) a deceleration length of 125 feet (38.1 meters) is adequate assuming the largest reduction in design speed (19 mph or 30 kph) to account for partial deceleration in the through lanes. In built up areas were cross streets are closely spaced, partial deceleration in the through lanes for left-turn movements is common. Moreover, Serramonte Boulevard is a four-lane facility in the vicinity of the project site, so partial deceleration in the through lanes for left-turn movements would not affect all through traffic.

Sight Distance Evaluation A review of the sight distance evaluation presented in the traffic study was performed to ensure accuracy and consistency with Caltrans standards. The evaluation of sight distance requirements at the site driveway is based on the requirements of the Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual. As discussed in the traffic study, with an approach speed of 40 mph a minimum of 300 feet of corner sight distance should be provided at the site driveway, with a desirable corner sight distance of 440 feet. Hexagon’s calculation of corner sight distance based on Table 201.1-Sight Distance Standards and Table 405.1A-Corner Sight Distance finds that the minimum corner sight distance is 307 feet and the desirable


sight distance is 455 feet. The discrepancies between RKH’s calculations and Hexagon’s calculations are likely due to rounding error since the results are within 3 percent of each other. Therefore, the sight distance recommendations contained in the traffic study are adequate.

Project Parking Needs The proposed parking supply for the condominium component of the project was reviewed and compared to Daly City’s parking requirements as well as the parking requirements of other agencies in the Bay Area. In Daly City, the parking requirement at residential developments is stratified by housing type and the number of bedrooms per housing unit. For this type of development, 1.5 parking spaces must be supplied for each one-bedroom unit and two parking spaces must be supplied for each unit with two or more bedrooms. The project as it is currently proposed includes 80 one-bedroom units, 40 two-bedroom units, and 80 three-bedroom units. Based on the Daly City municipal code, the project needs to provide at least 360 total parking spaces for a project with this composition of units. According to the Initial Study and Checklist for the project, the condominium portion of the project would have 400 total parking spaces. Therefore, the project is in compliance with City parking requirements. Assuming the 360 spaces would be used exclusively by the residents of the condominium complex, the remaining 40 spaces (or 10% of the parking supply) would be available for guest parking. The 40 guest spaces are equivalent to one guest space for each 5 units in the condominium complex. A review of guest parking requirements in other jurisdictions in the Bay Area finds that the requirements range from one space for every two units to one space for every ten units. A list of Bay Area parking requirements is contained in Appendix B of this document. Of the 16 jurisdictions that have guest parking requirements, six required more than 1 space for every five units, four required less than 1 space for every five units, and six required exactly 1 space for every five units. Based on the review of guest parking requirements, the amount of guest parking provided at the proposed project is consistent with guest parking requirements in other Bay Area cities.

Compliance with CMP Requirements A review of San Mateo County’s Congestion Management Program (CMP) requirements, as they pertain to this project, was conducted to ensure that the traffic study is in compliance with such requirements and standards. The project would add a combined total of approximately 125 PM peak hour trips to CMP facilities in the study area. Therefore, the project must comply with CMP requirements. Such requirements specify that demand for all new peak hour trips must be reduced to zero by implementation of transportation demand management (TDM) measures. A list of acceptable TDM programs is included in the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Final Congestion Management Program for 1999, and is included in Appendix A of this document.

Adequacy of Study Recommendations The recommendations to accommodate project-generated traffic, as presented in the traffic report, were reviewed to determine if they are adequate.


The recommended measures to accommodate project-generated traffic are adequate except that one additional recommendation should be included in the traffic report: The Serramonte Boulevard/Callan Boulevard intersection should be signalized before the project is occupied since the project causes a significant level of service impact at this location and the required mitigation measure is installation of a traffic signal. Please feel free to call if you have any questions or would like to discuss the results of the analysis. Sincerely, HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Jeffrey A. Elia Associate

Appendix A San Mateo County CMP

Acceptable TDM Programs

Management Measure

Bicycle lockers and racks.

One peak hour trip will be credited for every 3 new bike lockers/racks installed and maintained.

Experience has shown that bicycle commuters will average using this mode one-third of the time, especially during warmer summer months.

Showers and changing rooms.

Two peak hour trips will be credited for each new combination shower and changing room installed.

Two bicyclists can sequentially use one shower/changing room during the peak commute time.

Operation of a dedicated shuttle service during the peak period to a rail station or an urban residential area.

One peak hour trip will be credited for each peak-hour round trip seat on the shuttle. Increases to two trips if a Guaranteed Ride Home Program is also in place. Five additional trips will be credited if the shuttle stops at a child care facility enroute to/from the worksite.

