Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 - Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-1 17 Transportation This chapter of the EIR evaluates the potential impacts of the Master Plan Update (the Project) related to transportation. This chapter describes the existing conditions in and near the Project Area, evaluates the extent to which transportation and traffic conditions may be affected by implementation of the Project, and identifies mitigation measures, where needed, to address these potential impacts. Information for the transportation and traffic analysis as presented in this EIR is primarily derived from the following sources: ● Genentech Master Plan Update, Transportation Impact Assessment, Fehr and Peers, July 2019 (Appendix 17A) ● Genentech Campus Mode Share and Parking Report, Nelson|Nygaard, Fall of 2017 (Appendix 17B) Environmental Setting This section describes the existing transportation and circulation setting near the Genentech Campus: the existing roadway network, intersection operating conditions, transit network and service, pedestrian conditions, and bicycle conditions. Roadway Facilities The Genentech Campus (Project Area) is located in South San Francisco, east of Highway 101 (US-101). Regional access to the Project Area is provided via US 101 and Oyster Point Boulevard to the north, and US- 101 and East Grand Avenue to the south. Figure 17-1 depicts the location of the Project Area and the surrounding regional transportation system. Local access to the Project Area is provided via Grand Avenue, Forbes Boulevard, Allerton Avenue and DNA Way. Figure 17-2 shows the Project Area in relationship to the local roadway system. Key local roadways near the Project Area are described below. US-101 US-101 is an eight-lane freeway that extends from San Francisco south through San Mateo County and beyond. In South San Francisco, it is located approximately 1.2 miles west of the Genentech Campus. Within the study area, US-101 has northbound off-ramps at South Airport Boulevard at Wondercolor Lane, at East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive, and at Dubuque Avenue south of Oyster Point Boulevard. Northbound on- ramps are provided South Airport Boulevard at Wondercolor Lane, at Grand Avenue, and at Oyster Point Boulevard. Southbound off-ramps are provided at Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard, Airport Boulevard and Produce Avenue. Southbound on ramps are provided at Airport Boulevard north of Oyster Point Boulevard, on Dubuque Avenue and at Produce Avenue. Near the Project, US-101 carries about 220,000 vehicles per day. Figure 17-1Regional Transportation RoutesMap data ©2017 Google United States 2000 ft San Francisco International Airport Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019Figure 17-2Project Area and Local Roadway SystemSister Cities BoulevardOyster Point BoulevardEast Grand AveForbes BoulevardAirport Boulevard£101Gateway BoulevardMaster Plan BoundaryN:\Projects\2016_Projects\SF16-0882_Genentech_Master_Plan\Graphics\GIS\MXD\basemap_aug19.mxdProject Location0½MilesFigure 1-1 Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-4 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR I-380 I-380 is a two- mile, eight to ten lane east-west freeway connector between US-101 and I-280 in San Bruno and South San Francisco. I-380 terminates at South Airport Boulevard and North Access Road in South San Francisco. I-380 carries about 161,000 vehicles per day. Oyster Point Boulevard Oyster Point Boulevard extends east from US-101 as a six-lane arterial street to Harbor Way and Forbes Boulevard. It becomes four lanes east of Forbes Boulevard. Oyster Point Boulevard is the northern access route to the Campus and carries approximately 19,000 vehicles per day. East Grand Avenue East Grand Avenue is an east-west arterial street. It has six travel lanes west of Gateway Boulevard, and four travel lanes east of Gateway Boulevard and two travel lanes east of Haskins Way. US-101 freeway ramps at East Grand Avenue enable access to the campus from the south. East Grand Avenue carries about 17,000 vehicles per day. Airport Boulevard Airport Boulevard runs roughly parallel to US-101 in South San Francisco. Freeway ramps south of Grand Avenue provide alternate access to the Campus from the south. Airport Boulevard carries approximately 24,000 vehicles per day. Gateway Boulevard Gateway Boulevard is a four-lane arterial connecting East Grand Avenue with South Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. Gateway Boulevard carries approximately 12,000 vehicles per day. South Airport Boulevard South Airport Boulevard is a six-lane arterial that runs north/south roughly parallel to US-101, between the I- 380 freeway ramps and Gateway Boulevard. Forbes Boulevard Forbes Boulevard is a four-lane street extending north from East Grand Avenue, then running east into the campus, forming the northern segment of the campus loop road. East of Allerton, Forbes Boulevard has two lanes and bicycle lanes. Harbor Way Harbor Way is a three-lane street extending south from East Grand Avenue, connecting to Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue. Gull Road Gull Road is a two-lane road connecting Oyster Point Boulevard with Forbes Boulevard. It has narrow bicycle lanes. Gull Road is signalized at its intersections with Oyster Point Boulevard and Forbes Boulevard. DNA Way DNA Way is a two-lane road connecting East Grand Avenue with Forbes Boulevard passing through the Genentech Campus. Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-5 Allerton Avenue Allerton Avenue is a two-lane road connecting East Grand Avenue with Forbes Boulevard along the western edge of the Genentech Campus. Cabot Road Cabot Road is a two-lane road connecting DNA Way and Allerton Avenue. Mitchell Avenue Mitchell Avenue is a two-lane road connecting Harbor Way and Gateway Boulevard/South Airport Boulevard. Utah Avenue Utah Avenue is a four-lane east-west Street, connecting Airport Boulevard with Harbor Way and with East Grand Avenue via Littlefield Avenue. Littlefield Avenue is a two-lane north-south road. Intersection Operations Twenty-seven (27) study locations were selected for evaluation of the Project.1 The study area for the traffic analysis was selected based on local traffic patterns, input from the City of South San Francisco and engineering judgment. The selection of these intersections captures the transportation facilities where motorists are most likely to experience impacts due to a net increase or diversion of trips associated with the Project. Figure 17-3 shows the 27 Study Area intersections. Figure 17-4 displays the existing traffic volumes for the AM and PM peak hours for those intersections, as well as existing lane configurations and traffic controls (signals, stop signs, etc.) Table 17-1 presents the existing level of service conditions for the study area intersections. As shown in Table 17-1, all study intersections operate at acceptable level of service (LOS) in the AM and PM peak hour, except the following:  East Grand Avenue/DNA Way (#18) operates at LOS F during the PM peak hour for the side street stop  South Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue/Gateway Boulevard (#20) operates at LOS F during the PM peak hour  Utah Avenue/Harbor Way (#25) operates at LOS F during the AM peak hour Additionally, two study intersections meet peak hour signal warrants under existing conditions:  The intersection of East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue (#17) meets the peak-hour signal warrant during the PM peak hour.  The intersection of East Grand Avenue/DNA Way (#18) meets the peak-hour signal warrant during the AM and PM peak hours. 1 The intersection at Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue (Intersection #6) consists of two coordinated signals offset from each other: the intersection at Oyster Point Boulevard and Eccles Avenue, as well as the signal at the driveway to 329-333 Oyster Point Boulevard. The reported delay reflects conditions at the worse operating of the two signals. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019Figure 17-3Study Area IntersectionsSister Cities BoulevardOyster Point BoulevardEast Grand AveForbes BoulevardAirport Boulevard£101Gateway BoulevardMaster Plan Boundary£101123457981210617181615141113192021222324252627Inset380Study Intersection#N:\Projects\2016_Projects\SF16-0882_Genentech_Master_Plan\Graphics\GIS\MXD\basemap_aug19.mxdStudy IntersectionsFigure 3-10½Miles Insert Figure Label Here Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Figure 17-4 Peak Hour Traffic and Lane Configurations Existing Conditions Figure 4-1Peak Hour Traffic Volumesand Lane Configurations -Existing Conditions - Intersections 1-1120 (53)140 (187)362 (217)93 (108)1,326 (339)37 (40)189 (454)271 (539)323 (135)74 (73)142 (878)82 (177) 1. Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd.183 (417)50 (75)587 (110)474 (235)947 (224)590 (232) 271 (971)115 (711)189 (902) 2. 101 NB Ramp/Dubuque Ave./Oyster Point Blvd.18 (31)69 (135)3 (3)748 (464)0 (2)40 (27)689 (1,068)90 (66)3 (3)5 (0)0 (1) 3. Dubuque Ave./101 NB & SB Ramps/Driveway 226 (898)7 (0)141 (77)1,214 (277)320 (57) 2 (0)349 (1,686)43 (60) 4. Gateway Blvd./101 SB Ramp/Oyster Point Blvd.22 (150)0 (0)10 (9)255 (61)1,611 (384)79 (14)60 (240)0 (1)40 (18)12 (14)302 (1,351)4 (7) 5. Veterans Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd.60 (174)23 (20)1,411 (361)179 (39) 263 (1,144)15 (12) 6A. Eccles Ave./Oyster Point Blvd.5 (5)5 (5)5 (5)136 (139)1,170 (365)0 (0)18 (5)0 (5)7 (2)9 (2)244 (1,029) 6B. 345-347 Driveway/Oyster Point Blvd.139 (550)1 (1)17 (30)7 (1)478 (234)800 (124)5 (10)0 (1)0 (1)4 (1)115 (494)16 (17) 7. Gull Dr./Oyster Point Blvd. Sister Cities Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.Airport Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.101 NB On RampDubuque Ave.101 NB Off Ramp/101 SB On Ramp DrivewayDubuque Ave.Oyster Point Blvd.Gateway Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.Veterans Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.Eccles Ave.Oyster Point Blvd.345-347 DrivewayOyster Point Blvd.Gull Dr.54 (187)11 (0)99 (55)21 (8)352 (90)144 (42)25 (39)7 (12)3 (4)10 (4)86 (391)162 (74) 8. Allerton Ave./Forbes Blvd. 34 (122)390 (128)215 (66)606 (81)120 (416)120 (291) 9. Gull Dr./Forbes Blvd. Forbes Blvd.Allerton Ave.Forbes Blvd.Gull Dr.41 (122)144 (387)122 (85)67 (92)380 (264)2 (2)161 (302)456 (272) 10. Airport Blvd./Miller Ave./101 SB Ramp 48 (44)746 (244)21 (75)29 (21)31 (68)457 (1,533) 11. Dubuque Ave./Grand Ave. Miller Ave.101 SB/Miller Ave. Off RampAirport Blvd.Grand Ave.Dubuque Ave.STOPSTOP STOP STOPacff acceaaccfaaceaacffaacefaacff ae abfcffdaabfcceacce ae aacebfaceg ceaccd aceaeceae acfdacebf bfdaeacafcfbc fceadacccafcceDriveway#Study Intersection Lane ConfigurationacfPeak Hour Traffic VolumeAM (PM) STOP Stop Sign Signalized LEGEND Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Figure 17-4B Peak Hour Traffic and Lane Configurations Existing Conditions Figure 4-1Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations - Existing Conditions - Intersections 12-27396 (469)384 (168)401 (46)74 (33)233 (55)378 (390)198 (488)108 (260)18 (9)30 (13)123 (425)37 (98) 20. Gateway Blvd./So. Airport Blvd./Mitchell Ave.146 (290)232 (349)14 (16)985 (380)18 (10)564 (163)108 (178)404 (556)14 (38)16 (12)8 (15)19 (28) 21. So. Airport Blvd./101 NB Ramp/Wonder Color Ln.10 (13)279 (449)753 (165)25 (25)0 (3)10 (18)13 (13)416 (607)558 (95)91 (208)1 (2)197 (944) 22. So. Airport Blvd./Utah Ave.21 (50)24 (1)626 (70)15 (3)1,209 (224)52 (48)5 (22)0 (22)4 (0)6 (2)305 (1,062)69 (437) 23. Littlefield Ave./E. Grand Ave.45 (115)210 (83)0 (0)426 (57)0 (0)190 (52)98 (316)77 (152)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0) 24. Harbor Way/Mitchell Avenue 46 (92)9 (41)2 (1)195 (59)935 (132)78 (27)57 (155)54 (14)130 (45)59 (81)175 (739)1 (5) 25. Harbor Way/Utah Ave.100 (422)817 (623)69 (77)216 (1,061)239 (489)161 (306)4 (12)56 (51) 26. So. Airport Blvd./N. Access Rd.418 (731)568 (391)316 (247)295 (540)27. So. Airport Blvd./I-380 EB Off Ramp So. Airport Blvd.Mitchell Ave.Gateway Blvd.So. Airport Blvd.101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp Wonder Color Ln.So. Airport Blvd.Utah Ave.So. Airport Blvd.E. Grand Ave.Littlefield Ave.Mitchell Avenue Harbor WayUtah Ave.Harbor WayN. Access Rd.So. Airport Blvd.I-380 EB Off Ramp So. Airport Blvd.33 (64)364 (482)290 (118)156 (160)142 (62)87 (69)101 (102)434 (360)403 (113)67 (249)110 (268)168 (671) 12. Airport Blvd./Grand Ave.516 (49)883 (432)33 (10) 13. Industrial Wy./101 NB Ramp/E. Grand Ave.161 (280)761 (175)727 (242)48 (23) 327 (1,321)14 (12) 14. Grand Ave./E. Grand Ave.55 (55)151 (103)314 (86)149 (81)1,176 (237)65 (91)52 (229)129 (376)245 (87)97 (235)255 (1,042)143 (329) 15. Gateway Blvd./E. Grand Ave.89 (180)134 (60)182 (27)410 (134)1,188 (208)151 (77)124 (337)58 (158)68 (26)10 (13)295 (1,085)33 (125) 16. Forbes Blvd./Harbor Wy./E. Grand Ave. 257 (56)1,586 (261)74 (163)17 (46)309 (1,377) 17. Allerton Ave./E. Grand Ave. 721 (80)765 (128)93 (471)54 (11)53 (39)211 (866) 18. DNA Way/E. Grand Ave.192 (101)43 (29)343 (221)94 (149)178 (141)125 (208)90 (99)617 (898)164 (116)192 (373)195 (224)330 (785) 19. Airport Blvd./Produce Ave./San Mateo Ave. Grand Ave.Airport Blvd.E. Grand Ave.Industrial Wy.101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy.Grand Ave.E. Grand Ave.E. Grand Ave.E. Grand Ave.Gateway Blvd.E. Grand Ave.Forbes Blvd.Harbor Wy.E. Grand Ave.Allerton Ave.E. Grand Ave.DNA WaySan Mateo Ave.So. Airport Blvd.Airport Blvd.Produce Ave.STOP STOP STOPSTOPSTOPSTOP STOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPaace aefacfaeaceabffaccfbf accf bfaaceabfbf acedaced dddd bedbeaceacefbc ccc aafccaccf aeabcfaacfeff aff cceacccaceacceaceacce abfaaceaeface accfceaccgceace abcfaccfabcf#Study Intersection Lane ConfigurationacfPeak Hour Traffic VolumeAM (PM) STOP Stop Sign Signalized LEGEND Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-9 Table 17-1: Peak Hour Intersection Levels Of Service – Existing Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Peak Hour Average Delay LOS 1 Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard Signal AM 26.5 C PM 52.8 D 2 Dubuque Avenue/101 NB On Ramp/Oyster Point Boulevard Signal AM 21.0 C PM 20.4 C 3 Dubuque Avenue/101 NB Off Ramp/101 SB On Ramp Signal AM 12.4 B PM 12.5 B 4 Oyster Pt. Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Signal AM 36.0 D PM 28.2 C 5 Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard Signal AM 13.2 B PM 20.9 C 6 Eccles Avenue/Oyster Point Boulevard Signal AM 14.6 B PM 16.6 B 7 Gull Drive/Oyster Point Boulevard Signal AM 28.0 C PM 41.1 D 8 Allerton Avenue/Forbes Boulevard AWSC AM 13.6 B PM 16.2 C 9 Forbes Boulevard/Gull Signal AM 11.5 B PM 9.0 A 10 Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/101 SB Off Ramp Signal AM 29.0 C PM 39.2 D 11 Grand Avenue/Dubuque Avenue Signal AM 8.6 A PM 7.2 A 12 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue Signal AM 46.1 D PM 50.6 D 13 101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Way/Industrial Way/East Grand Avenue SSYC AM 12.2 B PM 8.6 A 14 East Grand Avenue/Grand Avenue Signal AM 7.2 A PM 7.4 A 15 Gateway Boulevard/East Grand Avenue Signal AM 23.2 C PM 52.1 D 16 Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard/East Grand Avenue Signal AM 35.9 D PM 46.5 D Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-10 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Table 17-1: Peak Hour Intersection Levels Of Service – Existing Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Peak Hour Average Delay LOS 17 East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue SSSC AM 9.7 A PM 25.6 D 18 East Grand Avenue/DNA Way SSSC AM 12.3 B PM 71.5 F 19 Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/So. Airport Boulevard Signal AM 40.8 D PM 41.7 D 20 South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue Signal AM 37.5 D PM >80 F 21 South Airport Boulevard/101NB/South Airport Boulevard Off Ramp/Wonder Color Ln. Signal AM 28.9 C PM 38.3 D 22 South Airport Boulevard/Utah Avenue Signal AM 30.1 C PM 34.6 C 23 Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue Signal AM 45.6 D PM 14.9 B 24 Mitchell Road / Harbor Way Signal AM 31.5 D PM 11.5 B 25 Utah Avenue/Harbor Way AWSC AM 68.4 F PM 21.9 C 26 I-380 Westbound Ramp/South Airport Boulevard Signal AM 12.3 B PM 19.3 B 27 I-380 Eastbound Ramp/South Airport Boulevard Signal AM 24.2 C PM 29.6 C Notes: Bold indicates unacceptable LOS E or F, or meets peak hour signal warrants Delay reported as seconds per vehicle. LOS based on the methodology in the Highway Capacity Manual, 2010. Intersections 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 26 and 27 were analyzed based on HCM 2000. For signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections, the delay shown is the weighted average for all movements in seconds per vehicle. For side-street stop controlled (SSSC) and side street yield controlled (SSYC) intersections, the delay shown is the worst operating approach delay. Calculations based on weekday counts and signal timings provided by the City of South San Francisco from May 2016 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Vehicle Queuing Distances Table 17.2 presents vehicle queues near US-101 ramps. Existing queues exceed storage distances at the following intersections ● #2: Dubuque Avenue/101 NB On Ramp/Oyster Point Boulevard, during the AM peak hour ● #4: 101 SB Off Ramp/Gateway Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard, during the AM peak hour Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-11 ● #12: Airport/Grand Avenue, during the AM peak hour ● #19: Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue, during the AM and PM peak hour, and ● #26: I-380 Westbound Ramp/South Airport Boulevard, during the PM peak hour Table 17.2 Existing Vehicle Queues Near US-101 Intersection Storage Distance1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Existing Existing #1 Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard SB Left 320 130 70 SB Through 320 110 220 SB Right 320 60 220 #2 Dubuque Avenue/101 NB On Ramp/Oyster Point Boulevard NB Left 260 80 150 NB Through 260 50 70 NB Right 240 190 10 EB Left 170 210 100 EB Through 240 420 100 EB Right 240 60 50 WB Left 500 100 370 WB Through 900 100 620 WB Right 500 30 150 #3 Dubuque Avenue/101 NB Off Ramp/101 SB On Ramp EB Left/Through 260 220 140 #4 101 SB Off Ramp/Gateway Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard NEB Through 3000 270 60 NEB Right 350 >350 80 EB Through/Right 900 640 100 #10 Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/101 SB/Miller Avenue Off Ramp WB Left/Through 750 210 230 #12 Airport/Grand Avenue SB Left 280 >280 120 SB Through 280 280 170 SB Right 280 50 50 #14 East Grand Avenue/Grand Avenue NB Right 420 160 30 NB Left 240 140 240 Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-12 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Table 17.2 Existing Vehicle Queues Near US-101 Intersection Storage Distance1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Existing Existing #19 Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue WB Left 220 200 420 WB Through 220 180 240 WB Right 80 90 120 #20 South Airport Boulevard/ Gateway Boulevard EB Left 130 100 40 EB Through 500 360 100 EB Right 500 150 60 #21 South Airport Boulevard/101 NB/South Airport Boulevard Off Ramp/Wondercolor Lane EB Left/Through 750 730 250 EB Right 750 150 30 #26 I-380 Westbound Ramp/South Airport Boulevard NB Through 120 0 0 NB Left 120 10 60 SB Right 120 40 340 #27 South Airport Boulevard/I-380 EB EB Left/Through 1000 180 160 SB Through 120 30 40 Notes: Storage Distance and Queues in feet per lane Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Freeway Operations Most vehicle trips to and from the Project site occur via US-101. The HCS software was used to analyze existing freeway operations at four segments: ● north of Oyster Point Boulevard (south of northbound exits 426B and north of southbound exit 425C) ● between Oyster Point Boulevard and Grand Avenue, ● between Grand Avenue and Produce Avenue, and ● south of Produce Avenue (south of northbound exit 424 and north of southbound exit 423B) HCS analyzes mainline operations only; auxiliary lanes were not analyzed. Table 17-3 presents existing level of service for freeway segments during the peak hours. All freeway segments near the Project site operate acceptably under existing conditions, except for US-101 northbound south of Produce Avenue in the AM peak hour. Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-13 Table 17-3: Peak Hour Freeway Segment Levels of Service – Existing Conditions US 101 Segment Existing Segment Lanes Capacity Peak Hour Volume V/C LOS North of Oyster Point Boulevard NB 4 9,600 AM 7,722 0.88 E 4 9,600 PM 8,065 0.92 E SB 4 9,600 AM 8,553 0.97 E 4 9,600 PM 7,212 0.82 D Oyster Point Boulevard to Grand Avenue NB 4 9,600 AM 7,717 0.88 E 4 9,600 PM 7,332 0.83 D SB 4 9,600 AM 8,223 0.94 E 4 9,600 PM 8,049 0.92 E Grand Avenue to Produce Avenue NB 5 12,000 AM 7,490 0.68 C 5 12,000 PM 6,966 0.64 C SB 4 9,600 AM 7,614 0.87 D 4 9,600 PM 7,473 0.85 D South of Produce Avenue NB 4 9,600 AM 8,795 1.01 F 4 9,600 PM 7,066 0.81 D SB 5 12,000 AM 7,589 0.69 C 5 12,000 PM 7,495 0.68 C Notes: V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio Bold indicates unacceptable LOS F Existing volumes based on weekday counts of US-101 mainline from May 10-12 2016, retrieved via Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS), with 100 percent volume observed. Freeway volumes balanced to match ramp counts provided by City of South San Francisco Assumes a capacity of 2,400 vehicles per hour (vph) based on LOS E capacity for 70 mph freeways in HCM 2010 Analysis excludes northbound auxiliary lanes between I-380 and South Airport Boulevard, South Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue, Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard, and Oyster Point Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard. Analysis excludes southbound auxiliary lanes between Oyster Point Boulevard and Grand Avenue and between Produce Avenue and I-380. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Table 17-4 presents existing levels of service for freeway ramps during the peak hours. As shown, all study freeway ramps operate at acceptable LOS under existing conditions. . Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-14 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Table 17-4: Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Levels of Service – Existing Conditions US 101 Ramp Existing Interchange Ramp Type Lanes Capacity Peak Hour Volume V/C LOS Oyster Point Boulevard NB On Ramp 2 + 1 HOV 2,200 AM 793 0.36 B PM 1,226 0.56 C Off Ramp 1 1,500 AM 788 0.53 C PM 493 0.33 B SB On Ramp 2 2,200 AM 694 0.32 B PM 1,024 0.47 B Off Ramp 1 + 1 HOV 1,500 AM 1,014 0.68 C PM 187 0.12 A Grand Avenue NB On Ramp 1 2,000 AM 1,626 0.81 D PM 817 0.41 B Off Ramp 2 2,800 AM 1,399 0.50 B PM 481 0.17 A SB Off Ramp 1 1,500 AM 619 0.41 B PM 576 0.38 B Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard NB On Ramp 1 2,000 AM 262 0.13 A PM 483 0.24 A Off Ramp 2 2,800 AM 1,567 0.56 C PM 553 0.20 A SB On Ramp 2 4,000 AM 1,126 0.28 A PM 1,943 0.49 B Off Ramp 1 1,500 AM 583 0.39 B PM 351 0.23 A Notes: V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio Bold indicates unacceptable LOS E or F Existing volumes based on weekday counts from May 2016, provided by City of South San Francisco Assumes an off-ramp capacity of 1,500 vph for one lane and 2,800 vph for two lane, based on HCM 2010; diamond on-ramp capacity of 2,200 vph for one lane and 4,000 vph for two lanes; and looped on-ramp capacity of 2,000 vph. On-ramp capacity may be limited by downstream congestion on mainline freeway segments, while off-ramp capacity may be limited by downstream congestion on surface streets and at intersections. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Transit The Project Area is not directly served by a publicly operated regional rail, ferry or bus transit service. However, commuter rail service (Caltrain and BART), ferry service (WETA), and bus service (SamTrans) is provided to the greater vicinity of the Project Area. BART and Caltrain stations and the WETA ferry terminal are located outside of a comfortable half-mile walking distance, and no SamTrans bus service exists east of US-101 in South San Francisco. The Project Area therefore relies on supplementary public and private shuttle Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-15 services to connect employees on Campus with regional transit as well as employee residences and satellite park-and-ride lots. Existing local transit services are shown on Figure 17-5 and are described in detail below. Regional Public Transit Service According to the 2017 Genentech South San Francisco Campus Mode Share and Parking Report, approximately 43 percent of Genentech employees commute by modes other than driving alone. Of those non-single occupant commutes, approximately 27 percent of Genentech employees commute via transit or shuttle services, totaling about 2,800 daily trips. The following transit services operate within South San Francisco and are accessible from the Project Area. BART BART provides regional rail service between the East Bay, San Francisco and San Mateo County, connecting between San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae Intermodal Station to the south, San Francisco to the north, and Oakland, Richmond, Pittsburgh/Bay Point, Dublin/Pleasanton and Fremont in the East Bay. The South San Francisco Station is located approximately four miles northwest of the Project at Mission Road and McLellan Drive. BART trains operate on 15-minute headways during peak hours and 20-minute headways during off-peak hours. Caltrain Caltrain provides passenger rail service on the Peninsula between San Francisco and San Jose, and limited service trains to Morgan Hill and Gilroy during weekday commute periods. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station is currently located approximately 1.5 miles west of the Project at 590 Dubuque Avenue, on the east side of US-101, immediately north of East Grand Avenue. By 2020, Caltrain plans to relocate the South San Francisco Caltrain Station several hundred feet to the south near the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station serves local and limited trains, with 23 northbound and 23 southbound weekday trains. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station provides weekday service from 5:40 AM to 12:00 AM, with 60-minute headways during off-peak times. Water Emergency Transportation Authority Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) provides commuter ferry service between Oakland/Alameda ferry terminals and the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal at Oyster Point. There are three morning departures from Oakland/Alameda to South San Francisco, and three evening departures from South San Francisco to Oakland/Alameda. San Mateo County Transit District San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus and rail service (through Caltrain) in San Mateo County. Routes 292 and 297 stop about two miles from the Project site along South Airport Boulevard. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019Figure 17-5Local Transit System ServicesMaster Plan BoundarySister Cities BoulevardOyster Point BoulevardEast Grand AveDNA WayAirport Boulevard£101Oyster Point ShuttlesUtah-Grand ShuttlesShuttle StopN:\Projects\2016_Projects\SF16-0882_Genentech_Master_Plan\Graphics\GIS\MXD\basemap_aug19.mxdExisting Transit ServicesFigure 4-20½Miles Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-17 Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (also known as Commute.org) provides shuttle service for first/last mile connections between BART and Caltrain stations and the WETA ferry terminal and local employers in the East of 101 Area. The Oyster Point shuttles connects Caltrain, BART and ferry riders to Oyster point, Forbes Boulevard and Eccles Avenue during peak commute hours, between 6:30 AM and 10:00 AM, and between 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM. The Utah-Grand shuttles connect Caltrain, BART and ferry riders to East Grand Avenue and Utah Avenue. This line provides service during peak commute hours, between 5:30 AM and 9:30 AM. Both shuttle services provide 30-minute headways. The nearest stops are located at the East Grand Avenue turnaround adjacent to Building 43 (served by the Utah-Grand area shuttles), Allerton Avenue/Cabot Road (served by the Utah- Grand area shuttles) and Forbes Boulevard/Carlton Court (served by the Oyster Point area shuttles). Genentech Private Transit Services Genentech operates over 20 commuter bus routes (GenenBus) for its employees who live throughout the San Francisco Bay area. GenenBus coaches connect employees from San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Francisco, Marin, Alameda, Contra Costa and Solano counties to the South San Francisco campus. GenenBus also provides first/last mile connections to the South San Francisco Ferry terminal, the Glen Park BART station, and the Millbrae BART/Caltrain station. GenenBuses serve peak commute periods and operate between the hours of 5:00 AM-10:00 AM and between 3:00 PM-8:00 PM at 45- to 90-minute headways for regional service and 15-25 minutes for first-/last-mile shuttles to BART and Caltrain. Genentech also operates seven intra-campus shuttle (DNA Shuttle) routes for employees to travel between campus buildings as well as to parking and GenenBus stops. The DNA Shuttle connects the Upper Campus, Lower Campus, Mid Campus, South Campus, West Campus and Gateway Campus areas. DNA Shuttles operate between the hours of 6:00 AM and 7:30 PM at 5- to 10-minute headways. Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, trails and pedestrian signals. Outside of the Project Area West of US-101, Downtown South San Francisco has a dense street grid and is generally walkable. Sidewalks are provided on all streets. East Grand Avenue has several special pedestrian treatments, such as mid-block crosswalks, special pavement markings at crosswalks, curb extensions and pedestrian scale lighting to make the street more attractive. East of US-101, the larger street grid and wider streets results in less walkable conditions. Many of the wider streets in the East of 101 area have long pedestrian crossings that are a challenge for pedestrians to navigate, particularly crossing US-101. Several pedestrian improvements are planned in the East of 101 area. The South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan calls for a pedestrian and bicycle rail crossing underpass connecting the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection to the new Caltrain station. The South San Francisco Pedestrian Plan calls for the closure of sidewalk gaps in the area, prioritizing Forbes Boulevard, Allerton Avenue and East Grand Avenue. Within the Project Area On-street pedestrian facilities along the periphery of the Project Area range in condition and are sometimes absent. Sidewalks are generally narrow and lack street trees or landscape buffers from traffic. Sidewalk gaps are present along several streets within or adjacent to the Project Area boundary. These sidewalk gaps exist along portions of the east side of Allerton Avenue between East Grand Avenue and Cabot Road, the south Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-18 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR side of East Grand Avenue east of Haskins Way, the south side of Forbes Boulevard near Gull Road and west of Allerton Avenue, and the west side of Gull Road between Oyster Point Boulevard and Forbes Boulevard. Within the Project Area boundary, pedestrian activity is most heavily concentrated around the Upper Campus, while the Lower Campus, Mid Campus and South Campus experience pockets of high pedestrian activity. Several pedestrian crossings are provided across DNA Way, Forbes Boulevard and East Grand Avenue at signalized intersections and mid-block to facilitate a walkable campus. Many of these crosswalks include enhancements such as bulb outs, high-visibility crosswalks, Rapid-Rectangular Flashing Beacons and median refuges. Walkways and stairways are provided to connect campus neighborhoods, buildings and courtyards. A segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail is located along the eastern edge of the Project Area boundary and runs adjacent to the San Francisco Bay shoreline. The Bay Trail is a public pedestrian and bicycle trail that is planned to extend around the entire San Francisco Bay. To the north of the Project Area boundary, the Bay Trail connects to the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal. Currently, there are gaps in the Bay Trail to the north of Brisbane and just south of South San Francisco, but the Bay Trail is complete throughout South San Francisco and through the Project Area. Bicycle Facilities Bicycle facilities consist of separated bikeways, bicycle lanes, routes, trails, and paths, as well as bike parking, bike lockers, and showers for cyclists. On-street bicycle facilities are generally grouped into four categories:  Class I: Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of cyclists and pedestrians with cross-flow minimized (e.g., off-street bicycle paths).  Class II: Provides a striped lane for one-way travel on a street or highway. May include a “buffer” zone consisting of a striped portion of roadway between the bicycle lane and the nearest vehicle travel lane.  Class III: Provides for shared use with motor vehicle traffic; however, are often signed or include a striped bicycle lane.  Class IV: Provides a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway and protected from vehicular traffic. Types of separation include, but are not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers or on-street parking. Outside of the Project Area Approximately one to two percent of Genentech workers bike to work, and some transit riders use bicycles as means of accessing the Project Area from BART, Caltrain and the ferry terminal. Commute lengths, lack of continuous low stress bicycle facilities, and topography present barriers to bicycling. Near the Project Area, the bicycle network is only partially complete. Current on street bicycle in the area, but outside the Project boundaries (as designated by the South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan (2011)), are shown in Figure 17-6 and are discussed below. Source: South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan, Fehr & Peers, 2019Figure 17-6Local Bicycle and Trail FacilitiesMaster Plan BoundarySister Cities BoulevardOyster Point BoulevardEast Grand AveDNA WayAirport Boulevard£101Bike Path/TrailBike LaneProposed Bike LaneBike RouteProposed Bike Path/TrailProposed Bike RouteN:\Projects\2016_Projects\SF16-0882_Genentech_Master_Plan\Graphics\GIS\MXD\basemap_aug19.mxdExisting Bicycle FacilitiesFigure 4-30½Miles Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-20 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR  East Grand Avenue has Class II bike lanes between Littlefield Avenue and Allerton Avenue and between Haskins Way and the South Campus entrance; Class II bike lanes are planned for the remainder of East Grand Avenue and Grand Avenue.  The San Francisco Bay Trail is a Class I facility along the Bayfront perimeter of Oyster Point and Point San Bruno, part of a planned 400-mile regional trail system.  Oyster Point Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard have Class II bike lanes, except along the US-101 overcrossing where facilities are planned.  Gateway Boulevard has Class II bike lanes between East Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard.  Airport Boulevard has Class II bike lanes between Miller Avenue and Sister Cities Boulevard. Bicyclists primarily access the Project Area via East Grand Avenue, Oyster Point Boulevard and the San Francisco Bay Trail. The City of South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan identifies a number of planned bicycle improvements near the Project Area, including the closure of bike lane gaps along East Grand Avenue and Forbes Boulevard, and the addition of new Class I bike trails along railroad corridors paralleling East Grand Avenue and Forbes Boulevard. The South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan calls for a pedestrian and bicycle rail crossing underpass across US 101 and the Caltrain corridor, connecting Downtown South San Francisco and the West of 101 area to the new Caltrain station and East of 101 area. This underpass is being implemented as part of the new and upgraded Caltrain station, currently under construction. Within the Project Area Current on-street bicycle facilities in the Project Area (as designated by the South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan of 2011), are generally complete:  DNA Way has Class II buffered bike lanes between East Grand Avenue and Forbes Boulevard.  East Grand Avenue has Class II bike lanes between Littlefield Avenue and Allerton Avenue and between Haskins Way and the South Campus entrance; Class II bike lanes are planned for the remainder of East Grand Avenue and Grand Avenue.  Forbes Boulevard has Class II buffered bike lanes between Allerton Avenue and DNA Way.  Allerton Avenue has Class II buffered bike lanes between Forbes Boulevard and East Grand Avenue.  The San Francisco Bay Trail is a Class I facility, and is complete along the Bayfront perimeter of the Project Area. The Project Area includes approximately 300 bicycle parking spaces, including bike lockers, bike cages, and bike racks. Bicycle parking is provided at most buildings around the Genentech Campus. Several internal pathways within the Project Area are accessible to bicyclists, such as a multi-use path that parallels Forbes Boulevard, and the Bay Trail. Regulatory Setting The City of South San Francisco has jurisdiction over all local City streets and City-operated traffic signals within the study area. Several regional agencies, including C/CAG, the Congestion Management Agency in San Mateo County and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), coordinate and establish funding priorities for intra-regional transportation improvement programs. Freeways serving South San Francisco (US 101, I-380 and I-280), associated local freeway ramps and local surface highway segments are under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Transit service providers such Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-21 as BART, Caltrain, SamTrans, and WETA (ferry service), have jurisdiction over their respective services. These agencies, their responsibilities and funding sources are more specifically described below. Federal Many, if not most of the regionally serving transportation projects and programs in the area rely on some level of federal funding. The primary sources of federal funds are MAP-21 and its successor programs, and the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21, P.L. 112-141), was signed into law in July of 2012. MAP-21 is the first long-term highway authorization enacted since 2005, and provides funding for surface transportation programs. MAP-21 is a milestone for the U.S. economy and the nation’s surface transportation program. MAP-21 creates a streamlined and performance-based surface transportation program, and builds on many of the highway, transit, bike, and pedestrian programs and policies previously established. To allow time for development and consideration of a long-term reauthorization of surface transportation programs, Congress enacts short-term extensions of MAP-21. Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act was signed into law in December 2015, which authorizes funding for highways, highway and motor vehicle safety, public transportation, rail, and research and technology programs, and provides a dedicated source of federal dollars for freight projects. The FAST Act expands the scope of consideration of the metropolitan planning process to include consideration of intercity transportation (including intercity buses, intercity bus facilities and commuter vanpool providers). State State Transportation Improvement Program The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is the main process for short-term programming and funding of transportation projects in California, and is developed and adopted by the California Transportation Commission. Much of the federal and State funding for individual transportation projects is dependent upon those projects being included in the STIP. Bay Area Region Regional Transportation Plan The regional transportation planning agency and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the nine- county Bay Area region is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). MTC is the authorized clearinghouse for State and federal transportation improvement funds. Each of the region’s Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) forwards proposed capital improvement project lists to MTC, which reviews these lists and prepares a regional priority list to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and/or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for selection of projects to receive funding. Funded projects are then included in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) prepared by MTC. The RTP developed by the MTC is subsequently incorporated into the larger Statewide STIP. The current RTP for the Bay Area region is Plan Bay Area 2040 (PBA 2040), which was jointly approved by the ABAG Executive Board and by MTC in July 2017. PBA 2040 includes the region’s year 2040 RTP and the Bay Area region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and represents the latest iteration of a regional planning process that has been in place for decades. PBA 2040 is a state-mandated, integrated long-range transportation, land-use and housing plan intended to support a growing economy, provide more housing Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-22 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR and transportation choices, and reduce transportation-related pollution in the nine-county San Francisco Bay area. PBA 2040 is also subject to the requirements of California Senate Bill 375, which requires the RTP to be much more tightly interwoven with regional housing, jobs and land use projections. The intent of PBA 2040 is to create a long-range plan that demonstrates how the transportation network and land use development can work together to reduce greenhouse emissions and create more complete, livable, sustainable communities with sufficient affordable housing, more transportation choices and easier access to vital services and amenities, such as public transit, shopping, schools, parks, recreation, health care and more. Regional Transportation Improvement Plan The Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) lists MTC’s near-term transportation projects, programs and investment priorities for the region’s surface transportation system that have a federal interest, along with locally and state-funded projects that are regionally significant. The TIP signifies the start of implementation of the programs and policies approved in the Bay Area’s long-range transportation plan. It does this by identifying specific projects over a four-year timeframe that will help move the region toward its transportation vision. Locally funded transit operations and pavement maintenance are generally not included in the TIP. The Bay Area’s 2017 TIP includes approximately 700 transportation projects, and a total of approximately $6.3 billion in committed federal, state, regional and local funding over the four-year TIP period through fiscal year 2020. Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP) includes, but is not limited to the following major transportation projects within San Mateo County:  US 101 and Interstate 280 corridors: Various interchange improvements are considered under the RTIP. The County share of the STIP is programmed for improvements to the US 101/Willow Road interchange and the US 101/ SR 92 interchanges. Due to the limitation for expansion, most improvements in these corridors will be for improved operations and management of the existing system.  SR 92 corridor: Projects focusing on the Route 92 corridor include operational improvements at the Route 92/ Route 82 (El Camino Real) interchange, and operational improvements for the US 101/ Route 92 interchange where conditions are extremely congested.  Caltrain Modernization: The Caltrain Modernization Program, scheduled to be operational by 2020, will electrify and upgrade the performance, operating efficiency, capacity, safety and reliability of Caltrain's commuter rail service. In the future, the infrastructure developed as part of the Caltrain Modernization Program will also accommodate California’s statewide high-speed rail service. Caltrain and high-speed rail will primarily share Caltrain’s existing tracks, operating on a blended system. The Caltrain Modernization Program includes the electrification of the existing Caltrain corridor between San Francisco and San Jose; the installation of an advanced signal system that includes federally mandated safety improvements; and the replacement of Caltrain’s diesel trains with high-performance electric trains called Electric Multiple Units.  Caltrain State of Good Repair Program: The Caltrain SOGR program includes a number of projects with the shared goal of maintaining efficient and reliable railroad operations. These include replacing and rehabilitating track and related civil structures, as well as signal and communication equipment that have reached the end of their useful lives. The SOGR program also includes station rehabilitation and improvements, ongoing rehabilitation of existing Caltrain rolling stock, and periodic assessment of the entire route to ensure the rail system is maintained in a state of good repair and is kept in good working order.  Alternative Modes of Transportation: The 2017 TIP includes funding for pedestrian enhancement projects, bicycle route improvement projects and safe routes to school educational projects in various locations throughout San Mateo County. These projects promote alternative transportation Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-23 modes and improve pedestrian and bicyclists safety. Example projects include transit accessibility improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians, pedestrian facility enhancements, and improvements to the countywide bicycle network.  SR 82 Complete Streets Project in South San Francisco: The 2017 TIP includes funding to develop a major complete streets project on the El Camino Real Highway, which strives to establish a balance between transportation modes by providing bike and pedestrian enhancements in support of the Grand Boulevard concept. San Francisco Bay Trail Plan The San Francisco Bay Trail Plan (Association of Bay Area Governments 1989) and Enhanced San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail Plan (California Coastal Conservancy 2011) provide guidance to the development of a shared-use bicycle and pedestrian path that will in the future allow continuous travel around the San Francisco Bay. County/Multi-County Plans and Programs San Mateo City/County Association of Governments The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) is the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for San Mateo County authorized to set State and federal funding priorities for improvements affecting the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadway system. The CMP roadway system components in South San Francisco include U.S. 101, I-280, and SR 82 (El Camino Real). C/CAG also reviews transportation impact analyses included in environmental clearance documents for land use applications prepared by jurisdictions in San Mateo County to ensure that impacts to the CMP Roadway System are adequately addressed. Although State law no longer requires congestion management programs, San Mateo County (like all other counties in the Bay Area), has opted to continue with its CMP. C/CAG has set the level of service standards for US 101 segments near the Specific Plan site, and has adopted guidelines to reduce the number of net new vehicle trips generated by new developments. These guidelines apply to all developments that generate 100 or more net new peak-hour vehicular trips on the CMP network and are subject to CEQA review. The goal of the guidelines is that the developer and/or tenants will reduce the demand for all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development. San Mateo Transportation Authority The San Mateo County Transportation Authority was formed in 1988 with the passage of the voter-approved half-cent sales tax for countywide transportation projects and programs, known as Measure A. In 2004, county voters overwhelmingly approved a reauthorization of Measure A through 2033. The Transportation Authority’s role is to administer proceeds from Measure A taxes to fund a broad spectrum of transportation- related projects and programs. The TA is an independent agency and is governed by an appointed board of seven directors, who are elected officials, representing the county, cities and the San Mateo County Transit District. The San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) has developed the Strategic Plan 2014-2019 that outlines the vision, goals and implementation procedures for Measure A funds over the next five years. The final Strategic Plan 2014-2019 was adopted by the TA Board on Dec. 4, 2014. San Mateo County Transit District / Measure W The San Mateo County Transit District (District) is the administrative body for the principal public transit and transportation programs in San Mateo County. These programs include SamTrans bus service (including Redi- Wheels paratransit service), Caltrain commuter rail and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority. Caltrain and the TA have contracted with the District to serve as their managing agency, under the direction Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-24 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR of their boards of directors. In November 2018, the voters of San Mateo County approved Measure W, which imposes a one half-cent sales tax on all qualified retail transactions in San Mateo County, both in the incorporated and unincorporated areas, for a period of 30 years. The proceeds from this measure are to be used to pay for transportation-related improvement projects throughout the County as specified in the District's Congestion Relief Plan. Proceeds must be invested in five identified transportation-related categories including: highway projects throughout the County; major arterial and local roadway improvements in key congested areas; bicycle, pedestrian and active transportation projects; infrastructure and services designed to improve transit connectivity; and support for operations and capital needs of public transit services (including SamTrans bus and paratransit services, and Caltrain). Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Board) owns and operates Caltrain. The Board consists of representatives from San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Caltrain’s Strategic Plan establishes a common vision for the agency, and frames key policy, service and investment decisions. The most recent Strategic Plan was adopted by the Board on September 4, 2014. Pursuant to the Strategic Plan, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority’s (TA) Board of Directors authorized funds to rebuild the South San Francisco Caltrain Station and awarded a contract for the South San Francisco Station Improvement Project. Construction on the project is underway. Caltrain, in coordination with the City of South San Francisco, is preparing to replace the existing South San Francisco Station with a new center boarding platform connecting to a pedestrian underpass. The pedestrian underpass will allow passengers to access trains without crossing on the rails. Moving the station south of its current location allows for a wider center boarding platform as well as additional improvements that enhance the value of the station. The new underpass will meet American Accessibility Act standards. A new parking lot on the east side of the station will facilitate dropping off and picking up employees in the nearby biotech hub and a plaza that connects the station to Grand Avenue and downtown South San Francisco. City of South San Francisco The City of South San Francisco is responsible for planning, constructing and maintaining local public transportation facilities, including all City streets, City-operated traffic signals, sidewalks and bicycle facilities. These local services are funded primarily by gas-tax revenue and developer Impact Fees. City of South San Francisco General Plan Transportation Element The City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999) defines transportation and land use policies for the City. The General Plan strives to manage traffic congestion and encourage riding transit, walking, and biking. Transportation Element policies specifically relevant to the Project include: Street System Standards: ● Policy 4.2-G-1: Undertake efforts to enhance transportation capacity, especially in growth and emerging employment areas such as in the East of 101 area ● Policy 4.2-G-5: Use the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan as a guide for detailed implementation of General Plan transportation policies for the Downtown Station Area. (Amended by City Council, 2015) ● Policy 4.2-G-8: Use the Bicycle Master Plan to identify, schedule, and implement roadway improvements that enhance bicycle access. (Amended by Resolution 26-2014, adopted February 12, 2014) Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-25 ● Policy 4.2-G-9: Use the Pedestrian Master Plan to identify, schedule, and implement roadway improvements that enhance pedestrian access (Amended by Resolution 26-2014, adopted February 12, 2014) ● Policy 4.2-G-10: Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the arrangement of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle-miles traveled. ● Policy 4.2-G-12: Provide fair and equitable means for paying for future street improvements including mechanisms such as development impact fees. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98- 2001, adopted September 26, 2001) ● Policy 4.2-G-13: Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections, and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours. ● Policy 4.2-G-14: Accept LOS E or F after finding that (1) there is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and (2) uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit. ● Policy 4.2-G-15: Exempt development within one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART station, or a City-designated ferry terminal, from LOS standards. ● Policy 4.2-I-6: Incorporate as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP), needed intersection and roadway improvements to enhance mobility in the East of 101 Area. These improvements shall include consideration of bike lanes and pedestrian routes. The East of 101 Traffic Study, prepared by the City in April 2001, identifies improvements that would result in better traffic flow and a reduction of congestion during peak hours. Improvements have been proposed and evaluated at the following intersections:  Bayshore Boulevard and US 101 South Hook Ramp(s)  Bayshore Boulevard and Sister Cities/Oyster Point Boulevard  Dubuque Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard  Eccles Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard  Gull Drive and Oyster Point Boulevard  Airport Boulevard and Miller Avenue/US 101 Southbound off-ramp  Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue  Dubuque Avenue and East Grand Avenue  DNA Way and East Grand Avenue  Forbes Boulevard/Harbor Way and East Grand Avenue  East Grand Avenue and Grandview Drive ● Policy 4.2-I-7a: Establish a traffic improvement fee to fund transportation improvements in the East of 101 area. The fee should be updated to also fund enhancements to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, consistent with the objectives of the Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001 and 27-2014) ● Policy 4.2-I-9: Where appropriate, consider up-fronting portions of improvement costs where the City’s economic development interests may be served. Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-26 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Alternative Transportation Systems and Parking ● Policy 4.3-I-16: Favor Transportation Systems Management programs that limit vehicle use over those that extend the commute hour. ● Policy 4.3-I-18: Establish parking standards to support trip reduction goals by (1) allowing parking reductions for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction methods, such as paid parking, and for mixed-use development, and (2) requiring projects larger than 25 employees to provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools. Transit Policies: ● Policy 4.4-I-1: Develop a Downtown multi-modal transit center southeast of the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection, with a relocated Caltrain Station as its hub. ● Policy 4.4-I-2: Ensure that detailed plans for the multi-modal center include direct pedestrian access from Downtown; shuttle drop-offs and pedestrian access from businesses east of the station; Sam- Trans bus and taxi drop-off patrons from bus routes along Airport Boulevard; and clear visibility from Downtown and Grand Avenue. ● Policy 4.4-I-4: Encourage SamTrans to increase the shuttle or bus-service to East of 101 Area to serve the area’s growing employment base. This area is a major employment center and has the largest employers in North San Mateo County. ● Policy 4.4-I-5: As part of any revisions to the Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan, explore the feasibility of providing or reserving site for a ferry terminal. Transportation Demand Management Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs are provided by employers to reduce the amount of peak period traffic by encouraging their employees to use modes other than the single-occupant automobile for transportation to the workplace and to travel during non-peak times. The largest increases in work- related trip diversion to alternative modes are likely to be through carpooling and employer shuttle programs, on which TDM efforts should be focused. The General Plan establishes an incentives-based land use program with density bonuses for projects meeting identified TDM objectives that do not discriminate between small and large employers. South San Francisco Complete Streets Policy The City of South San Francisco adopted its Complete Streets Policy (2012) to serve all street users. ● Resolution 86-2012: Create and maintain complete streets that provide safe, comfortable, and convenient travel along and across streets including streets, roads, highways, bridges, and other portions of the transportation system through a comprehensive, integrated transportation network that serves all categories of users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, seniors, children, youth, and families City of South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan2 The City of South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan (2011) identifies and prioritizes street improvements to enhance bicycle access. The plan analyzes bicycle demand and gaps in bicycle facilities, and recommends 2 The City is currently working toward preparation of a combined Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, intended to update and combine these two documents Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-27 improvements and programs for implementation. The Bicycle Master Plan establishes the following policy related to the Project: ● Policy 3.2-1: All development projects shall be required to conform to the Bicycle Transportation Plan goals, policies and implementation measures. City of South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan The City of South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan (2012) identifies and prioritizes street improvements to enhance pedestrian access. The plan analyzes pedestrian demand and gaps in pedestrian facilities, and recommends improvements and programs for implementation. The Pedestrian Master Plan establishes the following policy related to the Project: ● Policy 5.1-1: All development projects shall be required to conform to the Pedestrian Master Plan goals, policies and implementation measures. East of 101 Study and Transportation Improvement Fee Program The City of South San Francisco East of 101 Study was prepared and adopted by the City in 2011 to establish a source of funding for future capital improvements to the transportation system in the City. The East of 101 Study and its associated transportation improvement fee program include funding for a variety of transportation improvement projects located in the East of 101 area. Near the Project, the Plan calls for a range of improvements at study intersections, such as the installation of traffic signals at the East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue and East Grand Avenue/DNA Way intersections, and lane modifications to the East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard intersection. Transportation improvement fees may also fund enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, consistent with the Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan. City of South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan The City of South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (2015) defines transportation and land use policies for the downtown area. The plan identifies transportation improvements for all modes to support transit-oriented development around a new location for the South San Francisco Caltrain station near the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection. South San Francisco Municipal Code City of South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Ordinance The City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance (Chapter 20.400 Transportation Demand Management) applies to all non-residential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips (based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates), or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus. The Ordinance requires that all non-residential projects resulting in more than 100 average daily trips must meet a minimum alternative mode use (percent of total trips) of 28 percent, and identifies higher thresholds for projects requesting a FAR bonus. The ordinance identifies a number required and optional trip reduction measures for inclusion in a TDM Plan. The ordinance requires an annual survey program to ensure that desired transportation mode shares are achieved. Genentech Master Plan Zoning District South San Francisco Municipal Code, Chapter 20.260 (Genentech Master Plan zoning district) includes administrative provisions (section 20.260.0060) which provide that development projects within the Genentech Master Plan zoning district shall be in accordance with all applicable provisions of this ordinance, including payment of the following fees: Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-28 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR ● Contributions to the Oyster Point Interchange: Genentech shall continue to contribute to the Oyster Point Interchange, in accordance with the existing requirements of the Oyster Point contribution formula, established by Resolution 71-84. These requirements shall apply to all discretionary land use approvals, including Minor Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits issued pursuant to Section 20.260.006–Administration and Chapter 20.490–Use Permits, and approvals pursuant to Administrative Review under subsection (A) where additional vehicle trips will be generated. ● Contributions to the Capital Improvement Program: Genentech shall continue to contribute its fair share toward the costs of capital improvement projects that support Genentech’s development activity, in accordance with the financing policies established in the East of 101 Area Plan. ● East of 101 Traffic Fee: Genentech shall contribute to East of 101 traffic improvements in accordance with the existing requirements of the East of 101 Traffic Fee contribution formula established by Resolution 101-2005, or as that resolution may be amended. This requirement shall apply to all discretionary land use approvals, including Administrative Review, Minor Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits issued pursuant to Section 20.260.006–Administration. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Thresholds of Significance City of South San Francisco and San Mateo County C/CAG guidelines were used to identify thresholds of significance to determine whether implementation of the Project would result in significant environmental impacts. The Project would have a significant transportation or circulation impact if it were to: 1. Exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the Congestion Management Program roadway system (C/CAG criteria) 2. Conflict with applicable plans, ordinances or policies establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. These thresholds are specifically defined as: a. If signalized intersection operations and all-way-stop operations would deteriorate from operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) to an unacceptable operation (LOS E or F) with the addition of project traffic b. If uncontrolled turn movements or side-street stop-controlled approach operations at intersections would deteriorate from operating at LOS E or better to LOS F and total volumes passing through the intersection would increase by at least one percent if at least one leg is connected to a Caltrans ramp, and two percent otherwise. Side street stop criteria are applicable only for approaches with more than 25 trips during any peak traffic hour c. If the Project would increase the total traffic volume passing through an intersection by two percent or more, at an intersection with signalized or all-way stop operations already at a baseline LOS E or F, or when a side street stop controlled approach is at a baseline LOS F. Side street stop criteria are applicable only for approaches with more than 25 trips during any peak traffic hour d. If Project traffic would increase baseline volumes at an unsignalized intersection to meet peak hour volume signal warrant criteria levels, or to meet pedestrian/school crossing signal warrant criteria levels e. If the Project would increase traffic entering an unsignalized intersection by two percent or more, at an intersection with baseline traffic levels already exceeding peak hour volume signal warrant criteria levels Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-29 3. Increase volumes on a given traffic movement downstream of Caltrans facilities by one percent or more, and in doing so would either cause vehicle queues to exceed existing storage space for that movement, or would contribute to existing vehicle queues that exceed storage space for that movement 4. Degrade operation of the US 101 freeway or freeway ramps from LOS E to LOS F with at least a one percent increase in volumes, or increase volumes by more than one percent on a freeway segment or a freeway ramp with baseline LOS F operation, or make a considerable contribution to a cumulative degradation of the US 101 freeway or freeway ramps operations, according to the same criteria 5. Substantially increase transportation hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses, or result in inadequate emergency access. 6. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 7. If the project would make a considerable contribution to a cumulative impact, based on the same criteria The above significance criteria primarily relate to vehicular delay and traffic congestion. However, statewide legislation will render impacts based on vehicular delay no longer a significant impact under CEQA in the near future. Senate Bill (SB) 743 changes CEQA transportation impact analysis significance criteria to eliminate auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA (although a jurisdiction may choose to maintain these measures under its General Plan). The proposed changes in CEQA Guidelines to implement SB 743 present Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as an appropriate measure of transportation impacts. At present, the City of South San Francisco has not adopted VMT as a transportation impact criterion or established appropriate VMT significance thresholds. As a result, a VMT analysis is not included as part of this EIR CEQA analysis, but is presented for informational purposes toward the end of this chapter. Approach to the Analysis Analysis Scenarios This analysis evaluates the weekday AM peak hour traffic period between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM) and the weekday PM peak hour traffic period (4:00 PM and 6:00 PM). Traffic counts were conducted during May 2016 by the City of South San Francisco as a part of the South San Francisco Model Update. Freeway counts were based on the Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS) during the same timeframe.3 Study intersections were evaluated for the following scenarios: ● Existing Conditions: Existing May 2016 traffic volumes for local roadways provided by the City ● Existing Plus Project Conditions: Existing traffic volumes plus new traffic from the Project ● Cumulative No Project Conditions: Projected conditions in 2040 without the Project ● Cumulative Plus Project Conditions: Projected conditions in 2040 with the Project 3 Traffic volumes have increased at some intersections since conducting these counts due to employment growth associated with new developments and increased occupancy of existing real estate. This growth is consistent with expectations in the cumulative land use scenario. A comparison of 2018 traffic volumes to 2016 traffic volumes was not performed in this analysis due to atypical conditions associated with the temporary closure of the South Airport Boulevard Bridge from May 2018 through November 2018 and ongoing construction throughout the study area. Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-30 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR This analysis intends to be representative of existing conditions at the time of the Notice of Preparation for this EIR. Transportation conditions have continued to change while this analysis occurred. In particular, the on-going construction in the downtown area and construction along Oyster Point Boulevard and East Grand Avenue have temporarily disrupted traffic patterns. As some of these developments have been completed, traffic volumes during the peak hours may have changed. However, while these new developments are not fully captured in the existing conditions analysis, they are reflected in the cumulative analysis. Analysis Methods This transportation impact analysis studies the effects of the Project on a variety of transportation services and facilities, including vehicle operations, transit service, pedestrian facilities and bicycle facilities. This analysis evaluates the operating characteristics of intersections using LOS. LOS is a quantitative description of an intersection’s performance based on the average delay per vehicle. Intersection levels of service range from LOS A, which indicates free flow or excellent vehicle flow conditions with short delays, to LOS F, which indicates congested or overloaded vehicle flow conditions with extremely long delays. The City of South San Francisco General Plan establishes LOS A through LOS D as acceptable operations, while LOS E and LOS F are considered unsatisfactory. LOS for the study intersections were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 and 2010 methodology and the Synchro traffic analysis software, based on direction from City staff and to maintain consistency with previous studies. Freeway analysis was performed using the HCM 2010 methodology and HCS software. While HCM methodology and Synchro traffic analysis software represent the state of the practice in evaluating isolated intersection operations, this methodology presents some limitations for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. Under highly congested conditions, use of deterministic traffic modeling tools such as Synchro may not fully reflect the extent of vehicular queuing and spillover effects between intersections. Similarly, these tools cannot anticipate how drivers may react to day-to-day variations in traffic conditions. Finally, this analysis is predicated on data collected on specific days; while existing conditions were counted on “typical” weekdays, traffic flows may vary by up to ten percent from day to day. Signalized Intersections The method from Chapter 16 of the HCM bases signalized intersection operations on the average control delay experienced by motorists traveling through it. Control delay incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. This method uses various intersection characteristics (such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasing) to estimate the average control delay. Table 17-5 summarizes the relationship between average delay per vehicle and LOS for signalized intersections according to the 2010 HCM methodology. Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-31 Table 17-5 Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria Level of Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length ≤ 10 B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths > 10 and ≤ 20 C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle length - Individual cycle failures begin to appear > 20 and ≤ 35 D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios - Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable > 35 and ≤ 55 E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences > 55 and ≤ 80 F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths > 80 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2010, Highway Capacity Manual – Special Report 209 Unsignalized Intersections Traffic conditions at the unsignalized study intersections (stop sign and yield sign-controlled intersections) were evaluated using the method from Chapter 17 of the HCM. With this method, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds) for each stop-controlled approach that must yield the right-of-way. At four-way stop-controlled intersections, the control delay is calculated for the entire intersection and for each approach. The delays and corresponding LOS for the entire intersection are reported. At two-way stop-controlled intersections, the movement with the highest delay and corresponding LOS is reported. Table 17-6 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. Table 17-6: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) Little or no traffic delays ≤ 10 Short traffic delays > 10 and ≤ 15 Average traffic delays > 15 and ≤ 25 Long traffic delays > 25 and ≤ 35 Very long traffic delays > 35 and ≤ 50 Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded > 50 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2010, Highway Capacity Manual – Special Report 209 Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-32 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Travel Demand Associated with Project Travel demand refers to the new vehicle, transit, bicycle and pedestrian traffic that would be generated by the Project. This analysis provides a forecast of the AM and PM peak hour trips that would be generated by new uses associated with Project. Existing Vehicle Trip Generation Estimates Existing Genentech-specific trip generation rates were developed based on traffic cordon counts conducted on the Genentech Campus in June 2016, and cordon counts of individual people and parking counts conducted in the Fall 2015 Campus Mode Share and Parking Report.4 These existing trip rates are inclusive of all Genentech trips. Trips within the cordon associated with non-Genentech land uses were subtracted from the total counts based on building size and trip generation rates by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 9th Edition. Existing trip rates by Genentech land uses (office, lab and manufacturing) were disaggregated from the total cordon trips according to the proportional differences between their respective ITE rates. The resulting existing Genentech-specific trip generation rates shown in Table 17-7 account for Genentech’s trip generation characteristics by land use and Genentech’s TDM program, which currently captures approximately 42 percent of all trips via alternative travel modes other than single occupancy vehicles. Table 17-7: Existing Genentech Campus Vehicle Trip Generation Rates Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Office 0.63 0.12 0.75 0.13 0.44 0.58 Lab/Amenity 0.46 0.13 0.60 0.08 0.33 0.41 Manufacturing 0.13 0.07 0.20 0.08 0.07 0.16 Notes: 1. Vehicle trip generation rates are per 1,000 square feet 2. Existing generation rates based on cordon counts conducted during June 2016. Trips within the cordon associated with non- Genentech land uses were subtracted from the total based on building size and trip generation rates by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 9th Edition. Rates by Genentech land use (office, lab and manufacturing) were disaggregated from the total cordon trips according to the proportional differences between their respective ITE rates. 3. Existing trip generation rates assume a 58 percent single-occupancy vehicle / 42 percent alternative mode share per the Fall 2016 Genentech South San Francisco Campus Mode Share and Parking Report. 4. Amenity trips assumed to be fully internalized; employee trips incorporated into lab totals based on similar employee densities. By applying these Genentech-specific trip generation rates to the existing land uses within the Genentech Campus, the total number of existing vehicle trips are calculated to be 2,543 vehicle trips in the AM peak hour and 1,867 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour, as shown in Table 17-8. 4 Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-33 Table 17-8: Existing Vehicle Trips, Genentech Campus Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 1,000 Square Feet In Out Total In Out Total Office 1,566 983 189 1,172 208 694 902 Lab/Amenity 1,864 862 249 1,111 158 606 764 Manufacturing 1,285 172 88 260 108 93 201 Total: 4,715 2,017 526 2,543 474 1,393 1,867 Project Trips Trip Cap As fully described in the Project Description of this EIR, Genentech is proposing to establish a “Trip Cap” equivalent to the total number of drive-alone vehicle trips as previously calculated for buildout of the Campus pursuant to the prior 2007 Master EIR and the 2002 Britannia East Grand (now South Campus) EIR. These prior EIRs estimated the number of AM peak hour drive-alone vehicle trips that would be generated at a buildout of approximately 6.0 million square feet of building space within the former Campus boundaries and approximately 804,500 square feet of building space at Britannia East Grand /South Campus, as shown below in Table 17-9. Table 17-9: Calculation of Trip Cap, Based on Prior EIR Trip Assumptions Land Use Buildout (SF) AM Peak Trip Rate Trips at Buildout Total AM Peak Hour Trips Genentech Campus Master Plan (per 2007 MEIR) 1 Office 2,629,395 0.95 2,498 Lab 2,002,482 0.59 1,181 Mfg. 1,041,668 0.48 500 Amenity 322,000 6,000,000 4,179 4,719 Britannia East Grand (per 2002 EIR) 2 Total Buildout 804,530 1,037 1,037 Total Approved Building Space and AM Peak Hour Trips 6,804,530 5,216 Source: 1: 2007 Genentech Campus Master Plan MEIR, buildout per Table 3-1, AM trip rate per Table 4.7-11 2. 2002 Britannia East Grand Project EIR, Table 6.9 The Genentech-proposed Trip Cap would hold this number of AM peak hour trips (5,216 total drive-alone trips) constant, while increasing the underlying entitlement from approximately 6.8 million square feet up to 9 million square feet of building space. Given the existing number of AM peak hour vehicle trips generated at the Campus is 2,543 total trips, the net increase in Project-related trips can only be a maximum of 2,763 AM peak hour trips (i.e., a Trip Cap of 5,216 trips, minus 2,543 existing trips = 2,673 net new Project trips in the Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-34 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR AM peak hour). To achieve this Trip Cap, Genentech proposes to implement TDM programs for all of its employees at levels that can reduce drive-alone trips such that this Campus-wide Trip Cap is not exceeded. Project Trip Generation Project-specific trip generation rates were derived by allocating the proposed maximum allowable new trips under the Trip Cap across the proposed new land uses. Project trips were allocated among the various land uses using the same relative trip generation rates as under Existing conditions, as indicated in Table 17-10. Table 17-10: Project Trip Generation (Based on Trip Budget Reductions) Project-Specific Trip Generation Rates (based on Trip Cap) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Office 0.57 0.11 0.68 0.12 0.40 0.53 Lab/Amenity 0.42 0.12 0.54 0.08 0.30 0.37 Manufacturing 0.12 0.06 0.18 0.08 0.07 0.14 Project Trip Generation 1,000 Square Feet In Out Total In Out Total Office 2,424,000 1,389 267 1,656 294 981 1,274 Lab/Amenity 1,869,000 789 228 1,017 145 555 700 Manufacturing - - - - - - - Total: 4,293,000 2,178 495 2,673 439 1,536 1,974 Plus Existing Trips (see Table 17-7) 2,543 Total Trips, per Trip Cap 5,216 Notes: Amenity trips assumed to be fully internalized; employee trips incorporated into lab totals based on similar employee densities. Project trip generation rates assume a 47 percent alternative mode share in accordance with the necessary alternative mode share to remain under the proposed Trip Cap. The Trip Cap will also provide Genentech and the City of South San Francisco with flexibility to modify and adapt the land use mix within the Campus over time depending upon future needs, while holding a constant “cap” on the number of net new AM peak-hour vehicle trips that the ultimate land use mix can generate. The Trip Cap is used as a proxy, or means by which the maximum land use development under the Master Plan Update is measured. By holding the Trip Cap constant, a variety of land use scenarios can be accommodated at the Campus without exceeding the previously assumed off-Campus traffic effects. The maximum development capacity of the Master Plan Update, as analyzed in this EIR, is achieved when the Trip Cap is reached and additional TDM reductions cannot be implemented. This approach serves as incentive for Genentech to maintain a high TDM rate (or a low rate of drive-alone trips), because each TDM-reduced trip counts as a “credit” against the Trip Cap. TDM Program The City of South San Francisco requires that all non-residential development expected to generate an average of 100 or more daily vehicle trips implement TDM measures to reduce vehicle traffic. C/CAG guidelines require developments that generate 100 or more peak hour trips to implement TDM measures that have the capacity to mitigate new peak hour trips. Pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code requirements, a project the size of the current Campus (which has an average FAR of 0.52) would be required to achieve a 30 Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-35 percent trip reduction rate, and buildout of the Master Plan Update (which would achieve an FAR of 1.0) would be required to achieve a 35 percent trip reduction rate. Since 2006, Genentech has implemented a TDM program for their facilities, entitled gRide, to facilitate and encourage employees to use alternative commute options. The program’s goal is to increase the percentage of employees using alternative forms of transportation, reducing the number of single occupancy cars coming to and parking at the Campus. The gRide program has been very successful in encouraging non-single occupancy vehicle trips. Since 2005, the share of employee Campus arrivals to work via drive alone vehicles has fallen from approximately 77 percent to around 58 percent, as shown in Table 17-11. Table 17-11: Drive Alone Commute Mode Share, 2005-2016 Source: Genentech, 2005-2016 This drive-alone mode share corresponds to a current TDM rate of 42 percent, far exceeding the City requirement. Additionally, Genentech provides a series of initiatives that seek to improve employees’ work experience, and in particular to address the adverse effects of long commute times. These initiatives encourage teams and managers within Genentech to consider how a flexible work environment can best be achieved on an individual and team level, and to experiment with strategies that serve different employee populations with work flexibility options. According to Genentech’s August 2018 Employee Work Environment Survey, Genentech’s workforce chooses a flexible work option over commuting to the Campus an average of 13% of the time, further reducing the number of Campus arrivals during the AM peak hour commute period by approximately 755 trips. With 42% of its workers arriving to the Campus via one of the existing TDM programs and the additional trip reductions based on workers choosing a flexible work option, Genentech is currently operating at a current total trip reduction rate of approximately 51%. In order to remain under the proposed Trip Cap (see above), the Project-specific TDM mode share of net new arrivals to the Campus would need to be the equivalent of 47 percent of all AM peak hour Campus arrival trips at buildout. To achieve these TDM rates, Genentech’s existing TDM program will need to increase in capacity commensurate with new employee growth, and increase its overall non-single occupant mode share split for Campus arrivals by an additional approximately 10 percent. The Master Plan Update presents a Genentech TDM goal of achieving a 50 percent reduction in Campus-wide arrivals via drive alone vehicle trips at buildout (or a 50 percent alternative mode split), plus additional flexible work initiatives to further reduce peak hour trips to the Campus. Genentech’s TDM goal of achieving a 50 percent trip reduction rate for Campus arrivals, and additional reductions in peak hour trips resulting from flexible work initiatives, is expected to result in a total trip reduction rate of approximately 57 percent. 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Drive Alone Mode ShareYear Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-36 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR This trip reduction rate would substantially exceed City Municipal Code requirements, and would also exceed the 47 percent reduction in Campus arrivals needed to meet the Trip Cap. Given the scale of the existing gRide program, Genentech has available capacity within its current TDM program to absorb additional participants, and will most likely meet or exceed the necessary trip reductions to remain below the Trip Cap without requiring a substantial number of new programs. The Genentech TDM program includes a number of strategies that will likely continue, and a menu of additional strategies that Genentech may use to refine or add to the existing program, as needed. As multiple TDM measures are implemented concurrently, they will have synergistic results in reducing drive-alone trips as needed to remain below the Trip Cap. Vehicle Trip Distribution and Assignment The geographic distribution of Project-generated trips was determined based on the City of South San Francisco Traffic Model and observed Genentech employee home locations. Accordingly, 33 percent of Project-generated trips are expected to travel to/from locations north of the Project via US-101, 49 percent of Project-generated trips are expected to travel to/from locations south of the Project via US-101 and South Airport Boulevard, and 16 percent are expected to travel to/from locations west of the Project via Sister Cities Boulevard and Grand Avenue. The remaining two percent of vehicle trips are assumed to both originate and end within the East of 101 Area. These patterns were used as the basis for assigning Project-generated vehicle trips to the local streets in the study area, using the City of South San Francisco Traffic Model. Figure 17-7 presents the distribution of vehicle trips, and Figure 17-8 presents peak hour traffic and lane configurations for the Project, only. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019Figure 17-7Vehicle Trip DistributionSister Cities BoulevardOyster Point BoulevardEast Grand AveForbes BoulevardAirport Boulevard£101Gateway BoulevardMaster Plan Boundary£101123457981210617181615141113192021222324252627Inset33%16%49%2%Trip DistributionN:\Projects\2016_Projects\SF16-0882_Genentech_Master_Plan\Graphics\GIS\MXD\basemap_aug19.mxdFigure 6-10½MilesTrip Distribution Insert Figure Label Here Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Figure 17-8 Peak Hour Traffic and Lane Configurations Project Trips, only Figure 6-2Peak Hour Traffic Volumesand Lane Configurations -Project Trips - Intersections 1-110 (0)1 (4)18 (6)0 (0)145 (21)1 (0)0 (19)0 (17)134 (44)4 (48)2 (49)0 (1) 1. Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd.0 (29)0 (3)0 (0)0 (10)255 (52)42 (9) 38 (250)6 (69)0 (33) 2. 101 NB Ramp/Dubuque Ave./Oyster Point Blvd.0 (0)0 (4)0 (0)0 (28)0 (0)1 (0)38 (42)4 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0) 3. Dubuque Ave./101 NB & SB Ramps/Driveway 0 (68)0 (5)0 (1)5 (3)119 (40)131 (9) 0 (2)44 (282)0 (4) 4. Gateway Blvd./101 SB Ramp/Oyster Point Blvd.0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)15 (8)400 (74)0 (0)1 (3)0 (0)2 (1)1 (3)43 (285)0 (0) 5. Veterans Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd.0 (8)3 (10)403 (85)17 (4) 47 (290)14 (5) 6A. Eccles Ave./Oyster Point Blvd.0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)4 (0)402 (95)0 (0)0 (3)0 (0)0 (0)0 (1)61 (292) 6B. 345-347 Driveway/Oyster Point Blvd.47 (281)0 (0)1 (0)0 (1)20 (8)382 (86)1 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)13 (12)0 (2) 7. Gull Dr./Oyster Point Blvd. Sister Cities Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.Airport Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.101 NB On RampDubuque Ave.101 NB Off Ramp/101 SB On Ramp DrivewayDubuque Ave.Oyster Point Blvd.DrivewayGateway Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.Veterans Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.345-347 DrivewayOyster Point Blvd.Gull Dr.3 (8)0 (0)15 (56)0 (0)481 (84)1 (1)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)95 (375)49 (28) 8. Allerton Ave./Forbes Blvd. 11 (46)485 (94)10 (29)372 (59)37 (235)134 (374) 9. Gull Dr./Forbes Blvd. Forbes Blvd.Allerton Ave.Forbes Blvd.Gull Dr.1 (46)32 (67)86 (2)0 (0)0 (4)0 (14)1 (0)244 (80) 10. Airport Blvd./Miller Ave./101 SB Ramp 11 (0)426 (84)0 (0)0 (1)0 (8)117 (413) 11. Dubuque Ave./Grand Ave. Miller Ave.101 SB/Miller Ave. Off RampAirport Blvd.Grand Ave.Dubuque Ave.STOPSTOP STOP STOPacff acceaaacfaaceaacffaacefaaccff ae aaecffdaabfaccceacce ae aacebffacceaaf ccfaccd aceaeceaae accfdacebf bfdaeacafcfbc fccfaaeacccafcceEccles Ave.#Study Intersection Lane ConfigurationacfPeak Hour Traffic VolumeAM (PM) STOP Stop Sign Signalized LEGEND Insert Figure Label Here Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Figure 17-8B Peak Hour Traffic and Lane Configurations Project Trips, only Figure 6-2Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations - Project Trips - Intersections 12-2715 (0)38 (145)528 (4)24 (16)27 (3)23 (0)146 (14)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (338)0 (31) 20. Gateway Blvd./So. Airport Blvd./Mitchell Ave.0 (14)0 (0)0 (0)581 (149)1 (0)0 (0)0 (31)23 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (2)0 (0) 21. So. Airport Blvd./101 NB Ramp/Wonder Color Ln.0 (0)0 (9)278 (16)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)23 (0)0 (0)0 (5)0 (0)53 (247) 22. So. Airport Blvd./Utah Ave.0 (3)0 (0)273 (14)0 (0)752 (202)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (2)1 (1)172 (475)35 (209) 23. Littlefield Ave./E. Grand Ave.2 (2)13 (3)0 (0)527 (2)0 (0)7 (3)0 (398)18 (40)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0) 24. Harbor Way/Mitchell Avenue 1 (3)2 (1)0 (0)7 (2)269 (14)2 (0)18 (43)3 (0)4 (1)4 (1)34 (206)0 (0) 25. Harbor Way/Utah Ave.0 (0)295 (13)0 (2)23 (90)34 (79)19 (23)26. So. Airport Blvd./N. Access Rd.25 (15)34 (79)27. So. Airport Blvd./I-380 EB Off Ramp So. Airport Blvd.Mitchell Ave.Gateway Blvd.So. Airport Blvd.101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp Wonder Color Ln.So. Airport Blvd.Utah Ave.So. Airport Blvd.E. Grand Ave.Littlefield Ave.Mitchell Avenue Harbor WayUtah Ave.Harbor WaySo. Airport Blvd.So. Airport Blvd.0 (0)18 (0)82 (8)1 (0)25 (9)25 (4)0 (8)0 (11)330 (67)16 (116)7 (4)8 (73) 12. Airport Blvd./Grand Ave.9 (0)101 (43)0 (0)0 (0) 13. Industrial Wy./101 NB Ramp/E. Grand Ave.0 (3)101 (40)426 (85)0 (0) 117 (418)0 (0) 14. E. Grand Ave./Grand Ave.0 (8)0 (31)68 (126)1 (0)522 (125)4 (0)7 (151)21 (0)20 (37)2 (39)110 (259)150 (8) 15. Gateway Blvd./E. Grand Ave.2 (17)482 (0)78 (0)25 (92)580 (192)5 (4)98 (0)17 (257)94 (9)8 (0)162 (289)1 (183) 16. Forbes Blvd./Harbor Wy./E. Grand Ave. 286 (59)739 (159)53 (200)0 (0)3 (0)155 (485) 17. Allerton Ave./E. Grand Ave. 105 (1)634 (158)0 (166)18 (3)4 (5)158 (319) 18. DNA Way/E. Grand Ave.0 (2)1 (0)46 (0)4 (8)28 (15)0 (0)1 (22)0 (0)0 (4)20 (8)4 (0)137 (344) 19. Airport Blvd./Produce Ave./San Mateo Ave. Grand Ave.Airport Blvd.Industrial Wy.101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy.Grand Ave.E. Grand Ave.E. Grand Ave.Gateway Blvd.E. Grand Ave.Forbes Blvd.Harbor Wy.E. Grand Ave.Allerton Ave.E. Grand Ave.DNA WaySan Mateo Ave.So. Airport Blvd.Airport Blvd.Produce Ave.STOP STOP STOPSTOPSTOPSTOP STOPSTOPSTOPaaccfaacffacffacccf aceabffaccfbf accf bfaaceabfdf acedaced dddd bedbeaceacef cccccaccfaeaaccfaacfefafaffcceacccacfacccfaccfaacceaccfaacccfacffaacceaccgceaaccgfceaccfabcfaccfaaacfE. Grand Ave. N. Access Rd. 270 (0)0 (0) I-380 EB Off Ramp aaf0 (0)0 (0)bc#Study Intersection Lane ConfigurationacfPeak Hour Traffic VolumeAM (PM) STOP Stop Sign Signalized LEGEND Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-40 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Project Impact Analysis Local Intersection Level of Service/Queuing (Existing plus Project) Impact Trans 1: The Project would contribute traffic to intersections in the Project vicinity that would result in conflicts with applicable plans, ordinances or policies that establish measures of effectiveness for intersection levels of service (LOS) or queuing at twenty (20) of the 27 traffic study intersections. Regulatory requirements and/or mitigation measures have been identified that are capable of reducing these impacts at 13 of the 20 affected intersections, but no feasible or certain improvements have been identified as capable of reducing impacts to a less than significant level at 7 affected study intersections. (Significant and Unavoidable) Intersection Level of Service Based on the analysis of traffic operations at study intersections, the Project would generate traffic that would cause established measures of effective intersection operations (either based on LOS, signal warrant criteria or queuing thresholds) to be exceeded at twenty (20) local intersections. The impact of Project- generated traffic at each of the adversely affected intersections is described below. ● LOS at Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard (#1): The Project would cause intersection operations to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS F in the PM peak hour. ● Queuing at Dubuque Avenue/101 NB On-Ramp/Oyster Point Boulevard (#2): The Project would cause a greater than one percent increase in traffic volumes on the AM eastbound through movement, contributing to queues that already exceed the available storage length. ● Queuing at 101 SB Off-Ramp/Gateway Boulevard/ Oyster Point Boulevard/ (#4): The Project would contribute more than one percent of total volumes to the northeast-bound right turn movement and to the shared eastbound through/right movement in the AM peak hour, which would cause queues to exceed available storage space, and the Project’s contribution of traffic would further contribute to these queues. ● LOS at Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue (#6): The Project would cause intersection operations to deteriorate from LOS B to LOS F in the AM peak hour. ● LOS at Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive (#7): The Project would cause intersection operations to deteriorate from LOS C to LOS F in the AM peak hour, and from LOS D to LOS E in the PM peak hour. ● LOS and Signal Warrant at Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue (#8): The Project would cause intersection operations to deteriorate from LOS B in the AM and PM, to LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. The Project would also increase the approach volume on Allerton Avenue by greater than two percent. This intersection would exceed signal warrant criteria for peak-hour traffic volumes under Existing plus Project conditions in the AM and PM. ● LOS at Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard (#9): The Project would cause intersection operations to deteriorate from LOS B to LOS F in the AM peak hour. ● LOS at Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/US-101 SB Off-Ramp (#10): The Project would cause intersection operations to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E in the PM peak hour. ● LOS and Queuing at Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue (#12): The Project would cause intersection operations to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E in both the AM and the PM peak hours. The Project would also extend queues on the southbound left turn movement in the AM hour that already exceed storage capacity, and would contribute more than one percent of total volume to those queues. Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-41 ● LOS at Gateway Boulevard/East Grand Avenue (#15): The Project would cause intersection operations to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E in the PM peak hour. ● LOS at East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard (#16): The Proposed Project would cause intersection operations to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS F in both the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour ● LOS and Signal Warrant at East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue (#17): The Project would cause intersection operations to deteriorate at the worst approach from LOS D to LOS F in the PM peak hour. The Project would also increase side street stop-controlled approach volumes on Allerton Avenue by more than two percent. This intersection exceeds signal warrant criteria for peak-hour traffic volumes under existing PM conditions, and would exceed signal warrant criteria under existing plus Project conditions in both the AM and PM peak hours. ● LOS and Signal Warrant at East Grand Avenue/DNA Way (#18). The Project would increase the side street stop-controlled approach volume on DNA Way by more than two percent. This side street approach is already operating at LOS F in the PM peak hour. The Project would also cause intersection conditions to deteriorate from LOS B to LOS F in the AM peak hour. This intersection already exceeds signal warrant criteria for peak hour volume under Existing AM and PM conditions, would exceed signal warrant criteria under Existing plus Project conditions in the AM and PM peak hours. ● LOS and Queuing at Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue (#19): The Project would cause intersection operations to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS F in the PM peak hour. The Project would also extend queues beyond storage capacity on the westbound left turn movement in the AM and PM, and on the westbound right turn movement in the AM, and contribute more than 5 percent of total volume to these queues. ● LOS and Queuing at South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue (#20): The Project would cause intersection operations to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E in the AM peak hour, and would increase total intersection volume by more than two percent at this intersection in the PM peak hour, which already operates at LOS F in the PM peak hour. The Project would also extend queues in the AM peak hour past the existing storage capacity on the eastbound left turn movement, and would contribute more than one percent of total volume to queues. ● Queuing at South Airport Boulevard/101 NB On- and Off-Ramps/Wondercolor Lane (#21): The Project would contribute more than one percent of total volume to the eastbound shared left/through movement, resulting in queues that exceed available storage space in the AM peak hour. ● LOS at East Grand Avenue / Littlefield Avenue (#23): The Project would cause operating conditions to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS F in the AM peak hour. ● LOS and Signal Warrant at Mitchell Road / Harbor Way (#24): The Project would cause intersection operations to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS F in the AM peak hour and from LOS B to LOS F in the PM peak hour. The Project would also increase total intersection volume by greater than two percent. This intersection exceeds signal warrant criteria for peak hour volumes under existing AM conditions, and would exceed the same signal warrant criteria under Existing plus Project conditions in the AM and PM peak hour. ● LOS and Signal Warrant at Utah Avenue / Harbor Way (#25): The Project would cause intersection operations to deteriorate from LOS C to LOS E in the PM peak hour. The Project would also increase total intersection volume by greater than two percent in both peak hours, where this intersection already operates at LOS F in the AM peak hour. This intersection exceeds signal warrant criteria for peak hour volume under Existing AM and PM conditions, and would exceed the same signal warrant criteria under Existing plus Project conditions in the AM and PM. Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-42 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR ● Queuing at South Airport Boulevard/I-380 Westbound Ramp (#26). The Project would extend queuing for the southbound right movement, which already exceeds storage capacity, and would contribute more than one percent to the movement during the PM peak hour. Table 17-12 presents a summary of the level of service conditions at each of the study intersections under Existing and Existing plus Project conditions, and Figure 17-9 illustrates Existing plus Project AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes for those intersections, as well as existing lane configurations and traffic controls (signals, stop signs, etc.). Table 17-12: Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service – Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Peak Hour Existing Existing Plus Project Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS 1 Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard Signal AM 26.5 C 30.8 C PM 52.8 D >80 F 2 Dubuque Avenue/101 NB On Ramp/Oyster Point Boulevard Signal AM 21.0 C 22.8 C PM 20.4 C 24.7 C 3 Dubuque Avenue/101 NB Off Ramp/101 SB On Ramp Signal AM 12.4 B 34.8 C PM 12.5 B 13.4 B 4 Oyster Pt. Boulevard/Gateway Blvd. Signal AM 36.0 D 49.4 D PM 28.2 C 29.2 C 5 Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Blvd. Signal AM 13.2 B 15.0 B PM 20.9 C 22.0 C 6 Eccles Avenue/Oyster Point Boulevard Signal AM 14.6 B >80 F PM 16.6 B 22.3 C 7 Gull Drive/Oyster Point Boulevard Signal AM 28.0 C >80 F PM 41.1 D 65.5 E 8 Allerton Avenue/Forbes Boulevard AWSC AM 13.6 B >80 F PM 16.2 B >80 F 9 Forbes Boulevard/Gull Drive Signal AM 11.5 B >80 F PM 9.0 A 13.1 B 10 Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/101 SB/Miller Avenue Off Ramp Signal AM 29.0 C 31.3 C PM 39.2 D 75.9 E 11 Grand Avenue/Dubuque Avenue Signal AM 8.6 A 7.0 A PM 12.3 B 14.5 B 12 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue Signal AM 46.1 D 55.9 E PM 50.6 D 58.8 E Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-43 Table 17-12: Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service – Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Peak Hour Existing Existing Plus Project Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS 13 101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Way/Industrial Way/East Grand Avenue SSYC AM 12.2 B 12.3 B PM 8.6 A 8.6 A 14 East Grand Avenue/Grand Avenue Signal AM 7.2 A 16.6 B PM 7.4 A 5.9 A 15 Gateway Boulevard/East Grand Avenue Signal AM 23.2 C 38.7 D PM 52.1 D 57.0 E 16 Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard/East Grand Avenue Signal AM 35.9 D >80 F PM 46.5 D >80 F 17 East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue SSSC AM 9.7 A 11.0 B PM 25.6 D >80 F 18 East Grand Avenue/DNA Way SSSC AM 12.3 B >80 F PM 71.5 F >80 F 19 Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/South Airport Boulevard Signal AM 40.8 D 41.6 D PM 41.7 D >80 F 20 South Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue & Gateway Boulevard Signal AM 37.5 D 55.9 E PM >80 F >80 F 21 South Airport Boulevard/101 NB/South Airport Boulevard Off Ramp/Wonder Color Lane Signal AM 28.9 C 52.6 D PM 38.3 D 45.7 D 22 South Airport Boulevard/Utah Avenue Signal AM 30.1 C 29.5 C PM 34.6 C 38.1 D 23 Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue Signal AM 45.6 D >80 F PM 14.9 B 19.2 B 24 Mitchell Road / Harbor Way AWSC AM 31.5 D >80 F PM 11.5 B 70.3 F 25 Utah Avenue/Harbor Way AWSC AM 68.4 F >80 F PM 21.9 C 49.3 E 26 I-380 Westbound Ramp/South Airport Boulevard Signal AM 12.3 B 11.5 B PM 19.3 B 22.9 C 27 I-380 Eastbound Ramp/South Airport Boulevard Signal AM 24.2 C 28.4 C PM 29.6 C 29.0 C Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-44 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Table 17-12: Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service – Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Peak Hour Existing Existing Plus Project Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS Bold indicates unacceptable LOS E or F. Highlight indicates significant impact. Delay reported as seconds per vehicle. LOS based on the methodology in the Highway Capacity Manual, 2010. Intersections 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 26 and 27 were analyzed based on HCM 2000. Calculations based on weekday counts and signal timings provided by the City of South San Francisco from May 2016 For signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections, the delay shown is the weighted average for all movements in seconds per vehicle. For side-street stop controlled (SSSC) and side street yield controlled (SSYC) intersections, the delay shown is the worst operating approach delay. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Insert Figure Label Here Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Figure 17-9 Peak Hour Traffic and Lane Configurations Existing plus Project Conditions Figure 6-3Peak Hour Traffic Volumesand Lane Configurations -Existing plus Project Conditions - Intersections 1-1120 (53)141 (191)380 (223)93 (108)1,471 (360)38 (40)189 (473)271 (556)457 (179)78 (121)144 (927)82 (178) 1. Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd.183 (446)50 (78)587 (110)474 (245)1,202 (276)632 (241) 309 (1,221)121 (780)189 (935) 2. 101 NB Ramp/Dubuque Ave./Oyster Point Blvd.18 (31)69 (139)3 (3)748 (492)0 (2)41 (27)727 (1,110)94 (66)3 (3)5 (0)0 (1) 3. Dubuque Ave./101 NB & SB Ramps/Driveway 226 (966)7 (5)141 (78)1,333 (317)451 (66) 2 (2)393 (1,968)43 (64) 4. Gateway Blvd./101 SB Ramp/Oyster Point Blvd.22 (150)0 (0)10 (9)270 (69)2,011 (458)79 (14)61 (243)0 (1)42 (19)13 (17)345 (1,636)4 (7) 5. Veterans Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd.60 (182)26 (30)1,814 (446)196 (43) 310 (1,434)29 (17) 6A. Eccles Ave./Oyster Point Blvd.5 (5)5 (5)5 (5)140 (139)1,572 (460)0 (0)18 (8)0 (5)7 (2)9 (3)305 (1,321) 6B. 345-347 Driveway/Oyster Point Blvd.186 (831)1 (1)18 (30)7 (2)498 (242)1,182 (210)6 (10)0 (1)0 (1)4 (1)128 (506)16 (19) 7. Gull Dr./Oyster Point Blvd. Sister Cities Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.Airport Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.101 NB On RampDubuque Ave.101 NB Off Ramp/101 SB On Ramp DrivewayDubuque Ave.Oyster Point Blvd.DrivewayGateway Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.Veterans Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.345-347 DrivewayOyster Point Blvd.Gull Dr.57 (195)11 (0)114 (111)21 (8)833 (174)145 (43)25 (39)7 (12)3 (4)10 (4)181 (766)211 (102) 8. Allerton Ave./Forbes Blvd. 45 (168)875 (222)225 (95)978 (140)157 (651)254 (665) 9. Gull Dr./Forbes Blvd. Forbes Blvd.Allerton Ave.Forbes Blvd.Gull Dr.42 (168)176 (454)208 (87)67 (92)380 (268)2 (16)162 (302)700 (352) 10. Airport Blvd./Miller Ave./101 SB Ramp 59 (44)1,172 (328)21 (75)29 (22)31 (76)574 (1,946) 11. Dubuque Ave./Grand Ave. Miller Ave.101 SB/Miller Ave. Off RampAirport Blvd.Grand Ave.Dubuque Ave.STOPSTOP STOP STOPacff acceaaccfaceaacffaacefaacff ae abfcffdaabfcceacce ae aacebfaceg ceaccd aceaeceae acfdacebf bfdaeacafcfbc fceadacccafcce#Study Intersection Lane ConfigurationacfPeak Hour Traffic VolumeAM (PM) STOP Stop Sign Signalized LEGEND Eccles Ave. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Figure 17-9B Peak Hour Traffic and Lane Configurations Existing plus Project Conditions Figure 6-3Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations - Existing plus Project Conditions - Intersections 12-27411 (469)422 (313)929 (50)98 (49)260 (58)401 (390)344 (502)108 (260)18 (9)30 (13)123 (763)37 (129) 20. Gateway Blvd./So. Airport Blvd./Mitchell Ave.146 (304)232 (349)14 (16)1,566 (529)19 (10)564 (163)108 (209)427 (556)14 (38)16 (12)8 (17)19 (28) 21. So. Airport Blvd./101 NB Ramp/Wonder Color Ln.10 (13)279 (458)1,031 (181)25 (25)0 (3)10 (18)13 (13)439 (607)558 (95)91 (213)1 (2)250 (1,191) 22. So. Airport Blvd./Utah Ave.21 (53)24 (1)899 (84)15 (3)1,961 (426)52 (48)5 (22)0 (22)4 (2)7 (3)477 (1,537)104 (646) 23. Littlefield Ave./E. Grand Ave.47 (117)223 (86)0 (0)953 (59)0 (0)197 (55)98 (714)95 (192)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0) 24. Harbor Way/Mitchell Avenue 47 (95)11 (42)2 (1)202 (61)1,204 (146)80 (27)75 (198)57 (14)134 (46)63 (82)209 (945)1 (5) 25. Harbor Way/Utah Ave.100 (422)1,112 (636)69 (79)239 (1,151)273 (568)180 (329)26. So. Airport Blvd./N. Access Rd.443 (746)329 (619)27. So. Airport Blvd./I-380 EB Off Ramp So. Airport Blvd.Mitchell Ave.Gateway Blvd.So. Airport Blvd.101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp Wonder Color Ln.So. Airport Blvd.Utah Ave.So. Airport Blvd.E. Grand Ave.Littlefield Ave.Mitchell Avenue Harbor WayUtah Ave.Harbor WayN. Access Rd.So. Airport Blvd.So. Airport Blvd.33 (64)382 (482)372 (126)157 (160)167 (71)112 (73)101 (110)434 (371)733 (180)83 (365)117 (272)176 (744) 12. Airport Blvd./Grand Ave.525 (49)984 (475)33 (10) 13. Industrial Wy./101 NB Ramp/E. Grand Ave.161 (283)862 (215)1,153 (327)48 (23) 444 (1,739)14 (12) 14. Grand Ave./E. Grand Ave.55 (63)151 (134)382 (212)150 (81)1,698 (362)69 (91)59 (380)150 (376)265 (124)99 (274)365 (1,301)293 (337) 15. Gateway Blvd./E. Grand Ave.91 (197)616 (60)260 (27)435 (226)1,768 (400)156 (81)222 (337)75 (415)162 (35)18 (13)457 (1,374)34 (308) 16. Forbes Blvd./Harbor Wy./E. Grand Ave. 543 (115)2,325 (420)127 (363)20 (46)464 (1,862) 17. Allerton Ave./E. Grand Ave. 826 (81)1,399 (286)93 (637)72 (14)57 (44)369 (1,185) 18. DNA Way/E. Grand Ave.192 (103)44 (29)389 (221)98 (157)206 (156)125 (208)91 (121)617 (898)164 (120)212 (381)199 (224)467 (1,129) 19. Airport Blvd./Produce Ave./San Mateo Ave. Grand Ave.Airport Blvd.Industrial Wy.101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy.Grand Ave.E. Grand Ave.E. Grand Ave.Gateway Blvd.E. Grand Ave.Forbes Blvd.Harbor Wy.E. Grand Ave.Allerton Ave.E. Grand Ave.DNA WaySan Mateo Ave.So. Airport Blvd.Airport Blvd.Produce Ave.STOP STOP STOPSTOPSTOPSTOP STOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPaace aefacfaeaceabffaccfbf accf bfaaceabfbf acedaced dddd bedbeaceacef cccccaccfbeabcfaacfeffaffcceacccaceacceaceacceabfaaceaefaceaccfceaccgceaceabcfaccfabcfE. Grand Ave.4 (12)56 (51)bc838 (391)316 (247) I-380 EB Off Ramp aaf#Study Intersection Lane ConfigurationacfPeak Hour Traffic VolumeAM (PM) STOP Stop Sign Signalized LEGEND Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-47 Table 17-13 presents a summary of vehicle queues at study area intersections near US-101 ramps under Existing and Existing plus Project conditions. The Project would extend or contribute to queues beyond existing storage distances at the following intersections: ● Dubuque Avenue/101 NB On Ramp/Oyster Point Boulevard (#2) ● 101 SB Off Ramp/Gateway Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard (#4) ● Airport Blvd./Grand Avenue (#12) ● Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue (#19) ● South Airport Boulevard/ Gateway Boulevard (#20) ● South Airport Boulevard/101 NB/South Airport Boulevard off Ramp/Wondercolor Lane (#21), and ● I-380 Westbound Ramp/South Airport Boulevard (#26) Table 17.13 Existing Plus Project, 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues Near US-101 Intersection Storage Distance1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Existing Existing + Project Existing Existing + Project #1 Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard SB Left 320 130 220 70 100 SB Through 320 110 110 220 230 SB Right 320 60 60 220 170 #2 Dubuque Avenue/101 NB On Ramp/Oyster Point Boulevard NB Left 260 80 80 150 160 NB Through 260 50 50 70 70 NB Right 240 190 190 10 10 EB Left 170 210 210 (0%) 100 100 EB Through 240 420 580 (26.9%) 100 130 EB Right 240 60 160 50 50 WB Left 500 100 100 370 400 WB Through 900 100 100 620 720 WB Right 500 30 30 150 250 #3 Dubuque Avenue/101 NB Off Ramp/101 SB On Ramp EB Left/Through 260 220 220 140 150 #4 101 SB Off Ramp/Gateway Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard NEB Through 3000 270 470 60 70 NEB Right 350 >350 >350 (7.2%) 80 80 EB Through/Right 900 640 910 (8.8%) 100 130 #10 Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/101 SB/Miller Avenue Off Ramp WB Left/Through 750 210 320 230 250 Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-48 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Table 17.13 Existing Plus Project, 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues Near US-101 Intersection Storage Distance1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Existing Existing + Project Existing Existing + Project #12 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue SB Left 280 >280 >300 (81.9%) 120 220 SB Through 280 280 >300 (0%) 170 180 SB Right 280 50 30 50 30 #14 East Grand Avenue/Grand Avenue NB Right 420 160 310 30 30 NB Left 240 140 140 240 240 #19 Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue WB Left 220 200 250 (41.5%) 420 480 (43.8%) WB Through 220 180 210 240 210 (0%) WB Right 80 90 100 (10.4%) 120 80 (2.1%) #20 South Airport Boulevard/ Gateway Boulevard EB Left 130 100 130 (32.4%) 40 60 EB Through 500 360 400 100 100 EB Right 500 150 160 60 70 #21 South Airport Boulevard/101 NB/South Airport Boulevard Off Ramp/Wondercolor Lane EB Left/Through 750 730 >750 (58.0%) 250 390 EB Right 750 150 210 30 30 #26 I-380 Westbound Ramp/South Airport Boulevard NB Through 120 0 0 0 0 NB Left 120 10 10 60 60 SB Right 120 40 50 340 400 (8.5%) #27 South Airport Boulevard/I-380 EB EB Left/Through 1000 180 310 160 160 SB Through 120 30 30 40 40 Notes: 95th Percentile Queues based on the methodology in the Highway Capacity Manual, 2010 analyzed with Synchro software. Intersections 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 26, and 27 were analyzed based on HCM 2000. Queues do not take into account downstream spillover from adjacent intersections. Storage Distance and Queues in feet per lane. Gray highlight indicates a significant change in queues. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Five study intersections meet peak hour signal warrants under Existing plus Project conditions: ● The intersection of Allerton Avenue/Forbes Boulevard (#8) does not meet signal warrant under Existing conditions, but will meet the peak hour signal warrant during the AM and PM peak hour under Existing plus Project. Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-49 ● The intersection of East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue (#17) meets the peak hour signal warrant during the Existing PM peak hour, and will meet peak hour signal warrants during the AM and PM peak hour under Existing plus Project conditions. ● The intersection of East Grand Avenue/DNA Way (#18) meets the peak hour signal warrant during the Existing AM and PM peak hours and will continue to meet signal warrants under Existing plus Project conditions. ● The intersection of Mitchell Road/Harbor Way (#24) meets the peak hour signal warrant during the Existing AM peak hour, and will meet peak hour signal warrants during the AM and PM peak hour under Existing plus Project conditions. ● The intersection of Utah Avenue/Harbor Way (#25) meets the peak hour signal warrant during both AM and PM peak hour under Existing conditions, and will continue to meet peak hour signal warrants during the AM and PM peak hour under Existing plus Project conditions. Regulatory Requirements The City of South San Francisco East of 101 Study was prepared and adopted by the City in 2011 to establish a source of funding for future capital improvements to the transportation system in the East of 101 Area. The East of 101 Study and its associated transportation improvement fee program includes funding for a number of intersection improvement projects that, when implemented, would mitigate certain of the Project’s local intersection impacts, as indicated below. Regulatory Requirement Transportation 1A - Assumed Signal Timing Adjustments: The Project Sponsor shall pay South San Francisco’s East of 101 Transportation Impact Fees, representing their fair-share contribution toward the following traffic signal timing adjustments already included in the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program: a) Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard (#1). Adjust the signal timing at the intersection to allow the southbound right-turn movement to overlap with the eastbound left turn movement. This timing adjustment would improve intersection operations to an acceptable LOS D. (LTS) b) Dubuque Avenue/101 NB off-ramp/Oyster Pt. Boulevard (#2). Adjust the signal timing at the intersection to provide additional green time for the eastbound movement in the AM, and to provide additional green time for the westbound movement in the PM. This signal timing would reduce the queue compared to the existing conditions. The queue would still exceed available storage space, but the Project would not further extend queues beyond existing conditions. However, this intersection is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans and the City cannot ensure this mitigation is implemented. (conservatively SU) c) Gateway Boulevard/East Grand Avenue (#15). Adjust the signal timing at this intersection to convert the eastbound left turn phase from a lagging phase to a leading phase. This timing adjustment would reduce delay to an acceptable LOS D. (LTS) d) East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue (#23): Optimize the signal timing, allowing the northbound right-turn movement to overlap with the westbound left-turn movement, and change the existing northbound through/left-turn lane to allow northbound through/left/right turn movements. These measures would improve intersection operations to an acceptable LOS D in the AM peak hour. (LTS) Regulatory Requirement Transportation 1B - East of 101 Transportation Impact Fee Improvements: The Project Sponsor shall pay South San Francisco’s East of 101 Transportation Impact Fees, representing their fair-share contribution toward the following intersection improvements already included in the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program: Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-50 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR a) Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue (#6). Add an eastbound right-turn lane and provide a northbound configuration that includes a northbound right-turn lane, a northbound left-turn lane and a 100-foot northbound left-turn pocket, in conjunction with optimized signal timing. Because the addition of an eastbound right-turn lane would lengthen pedestrian crossing distances and overlap with an existing bike lane, a pedestrian refuge in the median and expanded green bike lane (conflict zone) markings should also be included. This measure would result in an acceptable LOS B in the AM peak hour. (LTS) b) Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive (#7). Extend the double northbound left-turn lanes to approximately 200 feet, add an eastbound right-turn pocket, add a second northbound left-turn lane, and adjust the signal timing to allow the eastbound right and northbound left movements to overlap. This measure would improve intersection operations to an acceptable LOS D in both the AM and PM peak hours. (LTS) c) Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue (#12): Add a second southbound left-turn lane and convert the southbound right-turn lane to a through/right lane. This measure would reduce delay and improve intersection operations to an acceptable LOS D in the AM peak hour. However, the improvements would not reduce the length of the southbound left turn queue, and as such the queuing impact would be significant and unavoidable. (SU) d) East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard (#16): Add a westbound through lane, an eastbound right-turn lane, an eastbound through lane, and time-of-day geometry changes for northbound and southbound approaches. Because these improvements would lengthen crosswalk distances and exacerbate conflicts with bicyclists along East Grand Avenue and Forbes Boulevard, the mitigation should incorporate pedestrian refuge islands, bicycle conflict zone markings and consider the removal of slip lanes. This measure would decrease delay to an acceptable LOS D in both AM and PM peak hours. (LTS) e) East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue (#17): Install a traffic signal, including a protected southbound left-turn movement. This measure would improve intersection operations to acceptable LOS B in the PM peak hour. (LTS) f) East Grand Avenue/DNA Way (#18): Install a traffic signal and add an additional eastbound left turn lane. This measure would improve intersection operations to an acceptable LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour. (LTS) g) Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue (#19): Widen the westbound approach to consist of three dedicated left turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared through-right lane. This measure would reduce both queuing and vehicular delay to an acceptable LOS D in both the AM and PM peak hours. (LTS) Mitigation Measures In addition to the required payment of East of 101 Transportation Impact Fees, the following additional mitigation measures are identified: Mitigation Measure Transportation 1: Additions to East of 101 Transportation Impact Fee Program: The Project applicant shall pay its fair-share toward the following intersection improvements by either; 1) fully funding the following improvement subject to fee credits if the improvement is subsequently included in the City’s CIP update; or 2) paying the City’s Transportation Impact Fees if the City has included these improvements in its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) prior to issuance of building permits for development that triggers these mitigation improvements: a) 101 SB/Oyster Pt. Boulevard off Ramp (#4). Add an additional eastbound through lane, and change the signal phasing to implement an overlap phase for the northeast-bound right turn Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-51 movement. These measures would reduce queues to levels not exceeding existing conditions. However, this intersection is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans and the City cannot ensure this mitigation is implemented. (conservatively SU) b) Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue (#8): Install a traffic signal with optimized signal timing. This measure would improve intersection operations to an acceptable LOS A in the AM and PM peak hours. (LTS with MM) c) Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard (#9): Adjust the existing signal timing and extend the southbound left turn pocket to 500 feet. This measure would partially mitigate the impact by decreasing delay, but the intersection would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the AM peak hour. (SU) d) Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/ US-101 SB Off-Ramp (#10). Adjusting the signal timing to lengthen northbound through and eastbound right phases. This timing adjustment would improve intersection operations to an acceptable LOS C in the PM peak hour. However, this signal is operated by Caltrans and requests to modify signal timing may not be approved. As such, this impact is conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable. (conservatively SU) e) South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue (#20). Separate the existing shared northbound through/right lane into one northbound through lane and a northbound right turn lane, add one westbound through lanes, one eastbound right turn lane, one eastbound left turn lane and one southbound right turn lane. These improvements would lengthen crosswalk distances and exacerbate conflicts with bicyclists along Airport Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard; consequently, median pedestrian refuges and green bicycle conflict zone markings should be added. This measure decreases delay to an acceptable LOS C during the AM peak hour and acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour, and reduces queuing to an acceptable level. These improvements are only partially included the East of 101 Transportation Impact Fee Program. (LTS with MM) f) Mitchell Road/Harbor Way (#24): Install a traffic signal at this intersection, add a 250-foot eastbound left turn lane and a 100-foot northbound left turn lane and optimize the signal timing. This measure would improve intersection operations to LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS A in the PM peak hour. (LTS with MM) g) Utah Avenue/Harbor Way (#25): Add a traffic signal at this intersection and optimize signal timing. This measure would improve intersection operations to LOS A in both the AM and PM peak hours.5 (LTS with MM) Figure 17-10 illustrates Existing plus Project, with mitigations for AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes at those intersections, as well as lane configurations and traffic controls (signals, stop signs, etc.). 5 If the City chooses to include these improvements in its Capital Improvement Program (CIP), an additional design consideration may include adding left turn lanes on the Utah Ave approaches to Harbor when the intersection is signalized, to further improve traffic flow. Insert Figure Label Here Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Figure 17-10 Peak Hour Traffic and Lane Configurations Existing plus Project Conditions, with Mitigation Figure 6-6Peak Hour Traffic Volumesand Lane Configurations -Existing plus Project Conditions - Intersections 1-1120 (53)141 (191)380 (223)93 (108)1,471 (360)38 (40)189 (473)271 (556)457 (179)78 (121)144 (927)82 (178) 1. Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd.183 (446)50 (78)587 (110)474 (245)1,202 (276)632 (241) 309 (1,221)121 (780)189 (935) 2. 101 NB Ramp/Dubuque Ave./Oyster Point Blvd.18 (31)69 (139)3 (3)748 (492)0 (2)41 (27)727 (1,110)94 (66)3 (3)5 (0)0 (1) 3. Dubuque Ave./101 NB & SB Ramps/Driveway 226 (966)7 (5)141 (78)1,338 (317)451 (66) 2 (2)393 (1,968)43 (64) 4. Gateway Blvd./101 SB Ramp/Oyster Point Blvd.22 (150)0 (0)10 (9)270 (69)2,011 (458)79 (14)61 (243)0 (1)42 (19)13 (17)345 (1,636)4 (7) 5. Veterans Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd.60 (182)26 (30)1,814 (446)196 (43) 310 (1,434)29 (17) 6A. Eccles Ave./Oyster Point Blvd.5 (5)5 (5)5 (5)140 (139)1,572 (460)0 (0)18 (8)0 (5)7 (2)9 (3)305 (1,321) 6B. 345-347 Driveway/Oyster Point Blvd.186 (831)1 (1)18 (30)7 (2)498 (242)1,182 (210)6 (10)0 (1)0 (1)4 (1)128 (506)16 (19) 7. Gull Dr./Oyster Point Blvd. Sister Cities Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.Airport Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.101 NB On RampDubuque Ave.101 NB Off Ramp/101 SB On Ramp Dubuque Ave.Oyster Point Blvd.DrivewayGateway Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.Veterans Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.Eccles Ave.Oyster Point Blvd.345-347 DrivewayOyster Point Blvd.Gull Dr.57 (195)11 (0)114 (111)21 (8)833 (174)145 (43)25 (39)7 (12)3 (4)10 (4)181 (766)211 (102) 8. Allerton Ave./Forbes Blvd. 45 (168)875 (222)225 (95)978 (140)157 (651)254 (665) 9. Gull Dr./Forbes Blvd. Forbes Blvd.Allerton Ave.Forbes Blvd.Gull Dr.42 (168)176 (454)208 (87)67 (92)380 (268)162 (302)700 (352) 10. Airport Blvd./Miller Ave./101 SB Ramp 59 (44)1,172 (328)21 (75)29 (22)31 (76)574 (1,946) 11. Dubuque Ave./Grand Ave. Miller Ave.101 SB/Miller Ave. Off RampAirport Blvd.Grand Ave.Dubuque Ave.acff acceaaccfaaceaacffaacefaacff ae abfcffdaabfccceacce ae aacebfaceaf ccfaccd aceaeceaAe acfdacebf bfdaeacafcfbc fceabacccafcce#Study Intersection Lane ConfigurationacfPeak Hour Traffic VolumeAM (PM) STOP Stop Sign Signalized LEGEND Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Figure 17-10B Peak Hour Traffic and Lane Configurations Existing plus Project Conditions, with Mitigation Figure 6-6Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations - Existing plus Project Conditions - Intersections 12-27411 (469)422 (313)929 (50)98 (49)260 (58)401 (390)344 (502)108 (260)18 (9)30 (13)123 (763)37 (129) 20. Gateway Blvd./So. Airport Blvd./Mitchell Ave.146 (304)232 (349)14 (16)1,566 (529)19 (10)564 (163)108 (209)427 (556)14 (38)16 (12)8 (17)19 (28) 21. So. Airport Blvd./101 NB Ramp/Wonder Color Ln.10 (13)279 (458)1,031 (181)25 (25)0 (3)10 (18)13 (13)439 (607)558 (95)91 (213)1 (2)250 (1,191) 22. So. Airport Blvd./Utah Ave.21 (53)24 (1)899 (84)15 (3)1,961 (426)52 (48)5 (22)0 (22)4 (2)7 (3)477 (1,537)104 (646) 23. Littlefield Ave./E. Grand Ave.47 (117)223 (86)0 (0)953 (59)0 (0)197 (55)98 (714)95 (192)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0) 24. Harbor Way/Mitchell Avenue 47 (95)11 (42)2 (1)202 (61)1,204 (146)80 (27)75 (198)57 (14)134 (46)63 (82)209 (945)1 (5) 25. Harbor Way/Utah Ave.100 (422)1,112 (636)69 (79)239 (1,151)273 (568)180 (329)4 (12)56 (51) 26. So. Airport Blvd./N. Access Rd.443 (746)329 (619)27. So. Airport Blvd./I-380 EB Off Ramp So. Airport Blvd.Mitchell Ave.Gateway Blvd.So. Airport Blvd.101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp Wonder Color Ln.So. Airport Blvd.Utah Ave.So. Airport Blvd.E. Grand Ave.Littlefield Ave.Mitchell Avenue Harbor WayUtah Ave.Harbor WayN. Access Rd.So. Airport Blvd.So. Airport Blvd.33 (64)382 (482)372 (126)157 (160)167 (71)112 (73)101 (110)434 (371)733 (180)83 (365)117 (272)176 (744) 12. Airport Blvd./Grand Ave.525 (49)984 (475)33 (10) 13. Industrial Wy./101 NB Ramp/E. Grand Ave.161 (283)862 (215)1,153 (327)48 (23) 444 (1,739)14 (12) 14. Grand Ave./E. Grand Ave.55 (63)151 (134)382 (212)150 (81)1,698 (362)69 (91)59 (380)150 (376)265 (124)99 (274)365 (1,301)293 (337) 15. Gateway Blvd./E. Grand Ave.91 (197)616 (60)260 (27)435 (226)1,768 (400)156 (81)222 (337)75 (415)162 (35)18 (13)457 (1,374)34 (308) 16. Forbes Blvd./Harbor Wy./E. Grand Ave. 543 (115)2,325 (420)127 (363)6 (0)20 (46)464 (1,862) 17. Allerton Ave./E. Grand Ave. 826 (81)1,399 (286)93 (637)72 (14)57 (44)369 (1,185) 18. DNA Way/E. Grand Ave.192 (103)44 (29)389 (221)98 (157)206 (156)125 (208)91 (121)617 (898)164 (120)212 (381)199 (224)467 (1,129) 19. Airport Blvd./Produce Ave./San Mateo Ave. Grand Ave.Airport Blvd.Industrial Wy.101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy.Grand Ave.E. Grand Ave.E. Grand Ave.E. Grand Ave.Gateway Blvd.E. Grand Ave.Forbes Blvd.Harbor Wy.E. Grand Ave.Allerton Ave.E. Grand Ave.DNA WaySan Mateo Ave.So. Airport Blvd.Airport Blvd.Produce Ave.STOPaaccf acffacffaceaceabffaccfbf accf acfaaceabfdf acedaceae aeddd bedbeaceacefbc cccccaccfbeaaceaacfeffaffcceacccaceacceaceacceaccfaaccfacffacceaccgceaaccgfceaceabcfaccfaaacf #Study Intersection Lane ConfigurationacfPeak Hour Traffic VolumeAM (PM) STOP Stop Sign Signalized LEGEND 838 (391)316 (247)aafI-380 EB Off Ramp Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-54 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Resulting Level of Service Payment of East of 101 Traffic Fees With payment of fair-share contributions toward those signal timing improvements and intersection improvements as included in the City’s current East of 101 Transportation Impact Fee Program (Regulatory Requirements Transp 1A and Transp 1B), the Project’s impacts at the following 9 intersections would be reduced to a less than significant level: ● Airport Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard (#1) ● Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue (#6) ● Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive (#7) ● Gateway Boulevard/East Grand Avenue (#15) ● East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard (#16) ● East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue (#17) ● East Grand Avenue/DNA Way (#18) ● Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue (#19) ● East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue (#23) Additions to East of 101 Transportation Impact Fee Program Improvements at the following list of intersections are not currently included under the City’s East of 101 Transportation Impact Fee Program or Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Project applicant shall implement their fair-share towards these intersections improvements either by fully funding improvements at these intersections subject to fee credits if the improvements are subsequently included in the City’s CIP update; or by paying the City’s Transportation Impact Fees if the City’s then-current CIP includes these improvements at the time of issuance of building permits which trigger these improvements. With either of these approaches to payment of fair-share contributions toward improvements as identified in Mitigation Measures Transp 1C, the Project’s impacts at the following 4 intersections would be reduced to a less than significant level: ● Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue (#8) ● South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue (#20) ● Mitchell Road/Harbor Way (#24) ● Utah Avenue/Harbor Way (#25) Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Of the 20 intersections that would be adversely affected by Project-generated traffic, improvements identified in Regulatory Requirements Transp 1A and 1B, and Mitigation Measure Transp 1 would effectively reduce impacts to less than significant levels at 13 of these intersections. However, either there are no feasible improvements capable of reducing the Project’s impacts, or implementation of mitigation improvements are within the jurisdiction of a separate agency (Caltrans) at five (7) intersections, and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the following locations: ● 101 NB/Oyster Pt. Boulevard off Ramp (#2): Adjusting the signal timing would improve intersection operations to an acceptable LOS. However, this signal is operated by Caltrans and requests to modify signal timing may not be approved. As such, this impact is conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable. (conservatively SU) Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-55 ● 101 SB/Gateway Blvd./Oyster Pt. Boulevard Off Ramp (#4): Although the improvements identified in Mitigation Measure Transp-1B would reduce queues lengths to less than significant levels, these improvements are within the jurisdiction of Caltrans and requests to modify this intersection may not be approved. As such, this impact is conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable. (conservatively SU) ● Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard (#9): Even with improvements identified under Mitigation Measure Transp 1C, the intersection would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the AM peak hour. There are no other feasible mitigations at this intersection since limited right-of-way is available to widen Gull Drive or Forbes Boulevard. Impacts at this intersection would remain significant and unavoidable. (SU) ● Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/ US-101 SB Off-Ramp (#10): Adjusting the signal timing would improve intersection operations to an acceptable LOS C in the PM peak hour. However, this signal is operated by Caltrans and requests to modify signal timing may not be approved. As such, this impact is conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable. (conservatively SU) ● Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue (#12): Although the improvements identified in Mitigation Measure Transp-1B would reduce vehicle delay and LOS to a less than significant level, these improvements cannot reduce the length of the southbound left turn queue to which the Project contributes, and queuing impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. (SU) ● South Airport Boulevard/US-101 On- and Off-Ramps/ Wondercolor Drive (#21): Due to constrained right-of-way, there are no feasible mitigation measures for this location and the impact would be significant and unavoidable. (SU) ● South Airport Boulevard / I-380 Westbound ramp (#26). Due to constrained right-of-way and downstream queuing on the I-380 westbound ramp, there are no feasible mitigation measures for this location and the impact would be significant and unavoidable. (SU) Freeway Ramps (Existing plus Project) Impact Transportation 2: Although the Project would generate more than 100 peak hour trips onto the Congestion Management Program roadway network, it would not result in conflicts with applicable plans, ordinances or policies that establish measures for effective levels of service at freeway ramp locations. (Less than Significant) Based on the analysis of traffic operations at freeway ramps near the study area, these freeway ramps would continue to operate at acceptable LOS under Existing plus Project conditions, as shown on Table 17-14. Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-56 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Table 17-14: Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Levels Of Service – Existing Plus Project Conditions US 101 Ramp Existing Existing plus Project Peak Hour Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS % Contrib. Oyster Point Boulevard NB On AM 793 0.36 B 828 0.38 B 4% PM 1,226 0.56 C 1,475 0.67 C 17% NB Off AM 788 0.53 C 788 0.53 C 0% PM 493 0.33 B 522 0.35 B 6% SB On AM 694 0.32 B 694 0.32 B 0% PM 1,024 0.47 B 1,064 0.48 B 4% SB Off AM 1,014 0.68 C 1,292 0.86 D 22% PM 187 0.12 A 228 0.15 A 18% Grand Avenue NB On AM 1,626 0.81 D 1,708 0.85 D 5% PM 817 0.41 B 997 0.50 BC 18% NB Off AM 1,399 0.50 B 1,495 0.53 CB 6% PM 481 0.17 A 517 0.18 A 7% SB Off AM 619 0.41 B 840 0.56 C 26% PM 576 0.38 B 641 0.43 B 10% Produce Avenue NB On AM 262 0.13 A 262 0.13 A 0% PM 483 0.24 A 508 0.25 A 5% NB Off AM 1,567 0.56 C 2,141 0.76 D 27% PM 553 0.20 A 693 0.25 A 20% SB On AM 1,126 0.28 A 1,240 0.31 B 9% PM 1,943 0.49 B 2,285 0.57 C 15% SB Off AM 1,151 0.39 B 1,178 0.41 B 4% PM 1,921 0.23 AC 1,921 0.23 AC 0% Notes: V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio. Bold indicates unacceptable LOS F. Highlight indicates significant impact. Existing volumes based on weekday counts from May 2016, provided by City of South San Francisco. Assumes an off-ramp capacity of 1,500 vph for one lane and 2,800 vph for two lane, based on HCM 2010; diamond on-ramp capacity of 2,200 vph for one lane and 4,000 vph for two lanes; and looped on-ramp capacity of 2,000 vph. On-ramp capacity may be limited by downstream congestion on mainline freeway segments, while off-ramp capacity may be limited by downstream congestion on surface streets and at intersections. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Mitigation Measures None needed Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-57 Resulting Level of Significance The C/CAG Agency Guidelines for implementation of the 2015 Congestion Management Program specifies that local jurisdictions must ensure that Project sponsors mitigate peak-hour traffic impacts on the CMP network. These C/CAG Guidelines apply to developments that generate more than 100 peak-hour trips on the CMP roadway network. Consistent with C/CAG guidelines, the Project will implement a TDM program that is consistent with, and exceeds City requirements. That TDM program will further reduce its contribution of trips on the CMP network, including its contributions of traffic to freeway ramps. Freeway Segments (Existing plus Project) Impact Transportation 3: The Project would generate more than 100 peak hour trips onto the Congestion Management Program roadway network, resulting in conflicts with applicable plans, ordinances or policies that establish measures for effective levels of service along two freeway segments. No feasible improvements have been identified as capable of reducing impacts to less than significant levels. (Significant and Unavoidable) Table 17-15 presents existing freeway segment levels of service during peak hours. All freeway segments near the Project site operate acceptably under Existing conditions except for the segment of northbound 101 south of Produce Avenue during the AM peak hour. The Project would increase freeway volumes by one to eight percent on these freeway segments. The impact of Project-generated traffic at each of the adversely affected freeway segments is described below. ● Southbound US-101 north of Oyster Point Boulevard: The Project would degrade operations on this segment of the US-101 freeway from LOS E to LOS F in the AM peak hour, with a 5.1% increase in volume ● Northbound US-101 south of Produce Avenue: The Project would degrade operations on this segment of the US-101 freeway by increasing traffic volume by as much as 5 percent on this freeway segment with a baseline LOS F operation Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-58 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Table 17-15: Peak Hour Freeway Segment Levels Of Service – Existing Plus Project Conditions US 101 Segment Existing Existing plus Project Peak Hour Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS % Contrib. North of Oyster Point Boulevard NB AM 7,722 0.88 E 7,844 0.89 E 1.6% PM 8,065 0.92 E 8,497 0.96 E 6.0% SB AM 8,553 0.97 E 9,097 1.04 F 5.1% PM 7,212 0.82 D 7,318 0.83 D 1.4% Oyster Point Boulevard to Grand Avenue NB AM 7,717 0.88 E 7,799 0.89 E 1.1% PM 7,332 0.83 D 7,542 0.86 D 3.1% SB AM 8,223 0.94 E 8,482 0.97 E 2.8% PM 8,049 0.92 E 8,154 0.93 E 1.3% Grand Avenue to Produce Avenue NB AM 7,490 0.68 C 8,159 0.75 D 8.2% PM 6,996 0.64 C 7,178 0.66 C 1.5% SB AM 7,614 0.87 D 7,728 0.88 E 2.5% PM 7,473 0.85 D 7,911 0.90 E 5.5% South of Produce Avenue NB AM 8,795 1.01 F 9,260 1.06 F 5.0% PM 7,066 0.81 D 7,165 0.82 D 1.5% SB AM 7,589 0.69 C 7,703 0.70 D 1.4% PM 7,495 0.68 C 8,084 0.74 D 7.3% Notes: V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio. Bold indicates unacceptable LOS F. Highlight indicates significant impact. Existing volumes based on weekday counts of US-101 mainline from May 2016, retrieved via Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS) with 100 percent volume observed. Freeway volumes balanced to match ramp counts provided by City of South San Francisco. Assumes a capacity of 2,400 vehicles per hour (vph) based on LOS E capacity for 70 mph freeways in HCM 2010. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Mitigation Measures None available Resulting Level of Significance As there are no feasible mitigation measures for these impacts to freeway segments due to constrained right- of-way and a corresponding inability to add traffic capacity or reduce vehicular delays, these impacts remain significant and unavoidable. The C/CAG Agency Guidelines for implementation of the 2015 Congestion Management Program specifies that local jurisdictions must ensure that Project sponsors mitigate traffic impacts during the peak hour on the CMP network. These C/CAG Guidelines apply to developments that generate more than 100 peak-hour trips on the CMP roadway network. Consistent with C/CAG guidelines, the Project will implement a TDM program that is consistent with, and exceeds City requirements. That TDM program will serve to reduce its otherwise greater contribution of trips on the CMP network, including increased traffic on US-101 freeway segments. Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-59 Roadway Design Hazards / Internal Vehicle Circulation Impact Transp-4: The Project’s on-site vehicle circulation system would not present a design hazard. (Less than Significant) On-Site Streets Existing City streets within the Project Area were originally designed and constructed to accommodate industrial related traffic: ● Forbes Boulevard is a four-lane street (2 lanes in each direction) with a center median and Class II bike lanes, ● Allerton Avenue is a two-lane road with a center median and Class II bike lanes, ● DNA Way is a two-lane without median but with clearly demarcated Class II bike lanes, and ● Gull Road is a two-lane road also with bike lanes. These Project Area roadways provide sufficient vehicular circulation to serve the Project’s circulation needs, and no additional streets or street improvements are expected to be necessary to address any design hazards of the circulation system. Freight and Service Circulation The Project assumes that existing manufacturing activity will remain at levels relatively similar to current use, that the number of manufacturing-related freight trips to and from the Project Area will not change substantially, and that freight services will likely remain focused in the Lower and West Campuses. Genentech will maintain efficient freight mobility to serve manufacturing and service needs by continuing to rely on East Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard for regional access. These arterial roads are designed to accommodate a high volume of larger-sized vehicles. Pursuant to the Master Plan Update (the Project), new or relocated driveways that will serve loading docks will be located along the perimeter or rear of buildings, where interference with building entrances, pedestrian flow and parking maneuvers can be minimized. With implementation of these Project designs, freight and service circulation to and within the Project Area will not present a circulation design hazard. Parking To minimize potential circulation hazards related to accessing new parking within the Project area, the Master Plan Update proposes to accommodate increased parking demands through the following locational strategies:  New parking structures will generally be distributed at important Project Area entry points. This will minimize on-Campus traffic and promote a safe internal pedestrian environment.  The amount of new parking provided within the Upper Campus will be limited. Primary access to any Upper Campus parking structures will be limited to the exterior edges of the Upper Campus neighborhood. This will reduce vehicle circulation and enable partial closure of DNA Way through the Upper Campus.  Each new parking structure will be linked with the on-Campus DNA Shuttle system to provide frequent, easy and direct shuttle connections from parking garages to office and lab buildings.  Direct and easy pedestrian access will link each new parking structure to nearby buildings, with clearly delineated, off-street pedestrian pathways. Pedestrian connections should not rely on use of surface parking lot drive aisles as a path of pedestrian travel. Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-60 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR  Those parking spaces along the shoreline that are reserved for use by the general public to access the Bay Trail shall be retained accordance with agreements reached between Genentech, the City of South San Francisco and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. With implementation of these Project designs and locational strategies, access to future parking facilities will not present a circulation design hazard. Mitigation Measures None required Conflict with a Transit, Bicycle or Pedestrian System Program or Policy Impact Transportation 5: The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. (Less than Significant) Transit Service The Project would not introduce any conflicts with programs, plans, ordinances or policies addressing transit service. The Project’s proposed TDM program would substantially increase the use and availability of transit services to its employees, fully consistent with City General Plan and Municipal Code requirements. As indicated above, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to intersection levels of service at two intersections (Eccles Avenue/Oyster Point Boulevard, and Forbes Boulevard/Gull Drive), which are used by Commute.org shuttles services. The decreased level of service at these intersections will increase delay for public shuttle operations, but would not conflict with SamTrans plans or programs to increase shuttle or bus service to the East of 101 Area. Proposed Pedestrian Improvements on Campus The Master Plan Update (the Project) includes plans to strengthen the on-Campus pedestrian network to ensure an integrated and walkable Campus, and to enhance neighborhood and Campus connectivity. Some of the major on-Campus pedestrian improvements identified in the Master Plan Update include:  Creating a primary pedestrian system that radiates to and from the Upper Campus, linking the Upper Campus hub with each neighborhood campus;  Considering a shared-street concept whereby DNA Way is scheduled for closure to general traffic, and opened as a pedestrian environment with accommodations for shuttles and buses, only;  Enhancing pedestrian safety and accessibility by using consistent lighting design, making walkways at least 5 feet wide (and 6 to 8 feet where such widths can be accommodated), including pedestrian safety enhancements such as bulb outs, high-visibility crosswalks, Rapid-Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) and a median refuge at all pedestrian crosswalks across internal Campus streets;  Minimizing conflicts between service/goods movement and pedestrian walkways using landscaping, site furnishings and changes in paving materials to identify where pedestrian and vehicular traffic is shared;  Providing secondary-level walkways that are recreational in nature, connecting to the Bay Trail and other natural assets via less-direct recreational pathways along hillsides and bluffs; and  Considering the appropriateness of addressing any remaining sidewalk gaps where sidewalks are not present, as part of future individual development projects. Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-61 Off-Campus Pedestrian Connections Many of the existing pedestrian crossings of East Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard are difficult for pedestrians to navigate due to high traffic volumes and relatively long pedestrian distances. The Master Plan Update indicates Genentech’s willingness to work with the City toward improved pedestrian crosswalks across East Grand Avenue to the Campus, and to improve existing pedestrian facilities that provide pedestrian connections to off-Campus locations, consistent with the City’s Pedestrian Master Plan. Such pedestrian improvements would not be detrimental to pedestrian safety or mobility, and would be fully consistent with the City’s Pedestrian Master Plan. Project Area Bicycle Improvements The existing bicycle network within the Project Area includes Class II buffered bike lanes (a separate striped lane for one-way bicycle travel on both sides of the street) on: ● DNA Way for the full length of the Campus between East Grand Avenue and Forbes Boulevard, ● on Forbes Boulevard where it runs through or adjacent to the Campus between Allerton Avenue and DNA Way, and ● on Allerton Avenue where it runs adjacent to the Campus between Forbes Boulevard and East Grand Avenue ● Additionally, the San Francisco Bay Trail is a Class I bikeway along the Bay-front, including its entire length through the Project Area Several internal pathways within the Campus are also accessible to bicyclists. The Campus also includes bicycle parking spaces, bike lockers, bike cages and bike racks, bicycle parking is provided at most buildings within the Campus and Genentech employees have access to a bike share system, with multiple stations around the Campus. No additional bicycle network improvements are anticipated or required within the Project Area, and new/expanded bicycle-serving facilities (bike parking, lockers, etc.) are proposed as part of the Project. Off-Campus Bikeway Connections The South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan identifies a number of planned bicycle improvements near the Project Area boundaries, including the closure of bike lane gaps along East Grand Avenue and Forbes Boulevard, and the addition of new Class I bike trails along railroad corridors paralleling East Grand Avenue and Forbes Boulevard. The Project will generate substantial new traffic volumes along East Grand Avenue and Forbes Boulevard, increasing bicycle use at locations where bike lanes are not present or lack sufficient improvements to serve demand. Regulatory Requirements Pursuant to the South San Francisco Municipal Code, Chapter 20.260 (Genentech Master Plan District) section 20.260.006, Genentech is required to contribute to East of 101 transportation improvements in accordance with requirements of the East of 101 Traffic Fee Program. Transportation Impact Fees may be used by the City to fund enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure consistent with the Bicycle Master Plan and the Pedestrian Master Plan. The City’s Bicycle Master Plan calls for implementation of Class II bike lanes along the full length of East Grand Avenue and Forbes Boulevard, as well as Class I bike pathways along the abandoned railroad alignment south of East Grand Avenue and near Forbes Boulevard. Payment of South San Francisco East of 101 Transportation Impact Fees represents the Project’s fair-share contribution toward planned bicycle system improvements that may accommodate additional bicycle demand and may also reduce traffic impacts by paying for on- and off-site bicycle improvements designed to encourage residents, employees and visitors to bike, rather than drive. The Project’s impact fees may also be used to Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-62 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR contribute toward transit priority improvements along affected roadways and at intersections to help reduce transit delay where feasible. Transit priority improvements may include transit signal priority, bus/shuttle stop improvements, queue jumps and/or dedicated bus lanes along these routes. Mitigation Measures None required. No conflicts with programs, plans, ordinances or policies addressing transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities are identified. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative conditions include transportation demand resulting from reasonably foreseeable land use changes and conditions associated with funded transportation projects. The following describes these cumulative conditions. Cumulative Baseline Land Use Conditions The year 2040 cumulative traffic demand projections were estimated based on cumulative land use and trip generation forecasts from the City of South San Francisco Travel Model, as updated in July 2018. Cumulative baseline conditions assume no growth associated with the Genentech Campus. A summary of land use assumptions for the cumulative baseline, as well as 2016 baseline year data presented in the model, is provided in Table 17-16. Table 17-16: 2016 Baseline and 2040 Cumulative Baseline Land Use, East of 101 Area Land Use 2016 Land Use (square feet) 2040 Cumulative Land Use (square feet) Change per Cumulative Land Use (square feet) Commercial 609,000 1,248,000 639,000 Hotel 1,228,000 2,100,000 872,000 Industrial 7,560,000 7,591,000 31,000 Office/R&D 12,023,000 18,967,000 6,944,000 Other 40,000 487,000 447,000 Total 21,460,000 30,393,000 8,933,000 Note: Assumes 2016 baseline Genentech land use and no future Campus growth Sources: City of South San Francisco Traffic Model, July 2018 As shown in Table 17-16, the total amount of non-residential land use within the East of 101 Area is expected to increase from around 21.5 million square feet (as of 2016) to around 30.4 million square feet between the 2016 baseline year and the 2040 cumulative horizon year. This total includes the existing office/R&D and industrial land uses at the Project site, but does not include any growth associated with the Project. The Travel Model does include land use changes associated with the City of South San Francisco’s Downtown Station Area Specific Plan to the west of US-101, including new housing and commercial development. Trip generation rates used in the traffic model are derived from ITE Trip Generation 9th Edition, with adjustments accounting for the City’s TDM Ordinance requirements. While the South San Francisco Travel Model provides a high-level overview of how future changes in land use will influence transportation demand, it does not account for a range of factors that may affect travel behavior. Such factors may include roadway capacity constraints, changes in office/R&D employment Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-63 characteristics, changes in peak-hour spreading, efficacy of TDM participation rates, shifts in travel behavior due to the introduction of autonomous vehicles, or fluctuations in economic or demographic conditions at either a local or regional level. Cumulative Baseline Transportation Improvements Future 2040 cumulative baseline transportation conditions assumed completion of planned improvements identified in local and regional transportation plans. These improvements include: ● East of 101 Impact Fee Program: The City of South San Francisco Traffic Impact Fee program identifies future transportation capital improvements in the East of 101 Area. The Impact Fee program identifies modifications at 19 intersections, including new traffic signals at the East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue and East Grand Avenue/DNA Way intersections adjacent to the Project site. ● South San Francisco Caltrain Station Relocation: Caltrain and the City of South San Francisco are relocating the existing South San Francisco Caltrain Station to a new location near the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection. The project will include a new center platform, pedestrian and bicycle underpass connection to Downtown South San Francisco, and the conversion of Poletti Way to a two-way street. The project is being undertaken in coordination with the the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project, which will electrify and upgrade the performance, operating efficiency, capacity, safety, and reliability of Caltrain’s rail service. ● South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan Improvements: The City of South San Francisco CIP includes several bicycle improvements in the East of 101 Area pursuant to the Bicycle Master Plan, including the completion of bike lanes on Oyster Point Bouevard/Gull Drive and East Grand Avenue between US-101 and the Project site. The City of South San Francisco has identified other potential improvements in the Bicycle Master Plan, and Pedestrian Master Plan as well as ongoing planning efforts; however, the improvements are not fully funded and are therefore not assumed in the cumulative condition. Cumulative (No Project) Intersection Conditions Under Cumulative (No Project) conditions, the following intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS in the AM and/or PM peak hour: ● Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard (#1) would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour ● Dubuque Avenue/101 NB Off Ramp/101 SB On Ramp (#3) would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour ● Oyster Pt. Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard (#4) would operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours ● Allerton Avenue/Forbes Boulevard (#8) would operate at LOS E during the PM peak hours ● Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue (#12) would operate at LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours ● Gateway Boulevard/East Grand Avenue (#15) would operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour ● Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard/East Grand Avenue (#16) would operate at LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours ● Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/So. Airport Boulevard (#19) would operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-64 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR ● South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue (#20) would operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour ● South Airport Boulevard/101 NB/South Airport Boulevard Off Ramp/Wonder Color Lane (#21) would operate at LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours ● Mitchell Road/Harbor Way (#24) would operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours ● Utah Avenue/Harbor Way (#24) would operate at LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours Figure 17-11 illustrates Cumulative no Project conditions for AM and PM traffic volumes during the peak hours at those intersections, as well as lane configurations and traffic controls (signals, stop signs, etc.). Insert Figure Label Here Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Figure 17-11 Peak Hour Traffic and Lane Configurations Cumulative no Project Conditions Figure 6-4Peak Hour Traffic Volumesand Lane Configurations -Cumulative with No Project Conditions - Intersections 1-1123 (53)204 (187)521 (346)93 (108)1,443 (365)37 (40)189 271 615 153 (284)173 (960)101 (255) 1. Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd.223 (498)62 (158)1,050 (211)474 (243)1,525 (743)580 (264) 719 204 439 2. 101 NB Ramp/Dubuque Ave./Oyster Point Blvd.18 (104)78 (209)3 (3)1,254 (655)0 (2)52 (75)917 (1,822)102 (111)0 (0)3 (3)5 (0)0 (1) 3. Dubuque Ave./101 NB & SB Ramp/Driveway 527 (1,651)7 (0)121 (77)1,873 (703)702 (251) 2 (0)800 (2,855)43 (146) 4. Gateway Blvd./101 SB Ramp/Oyster Point Blvd.22 (150)0 (0)10 (9)750 (223)2,688 (947)79 (15)70 (215)2 (10)40 (18)15 (35)753 (2,636)4 (7) 5. Veterans Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd.114 (418)23 (33)2,108 (794)322 (100) 565 (2,203)15 (12) 6A. Eccles Ave./Oyster Point Blvd.5 (4)5 (0)5 (0)145 (41)1,986 (786)0 (0)37 (230)0 (0)7 (2)9 (2)538 (1,981) 6B. 345-347 Driveway/Oyster Point Blvd.250 (556)1 (1)17 (30)8 (6)1,185 (536)805 (246)8 (28)0 (1)0 (1)4 (1)304 (1,399)16 (34) 7. Gull Dr./Oyster Point Blvd. Sister Cities Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.Airport Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.101 NB On RampDubuque Ave.101 NB Off Ramp/101 SB On Ramp Dubuque Ave.Oyster Point Blvd.DrivewayGateway Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.Veterans Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.345-347 DrivewayOyster Point Blvd.Gull Dr.54 (187)11 (0)99 (56)21 (8)430 (173)144 (42)25 (39)7 (12)9 (4)10 (13)170 (553)162 (74) 8. Allerton Ave./Forbes Blvd. 34 (134)390 (175)215 (100)606 (181)234 (416)201 (413) 9. Gull Dr./Forbes Blvd. Forbes Blvd.Allerton Ave.Forbes Blvd.Gull Dr.52 (234)196 (559)134 (90)68 (92)587 (298)2 (56)161 (302)1,089 (740) 10. Airport Blvd./Miller Ave./101 SB Ramp 97 (44)1,715 (865)38 (75)29 (21)32 (98)774 (3,245) 11. Dubuque Ave./Grand Ave. Miller Ave.101 SB/Miller Ave. Off RampAirport Blvd.Grand Ave.Dubuque Ave.STOPSTOP STOP STOPacff acceaaacfaaceaacffaacefaaccff ae aaebffdaabfccceacce ae aacebffacceaaf ccfaccd aceaeceaae accfdacebf bfdaeacafcfbc fccfaaeacccafcce469619539aaccfaaceff1,9691,0011,669 35 (133)2 (4)10 (6)bfEccles Ave.#Study Intersection Lane ConfigurationacfPeak Hour Traffic VolumeAM (PM) STOP Stop Sign Signalized LEGEND acfPM Dynamic Configuration Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Figure 17-11B Peak Hour Traffic and Lane Configurations Cumulative no Project Conditions Figure 6-4Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations -Cumulative no Project Conditions - Intersections 12-27451 (468)1,003 (569)737 (171)132 (94)339 (145)433 (485)512 (1,233)108 (260)18 (10)30 (13)417 (781)37 (99) 20. Gateway Blvd./So. Airport Blvd./Mitchell Ave.375 (623)222 (358)14 (20)2,025 (902)32 (59)564 (251)122 (318)419 (556)14 (50)27 (12)51 (55)69 (28) 21. So. Airport Blvd./101 NB Ramp/Wonder Color Ln.10 (13)398 (652)1,224 (239)25 (25)0 (3)10 (18)13 (68)484 (607)558 (166)188 (324)1 (61)476 (1,395) 22. So. Airport Blvd./Utah Ave.31 (85)24 (1)626 (70)15 (3)1,286 (432)52 (59)5 (22)0 (22)4 (0)6 (2)305 (1,219)69 (525) 23. Littlefield Ave./E. Grand Ave.94 (155)210 (102)0 (0)732 (157)0 (0)270 (130)279 (544)116 (229)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0) 24. Harbor Way/Mitchell Avenue 143 (162)27 (60)2 (1)195 (81)1,250 (200)78 (45)114 (241)88 (40)158 (87)78 (99)376 (1,143)1 (5) 25. Harbor Way/Utah Ave.100 (422)1,399 (1,103)73 (81)503 (1,314)337 (727)344 (491)26. So. Airport Blvd./N. Access Rd.459 (862)394 (778)27. So. Airport Blvd./I-380 EB Off Ramp So. Airport Blvd.Mitchell Ave.Gateway Blvd.So. Airport Blvd.101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp Wonder Color Ln.So. Airport Blvd.Utah Ave.So. Airport Blvd.E. Grand Ave.Littlefield Ave.Mitchell Avenue Harbor WayUtah Ave.Harbor WaySo. Airport Blvd.So. Airport Blvd.35 (64)416 (482)387 (154)161 (160)272 (180)94 (81)101 (130)556 (423)1,153 (575)89 (542)133 (428)304 (1,164) 12. Airport Blvd./Grand Ave.516 (86)883 (585)30 (30)33 (10) 13. