HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-06-12 e-packet
PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council
business, we proceed as follows:
The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at
7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco,
California.
Public Comment: For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized item,
please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber’s and submit it to the City
Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public
comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item not on the Agenda
(except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation
and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive
action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address
(optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER.
Thank you for your cooperation.
The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes
reading an item, it will be ready for Council action.
PEDRO GONZALEZ
Mayor
KARYL MATSUMOTO
Mayor Pro Tem
MARK N. ADDIEGO
Councilman
RICHARD A. GARBARINO
Councilman
PRADEEP GUPTA
Councilman
FRANK RISSO
City Treasurer
KRISTA MARTINELLI
City Clerk
BARRY M. NAGEL
City Manager
STEVEN T. MATTAS
City Attorney
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS
HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to an open
session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection in the
City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it
relates, then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda. The
address of City Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080.
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR MEETING
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
33 ARROYO DRIVE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2013
7:00 P.M.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 12, 2013
AGENDA PAGE 2
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PRESENTATIONS
· State of the City Address by Mayor Gonzalez.
AGENDA REVIEW
PUBLIC COMMENTS
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
· Announcements.
· Committee Reports.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Motion to approve the Minutes of the Meetings of May 1, 2013, May 13, 2013, May 22,
2013, and May 28, 2013.
2. Motion confirming payment registers for June 12, 2013.
3. Motion to accept the Stonegate Tennis Court Replacement Project (Project No. pk1302)
as complete in accordance with the plans and specifications.
4. Resolution approving Amendment No. 9 to the Employment Agreement between Barry
M. Nagel and the City of South San Francisco for service as City Manager.
5. Resolution calling a General Election to be consolidated with the Special Election called
by Resolution 110- 2012, setting candidate statement requirements pursuant to Section
13307 of the California Elections Code and requesting (1) that the Board of Supervisors
of San Mateo County consolidate the General Election with the Regular Election to be
held on November 5, 2013; and (2) that the County Registrar perform certain election
services in connection with such election; and authorizing the City Manager to reimburse
the County for election services.
6. Resolution accepting donations in the amount of $5,650 to support the Library’s Summer
Reading Club and Reader Leader Program, and amending the Library Department’s
2012/2013 Operating Budget.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 12, 2013
AGENDA PAGE 3
7. Resolution authorizing the filing of an application for funding assigned to the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (“MTC”) and committing any necessary
matching funds and stating the assurance to complete the South San Francisco Grand
Boulevard Project.
8. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $71,100 in Grant Funding from San Mateo
County Office of Education to implement Safe Routes to School Projects and amending
the Parks and Recreation Department 2013/14 Operating Budget.
9. Acknowledgement of a Proclamation issued honoring the retirement of Public Works
Program Manager Frank McAuley.
PUBLIC HEARING
10. Genentech Master Plan
Genentech/Owner and Applicant
Shar Zamanpour/Applicant’s agent
HCP Life Science Estates/ Owner and Applicant
John Bergschnieder/Applicant’s agent
P05-0141:RZ13-0001, MPM13-0002, ZA13-0001
Master Plan Amendment and Zoning Text and Map Amendments to include additional
parcels in the Genentech Master Plan Zoning District, including 530 Forbes Blvd. (APN
015-210-150), 1511 Grandview Dr. (APN 015-240-270), 500 Forbes Blvd. (APN 015-
210-140) and 450 – 660 East Grand Avenue (APNs 015-101-090, 015-102-360 & 015-
102-370); modifications to the 2007 Genentech Master Plan, including the
Implementation Program; Zoning Text Amendments to clarify certain sections of Chapter
20.260 (“Genentech Master Plan District”); and approval of a Notice of Special
Restriction for property that is leased to Genentech to modify and give notice,
respectively, of the requirements for a child care facility and retail/restaurant space at
“South Campus” (formerly “Britannia East Grand”), 450-660 East Grand Avenue, in
accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.220, 20.450, 20.460, and 20.550.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
11. Resolution accepting an Increase in Solid Waste Collection Rate as submitted by the
Scavenger Company Effective July 1, 2013.
COMMUNITY FORUM
ADJOURNMENT
Genent
Annu
Genente
Prepared fo
May 201
tech Master Plan
ual Re
e ch Facili
or the City o
3
n Annual Report
eport
ties Ten
of South San
2013
Year Mas
n Francisco
s ter Plan
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 2
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3
Genentech Master Plan District ............................................................................. 3
Purpose of the Annual Report ............................................................................... 4
Genentech 2012 Campus Development and Buildout ............................................. 5
Current Campus Development Density .................................................................. 6
2012-2013 Campus Development ......................................................................... 8
Anticipated Campus Development (2013 – 2014) .................................................. 9
Transportation Demand Management and Parking .............................................. 10
Transportation Demand Management ................................................................ 10
Parking ............................................................................................................ 11
Changes to Use, Security, Development Standards or Design Guidelines ............ 12
Mobile Vendor Services ........................................................................................ 13
Master Plan Implementation Program .................................................................. 14
Appendices
Appendix A – Master Plan Implementation Program Update
Appendix B – Genentech Occupied Buildings in the Master Plan District
Attachments
Attachment 1 – TDM and Parking Report
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 3
INTRODUCTION
Genentech, the world’s first biotechnology company, was founded in 1976 and is located in South
San Francisco. Genentech performs a wide range of functions at its South San Francisco campus,
including research and development, clinical manufacturing, distribution, marketing, and
administration. With approximately 9,000 full-time employees working in South San Francisco,
Genentech remains the largest employer in South San Francisco.
Genentech Master Plan District
In 2007, the City Council adopted the updated Genentech Ten Year Facilities Master Plan, supported
by a Master Environmental Impact Report, and amended the Zoning Ordinance to allow expansion
of the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District (R&D), which was renamed the
Genentech Master Plan District in 2010. The Master Plan was originally established in 1995 to guide
the company’s growth and development of the Central Campus and to ensure that future growth
would be consistent with goals and policies of the East of 101 Area Plan and the South San
Francisco General Plan.
The updated 2007 Master Plan outlines a potential expansion that would allow the Central Campus
to grow up to approximately six million square feet during the ten-year planning period and serves
several purposes:
Articulates vision and policies that will serve as a general guide for the placement
and design of individual buildings and other campus elements, as well as an overall
development program to provide the basis for future approvals.
Fosters development of a campus befitting its setting on the City’s eastern bay shore
that capitalizes on views and access to the waterfront.
Promotes alternatives to individual automobile transportation to further the City’s
transportation objectives, by emphasizing a comprehensive Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program, and pedestrian connectivity throughout the campus to
promote ease of movement between buildings.
Establishes the basis for zoning provisions that have been included in an amended
Genentech Master Plan District.
Provides design guidelines that will serve as a basis for design review and approval
for development in the Master Plan area.
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 4
Purpose of the Annual Report
The Annual Report is required by the Genentech Master Plan District ordinance (SSF Municipal Code
Section 20.260.005(e)). It must address, as appropriate, the status of facility-wide improvements,
progress in completing the required tasks and benchmarks described in the Implementation Plan,
anticipated new construction or renovation projects, projected changes in the facility usage and
requirements, an update on TDM and parking needs, an update on mobile vendor (employee
amenity) activities on the Genentech campus, an update on the security program, advance notice of
any proposed changes to the facility-wide development standards or design guidelines, and notice of
any changes that have been made to the Facility Master Plan since the most recent Annual Report.
Consistent with this requirement, this Annual Report is intended to accomplish several purposes: (1)
provide background information and up-to-date data on the Genentech campus; (2) identify near-
term projects to the extent possible; (3) provide a brief overview of Genentech’s Transportation
Demand Management program and parking needs; and (4) summarize the status of the
Implementation Plan.
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 5
GENENTECH 2013 CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDOUT
Development of a campus with a sense of identity
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 6
Current Campus Development Density
Genentech’s Master Plan District extends over 165 acres. In addition, Genentech continues to
occupy leased space at 500 Forbes Blvd, 435 Forbes Blvd, the Gateway Business Park and
Britannia East Grand development (South Campus). Genentech also holds a long term lease
on the 1511 Grandview Dr. property. Like the Gateway Campus, the South Campus, 435
Forbes Blvd, 1511 Grandview Dr., 530 Forbes Blvd, and 500 Forbes Blvd properties are not
included in the Master Plan District (see Figure 1, on page 7).
The Overlay District includes specific development standards for buildout in gross floor area,
floor area ratio and lot coverage. The following tables summarize the 2013 campus
conditions:
2013 Building Use Distribution in Genentech Master Plan District
Building Area (Square Feet)
Neighborhood Land Area
(acres) Office Lab Mfg/WH Amenity Total Bldg
Area
FAR
Lower 52.4 305,550 482,150 527,350 10,260 1,325,310
Mid 26.2 82,440 469,300 0 2,000 553,740
Upper 49.4 681,600 58,850 34,150 78,110 852,710
West 37.2 21,840 0 485,400 0 507,240
Total 165.2 1,091,430 1,010,300 1,046,900 90,370 3,239,000 0.450
B2 parcel split from Lower Campus adds 3 acres to Upper Campus
20
1
3
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
i
n
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
– ow
n
e
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
Ma
s
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
– le
a
s
e
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 7
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 8
2012-2013 Campus Development
Master Environmental Impact Report
(MEIR) was refreshed
B7, B21, and B26 parking areas
repaved
Completed agreement with City of
South San Francisco, and advanced six
million dollars to the City to install the
Forbes Blvd bike lane and median
improvements
Over one and a half miles of landscape
upgrades with large, mature trees
along Forbes Boulevard and Grandview
Drive
B36 office refresh and site landscape
improvements was completed
Landscape upgrades along Forbes Boulevard
B36 site refresh
Planned improvements on Forbes Boulevard
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 9
Anticipated Campus Development (2013 – 2014)
Master Plan Amendments
Installation of modular data center
units
Additional landscape improvements
and tree densification along Pt. San
Bruno Blvd
A new hilltop office building on the
Upper Campus
Demolition of donut building and
addition of new campus greenspace
New campus building signage, in
progress
New hilltop office building
B 35
New building sign
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 10
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT AND PARKING
Transportation Demand Management
As reported in the 2012 Annual Report,
Genentech’s TDM program, named gRide,
provides a variety of flexible and convenient
programs and services to get employees to and
from work, as well as around campus.
Genentech’s commitment to gRide program is
demonstrated by the significant number of
program services and incentives provided for
employees. There are fifteen GenenBus routes,
which include two CalTrain/BART routes; four
San Francisco routes; six East Bay routes; and
three Peninsula/South Bay routes, and GenenBus
ridership is up to about 4,500 rides per day.
The Cordon Count survey completed in October
2012 indicates that Genentech achieved an
unprecedented success with over 44%
alternative mode use. This is the highest
alternate mode share since the start of the
program, and represents a decrease of eleven
percentage points for drive alone mode share from the previous year.
The impact of the gRide program is significant. In the last twelve months gRide has supported
reducing over nine hundred thousand vehicle trips which equates to twenty-one million vehicle miles
traveled (VMT), and reduced nearly fifteen million
pounds of CO2 emissions.
Most people would agree that the 93 million miles
between our earth and sun is far, but gRide’s impact
has gone even further. In July 2012, the gRide
program surpassed a major milestone, having
eliminated 100 million miles of driving since the
program began in late 2006.
As required by the section 18.2 of the TDM Program, Appendix D of the Genentech Ten Year Master
Plan, a TDM Annual Summary Report, prepared by an independent consultant, is submitted with this
2013 Annual Report (Attachment 1). The survey data is from the fourth quarter of 2012 and
captures details on all alternate mode usage and trip reduction rates.
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 11
Parking Ratios
OfficeLabMfg/OtherWarehouse
Parking Ratios (at 24% TDM)2.751.400.900.50
Parking Ratios (at 30% TDM)2.591.320.850.47
Parking Ratios (at 32% TDM)2.531.290.830.46
Building Type
Parking
Per the Master Plan, parking demand is measured by changes in growth and multimodal
transportation services. The parking ratios used to determine demand are derived by building
functions and TDM participation rates. Buildings whose functions have lower employee densities
require fewer parking stalls. Changes to building functions will be minor and have minimal impacts
to the parking ratios, but increases in TDM participation will affect more noticeable impacts that
proportionately decrease parking demand.
The function-based parking ratios approved with the Ten Year Master Plan are reflected in the table
below. These ratios provide a 5% to 10% reserve.
The following table shows the parking demand at 32% TDM and the current supply.
100 parking stalls in the Forbes parking lot were eliminated last year to accommodate bus parking
for the gRide program. However, the supply still significantly exceeds the parking demand, even at
parking ratios based on only 32% TDM.
2013 Parking Supply and Demand (at 32% TDM based parking ratios)
Usable GSFParking DemandParking Supply
Total2,892,0004,7655,798
Note: Usable space defined as Buildings occupied by Genentech in the R&D Overlay District (see Appendix C)
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 12
CHANGES TO USE, SECURITY, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, OR DESIGN
GUIDELINES
No changes are projected at this time for the facility usage and security detailed in the
Genentech Facilities Ten Year Master Plan. Similarly, no changes are proposed to facility-
wide development standards or design guidelines under the Genentech Facilities Ten Year
Master Plan.
Genent
MOB
MAS
The I
on th
and t
an up
Figu
tech Master Plan
BILE VEND
Consis
provid
cafete
emplo
vendo
emplo
vendo
STER PLAN
Implementat
e Genentech
the triggers f
pdate on the
ure 2 – 2012/20
n Annual Report
DOR SERV
stent with the
des amenities
eria and foo
oyee support
or services inc
oyee convenie
or locations a
N IMPLEM
ion Plan sets
h campus in
for implemen
status of the
Ca
W
(F
013 mobile ven
VICES
e South San
s for employ
od services,
services. In
cluding carw
ence, and al
re noted on
ENTATION
s forth the sp
conjunction w
ntation of tho
e specific imp
ar
Wash
Fri)
ndor service loc
13
Francisco Ge
yees to supp
fitness, chi
n addition, G
wash, hair sal
so mitigate a
Figure 2.
N PROGRA
pecific impro
with the ent
ose improvem
provements w
Dental
(last Mon & Tu
Hair Salon
(Wed)
cation map
eneral Plan a
port overall c
ildcare, conc
Genentech co
on and dent
against traffi
AM
ovements and
ire Genentec
ments and a
within the Im
ue)
and Zoning O
campus func
cierge, and
ontinues to p
tal services. T
ic on local st
d public ame
ch Facilities T
amenities. T
mplementatio
Car
Wash
(Fri)
Ordinance, G
ction. These
other misc
provide on-si
These service
treets. Specif
enities to be
Ten Year Ma
The appendix
n Plan.
Legend:
Mobile Services L
Hair S
Denta
Car W
(2
Ha
Genentech
e include:
cellaneous
te mobile
es are for
fic mobile
provided
ster Plan,
x contains
Locations
Salon
al
Wash
Dental
2nd Mon)
air Salon
(Thu)
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 14
MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
The Implementation Plan sets forth the specific improvements and public amenities to be provided
on the Genentech campus in conjunction with the entire Genentech Facilities Ten Year Master Plan,
and the triggers for implementation of those improvements and amenities. The appendix contains
an update on the status of the specific improvements over the last year; however proposed
modifications to the Implementation Plan will be reviewed with the Master Plan Amendments.
Appendix A - Page 1
APPENDICES
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
1
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
A
MA
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
I
M
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
LO
W
E
R
C
A
M
P
U
S
20
1
3
U
P
D
A
T
E
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
T
R
I
G
G
E
R
20
1
3
P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
La
n
d
U
s
e
A
n
d
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Public Amenities & Bay Trail
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
s
f
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
u
s
e
o
n
ev
e
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
w
e
e
k
e
n
d
s
a
s
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
(
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
)
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
4
m
o
n
t
h
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Y
e
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
J
u
l
y
2
0
0
7
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
B
a
y
T
r
a
i
l
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
f
r
o
m
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
F
o
r
b
e
s
&
A
l
l
e
r
t
o
n
,
O
y
s
t
e
r
Po
i
n
t
&
G
u
l
l
D
r
i
v
e
,
a
n
d
E
a
s
t
G
r
a
n
d
&
Gr
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
t
o
t
h
e
B
a
y
T
r
a
i
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
po
i
n
t
s
a
s
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
(
o
f
t
h
e
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
)
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
4
m
o
n
t
h
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Y
e
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
J
u
l
y
2
0
0
7
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
2
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
f
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
n
g
a
f
o
o
d
c
o
n
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
pu
b
l
i
c
r
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
s
(
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
3
0
0
0
S
F
)
an
d
a
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
f
i
e
l
d
a
n
d
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
c
pa
r
k
i
n
g
o
n
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
.
8
a
c
r
e
s
f
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
us
e
a
l
o
n
g
F
o
r
b
e
s
B
l
v
d
.
a
s
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
(
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
)
.
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
d
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
f
o
r
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
w
i
t
h
i
n
6
m
o
n
t
h
s
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Y
e
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
Up
d
a
t
e
.
P
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
t
h
i
s
r
e
v
i
e
w
,
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
de
s
i
g
n
,
p
h
a
s
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
o
f
th
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
(
s
)
.
A
n
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
p
u
r
s
u
e
d
.
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
d
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
w
e
r
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
&
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
in
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
7
.
Gr
e
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
–
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
t
pe
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
b
e
r
m
i
n
g
,
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
,
&
m
o
r
e
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
p
l
a
n
t
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
w
e
r
e
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
a
n
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
2
0
0
8
A
n
n
u
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
.
Fo
o
d
c
o
n
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
–
s
e
a
r
c
h
f
o
r
ve
n
d
o
r
/
c
o
n
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
on
g
o
i
n
g
;
n
o
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
h
a
s
y
e
t
b
e
e
n
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
.
De
t
a
i
l
e
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
w
i
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
u
p
o
n
co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
e
w
L
o
w
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
pa
r
k
i
n
g
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
.
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
H
a
l
l
f
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
u
s
e
.
C
o
n
s
tr
u
c
t
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
C
o
f
O
o
f
th
e
f
i
r
s
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
t
h
e
B
4
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
t
e
.
To
b
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
u
p
o
n
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
o
f
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
r
i
g
g
e
r
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
3
En
h
a
n
c
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
B
a
y
Tr
a
i
l
b
y
e
x
p
a
n
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
g
r
e
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
a
l
o
n
g
th
e
L
o
w
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
(
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
UP
S
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
)
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
r
e
d
u
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
of
c
a
r
s
a
n
d
r
e
-
s
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
a
s
de
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
(
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
)
.
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
d
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
f
o
r
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
w
i
t
h
i
n
6
m
o
n
t
h
s
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Y
e
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
Up
d
a
t
e
.
P
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
t
h
i
s
r
e
v
i
e
w
,
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
de
s
i
g
n
,
p
h
a
s
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
o
f
th
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
(
s
)
.
A
n
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
p
u
r
s
u
e
d
.
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
d
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
w
e
r
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
&
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
in
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
7
.
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
t
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
t
h
e
me
a
n
d
e
r
i
n
g
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
F
o
r
b
e
s
B
l
v
d
we
r
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
a
n
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
2
0
0
8
An
n
u
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
.
De
t
a
i
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
w
i
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
u
p
o
n
co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
e
w
L
o
w
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
pa
r
k
i
n
g
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
.
En
h
a
n
c
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
o
n
D
N
A
W
a
y
a
t
B3
f
r
o
m
t
y
p
e
o
n
e
(
s
t
r
i
p
e
o
n
l
y
)
t
o
t
y
p
e
t
w
o
(c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
)
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
o
f
th
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
1
,
2
0
0
7
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
Ad
d
c
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
t
y
p
e
t
w
o
(
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
)
o
n
D
N
A
Wa
y
a
t
B
5
e
n
t
r
y
i
n
p
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
t
o
t
h
e
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
st
o
p
s
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
o
f
t
h
e
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
1
,
2
0
0
7
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
4
Pu
b
l
i
c
s
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
.
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
d
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
f
o
r
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
w
i
t
h
i
n
6
m
o
n
t
h
s
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Y
e
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
Up
d
a
t
e
.
P
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
t
h
i
s
r
e
v
i
e
w
,
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
nu
m
b
e
r
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
c
pa
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
p
h
a
s
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
(
s
)
.
An
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
pu
r
s
u
e
d
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
Ur
b
a
n
D
e
s
i
g
n
Pedestrian & Bike paths
Ad
d
c
l
a
s
s
I
I
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
a
l
o
n
g
F
o
r
b
e
s
B
l
v
d
.
,
fr
o
m
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
F
o
r
b
e
s
a
n
d
A
l
l
e
r
t
o
n
to
t
e
r
m
i
n
u
s
o
f
F
o
r
b
e
s
B
l
v
d
.
b
y
s
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
a
5
fo
o
t
b
i
k
e
p
a
t
h
o
n
b
o
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
,
ad
j
u
s
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
m
e
d
i
a
n
t
o
4
f
e
e
t
,
a
n
d
ad
j
u
s
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
l
a
n
e
t
o
1
1
f
e
e
t
a
s
de
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
(
t
h
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
l
a
n
e
ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
a
n
d
i
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
C
i
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
b
y
t
h
e
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
o
f
(
i
)
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
s
e
w
e
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
l
o
n
g
Fo
r
b
e
s
B
l
v
d
.
,
o
r
(
i
i
)
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
0
,
2
0
0
9
.
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
&
ti
m
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
i
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
De
t
a
i
l
e
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
&
p
e
r
m
i
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
w
a
s
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
8
.
Bi
k
e
L
a
n
e
s
w
e
r
e
s
t
r
i
p
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
A
l
l
e
r
t
o
n
Av
e
.
f
r
o
m
E
a
s
t
G
r
a
n
d
t
o
F
o
r
b
e
s
(
2
0
0
9
)
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
i
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
w
a
s
ex
t
e
n
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
h
i
e
f
P
l
a
n
n
e
r
t
o
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
1
,
2
0
1
2
.
(see Attachment 2)
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
t
h
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
de
s
i
g
n
,
a
n
d
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
1
4
,
2
0
1
2
.
T
h
e
fu
n
d
i
n
g
d
e
p
o
s
i
t
w
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
3
,
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
f
u
l
f
i
l
l
i
n
g
t
h
e
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
o
b
l
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
5
Ad
d
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
a
l
o
n
g
D
N
A
W
a
y
/
G
r
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
Dr
i
v
e
,
f
r
o
m
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
F
o
r
b
e
s
a
n
d
D
N
A
Wa
y
t
o
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
G
r
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
Ea
s
t
G
r
a
n
d
B
l
v
d
b
y
s
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
a
4
f
o
o
t
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
on
b
o
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
a
s
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
(
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
)
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
b
y
t
h
e
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
o
f
(
i
)
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
s
e
w
e
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
l
o
n
g
D
N
A
Wa
y
a
n
d
G
r
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
,
o
r
(
i
i
)
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
0
,
20
0
9
.
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
&
t
i
m
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
i
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
Bi
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
a
l
o
n
g
D
N
A
Wa
y
/
G
r
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
20
0
7
.
En
h
a
n
c
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
a
n
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
L
o
w
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
sp
i
n
e
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
t
o
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
6
.
Th
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
t
h
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
on
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
s
p
i
n
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
f
o
r
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
wi
t
h
i
n
3
m
o
n
t
h
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
ad
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Y
e
a
r
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
.
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
no
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
S
p
i
n
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
7
a
n
d
P
S
1
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
C
o
f
O
f
o
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
5
0
.
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
S
p
i
n
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
6
a
n
d
P
S
1
s
h
a
l
l
be
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
o
f
(
i
)
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
C
o
f
O
f
o
r
t
h
e
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
t
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
9
,
o
r
(
i
i
)
s
i
x
y
e
a
r
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Y
e
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
.
(
T
h
i
s
si
x
y
e
a
r
t
i
m
e
l
i
n
e
m
a
y
b
e
e
x
t
e
n
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
,
i
n
i
t
s
s
o
l
e
d
i
s
c
r
e
t
i
o
n
,
a
s
pa
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
i
n
t
h
e
e
v
e
n
t
t
h
a
t
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
9
s
t
i
l
l
e
x
i
s
t
s
f
o
u
r
y
e
a
r
s
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Y
e
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
.
)
De
s
i
g
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
Sp
i
n
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
7
a
n
d
P
S
1
w
a
s
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
&
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
7
i
n
co
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
5
0
.
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
i
n
c
o
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
5
0
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
6
Co
n
n
e
c
t
t
h
e
L
o
w
e
r
a
n
d
W
e
s
t
C
a
m
p
u
s
e
s
b
y
de
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
a
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
p
a
t
h
/
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
r
o
a
d
fr
o
m
t
h
e
L
o
w
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
S
p
i
n
e
t
o
B
2
9
at
A
l
l
e
r
t
o
n
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
4
o
f
t
h
e
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
C
o
f
O
f
o
r
re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
W
e
s
t
C
a
m
p
u
s
p
a
r
c
e
l
s
a
t
3
0
1
Ea
s
t
G
r
a
n
d
a
n
d
3
4
2
A
l
l
e
r
t
o
n
(
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
r
i
g
h
t
s
)
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
0
.
Cr
e
a
t
e
C
a
m
p
u
s
e
n
t
r
y
a
t
F
o
r
b
e
s
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
D
N
A
W
a
y
,
(
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
8
0
0
0
S
F
)
a
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
2
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
an
d
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
(
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
)
.
De
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
f
o
r
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
w
i
t
h
i
n
6
m
o
n
t
h
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
th
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
a
d
op
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Y
e
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
.
Pu
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
t
h
i
s
r
e
v
i
e
w
,
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
de
s
i
g
n
,
p
h
a
s
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
o
f
th
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
(
s
)
.
De
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
w
e
r
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
&
re
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
i
n
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
7
.
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
en
h
a
n
c
e
d
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
,
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
&
in
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
r
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
a
t
F
o
r
b
e
s
Bl
v
d
/
D
N
A
W
a
y
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
Ne
w
c
a
m
p
u
s
m
o
n
u
m
e
n
t
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
B
5
pl
a
z
a
w
i
t
h
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
th
e
c
o
r
n
e
r
o
f
F
o
r
b
e
s
B
l
v
d
a
n
d
D
N
A
W
a
y
wa
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
0
.
Ca
m
p
u
s
e
n
t
r
y
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
B
4
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
r
t
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
a
r
e
a
a
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
f
r
o
m
th
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
p
a
r
k
s
a
n
d
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
,
a
t
$
1
.
0
0
/
S
F
o
f
gr
o
s
s
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
2
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
o
f
p
h
a
s
e
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
to
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(E
C
D
)
f
o
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
,
w
i
t
h
i
n
3
m
o
n
t
h
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
th
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
a
d
op
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Y
e
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
,
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
re
v
i
e
w
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
A
n
n
u
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
.
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
’
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
&
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
h
a
s
e
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
w
a
s
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
E
C
D
i
n
J
u
l
y
2
0
0
7
&
re
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
i
n
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
7
.
Tw
o
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
r
t
p
i
e
c
e
s
w
e
r
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
i
n
20
1
0
.
O
n
e
a
l
o
n
g
F
o
r
b
e
s
B
l
v
d
a
t
B
7
co
u
r
t
y
a
r
d
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
s
e
c
o
n
d
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
B
a
y
Tr
a
i
l
a
t
F
R
C
c
o
u
r
t
y
a
r
d
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
7
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
A
n
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
Re
m
o
v
e
o
n
-
s
t
r
e
e
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
l
o
n
g
D
N
A
W
a
y
,
Gr
a
n
d
V
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
,
a
n
d
P
o
i
n
t
S
a
n
B
r
u
n
o
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
6
m
o
n
t
h
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Y
e
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
7
.
En
h
a
n
c
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
a
l
o
n
g
D
N
A
W
a
y
,
Gr
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
P
o
i
n
t
S
a
n
B
r
u
n
o
(
o
n
bo
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
a
s
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
)
.
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
o
f
p
h
a
s
e
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
n
d
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
w
i
t
h
i
n
3
Mo
n
t
h
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
of
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
Up
d
a
t
e
,
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
A
n
n
u
a
l
Re
p
o
r
t
.
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
n
o
la
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
1
,
2
0
0
9
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
2
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
n
e
w
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
(
u
p
t
o
2
)
w
i
t
h
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
re
p
l
a
c
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
a
l
o
n
g
D
N
A
Wa
y
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
a
n
d
f
i
g
u
r
e
4
.
2
-
4
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
1
,
2
0
0
7
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
8
MA
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
I
M
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
MI
D
C
A
M
P
U
S
20
1
3
U
P
D
A
T
E
PL
E
M
E
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
T
R
I
G
G
E
R
20
1
3
P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
A
n
d
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Bay
Trail
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
B
a
y
T
r
a
i
l
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
b
y
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
0
7
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
Ur
b
a
n
D
e
s
i
g
n
Pedestrian Walkways
Cr
e
a
t
e
s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
Up
p
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
t
o
t
h
e
M
i
d
a
n
d
S
o
u
t
h
Ca
m
p
u
s
e
s
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
4
o
f
t
h
e
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
C
o
f
O
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
n
e
w
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
on
M
i
d
C
a
m
p
u
s
.
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
S
o
u
t
h
Ca
m
p
u
s
t
o
U
p
p
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
w
a
s
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
De
s
i
g
n
o
f
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
Mi
d
t
o
U
p
p
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
w
a
s
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
a
n
d
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
th
e
F
o
u
n
d
e
r
s
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
C
e
n
t
e
r
(
F
R
C
)
I
I
I
pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
l
l
b
e
i
n
c
o
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
F
R
C
I
I
I
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Public Art
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
r
t
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
a
r
e
a
a
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
f
r
o
m
th
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
p
a
r
k
s
a
n
d
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
,
a
t
$
1
.
0
0
/
S
F
o
f
gr
o
s
s
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
2
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
o
f
p
h
a
s
e
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(
E
C
D
)
f
o
r
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
,
w
i
t
h
i
n
3
m
o
n
t
h
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
da
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Ye
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
,
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
An
n
u
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
.
(R
e
f
e
r
t
o
L
o
w
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
9
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
A
n
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
Street Improvement
In
s
t
a
l
l
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
a
l
o
n
g
P
o
i
n
t
S
a
n
B
r
u
n
o
(u
p
t
o
2
)
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
o
f
t
h
e
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
f
i
g
u
r
e
4
.
2
-
4
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
C
o
f
O
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
n
e
w
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
on
M
i
d
C
a
m
p
u
s
.
F
i
n
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
w
a
s
re
v
i
e
w
e
d
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
F
R
C
I
I
I
pr
o
j
e
c
t
/
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
l
l
b
e
i
n
c
o
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
FR
C
I
I
I
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
St
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
.
(R
e
f
e
r
t
o
L
o
w
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
2
.
TI
O
N
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
1
0
MA
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
I
M
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
UP
P
E
R
C
A
M
P
U
S
20
1
3
U
P
D
A
T
E
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
T
R
I
G
G
E
R
20
1
3
P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
La
n
d
U
s
e
A
n
d
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Crosswalks & Sidewalks
Ad
d
t
y
p
e
-
o
n
e
(
s
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
o
n
l
y
)
c
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
o
n
Gr
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
.
a
t
B
3
1
(
o
n
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
,
a
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
b
y
t
h
e
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
o
f
(
i
)
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
s
e
w
e
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
l
o
n
g
D
N
A
W
a
y
an
d
G
r
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
,
o
r
(
i
i
)
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
0
,
2
0
0
9
.
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
&
ti
m
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
i
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
9
.
Ad
d
t
y
p
e
-
t
w
o
(
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
)
c
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
a
t
B2
1
/
H
i
l
l
t
o
p
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
(
o
n
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
,
a
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
b
y
t
h
e
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
o
f
(
i
)
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
s
e
w
e
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
l
o
n
g
D
N
A
W
a
y
an
d
G
r
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
,
o
r
(
i
i
)
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
0
,
2
0
0
9
.
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
&
ti
m
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
i
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
Ur
b
a
n
D
e
s
i
g
n
Ad
d
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
o
n
n
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
G
r
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
.
fr
o
m
B
2
t
o
B
3
9
t
o
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
U
p
p
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
4
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
in
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
,
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
A
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
b
y
t
h
e
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
o
f
(
i
)
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
s
e
w
e
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
l
o
n
g
D
N
A
W
a
y
an
d
G
r
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
,
o
r
(
i
i
)
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
0
,
2
0
0
9
.
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
&
ti
m
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
i
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
1
1
Public Art
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
r
t
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
a
r
e
a
a
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
f
r
o
m
th
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
p
a
r
k
s
a
n
d
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
,
a
t
$
1
.
0
0
/
S
F
o
f
gr
o
s
s
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
2
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
o
f
p
h
a
s
e
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(
E
C
D
)
f
o
r
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
,
w
i
t
h
i
n
3
m
o
n
t
h
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
da
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Ye
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
,
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
An
n
u
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
.
(R
e
f
e
r
t
o
L
o
w
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
A
n
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
St
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
.
(R
e
f
e
r
t
o
L
o
w
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
2
.
Re
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
o
n
s
t
r
e
e
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
.
(R
e
f
e
r
t
o
L
o
w
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
o
n
G
r
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
.
a
t
B2
4
&
B
2
1
(
t
w
o
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
,
a
n
d
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
t
h
e
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
a
n
d
f
i
g
u
r
e
4
.
2
-
4
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
C
o
f
O
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
n
e
w
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
on
U
p
p
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
.
F
i
n
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
1
2
MA
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
I
M
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
WE
S
T
C
A
M
P
U
S
20
1
3
U
P
D
A
T
E
LE
M
E
N
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
T
R
I
G
G
E
R
20
1
3
P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ur
b
a
n
D
e
s
i
g
n
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
C
a
m
p
u
s
e
n
t
r
y
a
t
E
a
s
t
G
r
a
n
d
Av
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
G
r
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
2
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
De
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
f
o
r
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
w
i
t
h
i
n
6
m
o
n
t
h
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Y
e
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
.
P
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
to
t
h
i
s
r
e
v
i
e
w
,
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
,
p
h
a
s
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
(
s
)
.
De
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
w
a
s
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
i
n
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
20
0
7
.
D
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
en
h
a
n
c
e
d
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
&
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
.
De
t
a
i
l
e
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
w
i
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
We
s
t
C
a
m
p
u
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
fo
r
4
0
0
G
r
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
.
(
f
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
3
4
5
Ea
s
t
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
)
.
Public Art
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
r
t
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
a
r
e
a
a
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
f
r
o
m
th
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
p
a
r
k
s
a
n
d
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
,
a
t
$
1
.
0
0
/
S
F
o
f
gr
o
s
s
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
2
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
o
f
p
h
a
s
e
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(
E
C
D
)
f
o
r
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
,
w
i
t
h
i
n
3
m
o
n
t
h
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
da
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Ye
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
,
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
An
n
u
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
.
(R
e
f
e
r
t
o
L
o
w
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
A
n
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
In
s
t
a
l
l
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
(
u
p
t
o
2
)
o
n
Gr
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
.
a
t
W
e
s
t
C
a
m
p
u
s
,
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
in
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
a
n
d
f
i
g
u
r
e
4
.
2
-
4
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
C
o
f
O
f
o
r
f
i
r
s
t
n
e
w
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
n
W
e
s
t
C
a
m
p
u
s
.
F
i
na
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
To
b
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
u
p
o
n
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
o
f
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
r
i
g
g
e
r
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
1
3
In
s
t
a
l
l
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
(
u
p
t
o
2
)
o
n
C
a
b
o
t
Ro
a
d
,
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
a
n
d
f
i
g
u
r
e
4.
2
-
4
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
C
o
f
O
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
n
e
w
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
n
W
e
s
t
C
a
m
p
u
s
.
F
i
na
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
On
e
n
e
w
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
w
a
s
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
o
n
th
e
n
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
C
a
b
o
t
R
o
a
d
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
Sh
u
t
t
l
e
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
o
n
s
o
u
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
C
a
b
o
t
Ro
a
d
w
i
l
l
b
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
i
n
c
o
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
W
e
s
t
C
a
m
p
u
s
a
t
3
4
2
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
.
St
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
.
(R
e
f
e
r
t
o
L
o
w
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
2
.
Bike paths
Ad
d
c
l
a
s
s
I
I
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
a
l
o
n
g
A
l
l
e
r
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
by
s
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
a
B
i
k
e
p
a
t
h
o
n
b
o
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
st
r
e
e
t
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
a
n
d
f
i
g
u
r
e
4.
6
-
1
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
&
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
(
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
)
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
b
y
t
h
e
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
o
f
(
i
)
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
s
e
w
e
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
l
o
n
g
A
l
l
e
r
t
o
n
,
or
(
i
i
)
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
0
,
2
0
0
9
.
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
s
h
a
l
l
co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
&
t
i
m
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
i
s
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
9
.
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 14
APPENDIX B
Genentech Occupied Buildings in the Research and Development Overlay District
Genentech Building Number Parcel Address Building Area (sf)
3 44 DNA Way 206,776
4 1 DNA Way 150,516
5 22 DNA Way 182,164
6 660 Forbes Boulevard 120,576
7 700 Forbes Boulevard 263,267
8 650 Forbes Boulevard 87,783
9 640 Forbes Boulevard 192,275
51 642 Forbes Boulevard 33,207
54 501 Forbes Boulevard 46,902
56 500 Forbes Boulevard 163,256
1,446,722
FRC I (10,11,12)99 / 101 / 103 DNA Way 250,791
FRC III (13,14,15)340 Point San Bruno 277,814
36 1776 Grandview Drive 25,253
553,858
20 1200 Grandview Drive 97,609
21 1000 Grandview Drive 17,296
24 1600 Grandview Drive 101,415
25 1500 Grandview Drive 67,154
26 1526 Grandview Drive 113,642
28 550 Grandview Drive 36,671
31 1631 Grandview Drive 150,000
32 1541 Grandview Drive 126,019
33 1633 Grandview Drive 127,573
39 1633 Grandview Drive 15,411
852,790
27 425 Grandview Drive 103,109
29 410 Allerton Avenue 46,378
Childcare (71)444 Allerton Avenue 52,740
202,227
2,892,000
WEST CAMPUS
Sub-total
TOTAL (rounded to nearest thousand)
LOWER CAMPUS
Sub-total
MID CAMPUS
Sub-total
UPPER CAMPUS
Sub-total
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report
ATTACHMENTS
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report
ATTACHMENT 1
(TDM and Parking Report)
South San Francisco Campus
TDM and Parking Report
October 2012 Survey
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i
Table of Contents
Page
Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1
Survey Methods ............................................................................................... 4
Cordon Count ..............................................................................................4
Surveyor Locations ......................................................................................5
Parking Survey .............................................................................................8
Survey Implementation ................................................................................8
Cordon Count Survey and Mode Share Analysis ................................................. 9
Drive Alone and Carpool ............................................................................14
Transit Access ...........................................................................................18
Pedestrian Access ......................................................................................21
Other Modes .............................................................................................21
Detailed Mode Split Changes 2005-2012 ..................................................21
Parking Survey ............................................................................................... 27
Location of Parking ....................................................................................27
Parking Occupancy ....................................................................................29
Bicycle Parking ..........................................................................................34
Conclusions ................................................................................................... 37
Appendix: Changes in Campus Data Collection since 2005
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ii
Table of Figures
Page
Figure 1 Hilltop Parking Changes ...................................................................3
Figure 1 Cordon Count Locations ..................................................................7
Figure 2 Cordon Count History and Changes .................................................9
Figure 3 Main Campus Mode Choices, 2006 – Present .................................11
Figure 4 Gateway Campus Mode Choices, 2006 – Present ............................12
Figure 5 South Campus Mode Choices, April 2008 – Present ........................13
Figure 6 All Campuses Mode Choices, 2006 – Present .................................14
Figure 7 Drive Alone Mode Shore, All Cordon Counts (2006 – Present).........16
Figure 8 Drive Alone Mode Share, Fall Counts Only (2006 – Present) ............16
Figure 9 Drive Alone Rate and Gas Prices (2005 – Present) ...........................18
Figure 10 Transit Mode Share Changes ..........................................................19
Figure 11 BART, Caltrain, and GenenBus Ridership ........................................20
Figure 12 SSF Main Campus Mode Split Survey Results+ .................................23
Figure 13 SSF Gateway Mode Split Survey Results++ .......................................24
Figure 14 SSF South Campus Mode Split Survey Results+++ ............................25
Figure 15 SSF Mode Split Survey Results for All Three Campuses++++ .............26
Figure 17 Total Parking Supply ......................................................................28
Figure 18 Parking Occupancy Rates, 2007 to 2012 ........................................31
Figure 19 Parking Occupancy by Percentage ..................................................32
Figure 20 Parking Occupancy by Number of Vehicles .....................................33
Figure 21 Bicycle Parking Inventory by Type ..................................................34
Figure 22 Bicycle Occupancy ..........................................................................35
Figure 23 Total Bicycle Parking Supply ...........................................................36
Report issued January 2013
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 1
This report describes the mode split and parking conditions at Genentech's headquarters
in South San Francisco. Both a parking and cordon count survey were conducted on
October 16-18, 2012 as part of an ongoing review and analysis of how parking lots are
utilized at Genentech's three South San Francisco campuses and, more generally, how
people access those campuses. This report compares the Fall 2012 results with previous
parking and cordon count surveys, with attention focused on long term trends between
year-to-year surveys.
PURPOSE
The visual cordon count survey implemented by Nelson\Nygaard records an accurate
count of the transportation modes Genentech employees use to reach work on a typical
weekday. The goal is to determine the share of each transportation mode used to get to
the Main Campus, South Campus and Gateway Campus on typical weekdays.
Determining how employees and contractors reach work is important as it allows
Genentech to best manage its land resources while the company continues to grow. Since
a large portion of traffic on roadways is from people driving their cars alone, most
demand management programs are designed to encourage people to travel by
alternatives to the “single-occupant vehicle” (SOV), especially at peak hours when traffic
is at its worst. A cordon count is used to measure the effectiveness of efforts to reduce
SOV usage. The data collected can be used to measure the following:
Auto occupancy information in support of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) and
carpooling initiatives
Degree of usage of public transit and alternative transportation modes
Monitoring growth and impacts on road and transit facilities
Genentech has over the years developed many programs giving employees alternatives to
driving to work. The gRide Rewards Program is Genentech's incentive program to
encourage South San Francisco employees to use alternative commute options. The
program’s goal is to increase the percentage of employees using alternative forms of
transportation to more than 30%, reducing the number of single occupancy cars coming
to and parking on campus as called for in Genentech’s 10-Year Master Plan. Genentech
rolled out the gRide Rewards Program in November 2006, so this October 2012 survey
provides an opportunity to analyze the program's effectiveness after six years, long
enough to determine the long term effects of the program. Launched primarily as a rider
incentive that paid employees for not driving alone to work, gRide Rewards has
expanded to include a host of incentives for employees who commute:
$120 Transit Subsidy - Genentech pays $120 a month towards the employee’s
choice of vanpooling or Clipper cards for public transit. Prior to January 2009
the subsidy was $115.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 2
Rider Incentive – Employees can earn $4 per day for BART, Caltrain, Carpool,
Vanpool, Bike, Walk and Motorcycle, $2 for all Direct-GenenBus (reduced from
$4 in May 2011)
Driver Incentive - Employees can earn $4 per passenger ($2 per passenger per
way) for being a driver in a carpool or vanpool, up to $32 a day
Preferred Parking - Carpool or vanpool drivers can use Preferred Parking stalls
conveniently located near several building entrances throughout the South San
Francisco campus.
Guaranteed Ride Home Program – Provides a way for employees who commute
to work by public transportation, carpool, vanpool, biking, or walking to travel
home when an unexpected need to do so arises (such as a personal emergency or
unscheduled overtime).
Beginning in 2010, Genentech also started offering a bicycle sharing program for all
employees. Bicycle sharing provides employees with access to a fleet of shared bicycles
from five stations distributed across campus, allowing them to attend business meetings,
run errands or simply get some exercise during the day. While some employees use the
bikes to go as far as downtown South San Francisco, the shared bikes are primarily for
travel around the campus.
These transportation demand management (TDM) programs and policies seek to affect
the travel choices commuters make. The modes measured in this survey include:
Drive alone (private auto)
Carpool (private auto) - includes employees dropped off
Vanpool
Walk
Bike
Transit & connecting work-end shuttle (BART, Caltrain, GenenBus, Ferry, and
Alliance Shuttle)
Motorcycle
Taxi and Hotel/Airport Shuttles
In addition, the parking survey was conducted to determine the parking occupancy on
campus, and how vehicles are distributed across the many surface lots and parking
structures. Genentech’s success in encouraging employees to commute by transit over
the last five years has allowed some surface lots to be replaced by new buildings (e.g.
Building 31). This has affected where employees park, warranting continued data
collection and review.
Figure 1 (below) shows how parking and buildings have changed on the upper campus
of the past few years.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 3
Figure 1 Hilltop Parking Changes
From left to right: Building 2, but no Building 31 (2007), Building 2 demolished and Building 31 completed (early 2011), and expanded lot U16 on site
of Building 2 (late 2011) Source: Google Maps
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4
SURVEY METHODS
Cordon Count
Surveyors located at 13 key entrances to Genentech’s three South San Francisco
campuses and at three key GenenBus stops conducted the visual cordon count survey.
Following are key details of the survey implementation:
Genentech Security Staff were trained and utilized as surveyors by
Nelson\Nygaard staff.
Surveyors were stationed at key roadway and bike/walkway entrances to the
Main, South, and Gateway Campuses during the survey period on each of the
three days (Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday).
Surveyors tallied modes of arrival to the campus in the same manner on each of
the three days. This allowed surveyors to ensure that if any single day had
unusual counts (due to unusual circumstances, e.g. bad weather, a freeway traffic
jam, public transit problems, etc.), their effect would be reduced due to the
counting of three mid-week days.
Surveyors conducted counts on October 16, 17 and 18, 2012 from 6 AM to 10 AM,
during morning peak hours when most dayshift workers arrive. Only mornings
were surveyed, as afternoon traffic is much more likely to include non-commute
travelers.1
The traffic data was collected in 15-minute intervals.
Genentech Security Surveyors were located at three additional locations to
determine how many transit riders reach the South Campus on BART, Caltrain
and GenenBus shuttles.
Transit data was collected in a different way for this survey. Because
the transit operators no longer collect boarding information on campus,
Genentech’s badge-swipe data was used to determine which part of campus
GenenBus riders travel to.
Due to a technical difficulty with the Genentech data system, we were not able to
use current vanpool information for the last two surveys. The vanpool numbers
presented in this report are from the October 2010 survey.
Following is a summary of the various trip types that were tallied and calculated:
Drive Alone: All personal automobiles entering the three campuses were visually
surveyed. Single-occupant vehicles were counted as such.
Carpool: All personal automobiles entering the three campuses were visually surveyed.
If multiple passengers were traveling together in a car, each passenger, including the
1Surveys from April 2005 to January 2007 were conducted from 5 AM to 10 AM. Although the 5 o'clock hour
accounted for 8% of employees accessing campus, the cordon count period was shortened from five to four
hours to accommodate the added parking survey that takes approximately one hour to conduct.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5
driver, was counted under the carpool category. People dropped off in the immediate
vicinity of a surveyor were included as carpool passengers.
Vanpool: Genentech vanpool vehicles were counted by vanpool drivers instead of
surveyors. Note that a problem with the Genentech database prevented them from
providing new data for this survey. Vanpool data from October 2010 was therefore used.
Walk: All pedestrians entering the campus were tallied. Surveyors were stationed and
trained to differentiate between commuter and intra-campus pedestrians.
Bike: All bicyclists entering the campus were counted.
Taxi and Hotel/Airport Shuttles: All taxis, hotel shuttles, and airport shuttles, with
passengers entering the campus, were counted by the number of passengers. If a taxi or
shuttle passed the cordon point with only a driver, no data was collected. If, for example,
a taxi or shuttle passed with one driver and 2 passengers, the vehicle was noted, and the
number of passengers excluding the driver was counted.
Transit: Genentech provided transit ridership information over the course of the entire
month of September, which was used to extrapolate ridership over the course of the
count days. Overall mode split did not include ridership on DNA or Gateway intra-
campus shuttle services, since these employees had already arrived by another mode.
Surveyors counted the number of passengers alighting from non-Genentech shuttles
such as the Alliance Utah-Grand Shuttle that serves the South Campus.
Surveyor Locations
Surveyors were located at the following 16 sites, which are also indicated in Figure 22.
Main Campus
Forbes entryways: (#1a and #1b) second floor of PS-1 along Forbes Boulevard to
capture lower campus trips, (#11) along Forbes Boulevard at Building 54 across from
Allerton Avenue, and (#12) along Forbes Boulevard, between Allerton Avenue and
Gull Drive.
Grandview and Upper Campus entrances: (#3) along Grandview Drive between
Buildings 28 and 39 to capture upper campus trips. The area between Buildings 80
and 26 (#4), is intended to capture commuters entering “the back way” via a
driveway from East Grand Avenue near Haskins Way – however this site was closed
during this survey period due to construction.
South Campus Transit Surveyors: (#B) at the Upper Campus Shuttle Stop along
Grandview near B24, (#C) at the top of the stairs leading from the Upper Campus to
the South Campus, behind Building 24. The two surveyors captured the number of
transit riders going to South Campus, which does not have a GenenBus bus stop.
2 Note that sites 2 and 13 are no longer used, but the remaining sites use their original numbering to avoid confusion and simplify
comparison with old data.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 6
Gateway
North Side: (#5) Executive Drive, NW corner of parking garage, (#6) Gateway
Boulevard, North site near Building 84.
South Side: (#7) Executive Drive, SW corner of parking garage, (#8) Gateway
Boulevard, near childcare facility and Bank of America, (#9) Executive Drive at
Corporate Drive, and (#10) Gateway Boulevard at Corporate Drive.
South Campus Transit Surveyors: (#A) at the Gateway Campus Shuttle Stop next to
the Parking Structure and across from Building 83.The surveyors captured the
number of transit riders transferring to the DNA shuttle to South Campus, which
does not have a GenenBus bus stop.
South Campus
East Grand Avenue (#14) where it ends and meets Building 44. All drivers heading
into campus were counted. Since April 2009, vehicles entering south of Building 44
towards Parking Structure B and Building 45 were also counted since these
structures are now completed. The Alliance Utah-Grand shuttles are the only transit,
apart from intra-campus DNA shuttles, that go to this campus at this time.
South Campus employees taking the GenenBus to work were counted by three
surveyors at sites A, B, and C to determine when shuttle riders alighting at Gateway
and the Main Campus, in fact walk or take the DNA shuttle to South Campus.
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
P
O
R
T
F
A
L
L
2
0
1
2
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
,
I
n
c
.
Ne
l
s
o
n
\
N
y
g
a
a
r
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
I
n
c
.
|
7
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
C
o
r
d
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 8
Parking Survey
The parking survey was conducted at 10 AM on October 16, 17 and 18, 2012. Each
surveyor or surveyor pair was assigned a series of adjacent parking zones to count.
Parking spaces were counted by space type, including the following:
General employee vehicles
gRide parking spaces
Vanpool spaces
Company and service vehicles
Motorcycles
Disabled
Visitors
Public Access (e.g. Bay Trail)
Loading spaces
Illegal parking (marked with a red curb, no parking, or any vehicle not in a
designated parking space)
Bicycle racks/cages
Other specialized parking spaces
Survey Implementation
The survey was carried out as planned on all three days. Overall, surveyors performed as
trained. About half of the officers had participated in previous cordon counts at least
once during the past five years. However, few officers attended training on Monday. This
meant that some officers reporting on Tuesday morning had not received any training,
because this was their first time participating in the survey. Each surveyor was assigned
his or her own cordon count locations. The larger parking survey areas (i.e. those with
large parking structures) were typically split between two surveyors, while the smaller
parking survey areas were assigned to single surveyors.
The weather was unseasonably warm for October; temperatures ranged from 72 degrees
to 84 degrees, with sunshine on all three days. This survey included non-Genentech
parking lots, such as Lithotype and Rich’s Donuts, in order for these vehicles to be
removed from the Genentech transportation mode share calculation.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 9
CORDON COUNT SURVEY AND MODE SHARE ANALYSIS
Results from the visual cordon count survey provided a breakdown of the commute
mode shares. Nelson\Nygaard has previously conducted surveys starting with the Main
Campus in April 2005, both Main Campus and Gateway from February 2006 to present,
and the South Campus since April 2008. Since 2006, surveys have been conducted twice
a year, normally in April, and in October; however, in 2012 only an October survey was
conducted. Including the new October 2012 survey, all fourteen surveys conducted to
date are generally comparable although some factors should be acknowledged. Figure 3
shows the evolution of the cordon count survey over the past 5 years. A full account of all
variations in the cordon count data collection can be found in the Appendix of this
report.
Figure 3 Cordon Count History and Changes
Year Month Main
Campus Gateway South
Campus
Count Start
Time Notes
2005 April Surveyed Not included N/A 5:00 AM
2006
February Surveyed Surveyed N/A 5:00 AM
Insufficient parking at the
Main Campus may have
affected mode splits at
each campus.
November Surveyed Surveyed N/A 5:00 AM
Sufficient parking at Main
Campus allowed for
accurate mode splits.
gRide program introduced.
2007
January Surveyed Surveyed N/A 5:00 AM gRide fully implemented.
October Surveyed Surveyed N/A 6:00 AM Start time shifted from 5
AM to 6 AM.
2008
April Surveyed Surveyed Northern half
surveyed 6:00 AM
Northern half open, while
southern half closed so
only north counted.
October Surveyed Surveyed Northern half
surveyed 6:00 AM
Northern half open, while
southern half closed so
only north counted.
2009 April Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed 6:00 AM
Southern half of South
Campus opened. Entire
campus counted.
October Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed 6:00 AM
2010
April Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed 6:00 AM
October Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed 6:00 AM
South Campus GenenBus
riders counted for first
time.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 10
Year Month Main
Campus Gateway South
Campus
Count Start
Time Notes
2011
April Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed 6:00 AM
Parking Survey was not
conducted. Vanpool
numbers are from the Oct.
2010 survey.
October Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed 6:00 AM
Site 4 closed due to
construction. Vanpool
numbers are from the Oct.
2010 survey.
2012 October Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed 6:00 AM
April survey not
conducted. Change in
GenenBus boarding
location methodology.
Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the mode share changes before and after the gRide program
was implemented in late 2006 at the Main and Gateway Campuses respectively. Figure 6
shows the mode share changes of the South Campus from April 2008 to the present.
Figure 7 shows the mode share changes of all campuses combined. All results are based
on an average of the mode split over the three-day period.
It should be noted that this year’s cordon count shows a precipitous drop in transit
ridership at the Gateway Campus, and a significant increase in transit ridership at the
Main Campus. This is almost certainly due to a change in how on-campus trip
distribution was calculated. Previously Compass Transportation was able to report both
the total number of riders, and also where those riders boarded the bus on campus in the
afternoons – from this it was extrapolated that they would disembark at the same
locations in the morning.
Starting this year, Compass Transportation was only able to report the total number of
riders. Badge swipe data was used to establish location.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 11
Figure 4 Main Campus Mode Choices, 2006 – Present
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Nov '06Oct '07Apr '08Oct '08Apr '09Oct '09Apr '10Oct '10April '11Oct '11Oct '12
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
M
o
d
e
S
h
a
r
e
Drive Alone Carpool Transit Vanpool Walk
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 12
Figure 5 Gateway Campus Mode Choices, 2006 – Present
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Nov '06Oct '07Apr '08Oct '08Apr '09Oct '09Apr '10Oct '10April '11Oct '11Oct '12
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
M
o
d
e
S
h
a
r
e
Drive Alone Carpool Transit Vanpool Walk
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 13
Figure 6 South Campus Mode Choices, April 2008 – Present
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Apr '08Oct '08Apr '09Oct '09Apr '10Oct '10April '11Oct '11Oct '12
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
M
o
d
e
S
h
a
r
e
Drive Alone Carpool Transit Vanpool Walk
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 14
Figure 7 All Campuses Mode Choices, 2006 – Present
The mode shares shown in the graphs above are documented in the tables in Figure 13
through Figure 16.
Drive Alone and Carpool
Overall, the drive alone mode share saw a decrease of 5.6 percentage points as compared
to October 2011. The current drive alone mode share for all three campuses is 58.8%.
Main Campus experienced the sharpest decline in drive alone rates, while the Gateway
Campus saw a moderate decrease in its drive alone rate. The South Campus saw a
moderate increase in its drive alone rate. See Figure 7 (above) for the overall average
changes. As stated above, the drive alone and transit mode shares at Main and Gateway
campuses should be viewed in light of the methodology change – less weight should be
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Nov '06Oct '07Apr '08Oct '08Apr '09Oct '09Apr '10Oct '10April '11Oct '11Oct '12
Drive Alone Carpool Transit Vanpool Walk
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 15
attached to the individual mode shares at Main and Gateway (because they are
estimated), instead more emphasis should be placed on the mode share at South Campus
and combined for all campuses because they were observed directly.
The Main Campus’ drive alone rate decreased 11.2 points from October 2011 and 9.6
points from April 2011. The Main Campus experienced the most significant decrease in
its drive alone rate during the past year and is currently at its lowest since Genentech
began tracking commute mode splits. Drive alone rates have fluctuated on the Main
Campus over the last four years, ranging between 56% - 67%. See Figure 3 (above) for
the overall changes.
The drive alone rate at South Campus also decreased between October 2011 and October
2012, but it is still the highest of all three campuses. The South Campus drive alone rate
is likely higher due to the fact that it has no direct GenenBus service. Most South
Campus employees who take the GenenBus alight at the Main Campus, and then walk
down the hillside stairway to the South Campus. A smaller portion take the GenenBus to
Gateway, where they board a DNA shuttle bound for South Campus.
Gateway experienced a modest increase in drive alone mode share, and while in 2011 it
was to date the only Genentech campus with a drive alone rate lower than 60% (57.8%),
it is now almost back above 60% (59.2%). In the last year, Gateway’s drive alone rate
increased 3.4 percentage points. While mode share increased in 2012, the campuses'
downward trend represents a sustained trend in employee commuting behavior.
The relative changes in drive alone mode share for the Gateway and Main campuses can
also be seen in Figure 8.
As shown in Figure 9, drive alone shares for all campuses combined have decreased over
the past six years. The All Campuses drive alone rate dropped 8.4 points from 2006 to
2008. From 2008 to present, the All Campuses rate has dropped 11.3 points. The
changes in drive alone rates, compared to October 2011, may be due to several factors
including gas prices, traffic congestion, transit improvements, and toll changes on the
Bay Bridge. As shown in Figures 3 to 6, the carpool rate for all three campuses has
increased in October 2012. In July 2010, tolls for the Bay Bridge were raised and
restructured and carpools were no longer allowed to cross the bridge for free. According
to a study by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, charging a discounted
carpool toll of $2.50 caused 4,365 vehicles to abandon the carpool lanes daily - a 26%
decline3. This resulted in a steep decrease in carpool mode share between 2010 and 2011
on the Genentech Campus, but it seems as if the effects of this change are now stabilizing
and are perhaps being reversed.
3San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/11/free-fee-charge-takes-toll-sf-bay-bridge-
carpools#ixzz1fhcFRXgn
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 16
Figure 8 Drive Alone Mode Shore, All Cordon Counts (2006 – Present)
Figure 9 Drive Alone Mode Share, Fall Counts Only (2006 – Present)
R² = 0.8942
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
Feb
'06
Nov
'06
Jan
'07
Oct
'07
Apr
'08
Oct
'08
Apr
'09
Oct
'09
Apr
'10
Oct
'10
April
'11
Oct
'11
Oct
'12
Main
Gateway
All
Campuses
Linear (All
Campuses)
R² = 0.8896
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
Nov '06Oct '07Oct '08Oct '09Oct '10Oct '11Oct '12
Main
Gateway
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 17
Drive Alone and Carpool Summary:
Drive alone share of all trips averaged 58.8% for all three campuses. This is a
5.6 point decrease since October 2011 when the drive alone share was 64.4%.
Since gRide was implemented in late 2006, the drive alone share has dropped
15.2 percentage points.
Carpools had an 8.1% share overall, a 0.9 point increase from 7.2% one year ago.
The carpool share has ranged from just over 7% to just over 12%. In July 2010,
peak period toll pricing was introduced on the Bay Bridge, along with the
introduction of tolling carpool vehicles, which may have attributed to the recent
decrease in the number of carpools, though the affects of this change may have
stabilized and even reversed.
All campuses saw small increases in carpool participation. In the last year,
carpool mode share has increased slightly by 0.9 percentage points on the Main
Campus, 1.2 percentage points on the South Campus, and 0.6 percentage points
on the Gateway Campus. Year to year carpool rates are up at all three campuses.
A clear link between drive alone rates and California gas prices4 can be seen in
Figure 10. Drive alone rates appear to react and change several months after gas
prices significantly rise or fall. Gas prices climbed above $3 per gallon in early
2007 and above $4 by the middle of 2008. Drive alone commuters appear to have
responded to the rising gas prices and the gRide incentive, with a noticeable lag
of several months. Six months after gas prices rose to more than $4 a gallon,
drive alone rates dipped by 4 percentage points. Conversely, the drive alone rate
increased 2 percentage points three months after gas prices fell by $2.66 to $1.82
per gallon. While the graph below shows California Indexed Gas Prices, the price
of gas in the Bay Area5 was actually higher in September and October 2012 than it
was during the 2008 gas price spike, which may have contributed to the
continued decline in drive-alone mode share.
4 Source: http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/retail_gasoline_prices2.html
5 http://www.sanfrangasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx
SOU
Figur
Tra
Gene
servic
new W
show
Gene
since
point
over
As sh
Gene
6 US Ind
http://d
7 Points
UTH SAN F
re 10 Drive
ansit Acc
entech has m
ce, and cont
WETA ferry
ws 23 daily ri
enBus service
e November 2
ts since Octo
2 percentage
hown in Figu
entech’s Sout
dex Gas Prices ba
ata.bls.gov/cgi-bin
s refer to the differ
FRANCISCO
Nelson
e Alone Rate
cess
made transit
inued shuttl
service from
ders using th
e has seen a
2006. Trans
ober 2010. T
e points ever
ure 11, the Oc
th San Franc
ased on Bureau of
n/surveymost?ap:
ence in mode sha
O MODE SH
Gen
n\Nygaard Co
and Gas Pric
access a prio
le services fr
m the East Ba
he ferry serv
14.4 percen
sit mode sha
Transit mode
ry year, thou
ctober 2012
cisco campu
f Labor Statistic’s
are percentage.
HARE AND
nentech, Inc.
onsulting Asso
ces (2005 – P
ority through
rom Caltrain
ay to Oyster
vice to access
ntage point7 i
are is up 4.7 p
e share is lar
ugh this year
transit rate
uses.
US City Average,
D PARKING
ociates Inc. | 1
Present)6
h dramatic i
n and BART
Point has st
s Genentech
increase to S
points since
rgely followi
r saw a some
is the highes
unleaded gasolin
REPORT F
18
increases in
stations. In
tarted, and t
h. The expan
South San Fr
e October 20
ing an upwar
ewhat steepe
st ever recor
e.
FALL 2012
GenenBus
addition, th
transit data
nded
rancisco
11 and 7.3
rd trend of
er growth.
rded at
e
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 19
Figure 11 Transit Mode Share Changes
GenenBus (Direct Service)
GenenBus combined services now provide the greatest transit share (69.8%)
to South San Francisco compared to BART, Ferry and Caltrain shuttles.
GenenBus ridership continues to grow, with a growing route system. South
San Francisco ridership nearly doubled between October 2009 and October
2010, from 676 to 1,257 riders. In October 2012, ridership grew by a smaller
margin (28%) to 1,603 riders.
Since October 2009, new GenenBus routes (SF Noe Valley, Danville, Los
Gatos/Palo Alto, Cupertino and others) have been added.
South Campus does not have direct GenenBus service at this time. However,
employees working at the South Campus who use the GenenBus were counted
this year.
Caltrain
Ridership via Caltrain experienced a dramatic decrease. Ridership is down
22% from October 2011, to 216 riders in October 2012.
Caltrain ridership from this survey does not discern whether the Utah-Grand
Shuttle service came from BART or Caltrain. Genentech does not provide its
own direct shuttle service from Caltrain to South Campus. However, riders
6.50%
11.10%
11.00%
14.10%
13.40%
18.20%
16.43%
20.41%
19.77%
21.52%
22.87%
24.13%
28.82%
R² = 0.9516
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Feb
'06
Nov
'06
Jan
'07
Oct
'07
Apr
'08
Oct
'08
Apr
'09
Oct
'09
Apr
'10
Oct
'10
April
'11
Oct
'11
Oct
'12
Transit
Linear
(Transit)
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 20
walking from the Upper Campus bus stops at Building 31 and Building 24
down to the South Campus were counted.
In terms of actual ridership, Caltrain ridership increased steadily from 265
riders in November 2006, 343 riders in October 2007, to a peak of 405 riders
in October 2008. In October 2011, ridership declined to 278. In October of
this year, ridership decreased to 216.
This likely reflects that direct GenenBuses or BART to Glen Park and the
shuttle from there are faster or more convenient than taking Caltrain.
BART
Glen Park BART Shuttle continues to provide the greatest transit share
(19.4%) for a single shuttle service, as indicated in Figure 11. The second
busiest route is the GenenBus Cupertino route in San Francisco with a 9.4%
share of transit riders followed by the Millbrae Caltrain shuttle (8.9% share).
Overall BART ridership increased by 1% since October 2011 to 452 daily
riders. In terms of actual ridership, BART ridership increased from 483 riders
in November 2006 to a high of 528 riders in October 2009. This year, it
increased to 452. The Glen Park BART shuttle is the transit “workhorse” of
GenenBus services with the greatest ridership of any of the GenenBus routes.
Genentech does not provide its own direct shuttle service from BART to
South Campus.
Figure 12 BART, Caltrain, Ferry, and GenenBus Ridership
Route
Ridership
(daily average) Share of Transit Riders
Glen Park BART 452 19.7%
Oyster Point Ferry 25 1.1%
San Francisco GenenBuses
Church & Market, Marina, Pac Heights, SoMa, and Noe Valley
505 22.0%
Caltrain
Main & Gateway; includes Mid-Day
216 9.4%
Alameda County GenenBuses:
Pleasanton, Danville, Castro Valley, Hayward, Newark, San
Ramon, Pleasant Hill, Rockridge, Orinda
570 24.8%
South Bay/ Peninsula GenenBuses:
San Mateo, Mountain View, Cupertino, San Jose
377 16.4%
Contra Costa/ Solano GenenBuses:
Vacaville, Fairfield, Richmond, Vallejo
151 6.6%
Transit Summary
Transit service has seen an increase in mode share over the past few years.
Overall South San Francisco transit mode share increased by 4.7 percentage
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 21
points since October 2011. Total ridership numbers increased from 2,010 riders
per day on average in 2011 to 2,359 riders per day.
Less emphasis should be placed on the drive alone and transit mode share at
Gateway and Main campuses, due to a change in the way distribution of transit
trips was calculated. This does not affect the accuracy of overall mode share, or
the transit mode share at South Campus. For reference:
The transit share at the Main Campus is currently 33.1%. This is an increase
of 10.8 points from October 2011, giving it the highest transit rate of all three
campuses. Overall, transit mode share on the Main Campus has increased by
19.2 points since November 2006, just before gRide was instituted.
The transit share at Gateway is 26.1%. This is a decrease of 4.6 points from
October 2011. Since November 2006, however, transit share at Gateway has
increased by 13.1 points.
Transit share at South Campus is 18.5%, an increase of 2.4 points from October
2011. Transit mode share has grown substantially since April 2010, primarily due
to a change in survey methodology, allowing the cordon count to capture
GenenBus riders going to South Campus for the first time.
Pedestrian Access
Walking continues to be of limited use as a commuting method to Genentech due to the
long distances from residential neighborhoods. Most walking comes from hotel patrons
going to Gateway.
Overall, walking mode share decreased over the past year from a 2.3% mode
share in October 2011 to a 1.1% share for all three campuses in October 2012.
Walking at Gateway Campus fell from 4% in October 2011 to 2.1% in October
2012. Main Campus walking mode share decreased in the past year from 2.0% to
0.8%, while the South Campus increased slightly from 0.0% to 0.2%.
Other Modes
Since vanpool information was not available for the October 2012 cordon count,
October 2010 numbers were used. Using these numbers, it is estimated that
vanpool mode share was 1.1% in October 2012. This represents no change in
mode share from October 2011. Between November 2006 and October 2012,
vanpool mode share held steady between 1.0% and 1.5%.
Taxi, bike and motorcycle shares all remained relatively constant for both
campuses. Note that the sum of these modes remains below 1.0% of all mode
shares.
Detailed Mode Split Changes 2005-2012
Figures 12 through 15 provides detailed data on the changes in mode split since 2005.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 22
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
P
O
R
T
F
A
L
L
2
0
1
2
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
,
I
n
c
.
Ne
l
s
o
n
\
N
y
g
a
a
r
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
I
n
c
.
|
2
3
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
3
S
S
F
M
a
i
n
C
a
m
p
u
s
M
o
d
e
S
p
l
i
t
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
+
Mo
d
e
Ap
r
-
2
0
0
5
Fe
b
-
2
0
0
6
No
v
-
2
0
0
6
Ja
n
-
2
0
0
7
Oc
t
-
2
0
0
7
Ap
r
-
2
0
0
8
Oc
t
-
2
0
0
8
Ap
r
-
2
0
0
9
Oc
t
-
2
0
0
9
Ap
r
-
2
0
1
0
Oc
t
-
2
0
1
0
Apr-2011 Oct-2011 Oct-2012
Dr
i
v
e
A
l
o
n
e
7
9
.
2
%
6 7
7
.
8
%
7
4
.
9
%
7
5
.
1
%
7
3
.
2
%
7
0
.
8
%
6
4
.
8
%
65
.
3
%
6
3
.
7
%
6
4
.
5
%
6
3
.
8
%
6
5
.
5
%
6
7
.
1
%
55.9%
gR
i
d
e
Mo
d
e
s
*
20
.
6
%
21
.
8
%
24
.
8
%
24
.
7
%
26
.
6
%
28
.
9
%
35
.
0
%
34
.
3
%
35
.
8
%
35
.
5
%
35
.
7
%
33.9% 32.6% 43.6%
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
2-
P
e
r
s
o
n
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
11
.
7
%
1
0
.
0
%
9
.
9
%
8
.
9
%
8
.
6
%
1
0
.
9
%
1
1
.
9
%
10
.
6
%
1
0
.
0
%
9
.
9
%
9
.
3
%
9
.
1
%
6
.
2
%
6
.
5
%
3-
P
e
r
s
o
n
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
1.
2
%
0
.
8
%
0
.
9
%
0
.
9
%
0
.
7
%
1
.
2
%
0
.
9
%
1.
3
%
0
.
8
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
2
%
1
.
0
%
0
.
7
%
0
.
9
%
4
o
r
m
o
r
e
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
0.
5
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
4
%
0.
5
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
1
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
5
%
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
To
t
a
l
13
.
3
%
1
1
.
1
%
1
1
.
3
%
1
0
.
2
%
9
.
8
%
1
2
.
5
%
1
3
.
2
%
12
.
4
%
1
1
.
0
%
1
1
.
3
%
1
1
.
0
%
1
0
.
2
%
7
.
0
%
7
.
9
%
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
BA
R
T
n
/
a
4
.
8
%
5
.
1
%
6
.
2
%
5
.
6
%
5
.
1
%
5
.
7
%
7.
3
%
5
.
8
%
5
.
3
%
4
.
2
%
6
.
5
%
6
.
0
%
5
.
8
%
Ca
l
t
r
a
i
n
n
/
a
1
.
9
%
2
.
8
%
3
.
2
%
4
.
5
%
4
.
2
%
5
.
5
%
4
.
9
%
5
.
5
%
4
.
6
%
2
.
8
%
2
.
7
%
3
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
Ge
n
e
n
B
u
s
n
/
a
n
/
a
1
.
9
%
1
.
9
%
3
.
8
%
4
.
7
%
7
.
7
%
7
.
5
%
1
0
.
7
%
1
1
.
1
%
1
5
.
9
%
1
1
.
9
%
1
3
.
3
%
2
0
.
8
%
Oy
s
t
e
r
Po
i
n
t
F
e
r
r
y
n/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
0
.
3
%
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
To
t
a
l
5.
3
%
6
.
7
%
9
.
8
%
1
1
.
3
%
1
3
.
9
%
1
4
.
1
%
1
8
.
8
%
19
.
8
%
2
2
.
3
%
2
1
.
1
%
2
2
.
9
%
2
1
.
1
%
2
2
.
3
%
3
3
.
1
%
Ot
h
e
r
M
o
d
e
s
Va
n
p
o
o
l
0
.
8
%
0
.
9
%
1
.
8
%
1
.
3
%
1
.
4
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
3
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
5
%
0
.
9
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
0
%
1
.
1
%
Mo
t
o
r
b
i
k
e
0
.
5
%
0
.
8
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
7%
0
.
6
%
0
.
7
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
3
%
Bi
k
e
0
.
4
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
4
%
Ta
x
i
0
.
2
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
5
%
Wa
l
k
8 0
.
2
%
2
.
1
%
1
.
4
%
1
.
1
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
4
%
0.
3
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
5
%
2
.
0
%
0
.
8
%
Ot
h
e
r
Mo
d
e
s
To
t
a
l
2.
2
%
4
.
4
%
3
.
9
%
3
.
4
%
3
.
1
%
2
.
7
%
3
.
2
%
2.
5
%
3
.
0
%
3
.
0
%
2
.
3
%
3
.
1
%
3
.
7
%
3
.
1
%
To
t
a
l
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
Fo
o
t
n
o
t
e
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
i
n
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
5
.
+
C
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
v
a
l
+
/
-
0
.
7
8
%
*
g
R
i
de
M
o
d
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
,
c
a
r
p
o
o
l
,
v
a
n
p
o
o
l
,
m
ot
o
r
b
i
k
e
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
P
O
R
T
F
A
L
L
2
0
1
2
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
,
I
n
c
.
Ne
l
s
o
n
\
N
y
g
a
a
r
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
I
n
c
.
|
2
4
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
4
S
S
F
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
M
o
d
e
S
p
l
i
t
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
++
Mo
d
e
Fe
b
-
2
0
0
6
No
v
-
2
0
0
6
Ja
n
-
2
0
0
7
Oc
t
-
2
0
0
7
Ap
r
-
2
0
0
8
Oc
t
-
2
0
0
8
Ap
r
-
2
0
0
9
Oc
t
-
2
0
0
9
Ap
r
-
2
0
1
0
Oc
t
-
2
0
1
0
Apr-2011 Oct-2011 Oct-2012
Dr
i
v
e
A
l
o
n
e
7
6
.
7
%
7
2
.
5
%
7
3
.
5
%
6
7
.
2
%
6
6
.
5
%
6
4
.
3
%
6
7
.
8
%
6
1
.
2
%
6
3
.
2
%
6
2
.
7
%
5
8
.
2
%
5
5
.
8
%
5
9
.
2
%
gR
i
d
e
M
o
d
e
s
*
23
.
1
%
27
.
3
%
26
.
3
%
32
.
7
%
33
.
1
%
35
.
3
%
31
.
9
%
38
.
5
%
36
.
2
%
36
.
6
%
40.9% 43.4% 38.5%
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
2-
P
e
r
s
o
n
C
a
r
p
o
o
l
1
1
.
3
%
8
.
9
%
9
.
5
%
1
0
.
1
%
8
.
6
%
8
.
0
%
9
.
3
%
7
.
0
%
7
.
7
%
7
.
7
%
6
.
1
%
5
.
9
%
5
.
6
%
3-
P
e
r
s
o
n
C
a
r
p
o
o
l
2
.
3
%
2
.
6
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
7
%
1
.
7
%
0
.
9
%
1
.
0
%
0
.
8
%
0
.
9
%
1
.
5
%
0
.
9
%
0
.
9
%
1
.
1
%
4
o
r
m
o
r
e
P
e
r
s
o
n
s
0
.
5
%
0
.
4
%
1
.
2
%
0
.
7
%
0
.
8
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
7
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
6
%
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
T
o
t
a
l
1
4
.
0
%
1
1
.
9
%
1
1
.
8
%
1
2
.
6
%
1
1
.
7
%
9
.
6
%
1
1
.
0
%
8
.
3
%
8
.
9
%
9
.
6
%
7
.
8
%
7
.
2
%
7.8%
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
BA
R
T
4
.
2
%
7
.
8
%
6
.
6
%
7
.
9
%
7
.
3
%
1
0
.
1
%
6
.
6
%
1
0
.
9
%
7
.
6
%
4
.
1
%
9
.
1
%
8
.
3
%
4
.
6
%
Ca
l
t
r
a
i
n
2
.
1
%
4
.
2
%
2
.
9
%
4
.
0
%
4
.
7
%
5
.
7
%
5
.
2
%
5
.
2
%
2
.
9
%
2
.
7
%
3
.
8
%
4
.
1
%
0
.
0
%
Ge
n
e
n
B
u
s
n
/
a
1
.
0
%
1
.
2
%
2
.
4
%
3
.
2
%
4
.
9
%
5
.
1
%
8
.
4
%
1
3
.
9
%
1
5
.
4
%
1
6
.
7
%
1
8
.
4
%
1
6
.
4
%
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
t
F
e
r
r
y
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
0
.
3
%
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
T
o
t
a
l
6
.
3
%
1
3
.
0
%
1
0
.
7
%
1
4
.
3
%
1
5
.
1
%
2
0
.
8
%
1
7
.
0
%
2
4
.
8
%
2
4
.
4
%
2
2
.
2
%
2
9
.
7
%
3
0
.
7
%
2
6
.
1
%
Ot
h
e
r
M
o
d
e
s
Va
n
p
o
o
l
0
.
9
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
7
%
1
.
0
%
1
.
5
%
1
.
3
%
2
.
0
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
5
%
0
.
9
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
2
%
1
.
1
%
Mo
t
o
r
b
i
k
e
0
.
5
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
8
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
5
%
Bi
k
e
0
.
1
%
0
.
1
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
1
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
1
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
1
%
0
.
9
%
Ta
x
i
0
.
1
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
1
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
8
%
0
.
9
%
0
.
8
%
2
.
3
%
Wa
l
k
8
1
.
3
%
1
.
5
%
2
.
6
%
4
.
0
%
3
.
8
%
2
.
9
%
1
.
4
%
3
.
7
%
1
.
2
%
2
.
5
%
1
.
5
%
4
.
0
%
2
.
1
%
Ot
h
e
r
M
o
d
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
2
.
9
%
2
.
6
%
4
.
0
%
6
.
0
%
6
.
8
%
5
.
3
%
4
.
2
%
5
.
7
%
3
.
5
%
5
.
1
%
4
.
3
%
6
.
3
%
6
.
9
%
To
t
a
l
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Fo
o
t
n
o
t
e
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
i
n
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
5
.
+
+
C
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
v
a
l
+
/
-
0
.
9
7
%
*
g
R
id
e
M
o
d
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
,
c
a
r
p
o
o
l
,
v
a
n
p
o
o
l
,
m
o
t
o
r
b
i
k
e
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
P
O
R
T
F
A
L
L
2
0
1
2
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
,
I
n
c
.
Ne
l
s
o
n
\
N
y
g
a
a
r
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
I
n
c
.
|
2
5
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
5
S
S
F
S
o
u
t
h
C
a
m
p
u
s
M
o
d
e
S
p
l
i
t
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
++
+
Mo
d
e
Ap
r
-
2
0
0
8
Oc
t
-
2
0
0
8
Ap
r
-
2
0
0
9
Oc
t
-
2
0
0
9
Ap
r
-
2
0
1
0
Oc
t
-
2
0
1
0
Ap
r
-
2
0
1
1
Oc
t
-
2
0
1
1
Oc
t
-
2
0
1
2
No
t
e
:
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
m
a
y
n
o
t
t
o
t
a
l
1
0
0
%
d
u
e
to
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
6
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
v
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
P
a
r
k
-
&-
R
i
d
e
S
h
u
t
t
l
e
r
i
d
e
r
s
.
T
h
e
S
h
u
t
t
l
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
se
r
v
i
c
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
m
a
i
n
c
a
m
p
u
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
.
I
t
i
s
u
n
c
l
e
a
r
,
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
ho
w
m
a
n
y
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
r
i
d
e
r
s
a
r
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
t
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
t
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
M
a
i
n
Ca
m
p
u
s
,
v
e
r
s
u
s
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
a
r
e
s
i
m
p
l
y
sh
u
t
t
l
i
n
g
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
c
a
m
p
u
s
e
s
,
t
h
e
i
r
a
r
r
i
v
a
l
s
ha
v
i
n
g
b
e
e
n
c
o
u
n
t
e
d
e
l
s
e
w
h
e
r
e
.
8
W
a
l
k
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
m
a
y
b
e
h
i
g
h
d
u
e
t
o
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
i
n
r
e
m
o
t
e
l
o
t
s
a
n
d
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
on
t
o
c
a
m
p
u
s
*
g
R
i
d
e
m
o
d
e
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
a
l
l
m
o
d
e
s
a
p
a
r
t
fr
o
m
D
r
i
v
e
A
l
o
n
e
(
C
a
r
p
o
o
l
,
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
,
v
a
n
p
o
o
l
,
mo
t
o
r
b
i
k
e
,
e
t
c
.
Dr
i
v
e
A
l
o
n
e
78
.
9
%
8
2
.
6
%
8
5
.
0
%
8
4
.
6
%
8
6
.
2
%
7
3
.
4
%
7
3
.
4
%
7
4
.
3
%
6
9
.
7
%
gR
i
d
e
M
o
d
e
s
*
20
.
5
%
17
.
3
%
14
.
6
%
14
.
4
%
13
.
4
%
25
.
9
%
26
.
2
%
25
.
3
%
29
.
3
%
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
2-
P
e
r
s
o
n
C
a
r
p
o
o
l
11
.
1
%
9
.
3
%
1
1
.
5
%
9
.
5
%
1
0
.
2
%
9
.
3
%
9
.
5
%
7
.
7
%
8
.
0
%
3-
P
e
r
s
o
n
C
a
r
p
o
o
l
0.
9
%
1
.
4
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
6
%
4
o
r
m
o
r
e
P
e
r
s
o
n
s
0.
3
%
2
.
9
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
3
%
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
T
o
t
a
l
12
.
3
%
1
3
.
9
%
1
2
.
2
%
1
0
.
3
%
1
1
.
2
%
9
.
9
%
1
0
.
3
%
7
.
7
%
8
.
9
%
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Ge
n
e
n
B
u
s
n/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n/
a
n
/
a
1
3
.
5
%
1
4
.
5
%
1
6
.
0
%
1
7
.
6
%
All
i
a
n
c
e
U
t
a
h
-
G
r
a
n
d
S
h
u
t
t
l
e
n/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n/
a
0
.
9
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
1
%
1
.
0
%
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
T
o
t
a
l
3.
9
%
1
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
1
.
7
%
0
.
4
%
1
4
.
4
%
1
4
.
5
%
1
6
.
1
%
1
8
.
5
%
Ot
h
e
r
M
o
d
e
s
Va
n
p
o
o
l
3.
0
%
1
.
3
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
5
%
0
.
9
%
0
.
9
%
1
.
0
%
0
.
9
%
Mo
t
o
r
b
i
k
e
0.
2
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
7
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
1
%
0
.
5
%
Bi
k
e
0.
5
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
7
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
1
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
3
%
Ta
x
i
0.
6
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
4
%
1
.
0
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
4
%
1
.
0
%
Wa
l
k
8
0.
5
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
1
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
1
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
2
%
Ot
h
e
r
M
o
d
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
4.
8
%
2
.
6
%
2
.
9
%
3.
5
%
2
.
2
%
2.
3
%
1
.
8
%
1
.
8
%
2
.
9
%
To
t
a
l
10
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
++
+
C
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
v
a
l
+
/
-
2
.
4
5
%
*
g
R
i
d
e
M
o
d
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
tr
a
n
s
i
t
,
c
a
r
p
o
o
l
,
v
a
n
p
o
o
l
,
m
o
t
o
r
b
i
k
e
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
P
O
R
T
F
A
L
L
2
0
1
2
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
,
I
n
c
.
Ne
l
s
o
n
\
N
y
g
a
a
r
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
I
n
c
.
|
2
6
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
6
S
S
F
M
o
d
e
S
p
l
i
t
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
f
o
r
A
l
l
T
h
r
e
e
C
a
m
p
u
s
e
s
++
+
+
Mo
d
e
Fe
b
-
2
0
0
6
No
v
-
2
0
0
6
Ja
n
-
2
0
0
7
Oc
t
-
2
0
0
7
Ap
r
-
2
0
0
8
Oc
t
-
2
0
0
8
Ap
r
-
2
0
0
9
Oc
t
-
2
0
0
9
Ap
r
-
2
0
1
0
Oc
t
-
2
0
1
0
Apr-2011 Oct-2011 Oct-2012
Dr
i
v
e
A
l
o
n
e
7
7
.
4
%
7
4
.
0
%
7
4
.
4
%
7
0
.
8
%
7
0
.
1
%
6
5
.
9
%
6
8
.
8
%
6
5
.
6
%
6
6
.
7
%
6
4
.
7
%
6
4
.
4
%
6
4
.
4
%
58.8%
gR
i
d
e
M
o
d
e
s
*
22
.
3
%
25
.
8
%
25
.
4
%
28
.
9
%
29
.
6
%
33
.
8
%
30
.
9
%
33
.
8
%
32
.
8
%
34
.
6
%
35.0% 35.1% 40.1%
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
2-
P
e
r
s
o
n
C
a
r
p
o
o
l
1
0
.
5
0
%
9
.
5
0
%
9
.
2
0
%
9
.
2
0
%
1
0
.
1
0
%
1
0
.
4
%
1
0
.
3
%
9
.
0
%
9
.
2
%
8
.
8
%
8
.
2
%
6
.
4
%
6
.
5
%
3-
P
e
r
s
o
n
C
a
r
p
o
o
l
1
.
4
0
%
1
.
6
0
%
1
.
0
0
%
1
.
1
0
%
1
.
3
0
%
0
.
9
%
1
.
1
%
0
.
8
%
0
.
9
%
1
.
2
%
0
.
9
%
0
.
7
%
0
.
9
%
4
o
r
m
o
r
e
P
e
r
s
o
n
s
0
.
3
0
%
0
.
5
0
%
0
.
7
0
%
0
.
6
0
%
0
.
5
0
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
1
%
0
.
5
%
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
T
o
t
a
l
1
2
.
3
%
1
1
.
5
%
1
0
.
9
%
1
0
.
8
%
1
2
.
2
%
1
2
.
0
%
1
1
.
9
%
1
0
.
1
%
1
0
.
4
%
1
0
.
5
%
9
.
4
%
7
.
2
%
8
.
1
%
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
BA
R
T
4
.
5
0
%
6
.
2
0
%
6
.
4
0
%
6
.
5
0
%
5
.
6
0
%
6
.
8
%
6
.
1
%
6
.
7
%
5
.
5
%
4
.
8
%
4
.
9
%
5
.
4
%
5
.
7
%
Ca
l
t
r
a
i
n
2
.
0
0
%
3
.
4
0
%
3
.
0
0
%
4
.
3
0
%
4
.
1
0
%
5
.
2
%
4
.
5
%
4
.
8
%
3
.
5
%
2
.
7
%
3
.
6
%
3
.
3
%
2
.
7
%
Ge
n
e
n
B
u
s
n
/
a
1
.
5
0
%
1
.
6
0
%
3
.
3
0
%
3
.
7
0
%
5
.
4
%
5
.
0
%
8
.
6
%
1
0
.
8
%
1
4
.
1
%
1
4
.
4
%
1
5
.
4
%
2
0
.
1
%
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
t
F
e
r
r
y
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
0
.
3
%
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
T
o
t
a
l
6
.
5
0
%
1
1
.
1
0
%
1
1
.
0
0
%
1
4
.
1
0
%
1
3
.
4
0
%
1
8
.
2
%
1
6
.
4
%
2
0
.
4
%
1
9
.
8
%
2
1
.
5
%
2
2
.
9
%
2
4
.
1
%
2
8
.
8
%
Ot
h
e
r
M
o
d
e
s
Va
n
p
o
o
l
0
.
9
0
%
1
.
3
0
%
1
.
1
0
%
1
.
3
0
%
1
.
4
0
%
1
.
3
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
5
%
0
.
9
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
1
%
Mo
t
o
r
b
i
k
e
0
.
7
0
%
0
.
3
0
%
0
.
4
0
%
0
.
5
0
%
0
.
5
0
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
4
%
Bi
k
e
0
.
2
0
%
0
.
2
0
%
0
.
3
0
%
0
.
3
0
%
0
.
4
0
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
6
%
Ta
x
i
0
.
3
0
%
0
.
2
0
%
0
.
2
0
%
0
.
2
0
%
0
.
3
0
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
7
%
0
.
5
%
1
.
1
%
Wa
l
k
8
1
.
8
0
%
1
.
4
0
%
1
.
8
0
%
1
.
9
0
%
1
.
7
0
%
1
.
3
%
0
.
6
%
1
.
4
%
0
.
7
%
0
.
9
%
0
.
8
%
2
.
3
%
1
.
1
%
Ot
h
e
r
M
o
d
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
3
.
8
%
3
.
4
%
3
.
7
%
4
.
2
%
4
.
3
%
3
.
9
%
2
.
8
%
3
.
9
%
3
.
1
%
3
.
3
%
3
.
3
%
4
.
2
%
4
.
3
%
To
t
a
l
1
0
0
.
0
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
Fo
o
t
n
o
t
e
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
i
n
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
5
.
+
+
+
+
C
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
v
a
l
+
/
-
0
.
5
6
%
*
g
R
i
d
e
M
o
d
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
tr
a
n
s
i
t
,
c
a
r
p
o
o
l
,
v
a
n
p
o
o
l
,
m
o
t
o
r
b
i
k
e
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 27
PARKING SURVEY
Genentech's three campuses8 have a total of 10936 parking spaces. Approximately
10,620 of these spaces are designated for employees. The parking counts showed that at
10 AM on weekdays, considering all parking types, an average of 6,530 vehicles
were parked.
Location of Parking
Genentech is made up of three campuses: the Main Campus on DNA Way and Forbes
Boulevard along San Francisco Bay, the new South Campus at the east end of East Grand
Avenue, and the Gateway Campus near Highway 101. No changes in parking supply were
reported to Nelson\Nygaard staff between this parking survey and last quarter’s (Q2)
survey. Parking supplies at the various campuses include:
Main Campus has a total of about 4,830 parking spaces.
South Campus has a total of 2,395 parking spaces.
Gateway Campus has a total of 2,642 parking spaces.
Parking is divided into several areas to distinguish trends in different parts of the
campuses. The Main Campus has four major sub-campus parking areas with two smaller
parking areas. The major areas are: Lower Campus West, Lower Campus East, Middle
Campus, and Upper Campus. The South Campus and Gateway campuses make up the
rest of the South San Francisco Genentech campuses. Remote Lots, most of which were
not counted during the survey, include parking lots at the daycare facility on Allerton
Avenue and buildings at East Grand and Grandview. The lots at Building 54 (which is
generally counted with the Main Campus) are included. Within the areas are distinct
parking zones delineating each parking lot or parking structure. Parking zones are
named by their Parking Area and a Zone number, so the parking lot surrounding
Building 51 is known as Zone L5 because it is in the Lower Area and is numbered the
fifth lot in the Lower Campus. The parking zones and their parking supply are shown in
Figure 17.
Genentech currently has five parking structures: one (PS-1) in the Lower Campus, one
(PS-2) between the Middle and the Upper Campus, one at Gateway (Gateway Parking
Structure), and two structures (PS-A and PS-B) in the South Campus.
8 Genentech areas not included in parking survey were lots at B27, B29, B71, B75, and B80.
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
P
O
R
T
F
A
L
L
2
0
1
2
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
,
I
n
c
.
Ne
l
s
o
n
\
N
y
g
a
a
r
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
I
n
c
.
|
2
8
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
7
T
o
t
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
u
p
p
l
y
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 29
Parking Occupancy
Parking occupancy was determined by counting the total number of vehicles parked in
each parking zone. The map in Figure 20 shows parking occupancy as the number of
vehicles parked in each lot. All vehicles were counted even if parked illegally or in a
loading zone. Figure 18 shows the occupancy levels by percentage and parking inventory.
It is more instructive to look at percentage occupancy, because it gives an indication of
how hard it is to find an empty space. In general, for employee parking it is acceptable to
reach up to 95% occupancy; more than 95% means that employees have a harder time
finding parking and may search in different lots to park. A 90-100% (or above) parking
occupancy rate indicates that these lots are at or near a stressed level.
Parking Lots
One parking lot exceeded 100% average occupancy – L4 (Main Campus). This was due to
a few cars parked in red no-parking zones during the Wednesday and Thursday survey
days. Ignoring these vehicles, occupancy averaged 98% across the three survey days.
Several parking lots were filled to capacity with 95% or greater occupancy, including: L1,
L4, L5, U16, U19, U21, M12, S2, and G9. Most of these lots are located very close to
higher density uses such as large office buildings. The remaining surface lots throughout
the campuses were occupied at rates between a low of 27% (S9) and a high of 90% (M12),
as shown in Figure 19.
Parking Structures
Among the parking structures (PS) studied there is a great variety of occupancy levels;
some had higher rates than last quarter, while others had lower rates. The Lower
Campus' PS-1 (L3) was fairly full at 67% occupancy, a 1% decrease from the last survey in
Quarter 1. In contrast, the Gateway Parking Structure (G7_8), the largest in number of
available spaces and in actual cars parked, was only 45% occupied. This is a higher rate
than found in the previous survey, when the structure was 37% occupied. The
Middle/Upper Campus structure, PS-2 (M14) decreased to 65% occupied in Quarter 3
from 73% in Quarter 2. The original South Campus Structure, PS-A (S4) was 41% full, 7%
lower than it was in the last survey. The newer structure, PS-B (S7), was also 40% full,
two percentage points lower over the previous survey. This occupancy level is down from
the 50% occupancy in April 2009 when it opened.
Overall Occupancy
The overall occupancy of 60% is two percentage points higher than the last survey,
though the previous October survey in 2011 revealed the same (60%) rate. Since the last
survey, inventory has remained the same with almost no change in total occupancy.
Quarter 3’s occupancy rate is four percentage points lower than the all-time high of 64%
in April 2008. The downward trend shows the maintained success of the gRide program
in attracting more employees to commute by transit. While there was a modest change in
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 30
overall occupancy as compared to Quarter 2 of this year, specific lots and garages did see
some fluctuations in demand.
The overall occupancy is low enough to suggest that finding parking should be easy.
However, parking demand is unevenly distributed; some lots are at, or near capacity
while other lots and parking structures nearby have ample space, as seen in Figure 19.
Several of the big lots on upper/middle campus are starting to see occupancy rates in the
range of 80-90% with two of the most popular reaching 90-100% full. For a Genentech
commuter the increased occupancy is no doubt noticeable, and with increased parking
demand over time it may start to feel like it is harder to find parking. However, most of
the popular lots that are currently near capacity are close to lots with plenty of available
capacity.
One way to counter the perception of parking shortages is to help direct commuters to
lots with spare capacity. Since the distribution of parking does not change much, signs
could inform eastbound drivers on Grandview that U16 tends to fill and U15 has
capacity. A more flexible solution may include electronic signs to inform commuters
about which lots have capacity. On Forbes, for example, a sign could read: “L1: 0 spaces,
L2: 21 spaces, L3: 143 spaces, L9: 15 spaces, etc.,” indicating how many spaces are
available in each facility. Similarly, signs at either end of the Main Campus hill on DNA
Way would help commuters decide which parking lot or structure is most convenient
based on the time it might take to find a space in a nearly full lot close to their
destination versus the increased walking time from a lot slightly further away with more
available spaces. Existing technology to achieve this varies in its complexity from simple
counters connected to the entry barriers of parking structures to various types of sensor
networks that might be employed in parking lots. If necessary, Genentech may also
consider offering various incentives to employees to encourage them to park in facilities
with excess capacity. Better distributing parking demand will reduce the strain on
current parking hot-spots.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 31
Figure 18 Parking Occupancy Rates, 2007 to 2012
Zone Oct-07 Apr-08 Oct-08 Apr-09 Oct-09 Apr-10 Oct-10 Oct-11 May-12 July-12 Oct-12
Main
Campus
66%
(5,651)
73%
(5,021)
65%
(5,021)
64%
(5,113)
64%
(5,164)
67%
(4,880)
71%
(4,677)
70%
(4,983)
69%
(4,830)
69%
(4,830)
69%
(4,830)
Gateway 59%
(2,580)
64%
(2,613)
53%
(2,613)
62%
(2,613)
65%
(2,613)
74%
(2,613)
66%
(2,642)
58%
(2,642)
52%
(2,642)
55%
(2,642)
60%
(2,642)
South N/A 53%
(1,294)
40%
(1,296)
49%
(2,410)
41%
(2,410)
38%
(2,555)
42%
(2,414)
45%
(2,414)
49%
(2,395)
47%
(2,395)
44%
(2,395)
Other 17%
(743)
15%
(743)
27%
(743)
39%
(743)
37%
(650)
52%
(650)
42%
(1,065)
47%
(1,065)
50%
(1,065)
45%
(1,065)
53%
(1,065)
Total 61%
(9,321)
64%
(9,651)
56%
(9,653)
59%
(10,859)
59%
(10,837)
61%
(10,698)
61%
(10,798)
60%
(11,104)
59%
(10936)
58%
(10936)
60%
(10936)
E.g. 60% (10936) means 60% parking occupancy, total inventory is 10936.
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
P
O
R
T
F
A
L
L
2
0
1
2
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
,
I
n
c
.
Ne
l
s
o
n
\
N
y
g
a
a
r
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
I
n
c
.
|
3
2
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
9
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
b
y
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
P
O
R
T
F
A
L
L
2
0
1
2
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
,
I
n
c
.
Ne
l
s
o
n
\
N
y
g
a
a
r
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
I
n
c
.
|
3
3
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
0
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
b
y
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 34
Bicycle Parking
The inventory of bike lockers was supplied by Genentech, while the inventory of cages
and racks was taken by Nelson\Nygaard during previous surveys. See Figure 21 for a
table and Figure 23 for a map of the location of bike parking on campus. There are
several different kinds of facilities available:
Bike lockers: lockers provide secure, weatherproof, storage for an individual
bike and are assigned when available through Genentech. These are being phased
out, with only 20 now remaining.
Bike cages: bike cages are located in parking structures 1, 2, and 3, and both
parking structures on South Campus. They provide a storage area for multiple
bikes in an access-controlled cage.
Wave racks: wave racks (also known as multi-bend racks) are the most
common form of rack on campus. They provide a secure locking point, but only
support the bicycle frame in one place.
U-racks: U-racks are the preferred bike rack solution, featuring both secure
locking and support for the bicycle frame at multiple points.
Ground anchors: ground anchors are featured in one location at the center of
the Gateway campus. These low profile devices provide a secure locking point,
but do not support the bicycle frame.
The campus features 357 bicycle parking spaces, of different types, as broken down in
Figure 21. Since the last survey, the majority of bike lockers were worn out and have been
removed, with only ten remaining at Gateway and ten remaining at Building 56. Three
new bike cages have been added, one each at PS1, PS2 and PS3.
Figure 21 Bicycle Parking Inventory by Type
Bicycle occupancy levels were taken during the 2012 Q3 survey. The occupancy of racks
and cages is easy to determine visually for surveyors, but since bicycle lockers are fully
enclosed occupancy cannot be established visually. Bicycle locker occupancy was
provided by Genentech.
Figure 22 shows bicycle occupancy for each campus area. The majority of bicycles were
parked in cages. Throughout the survey, there were very few bicycles observed parked at
racks, indicating that secure parking in the form of cages or lockers is preferred for all
day parking.
According to a bicycle club member survey taken in September 2011 by Genentech, 54%
of respondents said they store their bicycles in the office. Therefore the low parking
South CampusCapacityLower CampusCapacityUpper CampusCapacityGatewayCapacity
U-racks42U-racks0U-racks0U-racks0
Wave racks0Wave racks27Wave racks36Wave racks23
Bike lockers0Bike lockers0Bike lockers10Bike lockers10
Bike cages62Bike cages32Bike cages89Bike cages0
Sub-Total104Sub-Total59Sub-Total135Ground Anchors26
Sub-Total59
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 35
occupancy is not an indication that people are not riding to work – merely that many
people find it more convenient to park in their office. As long as that remains acceptable
to Facilities Management, it is a good solution for user convenience. Overall occupancy
of bicycle facilities increased from 9% last quarter, to 10% in Quarter 3. This is still lower
than the 2012 high of 14% occupancy in Quarter 1.
Figure 22 Bicycle Occupancy
Zone Inventory Occupancy Percent Occupied
Main Campus 184 15 8%
Gateway 59 10 6%
South 104 10 10%
Other 10 0 0%
Total 357 35 10%
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
P
O
R
T
F
A
L
L
2
0
1
2
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
,
I
n
c
.
Ne
l
s
o
n
\
N
y
g
a
a
r
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
I
n
c
.
|
3
6
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
3
T
o
t
a
l
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
u
p
p
l
y
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 37
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the data presented above, the following conclusions can be drawn:
Mode of Travel to Campus
Transit service has seen an increase in mode share over the past few years.
Overall South San Francisco transit mode share increased by 4.7 percentage
points since October 2011. Total ridership numbers increased from 2,010 riders
per day on average in 2011 to 2,359 riders per day.
All campuses saw small increases in carpool participation. In the last year,
carpool mode share has increased slightly by 0.9 percentage points on the Main
Campus, 1.2 percentage points on the South Campus, and 0.6 percentage points
on the Gateway Campus. Year to year carpool rates are up at all three campuses.
Drive alone share of all trips averaged 58.8% for all three campuses. This is a 5.6
point decrease since October 2011 when the drive alone share was 64.4%. Since
gRide was implemented in late 2006, the drive alone share has dropped 15.2
percentage points.
Overall, employees seem to be decidedly moving away from drive alone commute
options, and towards gRide modes. This reflects positively on the quality of
alternative commute services and programs employed by Genentech.
Parking
Parking occupancy on campus overall remained constant since the previous
survey, and parking distribution patterns were also similar to the May 2012
survey.
With abundant parking available at this time, parking conditions do not likely
affect employee decisions on whether to drive or use alternative modes given
current commute mode splits.
There are a few hot-spots of high parking demand, but all are located
immediately adjacent to facilities with significant available capacity. Accordingly,
it may be worth considering wayfinding signs to efficiently distribute parking
demand to all available lots, as the campus densifies with infill development like
Building 31 and the company continues to grow. Genentech may also consider
offering incentives to employees to use less utilized facilities further from their
destinations.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | A-1
APPENDIX: CHANGES IN CAMPUS DATA COLLECTION SINCE 2005
April 2005
The cordon count was conducted only at the Main Campus, and not at Gateway. All subsequent
surveys have been conducted at both the Main Campus and Gateway.
February 2006
The February 2006 cordon count mode shares for both campuses were similar, but counts for the
Main Campus included a total of 6% of arrivals on the shuttle between Gateway and the Main
Campus. It is unclear, therefore, how many shuttle riders were parking at Gateway and
commuting to the Main Campus, versus those who were simply shuttling between campuses, their
arrivals having been counted elsewhere. For that survey, Genentech and Nelson\Nygaard
primarily used the Gateway results.
November 2006 to present
Since the November 2006,the Main Campus and Gateway cordon counts more accurately
represent Genentech employee travel behavior, since most employees parked at the campus
where they work, unlike in February 2006.
Cordon Count Start Time
Surveys from April 2005 to January 2007 were conducted from 5 AM to 10 AM. From October
2007 to present, surveys have been conducted from 6 AM to 10 AM. Although the 5 o'clock hour
accounted for 8% of employees accessing campus in the years it was surveyed, the cordon count
period was shortened from five to four hours to accommodate the added parking survey that takes
approximately one hour to conduct.
South Campus Added – April 2008
Since the April 2008 survey, the South Campus has been included as a separate campus. The
Utah-Grand Caltrain and BART shuttles, provided by the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief
Alliance (Alliance), serve the South Campus. The shuttles originate at the South San Francisco
Caltrain and BART stations. In April 2008 and October 2008, only the north half of the South
Campus was counted. Counting of the southern portion did not begin until it opened in April
2009, which was the first time the entire South Campus was counted, included Parking Structure
B.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | A-2
South Campus Transit – October 2010
Previous to October 2010, transit to South Campus was only counted from the Alliance Utah-
Grand shuttles. No GenenBus lines stop at the South Campus. However, Genentech and
Nelson\Nygaard determined that many GenenBus riders were in fact going to the South Campus
by alighting at Gateway or the Main Campus, then taking a DNA Shuttle or walking down the
stairs to the South Campus. By measuring this, the proportion of transit riders going to Gateway
declined by several riders. The Main Campus proportion of transit riders dipped more since most
South Campus transit riders alight at the B31 and B24 bus stops and walk down the stairway to
South Campus.
Transit – October 2012
Transit data was provided as a monthly sum. These figures were divided by the number of
working days in the month to obtain an average daily ridership rate. This should be more
accurate, by averaging out the effect of any special events or unusual weather that might have
affected ridership during the survey.
Employees’ destinations on campus was previously provided by Compass Transportation. But
since they were no longer able to supply this data, badge counts were used instead. This change in
methodology has affected the distribution of trips between Main and Gateway campuses, but has
not affected overall transit mode share calculations.
Genent
Annu
Genente
Prepared fo
May 201
tech Master Plan
ual Re
e ch Facili
or the City o
3
n Annual Report
eport
ties Ten
of South San
2013
Year Mas
n Francisco
s ter Plan
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 2
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3
Genentech Master Plan District ............................................................................. 3
Purpose of the Annual Report ............................................................................... 4
Genentech 2012 Campus Development and Buildout ............................................. 5
Current Campus Development Density .................................................................. 6
2012-2013 Campus Development ......................................................................... 8
Anticipated Campus Development (2013 – 2014) .................................................. 9
Transportation Demand Management and Parking .............................................. 10
Transportation Demand Management ................................................................ 10
Parking ............................................................................................................ 11
Changes to Use, Security, Development Standards or Design Guidelines ............ 12
Mobile Vendor Services ........................................................................................ 13
Master Plan Implementation Program .................................................................. 14
Appendices
Appendix A – Master Plan Implementation Program Update
Appendix B – Genentech Occupied Buildings in the Master Plan District
Attachments
Attachment 1 – TDM and Parking Report
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 3
INTRODUCTION
Genentech, the world’s first biotechnology company, was founded in 1976 and is located in South
San Francisco. Genentech performs a wide range of functions at its South San Francisco campus,
including research and development, clinical manufacturing, distribution, marketing, and
administration. With approximately 9,000 full-time employees working in South San Francisco,
Genentech remains the largest employer in South San Francisco.
Genentech Master Plan District
In 2007, the City Council adopted the updated Genentech Ten Year Facilities Master Plan, supported
by a Master Environmental Impact Report, and amended the Zoning Ordinance to allow expansion
of the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District (R&D), which was renamed the
Genentech Master Plan District in 2010. The Master Plan was originally established in 1995 to guide
the company’s growth and development of the Central Campus and to ensure that future growth
would be consistent with goals and policies of the East of 101 Area Plan and the South San
Francisco General Plan.
The updated 2007 Master Plan outlines a potential expansion that would allow the Central Campus
to grow up to approximately six million square feet during the ten-year planning period and serves
several purposes:
Articulates vision and policies that will serve as a general guide for the placement
and design of individual buildings and other campus elements, as well as an overall
development program to provide the basis for future approvals.
Fosters development of a campus befitting its setting on the City’s eastern bay shore
that capitalizes on views and access to the waterfront.
Promotes alternatives to individual automobile transportation to further the City’s
transportation objectives, by emphasizing a comprehensive Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program, and pedestrian connectivity throughout the campus to
promote ease of movement between buildings.
Establishes the basis for zoning provisions that have been included in an amended
Genentech Master Plan District.
Provides design guidelines that will serve as a basis for design review and approval
for development in the Master Plan area.
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 4
Purpose of the Annual Report
The Annual Report is required by the Genentech Master Plan District ordinance (SSF Municipal Code
Section 20.260.005(e)). It must address, as appropriate, the status of facility-wide improvements,
progress in completing the required tasks and benchmarks described in the Implementation Plan,
anticipated new construction or renovation projects, projected changes in the facility usage and
requirements, an update on TDM and parking needs, an update on mobile vendor (employee
amenity) activities on the Genentech campus, an update on the security program, advance notice of
any proposed changes to the facility-wide development standards or design guidelines, and notice of
any changes that have been made to the Facility Master Plan since the most recent Annual Report.
Consistent with this requirement, this Annual Report is intended to accomplish several purposes: (1)
provide background information and up-to-date data on the Genentech campus; (2) identify near-
term projects to the extent possible; (3) provide a brief overview of Genentech’s Transportation
Demand Management program and parking needs; and (4) summarize the status of the
Implementation Plan.
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 5
GENENTECH 2013 CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDOUT
Development of a campus with a sense of identity
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 6
Current Campus Development Density
Genentech’s Master Plan District extends over 165 acres. In addition, Genentech continues to
occupy leased space at 500 Forbes Blvd, 435 Forbes Blvd, the Gateway Business Park and
Britannia East Grand development (South Campus). Genentech also holds a long term lease
on the 1511 Grandview Dr. property. Like the Gateway Campus, the South Campus, 435
Forbes Blvd, 1511 Grandview Dr., 530 Forbes Blvd, and 500 Forbes Blvd properties are not
included in the Master Plan District (see Figure 1, on page 7).
The Overlay District includes specific development standards for buildout in gross floor area,
floor area ratio and lot coverage. The following tables summarize the 2013 campus
conditions:
2013 Building Use Distribution in Genentech Master Plan District
Building Area (Square Feet)
Neighborhood Land Area
(acres) Office Lab Mfg/WH Amenity Total Bldg
Area
FAR
Lower 52.4 305,550 482,150 527,350 10,260 1,325,310
Mid 26.2 82,440 469,300 0 2,000 553,740
Upper 49.4 681,600 58,850 34,150 78,110 852,710
West 37.2 21,840 0 485,400 0 507,240
Total 165.2 1,091,430 1,010,300 1,046,900 90,370 3,239,000 0.450
B2 parcel split from Lower Campus adds 3 acres to Upper Campus
20
1
3
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
i
n
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
– ow
n
e
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
Ma
s
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
– le
a
s
e
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 7
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 8
2012-2013 Campus Development
Master Environmental Impact Report
(MEIR) was refreshed
B7, B21, and B26 parking areas
repaved
Completed agreement with City of
South San Francisco, and advanced six
million dollars to the City to install the
Forbes Blvd bike lane and median
improvements
Over one and a half miles of landscape
upgrades with large, mature trees
along Forbes Boulevard and Grandview
Drive
B36 office refresh and site landscape
improvements was completed
Landscape upgrades along Forbes Boulevard
B36 site refresh
Planned improvements on Forbes Boulevard
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 9
Anticipated Campus Development (2013 – 2014)
Master Plan Amendments
Installation of modular data center
units
Additional landscape improvements
and tree densification along Pt. San
Bruno Blvd
A new hilltop office building on the
Upper Campus
Demolition of donut building and
addition of new campus greenspace
New campus building signage, in
progress
New hilltop office building
B 35
New building sign
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 10
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT AND PARKING
Transportation Demand Management
As reported in the 2012 Annual Report,
Genentech’s TDM program, named gRide,
provides a variety of flexible and convenient
programs and services to get employees to and
from work, as well as around campus.
Genentech’s commitment to gRide program is
demonstrated by the significant number of
program services and incentives provided for
employees. There are fifteen GenenBus routes,
which include two CalTrain/BART routes; four
San Francisco routes; six East Bay routes; and
three Peninsula/South Bay routes, and GenenBus
ridership is up to about 4,500 rides per day.
The Cordon Count survey completed in October
2012 indicates that Genentech achieved an
unprecedented success with over 44%
alternative mode use. This is the highest
alternate mode share since the start of the
program, and represents a decrease of eleven
percentage points for drive alone mode share from the previous year.
The impact of the gRide program is significant. In the last twelve months gRide has supported
reducing over nine hundred thousand vehicle trips which equates to twenty-one million vehicle miles
traveled (VMT), and reduced nearly fifteen million
pounds of CO2 emissions.
Most people would agree that the 93 million miles
between our earth and sun is far, but gRide’s impact
has gone even further. In July 2012, the gRide
program surpassed a major milestone, having
eliminated 100 million miles of driving since the
program began in late 2006.
As required by the section 18.2 of the TDM Program, Appendix D of the Genentech Ten Year Master
Plan, a TDM Annual Summary Report, prepared by an independent consultant, is submitted with this
2013 Annual Report (Attachment 1). The survey data is from the fourth quarter of 2012 and
captures details on all alternate mode usage and trip reduction rates.
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 11
Parking Ratios
OfficeLabMfg/OtherWarehouse
Parking Ratios (at 24% TDM)2.751.400.900.50
Parking Ratios (at 30% TDM)2.591.320.850.47
Parking Ratios (at 32% TDM)2.531.290.830.46
Building Type
Parking
Per the Master Plan, parking demand is measured by changes in growth and multimodal
transportation services. The parking ratios used to determine demand are derived by building
functions and TDM participation rates. Buildings whose functions have lower employee densities
require fewer parking stalls. Changes to building functions will be minor and have minimal impacts
to the parking ratios, but increases in TDM participation will affect more noticeable impacts that
proportionately decrease parking demand.
The function-based parking ratios approved with the Ten Year Master Plan are reflected in the table
below. These ratios provide a 5% to 10% reserve.
The following table shows the parking demand at 32% TDM and the current supply.
100 parking stalls in the Forbes parking lot were eliminated last year to accommodate bus parking
for the gRide program. However, the supply still significantly exceeds the parking demand, even at
parking ratios based on only 32% TDM.
2013 Parking Supply and Demand (at 32% TDM based parking ratios)
Usable GSFParking DemandParking Supply
Total2,892,0004,7655,798
Note: Usable space defined as Buildings occupied by Genentech in the R&D Overlay District (see Appendix C)
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 12
CHANGES TO USE, SECURITY, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, OR DESIGN
GUIDELINES
No changes are projected at this time for the facility usage and security detailed in the
Genentech Facilities Ten Year Master Plan. Similarly, no changes are proposed to facility-
wide development standards or design guidelines under the Genentech Facilities Ten Year
Master Plan.
Genent
MOB
MAS
The I
on th
and t
an up
Figu
tech Master Plan
BILE VEND
Consis
provid
cafete
emplo
vendo
emplo
vendo
STER PLAN
Implementat
e Genentech
the triggers f
pdate on the
ure 2 – 2012/20
n Annual Report
DOR SERV
stent with the
des amenities
eria and foo
oyee support
or services inc
oyee convenie
or locations a
N IMPLEM
ion Plan sets
h campus in
for implemen
status of the
Ca
W
(F
013 mobile ven
VICES
e South San
s for employ
od services,
services. In
cluding carw
ence, and al
re noted on
ENTATION
s forth the sp
conjunction w
ntation of tho
e specific imp
ar
Wash
Fri)
ndor service loc
13
Francisco Ge
yees to supp
fitness, chi
n addition, G
wash, hair sal
so mitigate a
Figure 2.
N PROGRA
pecific impro
with the ent
ose improvem
provements w
Dental
(last Mon & Tu
Hair Salon
(Wed)
cation map
eneral Plan a
port overall c
ildcare, conc
Genentech co
on and dent
against traffi
AM
ovements and
ire Genentec
ments and a
within the Im
ue)
and Zoning O
campus func
cierge, and
ontinues to p
tal services. T
ic on local st
d public ame
ch Facilities T
amenities. T
mplementatio
Car
Wash
(Fri)
Ordinance, G
ction. These
other misc
provide on-si
These service
treets. Specif
enities to be
Ten Year Ma
The appendix
n Plan.
Legend:
Mobile Services L
Hair S
Denta
Car W
(2
Ha
Genentech
e include:
cellaneous
te mobile
es are for
fic mobile
provided
ster Plan,
x contains
Locations
Salon
al
Wash
Dental
2nd Mon)
air Salon
(Thu)
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 14
MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
The Implementation Plan sets forth the specific improvements and public amenities to be provided
on the Genentech campus in conjunction with the entire Genentech Facilities Ten Year Master Plan,
and the triggers for implementation of those improvements and amenities. The appendix contains
an update on the status of the specific improvements over the last year; however proposed
modifications to the Implementation Plan will be reviewed with the Master Plan Amendments.
Appendix A - Page 1
APPENDICES
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
1
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
A
MA
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
I
M
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
LO
W
E
R
C
A
M
P
U
S
20
1
3
U
P
D
A
T
E
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
T
R
I
G
G
E
R
20
1
3
P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
La
n
d
U
s
e
A
n
d
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Public Amenities & Bay Trail
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
s
f
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
u
s
e
o
n
ev
e
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
w
e
e
k
e
n
d
s
a
s
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
(
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
)
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
4
m
o
n
t
h
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Y
e
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
J
u
l
y
2
0
0
7
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
B
a
y
T
r
a
i
l
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
f
r
o
m
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
F
o
r
b
e
s
&
A
l
l
e
r
t
o
n
,
O
y
s
t
e
r
Po
i
n
t
&
G
u
l
l
D
r
i
v
e
,
a
n
d
E
a
s
t
G
r
a
n
d
&
Gr
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
t
o
t
h
e
B
a
y
T
r
a
i
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
po
i
n
t
s
a
s
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
(
o
f
t
h
e
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
)
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
4
m
o
n
t
h
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Y
e
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
J
u
l
y
2
0
0
7
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
2
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
f
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
n
g
a
f
o
o
d
c
o
n
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
pu
b
l
i
c
r
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
s
(
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
3
0
0
0
S
F
)
an
d
a
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
f
i
e
l
d
a
n
d
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
c
pa
r
k
i
n
g
o
n
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
.
8
a
c
r
e
s
f
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
us
e
a
l
o
n
g
F
o
r
b
e
s
B
l
v
d
.
a
s
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
(
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
)
.
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
d
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
f
o
r
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
w
i
t
h
i
n
6
m
o
n
t
h
s
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Y
e
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
Up
d
a
t
e
.
P
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
t
h
i
s
r
e
v
i
e
w
,
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
de
s
i
g
n
,
p
h
a
s
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
o
f
th
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
(
s
)
.
A
n
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
p
u
r
s
u
e
d
.
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
d
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
w
e
r
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
&
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
in
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
7
.
Gr
e
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
–
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
t
pe
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
b
e
r
m
i
n
g
,
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
,
&
m
o
r
e
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
p
l
a
n
t
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
w
e
r
e
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
a
n
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
2
0
0
8
A
n
n
u
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
.
Fo
o
d
c
o
n
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
–
s
e
a
r
c
h
f
o
r
ve
n
d
o
r
/
c
o
n
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
on
g
o
i
n
g
;
n
o
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
h
a
s
y
e
t
b
e
e
n
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
.
De
t
a
i
l
e
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
w
i
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
u
p
o
n
co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
e
w
L
o
w
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
pa
r
k
i
n
g
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
.
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
H
a
l
l
f
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
u
s
e
.
C
o
n
s
tr
u
c
t
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
C
o
f
O
o
f
th
e
f
i
r
s
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
t
h
e
B
4
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
t
e
.
To
b
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
u
p
o
n
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
o
f
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
r
i
g
g
e
r
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
3
En
h
a
n
c
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
B
a
y
Tr
a
i
l
b
y
e
x
p
a
n
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
g
r
e
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
a
l
o
n
g
th
e
L
o
w
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
(
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
UP
S
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
)
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
r
e
d
u
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
of
c
a
r
s
a
n
d
r
e
-
s
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
a
s
de
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
(
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
)
.
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
d
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
f
o
r
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
w
i
t
h
i
n
6
m
o
n
t
h
s
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Y
e
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
Up
d
a
t
e
.
P
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
t
h
i
s
r
e
v
i
e
w
,
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
de
s
i
g
n
,
p
h
a
s
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
o
f
th
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
(
s
)
.
A
n
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
p
u
r
s
u
e
d
.
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
d
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
w
e
r
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
&
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
in
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
7
.
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
t
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
t
h
e
me
a
n
d
e
r
i
n
g
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
F
o
r
b
e
s
B
l
v
d
we
r
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
a
n
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
2
0
0
8
An
n
u
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
.
De
t
a
i
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
w
i
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
u
p
o
n
co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
e
w
L
o
w
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
pa
r
k
i
n
g
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
.
En
h
a
n
c
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
o
n
D
N
A
W
a
y
a
t
B3
f
r
o
m
t
y
p
e
o
n
e
(
s
t
r
i
p
e
o
n
l
y
)
t
o
t
y
p
e
t
w
o
(c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
)
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
o
f
th
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
1
,
2
0
0
7
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
Ad
d
c
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
t
y
p
e
t
w
o
(
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
)
o
n
D
N
A
Wa
y
a
t
B
5
e
n
t
r
y
i
n
p
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
t
o
t
h
e
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
st
o
p
s
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
o
f
t
h
e
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
1
,
2
0
0
7
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
4
Pu
b
l
i
c
s
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
.
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
d
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
f
o
r
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
w
i
t
h
i
n
6
m
o
n
t
h
s
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Y
e
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
Up
d
a
t
e
.
P
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
t
h
i
s
r
e
v
i
e
w
,
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
nu
m
b
e
r
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
c
pa
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
p
h
a
s
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
(
s
)
.
An
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
pu
r
s
u
e
d
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
Ur
b
a
n
D
e
s
i
g
n
Pedestrian & Bike paths
Ad
d
c
l
a
s
s
I
I
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
a
l
o
n
g
F
o
r
b
e
s
B
l
v
d
.
,
fr
o
m
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
F
o
r
b
e
s
a
n
d
A
l
l
e
r
t
o
n
to
t
e
r
m
i
n
u
s
o
f
F
o
r
b
e
s
B
l
v
d
.
b
y
s
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
a
5
fo
o
t
b
i
k
e
p
a
t
h
o
n
b
o
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
,
ad
j
u
s
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
m
e
d
i
a
n
t
o
4
f
e
e
t
,
a
n
d
ad
j
u
s
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
l
a
n
e
t
o
1
1
f
e
e
t
a
s
de
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
(
t
h
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
l
a
n
e
ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
a
n
d
i
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
C
i
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
)
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
b
y
t
h
e
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
o
f
(
i
)
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
s
e
w
e
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
l
o
n
g
Fo
r
b
e
s
B
l
v
d
.
,
o
r
(
i
i
)
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
0
,
2
0
0
9
.
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
&
ti
m
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
i
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
De
t
a
i
l
e
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
&
p
e
r
m
i
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
w
a
s
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
8
.
Bi
k
e
L
a
n
e
s
w
e
r
e
s
t
r
i
p
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
A
l
l
e
r
t
o
n
Av
e
.
f
r
o
m
E
a
s
t
G
r
a
n
d
t
o
F
o
r
b
e
s
(
2
0
0
9
)
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
i
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
w
a
s
ex
t
e
n
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
h
i
e
f
P
l
a
n
n
e
r
t
o
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
1
,
2
0
1
2
.
(see Attachment 2)
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
t
h
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
de
s
i
g
n
,
a
n
d
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
1
4
,
2
0
1
2
.
T
h
e
fu
n
d
i
n
g
d
e
p
o
s
i
t
w
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
3
,
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
f
u
l
f
i
l
l
i
n
g
t
h
e
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
o
b
l
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
5
Ad
d
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
a
l
o
n
g
D
N
A
W
a
y
/
G
r
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
Dr
i
v
e
,
f
r
o
m
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
F
o
r
b
e
s
a
n
d
D
N
A
Wa
y
t
o
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
G
r
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
Ea
s
t
G
r
a
n
d
B
l
v
d
b
y
s
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
a
4
f
o
o
t
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
on
b
o
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
a
s
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
(
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
)
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
b
y
t
h
e
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
o
f
(
i
)
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
s
e
w
e
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
l
o
n
g
D
N
A
Wa
y
a
n
d
G
r
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
,
o
r
(
i
i
)
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
0
,
20
0
9
.
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
&
t
i
m
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
i
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
Bi
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
a
l
o
n
g
D
N
A
Wa
y
/
G
r
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
20
0
7
.
En
h
a
n
c
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
a
n
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
L
o
w
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
sp
i
n
e
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
t
o
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
6
.
Th
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
t
h
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
on
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
s
p
i
n
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
f
o
r
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
wi
t
h
i
n
3
m
o
n
t
h
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
ad
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Y
e
a
r
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
.
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
no
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
S
p
i
n
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
7
a
n
d
P
S
1
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
C
o
f
O
f
o
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
5
0
.
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
S
p
i
n
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
6
a
n
d
P
S
1
s
h
a
l
l
be
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
o
f
(
i
)
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
C
o
f
O
f
o
r
t
h
e
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
t
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
9
,
o
r
(
i
i
)
s
i
x
y
e
a
r
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Y
e
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
.
(
T
h
i
s
si
x
y
e
a
r
t
i
m
e
l
i
n
e
m
a
y
b
e
e
x
t
e
n
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
,
i
n
i
t
s
s
o
l
e
d
i
s
c
r
e
t
i
o
n
,
a
s
pa
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
i
n
t
h
e
e
v
e
n
t
t
h
a
t
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
9
s
t
i
l
l
e
x
i
s
t
s
f
o
u
r
y
e
a
r
s
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Y
e
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
.
)
De
s
i
g
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
Sp
i
n
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
7
a
n
d
P
S
1
w
a
s
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
&
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
7
i
n
co
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
5
0
.
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
i
n
c
o
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
5
0
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
6
Co
n
n
e
c
t
t
h
e
L
o
w
e
r
a
n
d
W
e
s
t
C
a
m
p
u
s
e
s
b
y
de
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
a
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
p
a
t
h
/
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
r
o
a
d
fr
o
m
t
h
e
L
o
w
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
S
p
i
n
e
t
o
B
2
9
at
A
l
l
e
r
t
o
n
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
4
o
f
t
h
e
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
C
o
f
O
f
o
r
re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
W
e
s
t
C
a
m
p
u
s
p
a
r
c
e
l
s
a
t
3
0
1
Ea
s
t
G
r
a
n
d
a
n
d
3
4
2
A
l
l
e
r
t
o
n
(
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
r
i
g
h
t
s
)
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
0
.
Cr
e
a
t
e
C
a
m
p
u
s
e
n
t
r
y
a
t
F
o
r
b
e
s
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
D
N
A
W
a
y
,
(
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
8
0
0
0
S
F
)
a
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
2
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
an
d
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
(
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
)
.
De
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
f
o
r
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
w
i
t
h
i
n
6
m
o
n
t
h
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
th
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
a
d
op
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Y
e
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
.
Pu
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
t
h
i
s
r
e
v
i
e
w
,
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
de
s
i
g
n
,
p
h
a
s
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
o
f
th
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
(
s
)
.
De
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
w
e
r
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
&
re
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
i
n
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
7
.
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
en
h
a
n
c
e
d
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
,
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
&
in
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
r
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
a
t
F
o
r
b
e
s
Bl
v
d
/
D
N
A
W
a
y
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
Ne
w
c
a
m
p
u
s
m
o
n
u
m
e
n
t
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
B
5
pl
a
z
a
w
i
t
h
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
th
e
c
o
r
n
e
r
o
f
F
o
r
b
e
s
B
l
v
d
a
n
d
D
N
A
W
a
y
wa
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
0
.
Ca
m
p
u
s
e
n
t
r
y
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
B
4
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
r
t
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
a
r
e
a
a
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
f
r
o
m
th
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
p
a
r
k
s
a
n
d
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
,
a
t
$
1
.
0
0
/
S
F
o
f
gr
o
s
s
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
2
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
o
f
p
h
a
s
e
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
to
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(E
C
D
)
f
o
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
,
w
i
t
h
i
n
3
m
o
n
t
h
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
th
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
a
d
op
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Y
e
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
,
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
re
v
i
e
w
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
A
n
n
u
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
.
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
’
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
&
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
h
a
s
e
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
w
a
s
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
E
C
D
i
n
J
u
l
y
2
0
0
7
&
re
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
i
n
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
7
.
Tw
o
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
r
t
p
i
e
c
e
s
w
e
r
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
i
n
20
1
0
.
O
n
e
a
l
o
n
g
F
o
r
b
e
s
B
l
v
d
a
t
B
7
co
u
r
t
y
a
r
d
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
s
e
c
o
n
d
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
B
a
y
Tr
a
i
l
a
t
F
R
C
c
o
u
r
t
y
a
r
d
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
7
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
A
n
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
Re
m
o
v
e
o
n
-
s
t
r
e
e
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
l
o
n
g
D
N
A
W
a
y
,
Gr
a
n
d
V
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
,
a
n
d
P
o
i
n
t
S
a
n
B
r
u
n
o
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
6
m
o
n
t
h
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Y
e
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
7
.
En
h
a
n
c
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
a
l
o
n
g
D
N
A
W
a
y
,
Gr
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
P
o
i
n
t
S
a
n
B
r
u
n
o
(
o
n
bo
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
a
s
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
)
.
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
o
f
p
h
a
s
e
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
n
d
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
w
i
t
h
i
n
3
Mo
n
t
h
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
of
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
Up
d
a
t
e
,
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
A
n
n
u
a
l
Re
p
o
r
t
.
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
n
o
la
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
1
,
2
0
0
9
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
2
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
n
e
w
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
(
u
p
t
o
2
)
w
i
t
h
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
re
p
l
a
c
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
a
l
o
n
g
D
N
A
Wa
y
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
a
n
d
f
i
g
u
r
e
4
.
2
-
4
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
1
,
2
0
0
7
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
8
MA
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
I
M
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
MI
D
C
A
M
P
U
S
20
1
3
U
P
D
A
T
E
PL
E
M
E
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
T
R
I
G
G
E
R
20
1
3
P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
A
n
d
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Bay
Trail
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
B
a
y
T
r
a
i
l
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
b
y
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
0
7
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
Ur
b
a
n
D
e
s
i
g
n
Pedestrian Walkways
Cr
e
a
t
e
s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
Up
p
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
t
o
t
h
e
M
i
d
a
n
d
S
o
u
t
h
Ca
m
p
u
s
e
s
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
4
o
f
t
h
e
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
C
o
f
O
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
n
e
w
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
on
M
i
d
C
a
m
p
u
s
.
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
S
o
u
t
h
Ca
m
p
u
s
t
o
U
p
p
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
w
a
s
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
De
s
i
g
n
o
f
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
Mi
d
t
o
U
p
p
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
w
a
s
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
a
n
d
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
th
e
F
o
u
n
d
e
r
s
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
C
e
n
t
e
r
(
F
R
C
)
I
I
I
pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
l
l
b
e
i
n
c
o
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
F
R
C
I
I
I
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Public Art
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
r
t
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
a
r
e
a
a
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
f
r
o
m
th
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
p
a
r
k
s
a
n
d
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
,
a
t
$
1
.
0
0
/
S
F
o
f
gr
o
s
s
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
2
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
o
f
p
h
a
s
e
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(
E
C
D
)
f
o
r
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
,
w
i
t
h
i
n
3
m
o
n
t
h
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
da
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Ye
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
,
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
An
n
u
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
.
(R
e
f
e
r
t
o
L
o
w
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
9
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
A
n
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
Street Improvement
In
s
t
a
l
l
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
a
l
o
n
g
P
o
i
n
t
S
a
n
B
r
u
n
o
(u
p
t
o
2
)
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
o
f
t
h
e
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
f
i
g
u
r
e
4
.
2
-
4
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
C
o
f
O
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
n
e
w
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
on
M
i
d
C
a
m
p
u
s
.
F
i
n
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
w
a
s
re
v
i
e
w
e
d
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
F
R
C
I
I
I
pr
o
j
e
c
t
/
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
l
l
b
e
i
n
c
o
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
FR
C
I
I
I
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
St
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
.
(R
e
f
e
r
t
o
L
o
w
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
2
.
TI
O
N
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
1
0
MA
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
I
M
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
UP
P
E
R
C
A
M
P
U
S
20
1
3
U
P
D
A
T
E
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
T
R
I
G
G
E
R
20
1
3
P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
La
n
d
U
s
e
A
n
d
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Crosswalks & Sidewalks
Ad
d
t
y
p
e
-
o
n
e
(
s
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
o
n
l
y
)
c
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
o
n
Gr
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
.
a
t
B
3
1
(
o
n
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
,
a
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
b
y
t
h
e
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
o
f
(
i
)
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
s
e
w
e
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
l
o
n
g
D
N
A
W
a
y
an
d
G
r
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
,
o
r
(
i
i
)
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
0
,
2
0
0
9
.
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
&
ti
m
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
i
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
9
.
Ad
d
t
y
p
e
-
t
w
o
(
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
)
c
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
a
t
B2
1
/
H
i
l
l
t
o
p
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
(
o
n
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
,
a
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
b
y
t
h
e
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
o
f
(
i
)
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
s
e
w
e
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
l
o
n
g
D
N
A
W
a
y
an
d
G
r
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
,
o
r
(
i
i
)
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
0
,
2
0
0
9
.
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
&
ti
m
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
i
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
Ur
b
a
n
D
e
s
i
g
n
Ad
d
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
o
n
n
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
G
r
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
.
fr
o
m
B
2
t
o
B
3
9
t
o
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
U
p
p
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
4
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
in
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
,
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
A
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
b
y
t
h
e
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
o
f
(
i
)
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
s
e
w
e
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
l
o
n
g
D
N
A
W
a
y
an
d
G
r
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
,
o
r
(
i
i
)
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
0
,
2
0
0
9
.
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
&
ti
m
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
i
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
1
1
Public Art
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
r
t
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
a
r
e
a
a
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
f
r
o
m
th
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
p
a
r
k
s
a
n
d
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
,
a
t
$
1
.
0
0
/
S
F
o
f
gr
o
s
s
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
2
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
o
f
p
h
a
s
e
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(
E
C
D
)
f
o
r
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
,
w
i
t
h
i
n
3
m
o
n
t
h
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
da
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Ye
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
,
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
An
n
u
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
.
(R
e
f
e
r
t
o
L
o
w
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
A
n
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
St
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
.
(R
e
f
e
r
t
o
L
o
w
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
2
.
Re
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
o
n
s
t
r
e
e
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
.
(R
e
f
e
r
t
o
L
o
w
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
o
n
G
r
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
.
a
t
B2
4
&
B
2
1
(
t
w
o
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
,
a
n
d
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
t
h
e
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
a
n
d
f
i
g
u
r
e
4
.
2
-
4
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
C
o
f
O
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
n
e
w
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
on
U
p
p
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
.
F
i
n
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
1
2
MA
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
I
M
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
WE
S
T
C
A
M
P
U
S
20
1
3
U
P
D
A
T
E
LE
M
E
N
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
T
R
I
G
G
E
R
20
1
3
P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
Ur
b
a
n
D
e
s
i
g
n
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
C
a
m
p
u
s
e
n
t
r
y
a
t
E
a
s
t
G
r
a
n
d
Av
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
G
r
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
2
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
De
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
f
o
r
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
w
i
t
h
i
n
6
m
o
n
t
h
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Y
e
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
.
P
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
to
t
h
i
s
r
e
v
i
e
w
,
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
,
p
h
a
s
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
(
s
)
.
De
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
w
a
s
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
i
n
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
20
0
7
.
D
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
en
h
a
n
c
e
d
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
&
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
.
De
t
a
i
l
e
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
w
i
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
We
s
t
C
a
m
p
u
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
fo
r
4
0
0
G
r
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
.
(
f
o
r
m
e
r
l
y
3
4
5
Ea
s
t
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
)
.
Public Art
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
r
t
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
a
r
e
a
a
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
f
r
o
m
th
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
p
a
r
k
s
a
n
d
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
,
a
t
$
1
.
0
0
/
S
F
o
f
gr
o
s
s
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
2
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
o
f
p
h
a
s
e
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(
E
C
D
)
f
o
r
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
,
w
i
t
h
i
n
3
m
o
n
t
h
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
da
t
e
o
f
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
e
n
Ye
a
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
,
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
An
n
u
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
.
(R
e
f
e
r
t
o
L
o
w
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
A
n
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
In
s
t
a
l
l
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
(
u
p
t
o
2
)
o
n
Gr
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
.
a
t
W
e
s
t
C
a
m
p
u
s
,
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
in
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
a
n
d
f
i
g
u
r
e
4
.
2
-
4
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
C
o
f
O
f
o
r
f
i
r
s
t
n
e
w
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
n
W
e
s
t
C
a
m
p
u
s
.
F
i
na
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
To
b
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
u
p
o
n
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
o
f
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
r
i
g
g
e
r
.
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
-
P
a
g
e
1
3
In
s
t
a
l
l
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
(
u
p
t
o
2
)
o
n
C
a
b
o
t
Ro
a
d
,
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
a
n
d
f
i
g
u
r
e
4.
2
-
4
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
C
o
f
O
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
n
e
w
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
n
W
e
s
t
C
a
m
p
u
s
.
F
i
na
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
On
e
n
e
w
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
w
a
s
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
o
n
th
e
n
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
C
a
b
o
t
R
o
a
d
i
n
2
0
0
7
.
Sh
u
t
t
l
e
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
o
n
s
o
u
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
C
a
b
o
t
Ro
a
d
w
i
l
l
b
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
i
n
c
o
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
W
e
s
t
C
a
m
p
u
s
a
t
3
4
2
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
.
St
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
.
(R
e
f
e
r
t
o
L
o
w
e
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
2
.
Bike paths
Ad
d
c
l
a
s
s
I
I
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
a
l
o
n
g
A
l
l
e
r
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
by
s
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
a
B
i
k
e
p
a
t
h
o
n
b
o
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
st
r
e
e
t
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
a
n
d
f
i
g
u
r
e
4.
6
-
1
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
&
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
(
o
f
t
h
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
)
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
b
y
t
h
e
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
o
f
(
i
)
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
s
e
w
e
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
l
o
n
g
A
l
l
e
r
t
o
n
,
or
(
i
i
)
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
0
,
2
0
0
9
.
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
s
h
a
l
l
co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
&
t
i
m
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
i
s
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
9
.
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report 14
APPENDIX B
Genentech Occupied Buildings in the Research and Development Overlay District
Genentech Building Number Parcel Address Building Area (sf)
3 44 DNA Way 206,776
4 1 DNA Way 150,516
5 22 DNA Way 182,164
6 660 Forbes Boulevard 120,576
7 700 Forbes Boulevard 263,267
8 650 Forbes Boulevard 87,783
9 640 Forbes Boulevard 192,275
51 642 Forbes Boulevard 33,207
54 501 Forbes Boulevard 46,902
56 500 Forbes Boulevard 163,256
1,446,722
FRC I (10,11,12)99 / 101 / 103 DNA Way 250,791
FRC III (13,14,15)340 Point San Bruno 277,814
36 1776 Grandview Drive 25,253
553,858
20 1200 Grandview Drive 97,609
21 1000 Grandview Drive 17,296
24 1600 Grandview Drive 101,415
25 1500 Grandview Drive 67,154
26 1526 Grandview Drive 113,642
28 550 Grandview Drive 36,671
31 1631 Grandview Drive 150,000
32 1541 Grandview Drive 126,019
33 1633 Grandview Drive 127,573
39 1633 Grandview Drive 15,411
852,790
27 425 Grandview Drive 103,109
29 410 Allerton Avenue 46,378
Childcare (71)444 Allerton Avenue 52,740
202,227
2,892,000
WEST CAMPUS
Sub-total
TOTAL (rounded to nearest thousand)
LOWER CAMPUS
Sub-total
MID CAMPUS
Sub-total
UPPER CAMPUS
Sub-total
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report
ATTACHMENTS
Genentech Master Plan Annual Report
ATTACHMENT 1
(TDM and Parking Report)
South San Francisco Campus
TDM and Parking Report
October 2012 Survey
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i
Table of Contents
Page
Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1
Survey Methods ............................................................................................... 4
Cordon Count ..............................................................................................4
Surveyor Locations ......................................................................................5
Parking Survey .............................................................................................8
Survey Implementation ................................................................................8
Cordon Count Survey and Mode Share Analysis ................................................. 9
Drive Alone and Carpool ............................................................................14
Transit Access ...........................................................................................18
Pedestrian Access ......................................................................................21
Other Modes .............................................................................................21
Detailed Mode Split Changes 2005-2012 ..................................................21
Parking Survey ............................................................................................... 27
Location of Parking ....................................................................................27
Parking Occupancy ....................................................................................29
Bicycle Parking ..........................................................................................34
Conclusions ................................................................................................... 37
Appendix: Changes in Campus Data Collection since 2005
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | ii
Table of Figures
Page
Figure 1 Hilltop Parking Changes ...................................................................3
Figure 1 Cordon Count Locations ..................................................................7
Figure 2 Cordon Count History and Changes .................................................9
Figure 3 Main Campus Mode Choices, 2006 – Present .................................11
Figure 4 Gateway Campus Mode Choices, 2006 – Present ............................12
Figure 5 South Campus Mode Choices, April 2008 – Present ........................13
Figure 6 All Campuses Mode Choices, 2006 – Present .................................14
Figure 7 Drive Alone Mode Shore, All Cordon Counts (2006 – Present).........16
Figure 8 Drive Alone Mode Share, Fall Counts Only (2006 – Present) ............16
Figure 9 Drive Alone Rate and Gas Prices (2005 – Present) ...........................18
Figure 10 Transit Mode Share Changes ..........................................................19
Figure 11 BART, Caltrain, and GenenBus Ridership ........................................20
Figure 12 SSF Main Campus Mode Split Survey Results+ .................................23
Figure 13 SSF Gateway Mode Split Survey Results++ .......................................24
Figure 14 SSF South Campus Mode Split Survey Results+++ ............................25
Figure 15 SSF Mode Split Survey Results for All Three Campuses++++ .............26
Figure 17 Total Parking Supply ......................................................................28
Figure 18 Parking Occupancy Rates, 2007 to 2012 ........................................31
Figure 19 Parking Occupancy by Percentage ..................................................32
Figure 20 Parking Occupancy by Number of Vehicles .....................................33
Figure 21 Bicycle Parking Inventory by Type ..................................................34
Figure 22 Bicycle Occupancy ..........................................................................35
Figure 23 Total Bicycle Parking Supply ...........................................................36
Report issued January 2013
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 1
This report describes the mode split and parking conditions at Genentech's headquarters
in South San Francisco. Both a parking and cordon count survey were conducted on
October 16-18, 2012 as part of an ongoing review and analysis of how parking lots are
utilized at Genentech's three South San Francisco campuses and, more generally, how
people access those campuses. This report compares the Fall 2012 results with previous
parking and cordon count surveys, with attention focused on long term trends between
year-to-year surveys.
PURPOSE
The visual cordon count survey implemented by Nelson\Nygaard records an accurate
count of the transportation modes Genentech employees use to reach work on a typical
weekday. The goal is to determine the share of each transportation mode used to get to
the Main Campus, South Campus and Gateway Campus on typical weekdays.
Determining how employees and contractors reach work is important as it allows
Genentech to best manage its land resources while the company continues to grow. Since
a large portion of traffic on roadways is from people driving their cars alone, most
demand management programs are designed to encourage people to travel by
alternatives to the “single-occupant vehicle” (SOV), especially at peak hours when traffic
is at its worst. A cordon count is used to measure the effectiveness of efforts to reduce
SOV usage. The data collected can be used to measure the following:
Auto occupancy information in support of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) and
carpooling initiatives
Degree of usage of public transit and alternative transportation modes
Monitoring growth and impacts on road and transit facilities
Genentech has over the years developed many programs giving employees alternatives to
driving to work. The gRide Rewards Program is Genentech's incentive program to
encourage South San Francisco employees to use alternative commute options. The
program’s goal is to increase the percentage of employees using alternative forms of
transportation to more than 30%, reducing the number of single occupancy cars coming
to and parking on campus as called for in Genentech’s 10-Year Master Plan. Genentech
rolled out the gRide Rewards Program in November 2006, so this October 2012 survey
provides an opportunity to analyze the program's effectiveness after six years, long
enough to determine the long term effects of the program. Launched primarily as a rider
incentive that paid employees for not driving alone to work, gRide Rewards has
expanded to include a host of incentives for employees who commute:
$120 Transit Subsidy - Genentech pays $120 a month towards the employee’s
choice of vanpooling or Clipper cards for public transit. Prior to January 2009
the subsidy was $115.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 2
Rider Incentive – Employees can earn $4 per day for BART, Caltrain, Carpool,
Vanpool, Bike, Walk and Motorcycle, $2 for all Direct-GenenBus (reduced from
$4 in May 2011)
Driver Incentive - Employees can earn $4 per passenger ($2 per passenger per
way) for being a driver in a carpool or vanpool, up to $32 a day
Preferred Parking - Carpool or vanpool drivers can use Preferred Parking stalls
conveniently located near several building entrances throughout the South San
Francisco campus.
Guaranteed Ride Home Program – Provides a way for employees who commute
to work by public transportation, carpool, vanpool, biking, or walking to travel
home when an unexpected need to do so arises (such as a personal emergency or
unscheduled overtime).
Beginning in 2010, Genentech also started offering a bicycle sharing program for all
employees. Bicycle sharing provides employees with access to a fleet of shared bicycles
from five stations distributed across campus, allowing them to attend business meetings,
run errands or simply get some exercise during the day. While some employees use the
bikes to go as far as downtown South San Francisco, the shared bikes are primarily for
travel around the campus.
These transportation demand management (TDM) programs and policies seek to affect
the travel choices commuters make. The modes measured in this survey include:
Drive alone (private auto)
Carpool (private auto) - includes employees dropped off
Vanpool
Walk
Bike
Transit & connecting work-end shuttle (BART, Caltrain, GenenBus, Ferry, and
Alliance Shuttle)
Motorcycle
Taxi and Hotel/Airport Shuttles
In addition, the parking survey was conducted to determine the parking occupancy on
campus, and how vehicles are distributed across the many surface lots and parking
structures. Genentech’s success in encouraging employees to commute by transit over
the last five years has allowed some surface lots to be replaced by new buildings (e.g.
Building 31). This has affected where employees park, warranting continued data
collection and review.
Figure 1 (below) shows how parking and buildings have changed on the upper campus
of the past few years.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 3
Figure 1 Hilltop Parking Changes
From left to right: Building 2, but no Building 31 (2007), Building 2 demolished and Building 31 completed (early 2011), and expanded lot U16 on site
of Building 2 (late 2011) Source: Google Maps
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4
SURVEY METHODS
Cordon Count
Surveyors located at 13 key entrances to Genentech’s three South San Francisco
campuses and at three key GenenBus stops conducted the visual cordon count survey.
Following are key details of the survey implementation:
Genentech Security Staff were trained and utilized as surveyors by
Nelson\Nygaard staff.
Surveyors were stationed at key roadway and bike/walkway entrances to the
Main, South, and Gateway Campuses during the survey period on each of the
three days (Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday).
Surveyors tallied modes of arrival to the campus in the same manner on each of
the three days. This allowed surveyors to ensure that if any single day had
unusual counts (due to unusual circumstances, e.g. bad weather, a freeway traffic
jam, public transit problems, etc.), their effect would be reduced due to the
counting of three mid-week days.
Surveyors conducted counts on October 16, 17 and 18, 2012 from 6 AM to 10 AM,
during morning peak hours when most dayshift workers arrive. Only mornings
were surveyed, as afternoon traffic is much more likely to include non-commute
travelers.1
The traffic data was collected in 15-minute intervals.
Genentech Security Surveyors were located at three additional locations to
determine how many transit riders reach the South Campus on BART, Caltrain
and GenenBus shuttles.
Transit data was collected in a different way for this survey. Because
the transit operators no longer collect boarding information on campus,
Genentech’s badge-swipe data was used to determine which part of campus
GenenBus riders travel to.
Due to a technical difficulty with the Genentech data system, we were not able to
use current vanpool information for the last two surveys. The vanpool numbers
presented in this report are from the October 2010 survey.
Following is a summary of the various trip types that were tallied and calculated:
Drive Alone: All personal automobiles entering the three campuses were visually
surveyed. Single-occupant vehicles were counted as such.
Carpool: All personal automobiles entering the three campuses were visually surveyed.
If multiple passengers were traveling together in a car, each passenger, including the
1Surveys from April 2005 to January 2007 were conducted from 5 AM to 10 AM. Although the 5 o'clock hour
accounted for 8% of employees accessing campus, the cordon count period was shortened from five to four
hours to accommodate the added parking survey that takes approximately one hour to conduct.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5
driver, was counted under the carpool category. People dropped off in the immediate
vicinity of a surveyor were included as carpool passengers.
Vanpool: Genentech vanpool vehicles were counted by vanpool drivers instead of
surveyors. Note that a problem with the Genentech database prevented them from
providing new data for this survey. Vanpool data from October 2010 was therefore used.
Walk: All pedestrians entering the campus were tallied. Surveyors were stationed and
trained to differentiate between commuter and intra-campus pedestrians.
Bike: All bicyclists entering the campus were counted.
Taxi and Hotel/Airport Shuttles: All taxis, hotel shuttles, and airport shuttles, with
passengers entering the campus, were counted by the number of passengers. If a taxi or
shuttle passed the cordon point with only a driver, no data was collected. If, for example,
a taxi or shuttle passed with one driver and 2 passengers, the vehicle was noted, and the
number of passengers excluding the driver was counted.
Transit: Genentech provided transit ridership information over the course of the entire
month of September, which was used to extrapolate ridership over the course of the
count days. Overall mode split did not include ridership on DNA or Gateway intra-
campus shuttle services, since these employees had already arrived by another mode.
Surveyors counted the number of passengers alighting from non-Genentech shuttles
such as the Alliance Utah-Grand Shuttle that serves the South Campus.
Surveyor Locations
Surveyors were located at the following 16 sites, which are also indicated in Figure 22.
Main Campus
Forbes entryways: (#1a and #1b) second floor of PS-1 along Forbes Boulevard to
capture lower campus trips, (#11) along Forbes Boulevard at Building 54 across from
Allerton Avenue, and (#12) along Forbes Boulevard, between Allerton Avenue and
Gull Drive.
Grandview and Upper Campus entrances: (#3) along Grandview Drive between
Buildings 28 and 39 to capture upper campus trips. The area between Buildings 80
and 26 (#4), is intended to capture commuters entering “the back way” via a
driveway from East Grand Avenue near Haskins Way – however this site was closed
during this survey period due to construction.
South Campus Transit Surveyors: (#B) at the Upper Campus Shuttle Stop along
Grandview near B24, (#C) at the top of the stairs leading from the Upper Campus to
the South Campus, behind Building 24. The two surveyors captured the number of
transit riders going to South Campus, which does not have a GenenBus bus stop.
2 Note that sites 2 and 13 are no longer used, but the remaining sites use their original numbering to avoid confusion and simplify
comparison with old data.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 6
Gateway
North Side: (#5) Executive Drive, NW corner of parking garage, (#6) Gateway
Boulevard, North site near Building 84.
South Side: (#7) Executive Drive, SW corner of parking garage, (#8) Gateway
Boulevard, near childcare facility and Bank of America, (#9) Executive Drive at
Corporate Drive, and (#10) Gateway Boulevard at Corporate Drive.
South Campus Transit Surveyors: (#A) at the Gateway Campus Shuttle Stop next to
the Parking Structure and across from Building 83.The surveyors captured the
number of transit riders transferring to the DNA shuttle to South Campus, which
does not have a GenenBus bus stop.
South Campus
East Grand Avenue (#14) where it ends and meets Building 44. All drivers heading
into campus were counted. Since April 2009, vehicles entering south of Building 44
towards Parking Structure B and Building 45 were also counted since these
structures are now completed. The Alliance Utah-Grand shuttles are the only transit,
apart from intra-campus DNA shuttles, that go to this campus at this time.
South Campus employees taking the GenenBus to work were counted by three
surveyors at sites A, B, and C to determine when shuttle riders alighting at Gateway
and the Main Campus, in fact walk or take the DNA shuttle to South Campus.
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
P
O
R
T
F
A
L
L
2
0
1
2
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
,
I
n
c
.
Ne
l
s
o
n
\
N
y
g
a
a
r
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
I
n
c
.
|
7
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
C
o
r
d
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 8
Parking Survey
The parking survey was conducted at 10 AM on October 16, 17 and 18, 2012. Each
surveyor or surveyor pair was assigned a series of adjacent parking zones to count.
Parking spaces were counted by space type, including the following:
General employee vehicles
gRide parking spaces
Vanpool spaces
Company and service vehicles
Motorcycles
Disabled
Visitors
Public Access (e.g. Bay Trail)
Loading spaces
Illegal parking (marked with a red curb, no parking, or any vehicle not in a
designated parking space)
Bicycle racks/cages
Other specialized parking spaces
Survey Implementation
The survey was carried out as planned on all three days. Overall, surveyors performed as
trained. About half of the officers had participated in previous cordon counts at least
once during the past five years. However, few officers attended training on Monday. This
meant that some officers reporting on Tuesday morning had not received any training,
because this was their first time participating in the survey. Each surveyor was assigned
his or her own cordon count locations. The larger parking survey areas (i.e. those with
large parking structures) were typically split between two surveyors, while the smaller
parking survey areas were assigned to single surveyors.
The weather was unseasonably warm for October; temperatures ranged from 72 degrees
to 84 degrees, with sunshine on all three days. This survey included non-Genentech
parking lots, such as Lithotype and Rich’s Donuts, in order for these vehicles to be
removed from the Genentech transportation mode share calculation.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 9
CORDON COUNT SURVEY AND MODE SHARE ANALYSIS
Results from the visual cordon count survey provided a breakdown of the commute
mode shares. Nelson\Nygaard has previously conducted surveys starting with the Main
Campus in April 2005, both Main Campus and Gateway from February 2006 to present,
and the South Campus since April 2008. Since 2006, surveys have been conducted twice
a year, normally in April, and in October; however, in 2012 only an October survey was
conducted. Including the new October 2012 survey, all fourteen surveys conducted to
date are generally comparable although some factors should be acknowledged. Figure 3
shows the evolution of the cordon count survey over the past 5 years. A full account of all
variations in the cordon count data collection can be found in the Appendix of this
report.
Figure 3 Cordon Count History and Changes
Year Month Main
Campus Gateway South
Campus
Count Start
Time Notes
2005 April Surveyed Not included N/A 5:00 AM
2006
February Surveyed Surveyed N/A 5:00 AM
Insufficient parking at the
Main Campus may have
affected mode splits at
each campus.
November Surveyed Surveyed N/A 5:00 AM
Sufficient parking at Main
Campus allowed for
accurate mode splits.
gRide program introduced.
2007
January Surveyed Surveyed N/A 5:00 AM gRide fully implemented.
October Surveyed Surveyed N/A 6:00 AM Start time shifted from 5
AM to 6 AM.
2008
April Surveyed Surveyed Northern half
surveyed 6:00 AM
Northern half open, while
southern half closed so
only north counted.
October Surveyed Surveyed Northern half
surveyed 6:00 AM
Northern half open, while
southern half closed so
only north counted.
2009 April Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed 6:00 AM
Southern half of South
Campus opened. Entire
campus counted.
October Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed 6:00 AM
2010
April Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed 6:00 AM
October Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed 6:00 AM
South Campus GenenBus
riders counted for first
time.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 10
Year Month Main
Campus Gateway South
Campus
Count Start
Time Notes
2011
April Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed 6:00 AM
Parking Survey was not
conducted. Vanpool
numbers are from the Oct.
2010 survey.
October Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed 6:00 AM
Site 4 closed due to
construction. Vanpool
numbers are from the Oct.
2010 survey.
2012 October Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed 6:00 AM
April survey not
conducted. Change in
GenenBus boarding
location methodology.
Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the mode share changes before and after the gRide program
was implemented in late 2006 at the Main and Gateway Campuses respectively. Figure 6
shows the mode share changes of the South Campus from April 2008 to the present.
Figure 7 shows the mode share changes of all campuses combined. All results are based
on an average of the mode split over the three-day period.
It should be noted that this year’s cordon count shows a precipitous drop in transit
ridership at the Gateway Campus, and a significant increase in transit ridership at the
Main Campus. This is almost certainly due to a change in how on-campus trip
distribution was calculated. Previously Compass Transportation was able to report both
the total number of riders, and also where those riders boarded the bus on campus in the
afternoons – from this it was extrapolated that they would disembark at the same
locations in the morning.
Starting this year, Compass Transportation was only able to report the total number of
riders. Badge swipe data was used to establish location.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 11
Figure 4 Main Campus Mode Choices, 2006 – Present
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Nov '06Oct '07Apr '08Oct '08Apr '09Oct '09Apr '10Oct '10April '11Oct '11Oct '12
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
M
o
d
e
S
h
a
r
e
Drive Alone Carpool Transit Vanpool Walk
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 12
Figure 5 Gateway Campus Mode Choices, 2006 – Present
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Nov '06Oct '07Apr '08Oct '08Apr '09Oct '09Apr '10Oct '10April '11Oct '11Oct '12
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
M
o
d
e
S
h
a
r
e
Drive Alone Carpool Transit Vanpool Walk
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 13
Figure 6 South Campus Mode Choices, April 2008 – Present
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Apr '08Oct '08Apr '09Oct '09Apr '10Oct '10April '11Oct '11Oct '12
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
M
o
d
e
S
h
a
r
e
Drive Alone Carpool Transit Vanpool Walk
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 14
Figure 7 All Campuses Mode Choices, 2006 – Present
The mode shares shown in the graphs above are documented in the tables in Figure 13
through Figure 16.
Drive Alone and Carpool
Overall, the drive alone mode share saw a decrease of 5.6 percentage points as compared
to October 2011. The current drive alone mode share for all three campuses is 58.8%.
Main Campus experienced the sharpest decline in drive alone rates, while the Gateway
Campus saw a moderate decrease in its drive alone rate. The South Campus saw a
moderate increase in its drive alone rate. See Figure 7 (above) for the overall average
changes. As stated above, the drive alone and transit mode shares at Main and Gateway
campuses should be viewed in light of the methodology change – less weight should be
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Nov '06Oct '07Apr '08Oct '08Apr '09Oct '09Apr '10Oct '10April '11Oct '11Oct '12
Drive Alone Carpool Transit Vanpool Walk
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 15
attached to the individual mode shares at Main and Gateway (because they are
estimated), instead more emphasis should be placed on the mode share at South Campus
and combined for all campuses because they were observed directly.
The Main Campus’ drive alone rate decreased 11.2 points from October 2011 and 9.6
points from April 2011. The Main Campus experienced the most significant decrease in
its drive alone rate during the past year and is currently at its lowest since Genentech
began tracking commute mode splits. Drive alone rates have fluctuated on the Main
Campus over the last four years, ranging between 56% - 67%. See Figure 3 (above) for
the overall changes.
The drive alone rate at South Campus also decreased between October 2011 and October
2012, but it is still the highest of all three campuses. The South Campus drive alone rate
is likely higher due to the fact that it has no direct GenenBus service. Most South
Campus employees who take the GenenBus alight at the Main Campus, and then walk
down the hillside stairway to the South Campus. A smaller portion take the GenenBus to
Gateway, where they board a DNA shuttle bound for South Campus.
Gateway experienced a modest increase in drive alone mode share, and while in 2011 it
was to date the only Genentech campus with a drive alone rate lower than 60% (57.8%),
it is now almost back above 60% (59.2%). In the last year, Gateway’s drive alone rate
increased 3.4 percentage points. While mode share increased in 2012, the campuses'
downward trend represents a sustained trend in employee commuting behavior.
The relative changes in drive alone mode share for the Gateway and Main campuses can
also be seen in Figure 8.
As shown in Figure 9, drive alone shares for all campuses combined have decreased over
the past six years. The All Campuses drive alone rate dropped 8.4 points from 2006 to
2008. From 2008 to present, the All Campuses rate has dropped 11.3 points. The
changes in drive alone rates, compared to October 2011, may be due to several factors
including gas prices, traffic congestion, transit improvements, and toll changes on the
Bay Bridge. As shown in Figures 3 to 6, the carpool rate for all three campuses has
increased in October 2012. In July 2010, tolls for the Bay Bridge were raised and
restructured and carpools were no longer allowed to cross the bridge for free. According
to a study by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, charging a discounted
carpool toll of $2.50 caused 4,365 vehicles to abandon the carpool lanes daily - a 26%
decline3. This resulted in a steep decrease in carpool mode share between 2010 and 2011
on the Genentech Campus, but it seems as if the effects of this change are now stabilizing
and are perhaps being reversed.
3San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/11/free-fee-charge-takes-toll-sf-bay-bridge-
carpools#ixzz1fhcFRXgn
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 16
Figure 8 Drive Alone Mode Shore, All Cordon Counts (2006 – Present)
Figure 9 Drive Alone Mode Share, Fall Counts Only (2006 – Present)
R² = 0.8942
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
Feb
'06
Nov
'06
Jan
'07
Oct
'07
Apr
'08
Oct
'08
Apr
'09
Oct
'09
Apr
'10
Oct
'10
April
'11
Oct
'11
Oct
'12
Main
Gateway
All
Campuses
Linear (All
Campuses)
R² = 0.8896
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
Nov '06Oct '07Oct '08Oct '09Oct '10Oct '11Oct '12
Main
Gateway
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 17
Drive Alone and Carpool Summary:
Drive alone share of all trips averaged 58.8% for all three campuses. This is a
5.6 point decrease since October 2011 when the drive alone share was 64.4%.
Since gRide was implemented in late 2006, the drive alone share has dropped
15.2 percentage points.
Carpools had an 8.1% share overall, a 0.9 point increase from 7.2% one year ago.
The carpool share has ranged from just over 7% to just over 12%. In July 2010,
peak period toll pricing was introduced on the Bay Bridge, along with the
introduction of tolling carpool vehicles, which may have attributed to the recent
decrease in the number of carpools, though the affects of this change may have
stabilized and even reversed.
All campuses saw small increases in carpool participation. In the last year,
carpool mode share has increased slightly by 0.9 percentage points on the Main
Campus, 1.2 percentage points on the South Campus, and 0.6 percentage points
on the Gateway Campus. Year to year carpool rates are up at all three campuses.
A clear link between drive alone rates and California gas prices4 can be seen in
Figure 10. Drive alone rates appear to react and change several months after gas
prices significantly rise or fall. Gas prices climbed above $3 per gallon in early
2007 and above $4 by the middle of 2008. Drive alone commuters appear to have
responded to the rising gas prices and the gRide incentive, with a noticeable lag
of several months. Six months after gas prices rose to more than $4 a gallon,
drive alone rates dipped by 4 percentage points. Conversely, the drive alone rate
increased 2 percentage points three months after gas prices fell by $2.66 to $1.82
per gallon. While the graph below shows California Indexed Gas Prices, the price
of gas in the Bay Area5 was actually higher in September and October 2012 than it
was during the 2008 gas price spike, which may have contributed to the
continued decline in drive-alone mode share.
4 Source: http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/retail_gasoline_prices2.html
5 http://www.sanfrangasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx
SOU
Figur
Tra
Gene
servic
new W
show
Gene
since
point
over
As sh
Gene
6 US Ind
http://d
7 Points
UTH SAN F
re 10 Drive
ansit Acc
entech has m
ce, and cont
WETA ferry
ws 23 daily ri
enBus service
e November 2
ts since Octo
2 percentage
hown in Figu
entech’s Sout
dex Gas Prices ba
ata.bls.gov/cgi-bin
s refer to the differ
FRANCISCO
Nelson
e Alone Rate
cess
made transit
inued shuttl
service from
ders using th
e has seen a
2006. Trans
ober 2010. T
e points ever
ure 11, the Oc
th San Franc
ased on Bureau of
n/surveymost?ap:
ence in mode sha
O MODE SH
Gen
n\Nygaard Co
and Gas Pric
access a prio
le services fr
m the East Ba
he ferry serv
14.4 percen
sit mode sha
Transit mode
ry year, thou
ctober 2012
cisco campu
f Labor Statistic’s
are percentage.
HARE AND
nentech, Inc.
onsulting Asso
ces (2005 – P
ority through
rom Caltrain
ay to Oyster
vice to access
ntage point7 i
are is up 4.7 p
e share is lar
ugh this year
transit rate
uses.
US City Average,
D PARKING
ociates Inc. | 1
Present)6
h dramatic i
n and BART
Point has st
s Genentech
increase to S
points since
rgely followi
r saw a some
is the highes
unleaded gasolin
REPORT F
18
increases in
stations. In
tarted, and t
h. The expan
South San Fr
e October 20
ing an upwar
ewhat steepe
st ever recor
e.
FALL 2012
GenenBus
addition, th
transit data
nded
rancisco
11 and 7.3
rd trend of
er growth.
rded at
e
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 19
Figure 11 Transit Mode Share Changes
GenenBus (Direct Service)
GenenBus combined services now provide the greatest transit share (69.8%)
to South San Francisco compared to BART, Ferry and Caltrain shuttles.
GenenBus ridership continues to grow, with a growing route system. South
San Francisco ridership nearly doubled between October 2009 and October
2010, from 676 to 1,257 riders. In October 2012, ridership grew by a smaller
margin (28%) to 1,603 riders.
Since October 2009, new GenenBus routes (SF Noe Valley, Danville, Los
Gatos/Palo Alto, Cupertino and others) have been added.
South Campus does not have direct GenenBus service at this time. However,
employees working at the South Campus who use the GenenBus were counted
this year.
Caltrain
Ridership via Caltrain experienced a dramatic decrease. Ridership is down
22% from October 2011, to 216 riders in October 2012.
Caltrain ridership from this survey does not discern whether the Utah-Grand
Shuttle service came from BART or Caltrain. Genentech does not provide its
own direct shuttle service from Caltrain to South Campus. However, riders
6.50%
11.10%
11.00%
14.10%
13.40%
18.20%
16.43%
20.41%
19.77%
21.52%
22.87%
24.13%
28.82%
R² = 0.9516
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Feb
'06
Nov
'06
Jan
'07
Oct
'07
Apr
'08
Oct
'08
Apr
'09
Oct
'09
Apr
'10
Oct
'10
April
'11
Oct
'11
Oct
'12
Transit
Linear
(Transit)
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 20
walking from the Upper Campus bus stops at Building 31 and Building 24
down to the South Campus were counted.
In terms of actual ridership, Caltrain ridership increased steadily from 265
riders in November 2006, 343 riders in October 2007, to a peak of 405 riders
in October 2008. In October 2011, ridership declined to 278. In October of
this year, ridership decreased to 216.
This likely reflects that direct GenenBuses or BART to Glen Park and the
shuttle from there are faster or more convenient than taking Caltrain.
BART
Glen Park BART Shuttle continues to provide the greatest transit share
(19.4%) for a single shuttle service, as indicated in Figure 11. The second
busiest route is the GenenBus Cupertino route in San Francisco with a 9.4%
share of transit riders followed by the Millbrae Caltrain shuttle (8.9% share).
Overall BART ridership increased by 1% since October 2011 to 452 daily
riders. In terms of actual ridership, BART ridership increased from 483 riders
in November 2006 to a high of 528 riders in October 2009. This year, it
increased to 452. The Glen Park BART shuttle is the transit “workhorse” of
GenenBus services with the greatest ridership of any of the GenenBus routes.
Genentech does not provide its own direct shuttle service from BART to
South Campus.
Figure 12 BART, Caltrain, Ferry, and GenenBus Ridership
Route
Ridership
(daily average) Share of Transit Riders
Glen Park BART 452 19.7%
Oyster Point Ferry 25 1.1%
San Francisco GenenBuses
Church & Market, Marina, Pac Heights, SoMa, and Noe Valley
505 22.0%
Caltrain
Main & Gateway; includes Mid-Day
216 9.4%
Alameda County GenenBuses:
Pleasanton, Danville, Castro Valley, Hayward, Newark, San
Ramon, Pleasant Hill, Rockridge, Orinda
570 24.8%
South Bay/ Peninsula GenenBuses:
San Mateo, Mountain View, Cupertino, San Jose
377 16.4%
Contra Costa/ Solano GenenBuses:
Vacaville, Fairfield, Richmond, Vallejo
151 6.6%
Transit Summary
Transit service has seen an increase in mode share over the past few years.
Overall South San Francisco transit mode share increased by 4.7 percentage
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 21
points since October 2011. Total ridership numbers increased from 2,010 riders
per day on average in 2011 to 2,359 riders per day.
Less emphasis should be placed on the drive alone and transit mode share at
Gateway and Main campuses, due to a change in the way distribution of transit
trips was calculated. This does not affect the accuracy of overall mode share, or
the transit mode share at South Campus. For reference:
The transit share at the Main Campus is currently 33.1%. This is an increase
of 10.8 points from October 2011, giving it the highest transit rate of all three
campuses. Overall, transit mode share on the Main Campus has increased by
19.2 points since November 2006, just before gRide was instituted.
The transit share at Gateway is 26.1%. This is a decrease of 4.6 points from
October 2011. Since November 2006, however, transit share at Gateway has
increased by 13.1 points.
Transit share at South Campus is 18.5%, an increase of 2.4 points from October
2011. Transit mode share has grown substantially since April 2010, primarily due
to a change in survey methodology, allowing the cordon count to capture
GenenBus riders going to South Campus for the first time.
Pedestrian Access
Walking continues to be of limited use as a commuting method to Genentech due to the
long distances from residential neighborhoods. Most walking comes from hotel patrons
going to Gateway.
Overall, walking mode share decreased over the past year from a 2.3% mode
share in October 2011 to a 1.1% share for all three campuses in October 2012.
Walking at Gateway Campus fell from 4% in October 2011 to 2.1% in October
2012. Main Campus walking mode share decreased in the past year from 2.0% to
0.8%, while the South Campus increased slightly from 0.0% to 0.2%.
Other Modes
Since vanpool information was not available for the October 2012 cordon count,
October 2010 numbers were used. Using these numbers, it is estimated that
vanpool mode share was 1.1% in October 2012. This represents no change in
mode share from October 2011. Between November 2006 and October 2012,
vanpool mode share held steady between 1.0% and 1.5%.
Taxi, bike and motorcycle shares all remained relatively constant for both
campuses. Note that the sum of these modes remains below 1.0% of all mode
shares.
Detailed Mode Split Changes 2005-2012
Figures 12 through 15 provides detailed data on the changes in mode split since 2005.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 22
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
P
O
R
T
F
A
L
L
2
0
1
2
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
,
I
n
c
.
Ne
l
s
o
n
\
N
y
g
a
a
r
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
I
n
c
.
|
2
3
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
3
S
S
F
M
a
i
n
C
a
m
p
u
s
M
o
d
e
S
p
l
i
t
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
+
Mo
d
e
Ap
r
-
2
0
0
5
Fe
b
-
2
0
0
6
No
v
-
2
0
0
6
Ja
n
-
2
0
0
7
Oc
t
-
2
0
0
7
Ap
r
-
2
0
0
8
Oc
t
-
2
0
0
8
Ap
r
-
2
0
0
9
Oc
t
-
2
0
0
9
Ap
r
-
2
0
1
0
Oc
t
-
2
0
1
0
Apr-2011 Oct-2011 Oct-2012
Dr
i
v
e
A
l
o
n
e
7
9
.
2
%
6 7
7
.
8
%
7
4
.
9
%
7
5
.
1
%
7
3
.
2
%
7
0
.
8
%
6
4
.
8
%
65
.
3
%
6
3
.
7
%
6
4
.
5
%
6
3
.
8
%
6
5
.
5
%
6
7
.
1
%
55.9%
gR
i
d
e
Mo
d
e
s
*
20
.
6
%
21
.
8
%
24
.
8
%
24
.
7
%
26
.
6
%
28
.
9
%
35
.
0
%
34
.
3
%
35
.
8
%
35
.
5
%
35
.
7
%
33.9% 32.6% 43.6%
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
2-
P
e
r
s
o
n
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
11
.
7
%
1
0
.
0
%
9
.
9
%
8
.
9
%
8
.
6
%
1
0
.
9
%
1
1
.
9
%
10
.
6
%
1
0
.
0
%
9
.
9
%
9
.
3
%
9
.
1
%
6
.
2
%
6
.
5
%
3-
P
e
r
s
o
n
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
1.
2
%
0
.
8
%
0
.
9
%
0
.
9
%
0
.
7
%
1
.
2
%
0
.
9
%
1.
3
%
0
.
8
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
2
%
1
.
0
%
0
.
7
%
0
.
9
%
4
o
r
m
o
r
e
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
0.
5
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
4
%
0.
5
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
1
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
5
%
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
To
t
a
l
13
.
3
%
1
1
.
1
%
1
1
.
3
%
1
0
.
2
%
9
.
8
%
1
2
.
5
%
1
3
.
2
%
12
.
4
%
1
1
.
0
%
1
1
.
3
%
1
1
.
0
%
1
0
.
2
%
7
.
0
%
7
.
9
%
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
BA
R
T
n
/
a
4
.
8
%
5
.
1
%
6
.
2
%
5
.
6
%
5
.
1
%
5
.
7
%
7.
3
%
5
.
8
%
5
.
3
%
4
.
2
%
6
.
5
%
6
.
0
%
5
.
8
%
Ca
l
t
r
a
i
n
n
/
a
1
.
9
%
2
.
8
%
3
.
2
%
4
.
5
%
4
.
2
%
5
.
5
%
4
.
9
%
5
.
5
%
4
.
6
%
2
.
8
%
2
.
7
%
3
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
Ge
n
e
n
B
u
s
n
/
a
n
/
a
1
.
9
%
1
.
9
%
3
.
8
%
4
.
7
%
7
.
7
%
7
.
5
%
1
0
.
7
%
1
1
.
1
%
1
5
.
9
%
1
1
.
9
%
1
3
.
3
%
2
0
.
8
%
Oy
s
t
e
r
Po
i
n
t
F
e
r
r
y
n/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
0
.
3
%
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
To
t
a
l
5.
3
%
6
.
7
%
9
.
8
%
1
1
.
3
%
1
3
.
9
%
1
4
.
1
%
1
8
.
8
%
19
.
8
%
2
2
.
3
%
2
1
.
1
%
2
2
.
9
%
2
1
.
1
%
2
2
.
3
%
3
3
.
1
%
Ot
h
e
r
M
o
d
e
s
Va
n
p
o
o
l
0
.
8
%
0
.
9
%
1
.
8
%
1
.
3
%
1
.
4
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
3
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
5
%
0
.
9
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
0
%
1
.
1
%
Mo
t
o
r
b
i
k
e
0
.
5
%
0
.
8
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
7%
0
.
6
%
0
.
7
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
3
%
Bi
k
e
0
.
4
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
4
%
Ta
x
i
0
.
2
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
5
%
Wa
l
k
8 0
.
2
%
2
.
1
%
1
.
4
%
1
.
1
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
4
%
0.
3
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
5
%
2
.
0
%
0
.
8
%
Ot
h
e
r
Mo
d
e
s
To
t
a
l
2.
2
%
4
.
4
%
3
.
9
%
3
.
4
%
3
.
1
%
2
.
7
%
3
.
2
%
2.
5
%
3
.
0
%
3
.
0
%
2
.
3
%
3
.
1
%
3
.
7
%
3
.
1
%
To
t
a
l
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
Fo
o
t
n
o
t
e
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
i
n
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
5
.
+
C
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
v
a
l
+
/
-
0
.
7
8
%
*
g
R
i
de
M
o
d
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
,
c
a
r
p
o
o
l
,
v
a
n
p
o
o
l
,
m
ot
o
r
b
i
k
e
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
P
O
R
T
F
A
L
L
2
0
1
2
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
,
I
n
c
.
Ne
l
s
o
n
\
N
y
g
a
a
r
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
I
n
c
.
|
2
4
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
4
S
S
F
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
M
o
d
e
S
p
l
i
t
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
++
Mo
d
e
Fe
b
-
2
0
0
6
No
v
-
2
0
0
6
Ja
n
-
2
0
0
7
Oc
t
-
2
0
0
7
Ap
r
-
2
0
0
8
Oc
t
-
2
0
0
8
Ap
r
-
2
0
0
9
Oc
t
-
2
0
0
9
Ap
r
-
2
0
1
0
Oc
t
-
2
0
1
0
Apr-2011 Oct-2011 Oct-2012
Dr
i
v
e
A
l
o
n
e
7
6
.
7
%
7
2
.
5
%
7
3
.
5
%
6
7
.
2
%
6
6
.
5
%
6
4
.
3
%
6
7
.
8
%
6
1
.
2
%
6
3
.
2
%
6
2
.
7
%
5
8
.
2
%
5
5
.
8
%
5
9
.
2
%
gR
i
d
e
M
o
d
e
s
*
23
.
1
%
27
.
3
%
26
.
3
%
32
.
7
%
33
.
1
%
35
.
3
%
31
.
9
%
38
.
5
%
36
.
2
%
36
.
6
%
40.9% 43.4% 38.5%
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
2-
P
e
r
s
o
n
C
a
r
p
o
o
l
1
1
.
3
%
8
.
9
%
9
.
5
%
1
0
.
1
%
8
.
6
%
8
.
0
%
9
.
3
%
7
.
0
%
7
.
7
%
7
.
7
%
6
.
1
%
5
.
9
%
5
.
6
%
3-
P
e
r
s
o
n
C
a
r
p
o
o
l
2
.
3
%
2
.
6
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
7
%
1
.
7
%
0
.
9
%
1
.
0
%
0
.
8
%
0
.
9
%
1
.
5
%
0
.
9
%
0
.
9
%
1
.
1
%
4
o
r
m
o
r
e
P
e
r
s
o
n
s
0
.
5
%
0
.
4
%
1
.
2
%
0
.
7
%
0
.
8
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
7
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
6
%
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
T
o
t
a
l
1
4
.
0
%
1
1
.
9
%
1
1
.
8
%
1
2
.
6
%
1
1
.
7
%
9
.
6
%
1
1
.
0
%
8
.
3
%
8
.
9
%
9
.
6
%
7
.
8
%
7
.
2
%
7.8%
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
BA
R
T
4
.
2
%
7
.
8
%
6
.
6
%
7
.
9
%
7
.
3
%
1
0
.
1
%
6
.
6
%
1
0
.
9
%
7
.
6
%
4
.
1
%
9
.
1
%
8
.
3
%
4
.
6
%
Ca
l
t
r
a
i
n
2
.
1
%
4
.
2
%
2
.
9
%
4
.
0
%
4
.
7
%
5
.
7
%
5
.
2
%
5
.
2
%
2
.
9
%
2
.
7
%
3
.
8
%
4
.
1
%
0
.
0
%
Ge
n
e
n
B
u
s
n
/
a
1
.
0
%
1
.
2
%
2
.
4
%
3
.
2
%
4
.
9
%
5
.
1
%
8
.
4
%
1
3
.
9
%
1
5
.
4
%
1
6
.
7
%
1
8
.
4
%
1
6
.
4
%
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
t
F
e
r
r
y
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
0
.
3
%
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
T
o
t
a
l
6
.
3
%
1
3
.
0
%
1
0
.
7
%
1
4
.
3
%
1
5
.
1
%
2
0
.
8
%
1
7
.
0
%
2
4
.
8
%
2
4
.
4
%
2
2
.
2
%
2
9
.
7
%
3
0
.
7
%
2
6
.
1
%
Ot
h
e
r
M
o
d
e
s
Va
n
p
o
o
l
0
.
9
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
7
%
1
.
0
%
1
.
5
%
1
.
3
%
2
.
0
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
5
%
0
.
9
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
2
%
1
.
1
%
Mo
t
o
r
b
i
k
e
0
.
5
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
8
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
5
%
Bi
k
e
0
.
1
%
0
.
1
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
1
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
1
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
1
%
0
.
9
%
Ta
x
i
0
.
1
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
1
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
8
%
0
.
9
%
0
.
8
%
2
.
3
%
Wa
l
k
8
1
.
3
%
1
.
5
%
2
.
6
%
4
.
0
%
3
.
8
%
2
.
9
%
1
.
4
%
3
.
7
%
1
.
2
%
2
.
5
%
1
.
5
%
4
.
0
%
2
.
1
%
Ot
h
e
r
M
o
d
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
2
.
9
%
2
.
6
%
4
.
0
%
6
.
0
%
6
.
8
%
5
.
3
%
4
.
2
%
5
.
7
%
3
.
5
%
5
.
1
%
4
.
3
%
6
.
3
%
6
.
9
%
To
t
a
l
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Fo
o
t
n
o
t
e
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
i
n
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
5
.
+
+
C
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
v
a
l
+
/
-
0
.
9
7
%
*
g
R
id
e
M
o
d
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
,
c
a
r
p
o
o
l
,
v
a
n
p
o
o
l
,
m
o
t
o
r
b
i
k
e
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
P
O
R
T
F
A
L
L
2
0
1
2
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
,
I
n
c
.
Ne
l
s
o
n
\
N
y
g
a
a
r
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
I
n
c
.
|
2
5
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
5
S
S
F
S
o
u
t
h
C
a
m
p
u
s
M
o
d
e
S
p
l
i
t
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
++
+
Mo
d
e
Ap
r
-
2
0
0
8
Oc
t
-
2
0
0
8
Ap
r
-
2
0
0
9
Oc
t
-
2
0
0
9
Ap
r
-
2
0
1
0
Oc
t
-
2
0
1
0
Ap
r
-
2
0
1
1
Oc
t
-
2
0
1
1
Oc
t
-
2
0
1
2
No
t
e
:
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
m
a
y
n
o
t
t
o
t
a
l
1
0
0
%
d
u
e
to
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
6
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
v
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
P
a
r
k
-
&-
R
i
d
e
S
h
u
t
t
l
e
r
i
d
e
r
s
.
T
h
e
S
h
u
t
t
l
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
se
r
v
i
c
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
m
a
i
n
c
a
m
p
u
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
.
I
t
i
s
u
n
c
l
e
a
r
,
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
ho
w
m
a
n
y
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
r
i
d
e
r
s
a
r
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
t
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
t
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
M
a
i
n
Ca
m
p
u
s
,
v
e
r
s
u
s
t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o
a
r
e
s
i
m
p
l
y
sh
u
t
t
l
i
n
g
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
c
a
m
p
u
s
e
s
,
t
h
e
i
r
a
r
r
i
v
a
l
s
ha
v
i
n
g
b
e
e
n
c
o
u
n
t
e
d
e
l
s
e
w
h
e
r
e
.
8
W
a
l
k
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
m
a
y
b
e
h
i
g
h
d
u
e
t
o
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
i
n
r
e
m
o
t
e
l
o
t
s
a
n
d
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
on
t
o
c
a
m
p
u
s
*
g
R
i
d
e
m
o
d
e
s
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
a
l
l
m
o
d
e
s
a
p
a
r
t
fr
o
m
D
r
i
v
e
A
l
o
n
e
(
C
a
r
p
o
o
l
,
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
,
v
a
n
p
o
o
l
,
mo
t
o
r
b
i
k
e
,
e
t
c
.
Dr
i
v
e
A
l
o
n
e
78
.
9
%
8
2
.
6
%
8
5
.
0
%
8
4
.
6
%
8
6
.
2
%
7
3
.
4
%
7
3
.
4
%
7
4
.
3
%
6
9
.
7
%
gR
i
d
e
M
o
d
e
s
*
20
.
5
%
17
.
3
%
14
.
6
%
14
.
4
%
13
.
4
%
25
.
9
%
26
.
2
%
25
.
3
%
29
.
3
%
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
2-
P
e
r
s
o
n
C
a
r
p
o
o
l
11
.
1
%
9
.
3
%
1
1
.
5
%
9
.
5
%
1
0
.
2
%
9
.
3
%
9
.
5
%
7
.
7
%
8
.
0
%
3-
P
e
r
s
o
n
C
a
r
p
o
o
l
0.
9
%
1
.
4
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
6
%
4
o
r
m
o
r
e
P
e
r
s
o
n
s
0.
3
%
2
.
9
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
3
%
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
T
o
t
a
l
12
.
3
%
1
3
.
9
%
1
2
.
2
%
1
0
.
3
%
1
1
.
2
%
9
.
9
%
1
0
.
3
%
7
.
7
%
8
.
9
%
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Ge
n
e
n
B
u
s
n/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n/
a
n
/
a
1
3
.
5
%
1
4
.
5
%
1
6
.
0
%
1
7
.
6
%
All
i
a
n
c
e
U
t
a
h
-
G
r
a
n
d
S
h
u
t
t
l
e
n/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n/
a
0
.
9
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
1
%
1
.
0
%
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
T
o
t
a
l
3.
9
%
1
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
1
.
7
%
0
.
4
%
1
4
.
4
%
1
4
.
5
%
1
6
.
1
%
1
8
.
5
%
Ot
h
e
r
M
o
d
e
s
Va
n
p
o
o
l
3.
0
%
1
.
3
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
5
%
0
.
9
%
0
.
9
%
1
.
0
%
0
.
9
%
Mo
t
o
r
b
i
k
e
0.
2
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
7
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
1
%
0
.
5
%
Bi
k
e
0.
5
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
7
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
1
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
3
%
Ta
x
i
0.
6
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
4
%
1
.
0
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
4
%
1
.
0
%
Wa
l
k
8
0.
5
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
1
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
1
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
2
%
Ot
h
e
r
M
o
d
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
4.
8
%
2
.
6
%
2
.
9
%
3.
5
%
2
.
2
%
2.
3
%
1
.
8
%
1
.
8
%
2
.
9
%
To
t
a
l
10
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
++
+
C
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
v
a
l
+
/
-
2
.
4
5
%
*
g
R
i
d
e
M
o
d
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
tr
a
n
s
i
t
,
c
a
r
p
o
o
l
,
v
a
n
p
o
o
l
,
m
o
t
o
r
b
i
k
e
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
P
O
R
T
F
A
L
L
2
0
1
2
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
,
I
n
c
.
Ne
l
s
o
n
\
N
y
g
a
a
r
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
I
n
c
.
|
2
6
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
6
S
S
F
M
o
d
e
S
p
l
i
t
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
f
o
r
A
l
l
T
h
r
e
e
C
a
m
p
u
s
e
s
++
+
+
Mo
d
e
Fe
b
-
2
0
0
6
No
v
-
2
0
0
6
Ja
n
-
2
0
0
7
Oc
t
-
2
0
0
7
Ap
r
-
2
0
0
8
Oc
t
-
2
0
0
8
Ap
r
-
2
0
0
9
Oc
t
-
2
0
0
9
Ap
r
-
2
0
1
0
Oc
t
-
2
0
1
0
Apr-2011 Oct-2011 Oct-2012
Dr
i
v
e
A
l
o
n
e
7
7
.
4
%
7
4
.
0
%
7
4
.
4
%
7
0
.
8
%
7
0
.
1
%
6
5
.
9
%
6
8
.
8
%
6
5
.
6
%
6
6
.
7
%
6
4
.
7
%
6
4
.
4
%
6
4
.
4
%
58.8%
gR
i
d
e
M
o
d
e
s
*
22
.
3
%
25
.
8
%
25
.
4
%
28
.
9
%
29
.
6
%
33
.
8
%
30
.
9
%
33
.
8
%
32
.
8
%
34
.
6
%
35.0% 35.1% 40.1%
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
2-
P
e
r
s
o
n
C
a
r
p
o
o
l
1
0
.
5
0
%
9
.
5
0
%
9
.
2
0
%
9
.
2
0
%
1
0
.
1
0
%
1
0
.
4
%
1
0
.
3
%
9
.
0
%
9
.
2
%
8
.
8
%
8
.
2
%
6
.
4
%
6
.
5
%
3-
P
e
r
s
o
n
C
a
r
p
o
o
l
1
.
4
0
%
1
.
6
0
%
1
.
0
0
%
1
.
1
0
%
1
.
3
0
%
0
.
9
%
1
.
1
%
0
.
8
%
0
.
9
%
1
.
2
%
0
.
9
%
0
.
7
%
0
.
9
%
4
o
r
m
o
r
e
P
e
r
s
o
n
s
0
.
3
0
%
0
.
5
0
%
0
.
7
0
%
0
.
6
0
%
0
.
5
0
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
1
%
0
.
5
%
Ca
r
p
o
o
l
T
o
t
a
l
1
2
.
3
%
1
1
.
5
%
1
0
.
9
%
1
0
.
8
%
1
2
.
2
%
1
2
.
0
%
1
1
.
9
%
1
0
.
1
%
1
0
.
4
%
1
0
.
5
%
9
.
4
%
7
.
2
%
8
.
1
%
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
BA
R
T
4
.
5
0
%
6
.
2
0
%
6
.
4
0
%
6
.
5
0
%
5
.
6
0
%
6
.
8
%
6
.
1
%
6
.
7
%
5
.
5
%
4
.
8
%
4
.
9
%
5
.
4
%
5
.
7
%
Ca
l
t
r
a
i
n
2
.
0
0
%
3
.
4
0
%
3
.
0
0
%
4
.
3
0
%
4
.
1
0
%
5
.
2
%
4
.
5
%
4
.
8
%
3
.
5
%
2
.
7
%
3
.
6
%
3
.
3
%
2
.
7
%
Ge
n
e
n
B
u
s
n
/
a
1
.
5
0
%
1
.
6
0
%
3
.
3
0
%
3
.
7
0
%
5
.
4
%
5
.
0
%
8
.
6
%
1
0
.
8
%
1
4
.
1
%
1
4
.
4
%
1
5
.
4
%
2
0
.
1
%
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
t
F
e
r
r
y
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
n
/
a
0
.
3
%
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
T
o
t
a
l
6
.
5
0
%
1
1
.
1
0
%
1
1
.
0
0
%
1
4
.
1
0
%
1
3
.
4
0
%
1
8
.
2
%
1
6
.
4
%
2
0
.
4
%
1
9
.
8
%
2
1
.
5
%
2
2
.
9
%
2
4
.
1
%
2
8
.
8
%
Ot
h
e
r
M
o
d
e
s
Va
n
p
o
o
l
0
.
9
0
%
1
.
3
0
%
1
.
1
0
%
1
.
3
0
%
1
.
4
0
%
1
.
3
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
5
%
0
.
9
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
1
%
1
.
1
%
Mo
t
o
r
b
i
k
e
0
.
7
0
%
0
.
3
0
%
0
.
4
0
%
0
.
5
0
%
0
.
5
0
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
4
%
Bi
k
e
0
.
2
0
%
0
.
2
0
%
0
.
3
0
%
0
.
3
0
%
0
.
4
0
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
4
%
0
.
2
%
0
.
6
%
Ta
x
i
0
.
3
0
%
0
.
2
0
%
0
.
2
0
%
0
.
2
0
%
0
.
3
0
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
3
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
5
%
0
.
6
%
0
.
7
%
0
.
5
%
1
.
1
%
Wa
l
k
8
1
.
8
0
%
1
.
4
0
%
1
.
8
0
%
1
.
9
0
%
1
.
7
0
%
1
.
3
%
0
.
6
%
1
.
4
%
0
.
7
%
0
.
9
%
0
.
8
%
2
.
3
%
1
.
1
%
Ot
h
e
r
M
o
d
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
3
.
8
%
3
.
4
%
3
.
7
%
4
.
2
%
4
.
3
%
3
.
9
%
2
.
8
%
3
.
9
%
3
.
1
%
3
.
3
%
3
.
3
%
4
.
2
%
4
.
3
%
To
t
a
l
1
0
0
.
0
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
Fo
o
t
n
o
t
e
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
i
n
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
5
.
+
+
+
+
C
o
n
f
i
d
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
v
a
l
+
/
-
0
.
5
6
%
*
g
R
i
d
e
M
o
d
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
tr
a
n
s
i
t
,
c
a
r
p
o
o
l
,
v
a
n
p
o
o
l
,
m
o
t
o
r
b
i
k
e
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 27
PARKING SURVEY
Genentech's three campuses8 have a total of 10936 parking spaces. Approximately
10,620 of these spaces are designated for employees. The parking counts showed that at
10 AM on weekdays, considering all parking types, an average of 6,530 vehicles
were parked.
Location of Parking
Genentech is made up of three campuses: the Main Campus on DNA Way and Forbes
Boulevard along San Francisco Bay, the new South Campus at the east end of East Grand
Avenue, and the Gateway Campus near Highway 101. No changes in parking supply were
reported to Nelson\Nygaard staff between this parking survey and last quarter’s (Q2)
survey. Parking supplies at the various campuses include:
Main Campus has a total of about 4,830 parking spaces.
South Campus has a total of 2,395 parking spaces.
Gateway Campus has a total of 2,642 parking spaces.
Parking is divided into several areas to distinguish trends in different parts of the
campuses. The Main Campus has four major sub-campus parking areas with two smaller
parking areas. The major areas are: Lower Campus West, Lower Campus East, Middle
Campus, and Upper Campus. The South Campus and Gateway campuses make up the
rest of the South San Francisco Genentech campuses. Remote Lots, most of which were
not counted during the survey, include parking lots at the daycare facility on Allerton
Avenue and buildings at East Grand and Grandview. The lots at Building 54 (which is
generally counted with the Main Campus) are included. Within the areas are distinct
parking zones delineating each parking lot or parking structure. Parking zones are
named by their Parking Area and a Zone number, so the parking lot surrounding
Building 51 is known as Zone L5 because it is in the Lower Area and is numbered the
fifth lot in the Lower Campus. The parking zones and their parking supply are shown in
Figure 17.
Genentech currently has five parking structures: one (PS-1) in the Lower Campus, one
(PS-2) between the Middle and the Upper Campus, one at Gateway (Gateway Parking
Structure), and two structures (PS-A and PS-B) in the South Campus.
8 Genentech areas not included in parking survey were lots at B27, B29, B71, B75, and B80.
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
P
O
R
T
F
A
L
L
2
0
1
2
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
,
I
n
c
.
Ne
l
s
o
n
\
N
y
g
a
a
r
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
I
n
c
.
|
2
8
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
7
T
o
t
a
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
u
p
p
l
y
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 29
Parking Occupancy
Parking occupancy was determined by counting the total number of vehicles parked in
each parking zone. The map in Figure 20 shows parking occupancy as the number of
vehicles parked in each lot. All vehicles were counted even if parked illegally or in a
loading zone. Figure 18 shows the occupancy levels by percentage and parking inventory.
It is more instructive to look at percentage occupancy, because it gives an indication of
how hard it is to find an empty space. In general, for employee parking it is acceptable to
reach up to 95% occupancy; more than 95% means that employees have a harder time
finding parking and may search in different lots to park. A 90-100% (or above) parking
occupancy rate indicates that these lots are at or near a stressed level.
Parking Lots
One parking lot exceeded 100% average occupancy – L4 (Main Campus). This was due to
a few cars parked in red no-parking zones during the Wednesday and Thursday survey
days. Ignoring these vehicles, occupancy averaged 98% across the three survey days.
Several parking lots were filled to capacity with 95% or greater occupancy, including: L1,
L4, L5, U16, U19, U21, M12, S2, and G9. Most of these lots are located very close to
higher density uses such as large office buildings. The remaining surface lots throughout
the campuses were occupied at rates between a low of 27% (S9) and a high of 90% (M12),
as shown in Figure 19.
Parking Structures
Among the parking structures (PS) studied there is a great variety of occupancy levels;
some had higher rates than last quarter, while others had lower rates. The Lower
Campus' PS-1 (L3) was fairly full at 67% occupancy, a 1% decrease from the last survey in
Quarter 1. In contrast, the Gateway Parking Structure (G7_8), the largest in number of
available spaces and in actual cars parked, was only 45% occupied. This is a higher rate
than found in the previous survey, when the structure was 37% occupied. The
Middle/Upper Campus structure, PS-2 (M14) decreased to 65% occupied in Quarter 3
from 73% in Quarter 2. The original South Campus Structure, PS-A (S4) was 41% full, 7%
lower than it was in the last survey. The newer structure, PS-B (S7), was also 40% full,
two percentage points lower over the previous survey. This occupancy level is down from
the 50% occupancy in April 2009 when it opened.
Overall Occupancy
The overall occupancy of 60% is two percentage points higher than the last survey,
though the previous October survey in 2011 revealed the same (60%) rate. Since the last
survey, inventory has remained the same with almost no change in total occupancy.
Quarter 3’s occupancy rate is four percentage points lower than the all-time high of 64%
in April 2008. The downward trend shows the maintained success of the gRide program
in attracting more employees to commute by transit. While there was a modest change in
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 30
overall occupancy as compared to Quarter 2 of this year, specific lots and garages did see
some fluctuations in demand.
The overall occupancy is low enough to suggest that finding parking should be easy.
However, parking demand is unevenly distributed; some lots are at, or near capacity
while other lots and parking structures nearby have ample space, as seen in Figure 19.
Several of the big lots on upper/middle campus are starting to see occupancy rates in the
range of 80-90% with two of the most popular reaching 90-100% full. For a Genentech
commuter the increased occupancy is no doubt noticeable, and with increased parking
demand over time it may start to feel like it is harder to find parking. However, most of
the popular lots that are currently near capacity are close to lots with plenty of available
capacity.
One way to counter the perception of parking shortages is to help direct commuters to
lots with spare capacity. Since the distribution of parking does not change much, signs
could inform eastbound drivers on Grandview that U16 tends to fill and U15 has
capacity. A more flexible solution may include electronic signs to inform commuters
about which lots have capacity. On Forbes, for example, a sign could read: “L1: 0 spaces,
L2: 21 spaces, L3: 143 spaces, L9: 15 spaces, etc.,” indicating how many spaces are
available in each facility. Similarly, signs at either end of the Main Campus hill on DNA
Way would help commuters decide which parking lot or structure is most convenient
based on the time it might take to find a space in a nearly full lot close to their
destination versus the increased walking time from a lot slightly further away with more
available spaces. Existing technology to achieve this varies in its complexity from simple
counters connected to the entry barriers of parking structures to various types of sensor
networks that might be employed in parking lots. If necessary, Genentech may also
consider offering various incentives to employees to encourage them to park in facilities
with excess capacity. Better distributing parking demand will reduce the strain on
current parking hot-spots.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 31
Figure 18 Parking Occupancy Rates, 2007 to 2012
Zone Oct-07 Apr-08 Oct-08 Apr-09 Oct-09 Apr-10 Oct-10 Oct-11 May-12 July-12 Oct-12
Main
Campus
66%
(5,651)
73%
(5,021)
65%
(5,021)
64%
(5,113)
64%
(5,164)
67%
(4,880)
71%
(4,677)
70%
(4,983)
69%
(4,830)
69%
(4,830)
69%
(4,830)
Gateway 59%
(2,580)
64%
(2,613)
53%
(2,613)
62%
(2,613)
65%
(2,613)
74%
(2,613)
66%
(2,642)
58%
(2,642)
52%
(2,642)
55%
(2,642)
60%
(2,642)
South N/A 53%
(1,294)
40%
(1,296)
49%
(2,410)
41%
(2,410)
38%
(2,555)
42%
(2,414)
45%
(2,414)
49%
(2,395)
47%
(2,395)
44%
(2,395)
Other 17%
(743)
15%
(743)
27%
(743)
39%
(743)
37%
(650)
52%
(650)
42%
(1,065)
47%
(1,065)
50%
(1,065)
45%
(1,065)
53%
(1,065)
Total 61%
(9,321)
64%
(9,651)
56%
(9,653)
59%
(10,859)
59%
(10,837)
61%
(10,698)
61%
(10,798)
60%
(11,104)
59%
(10936)
58%
(10936)
60%
(10936)
E.g. 60% (10936) means 60% parking occupancy, total inventory is 10936.
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
P
O
R
T
F
A
L
L
2
0
1
2
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
,
I
n
c
.
Ne
l
s
o
n
\
N
y
g
a
a
r
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
I
n
c
.
|
3
2
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
9
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
b
y
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
P
O
R
T
F
A
L
L
2
0
1
2
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
,
I
n
c
.
Ne
l
s
o
n
\
N
y
g
a
a
r
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
I
n
c
.
|
3
3
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
0
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
b
y
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 34
Bicycle Parking
The inventory of bike lockers was supplied by Genentech, while the inventory of cages
and racks was taken by Nelson\Nygaard during previous surveys. See Figure 21 for a
table and Figure 23 for a map of the location of bike parking on campus. There are
several different kinds of facilities available:
Bike lockers: lockers provide secure, weatherproof, storage for an individual
bike and are assigned when available through Genentech. These are being phased
out, with only 20 now remaining.
Bike cages: bike cages are located in parking structures 1, 2, and 3, and both
parking structures on South Campus. They provide a storage area for multiple
bikes in an access-controlled cage.
Wave racks: wave racks (also known as multi-bend racks) are the most
common form of rack on campus. They provide a secure locking point, but only
support the bicycle frame in one place.
U-racks: U-racks are the preferred bike rack solution, featuring both secure
locking and support for the bicycle frame at multiple points.
Ground anchors: ground anchors are featured in one location at the center of
the Gateway campus. These low profile devices provide a secure locking point,
but do not support the bicycle frame.
The campus features 357 bicycle parking spaces, of different types, as broken down in
Figure 21. Since the last survey, the majority of bike lockers were worn out and have been
removed, with only ten remaining at Gateway and ten remaining at Building 56. Three
new bike cages have been added, one each at PS1, PS2 and PS3.
Figure 21 Bicycle Parking Inventory by Type
Bicycle occupancy levels were taken during the 2012 Q3 survey. The occupancy of racks
and cages is easy to determine visually for surveyors, but since bicycle lockers are fully
enclosed occupancy cannot be established visually. Bicycle locker occupancy was
provided by Genentech.
Figure 22 shows bicycle occupancy for each campus area. The majority of bicycles were
parked in cages. Throughout the survey, there were very few bicycles observed parked at
racks, indicating that secure parking in the form of cages or lockers is preferred for all
day parking.
According to a bicycle club member survey taken in September 2011 by Genentech, 54%
of respondents said they store their bicycles in the office. Therefore the low parking
South CampusCapacityLower CampusCapacityUpper CampusCapacityGatewayCapacity
U-racks42U-racks0U-racks0U-racks0
Wave racks0Wave racks27Wave racks36Wave racks23
Bike lockers0Bike lockers0Bike lockers10Bike lockers10
Bike cages62Bike cages32Bike cages89Bike cages0
Sub-Total104Sub-Total59Sub-Total135Ground Anchors26
Sub-Total59
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 35
occupancy is not an indication that people are not riding to work – merely that many
people find it more convenient to park in their office. As long as that remains acceptable
to Facilities Management, it is a good solution for user convenience. Overall occupancy
of bicycle facilities increased from 9% last quarter, to 10% in Quarter 3. This is still lower
than the 2012 high of 14% occupancy in Quarter 1.
Figure 22 Bicycle Occupancy
Zone Inventory Occupancy Percent Occupied
Main Campus 184 15 8%
Gateway 59 10 6%
South 104 10 10%
Other 10 0 0%
Total 357 35 10%
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
M
O
D
E
S
H
A
R
E
A
N
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
P
O
R
T
F
A
L
L
2
0
1
2
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
,
I
n
c
.
Ne
l
s
o
n
\
N
y
g
a
a
r
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
I
n
c
.
|
3
6
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
3
T
o
t
a
l
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
u
p
p
l
y
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 37
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the data presented above, the following conclusions can be drawn:
Mode of Travel to Campus
Transit service has seen an increase in mode share over the past few years.
Overall South San Francisco transit mode share increased by 4.7 percentage
points since October 2011. Total ridership numbers increased from 2,010 riders
per day on average in 2011 to 2,359 riders per day.
All campuses saw small increases in carpool participation. In the last year,
carpool mode share has increased slightly by 0.9 percentage points on the Main
Campus, 1.2 percentage points on the South Campus, and 0.6 percentage points
on the Gateway Campus. Year to year carpool rates are up at all three campuses.
Drive alone share of all trips averaged 58.8% for all three campuses. This is a 5.6
point decrease since October 2011 when the drive alone share was 64.4%. Since
gRide was implemented in late 2006, the drive alone share has dropped 15.2
percentage points.
Overall, employees seem to be decidedly moving away from drive alone commute
options, and towards gRide modes. This reflects positively on the quality of
alternative commute services and programs employed by Genentech.
Parking
Parking occupancy on campus overall remained constant since the previous
survey, and parking distribution patterns were also similar to the May 2012
survey.
With abundant parking available at this time, parking conditions do not likely
affect employee decisions on whether to drive or use alternative modes given
current commute mode splits.
There are a few hot-spots of high parking demand, but all are located
immediately adjacent to facilities with significant available capacity. Accordingly,
it may be worth considering wayfinding signs to efficiently distribute parking
demand to all available lots, as the campus densifies with infill development like
Building 31 and the company continues to grow. Genentech may also consider
offering incentives to employees to use less utilized facilities further from their
destinations.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | A-1
APPENDIX: CHANGES IN CAMPUS DATA COLLECTION SINCE 2005
April 2005
The cordon count was conducted only at the Main Campus, and not at Gateway. All subsequent
surveys have been conducted at both the Main Campus and Gateway.
February 2006
The February 2006 cordon count mode shares for both campuses were similar, but counts for the
Main Campus included a total of 6% of arrivals on the shuttle between Gateway and the Main
Campus. It is unclear, therefore, how many shuttle riders were parking at Gateway and
commuting to the Main Campus, versus those who were simply shuttling between campuses, their
arrivals having been counted elsewhere. For that survey, Genentech and Nelson\Nygaard
primarily used the Gateway results.
November 2006 to present
Since the November 2006,the Main Campus and Gateway cordon counts more accurately
represent Genentech employee travel behavior, since most employees parked at the campus
where they work, unlike in February 2006.
Cordon Count Start Time
Surveys from April 2005 to January 2007 were conducted from 5 AM to 10 AM. From October
2007 to present, surveys have been conducted from 6 AM to 10 AM. Although the 5 o'clock hour
accounted for 8% of employees accessing campus in the years it was surveyed, the cordon count
period was shortened from five to four hours to accommodate the added parking survey that takes
approximately one hour to conduct.
South Campus Added – April 2008
Since the April 2008 survey, the South Campus has been included as a separate campus. The
Utah-Grand Caltrain and BART shuttles, provided by the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief
Alliance (Alliance), serve the South Campus. The shuttles originate at the South San Francisco
Caltrain and BART stations. In April 2008 and October 2008, only the north half of the South
Campus was counted. Counting of the southern portion did not begin until it opened in April
2009, which was the first time the entire South Campus was counted, included Parking Structure
B.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MODE SHARE AND PARKING REPORT FALL 2012
Genentech, Inc.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | A-2
South Campus Transit – October 2010
Previous to October 2010, transit to South Campus was only counted from the Alliance Utah-
Grand shuttles. No GenenBus lines stop at the South Campus. However, Genentech and
Nelson\Nygaard determined that many GenenBus riders were in fact going to the South Campus
by alighting at Gateway or the Main Campus, then taking a DNA Shuttle or walking down the
stairs to the South Campus. By measuring this, the proportion of transit riders going to Gateway
declined by several riders. The Main Campus proportion of transit riders dipped more since most
South Campus transit riders alight at the B31 and B24 bus stops and walk down the stairway to
South Campus.
Transit – October 2012
Transit data was provided as a monthly sum. These figures were divided by the number of
working days in the month to obtain an average daily ridership rate. This should be more
accurate, by averaging out the effect of any special events or unusual weather that might have
affected ridership during the survey.
Employees’ destinations on campus was previously provided by Compass Transportation. But
since they were no longer able to supply this data, badge counts were used instead. This change in
methodology has affected the distribution of trips between Main and Gateway campuses, but has
not affected overall transit mode share calculations.