Yields a one-to-one ratio (one seat in a shuttle equals one auto trip reduced); utilization increases when a guaranteed ride home program is also made available.

Charging employees for parking.

One peak hour trip will be credited for each parking spot charged out at $20 per month for one year.

Yields a one-to-one ratio (one parking spot charged out equals one auto trip reduced.

Subsidizing transit tickets for employees.

One peak hour trip will be credited for each transit pass that is subsidized at least $20 per month for one year. One additional trip will be credited if the subsidy is increased to $75 for parents using transit to take a child to childcare enroute to work.

Yields a one-to-one ratio (one transit pass equals one auto trip reduced).

SUBSIDIZING PEDESTRIAN/

ONE PEAK HOUR TRIP WILL BE CREDITED FOR EACH

YIELDS A ONE-TO-ONE RATIO (ONE

BICYCLISTS WHO COMMUTE TO WORK.

EMPLOYEE THAT IS SUBSIDIZED AT LEAST $20 PER MONTH FOR ONE YEAR

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLIST EQUALS ONE AUTO TRIP REDUCED

Creation of preferential parking for carpoolers.

Two peak hour trips will be credited for each parking spot reserved.

Yields a two-to-one ratio (one reserved parking spot equals a minimum of two auto trips reduced).

Creation of preferential parking for vanpoolers.

Seven peak hour trips will be credited for each parking spot reserved.

Yields a seven-to-one ratio (one reserved parking spot equals a minimum of seven auto trips reduced).

Implementation of a vanpool program.

Seven peak hour trips will be credited for each vanpool arranged by a specific program operated at the site of the development. Increases to ten trips if a Guaranteed Ride Home Program is also in place.

The average van capacity is seven.

Operation of a commute assistance center, offering on site, one stop shopping for transit and commute alternatives information, preferably staffed with a live person to assist building tenants with trip planning.

One peak hour trip will be credited for each feature added to the information center; and an additional one peak hour trip will be credited for each hour the center is staffed with a live person, up to 20 trips per each 200 tenants. Possible features may include:

• Transit information brochure rack

• Computer kiosk connected to Internet

• Telephone (with commute and transit information numbers)

• Desk and chairs (for personalized trip planning)

• On-site transit ticket sales • Implementation of flexible

work hour schedules that allow transit riders to be

This is based on staff’s best estimate. Short of there being major disincentives to driving, having an on site TDM program offering commute assistance is fundamental to an effective TDM program.

15-30 minutes late or early (due to problems with transit or vanpool).

• QUARTERLY EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS TO SUPPORT COMMUTE ALTERNATIVES

Implementation of a parking cash out program.

One peak hour trip will be credited for each parking spot where the employee is offered a cash payment in return for not using parking at the employment site.

Yields a one-to-one ratio (one cashed out parking spot equals one auto trip reduced.

Implementation of ramp metering.

Three hundred peak hour trips will be credited if the local jurisdiction in cooperation with CalTrans, installs and turns on ramp metering lights during the peak hours at the highway entrance ramp closest to the development.

This is a very difficult and costly measure to implement and the reward must be significant.

Installation of highband width connections in employees’ homes to the Internet to facilitate home telecommuting.

One peak hour trip will be credited for each connection installed.

Yields a one-to-one ratio.

Installation of video conferencing centers that are available for use by the tenants of the facility.

Twenty peak hour trips will be credited for a center installed at the facility.

Assumes that there will be one teleconference per day that includes twenty people.

Implementation of a compressed workweek program.

One peak hour trip will be credited for every 5 employees that are offered the opportunity to work four compressed days per week.

The workweek will be compressed into 4 days; therefore the individual will not be commuting on the 5th day.

Provision of assistance If an employer develops and offers This assumes that a five-mile

to employees so they can live close to work.

a program to help employees find acceptable residences within five miles of the employment site, a credit of one trip will be given for each slot in the program.

trip will generally not involve travel on the freeways.

Conduct a local-based hiring program by registering with and using the Alliance Job Link Program.

One peak hour trip will be credited for every 2 job listings posted with this program.

This is based on staff’s best estimate.

Implementation of a program that gives preference to hiring local residents at the new development site.

One peak hour trip will be credited for each employment opportunity reserved for employees recruited and hired from within five miles of the employment site.

This assumes that a five-mile trip will generally not involve travel on the freeways.

Provision of on-site amenities/accommodations that encourage people to stay on site during the workday, making it easier for workers to leave their automobiles at home.

One peak hour trip will be credited for each feature added to the job site. Possible features may include:

• banking • grocery shopping • clothes cleaning • exercise facilities • child care center


PROVIDE USE OF MOTOR POOL VEHICLES TO EMPLOYEES WHO USE ALTERNATE COMMUTE METHODS SO THEY CAN HAVE ACCESS TO VEHICLES DURING BREAKS FOR PERSONAL USE.

ONE PEAK HOUR TRIP WILL BE CREDITED FOR EACH VEHICLE PROVIDED.

THIS IS BASED ON STAFF’S BEST ESTIMATE.

PROVIDE USE OF MOTOR POOL

ONE PEAK HOUR TRIP WILL BE CREDITED FOR

THIS IS BASED ON STAFF’S BEST ESTIMATE.

VEHICLES TO EMPLOYEES WHO USE ALTERNATE COMMUTE METHODS SO THEY CAN HAVE ACCESS TO VEHICLES DURING BREAKS FOR PERSONAL USE.

EVERY 4 BICYCLES PROVIDED.

Provision of child care services as a part of the development

One trip will be credited for every two child care slots at the job site. This amount increases to one trip for each slot if the child care service accepts multiple age groups (infants=0-2yrs, preschool=3&4 yrs, school-age=5 to 13 yrs).

Developer/property owner may join an employer group to expand available child care within 5 miles of the job site or may provide this service independently

One trip will be credited for each new child care center slot created either directly by an empoyer group, by the developer/property owner, or by an outside provider if an agreement has been developed with the developer/property owner that makes the child care accessible to the workers at the development.

Join the Alliance’s guaranteed ride home program.

One peak hour trip will be credited for every 2 slots purchased in the program.

Experience shows that when a Guaranteed Ride Home Program is added to a TDM program, average ridership increases by about 50%.

Combine any ten of these elements and receive an additional credit for five peak hour trips.

Five peak hour trips will be credited.

Experience has shown that offering multiple and complementary TDM components can magnify the impact of the overall program.

Work with the Five peak hour trips will be This is based on staff's best

Alliance to develop/ implement a Transportation Action Plan.

credited. estimate.

The developer can provide a cash legacy after the development is complete and designate an entity to implement any (or more than one) of the previous measures before day one of occupancy.

Peak hour trip reduction credits will accrue as if the developer was directly implementing the items.

Credits accrue depending on what the funds are used for.

Encourage infill development.

Two percent of all peak hour trips will be credited for each infill development.

Generally acceptable TDM practices (based on research of TDM practices around the nation and reported on the Internet).

Encourage shared parking.

Five peak hour trips will be credited for an agreement with an existing development to share existing parking.


Participate in/create/sponsor a Transportation Management Association.



Coordinate Transportation Demand Management programs with existing developments/ employers.



For employers with multiple job sites, institute a proximate commuting program that allows employees at one location to transfer/trade with employees in another location that is closer to their home.

One peak hour trip will be credited for each opportunity created.


Pay for parking at park and ride lots or transit stations.

One peak hour trip will be credited for each spot purchased.


Additional Measures for Residential Developments Develop schools, convenience shopping, recreation facilities, and child care centers in new subdivisions.

Five peak hour trips will be credited for each facility included.


Provision of child care services at the residential development and/or at a nearby transit center

One trip will be credited for every two child care slots at the develop-ment/transit center. This amount increases to one trip for each slot ifthe child care service accepts multiple age groups (infants, preschool, school-age).

Make roads and streets more pedestrian and bicycle friendly.

Five peak hour trips will be credited for each facility included.


Revise zoning to limit undesirable impacts (noise, smells, and traffic) instead of limiting broad categories of activities.



Create connections for non-motorized travel, such as trails that link dead-end streets.

Five peak hour trips will be credited for each connection make.


Create alternative transportation modes for travel within the development and to downtown areas - bicycles, scooters, electric carts, wagons, shuttles, etc.

One peak hour trip will be credited for each on-going opportunity created (i.e. five bicycles/ scooters/wagons = five trips, two-seat carts = two trips, seven passenger shuttle = seven trips).


Design streets/roads that encourage pedestrian and bicycle access and discourage automobile access.

Five trips will be credited for each design element.


Install and maintain alternative transportation kiosks.

Five trips will be credited for each kiosk.


Install/maintain safety and security systems for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Five trips will be credited for each measure implemented.


Implement jitneys/ vanpools from residential areas to downtowns and transit centers.

One trip will be credited for each seat created.


Locate residential development within one-third mile of a fixed rail passenger station.

All trips from a residential development within one-third mile of a fixed rail passenger station will be considered credited due to the location of the development.


The local jurisdiction must also agree to maintain data available for monitoring by C/CAG, that supports the on-going compliance with the agreed to trip reduction measures.

Appendix B Sample of Bay Area Minimum Parking Requirements

3. Sample of Bay Area Minimum Parking Requirements

Below is a table, for comparative purposes, of many Bay Area cities minimum parking requirements for multi-family housing (usually including duplexes).

For comparison purposes, the required off-street parking spaces, including guest parking, was calculated for a hypothetical 100 unit development consisting of: 10 studios, 40 one bedroom units, 40 two bedroom units, and 10 three bedroom units. The municipalities are listed from the highest required spaces to the lowest.

Minimum Required Parking Spaces per Unit for Multi-Family Developments (by

Unit Type, Guest for all Units) Hypothetical 100 Unit

Development

Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR Guest Total Spaces Spaced Per Unit

Los Gatos 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 250 2.50Dublin 1.8 1.8 2.8 2.8 230 2.30Redwood City 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 225 2.25San Leandro 1.5 1.5 2.25 3.5 1/4 225 2.25Pleasant Hill 1.5 1.5 2 2 1/2 225 2.25Foster City 1 1.5 2 2 1/2 220 2.20Morgan Hill 2 2 2 2 1/5 220 2.20Mountain View 2 2 2 2 1/7 215 2.15Milpitas 1 2 2 2 1/5 210 2.10Cotati 2 2 2 3 210 2.10Concord 1.5 1.5 2 2 1/3 208 2.08Fremont 2 2 2 2 200 2.00Santa Rosa 1.5 1.5 2 2 200 2.00Union City 1.5 1.5 2 2 1/4 200 2.00Cupertino 2 2 2 2 200 2.00Menlo Park 2 2 2 2 200 2.00Rohnert Park 2 2 2 2 200 2.00Alameda County 2 3 4 5 200 2.00Sonoma County 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 200 2.00Vallejo 1.5 1.5 2 2 1/5 195 1.95Campbell 1.5 1.5 2 2 1/5 195 1.95Pleasanton 1.75 1.75 1.75 2 1/7 192 1.92San Mateo 1.5 1.8 2 2.2 189 1.89Hayward 1.5 1.7 2.1 2.1 188 1.88Palo Alto 1.25 1.5 2 2 1/10 183 1.83Burlingame 1.5 1.5 2 2.5 180 1.80Walnut Creek 1.25 1.5 2 2.25 178 1.78Sunnyvale 1.5 1.5 2 2 175 1.75Santa Clara County 1.25 1.5 2 2 173 1.73Daly City 1 1.5 2 2 170 1.70

Page 1 of 2Sample of Bay Area Minimum Parking Requirements

10/3/2003http://dcrp.ced.berkeley.edu/students/rrusso/parking/Developer%20Manual/Examples/sam...

Millbrae 1 1.5 2 2 170 1.70San Jose 1.5 1.5 1.8 2 167 1.67Vacaville 1 1 2 2 1/7 164 1.64Fairfield 1 1.33 1.5 2 1/5 163 1.63Livermore 1.5 1.5 1.75 1.75 163 1.63Petaluma 1 1 2 3 160 1.60San Mateo County 1 1.2 1.5 2 1/5 158 1.58Oakland 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 150 1.50Healdsburg 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 150 1.50Emeryville 0.5 1 1.5 1.5 1/4 145 1.45East Palo Alto 1 1.2 1.5 2 138 1.38Benicia 1 1 1.5 1.5 125 1.25San Francisco 1 1 1 1 100 1.00Berkeley 1 1 1 1 100 1.00

Notes:

San Jose and Sunnyvales parking requirements are for open lot assignment. They increase if parking is provided via one or two car garages.Vacaville, Benecia, Campbell and Cotati did not specify MPRs for studios. The MPR for one bedrooms is shown here

Sources:Cook, J., et. al. 1997. Parking Policies in Bay Area Jurisdictions: A Survey of Parking Requirements, Their Methodological Origins, and an Exploration of Their Land Use Impacts. Paper in City Planning 217. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California.

Various Municipal Codes as available on the Internet.

Page 2 of 2Sample of Bay Area Minimum Parking Requirements

10/3/2003http://dcrp.ced.berkeley.edu/students/rrusso/parking/Developer%20Manual/Examples/sam...

APPENDIX A. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND PEER REVIEW

Documents

Transcript of APPENDIX A. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND PEER REVIEW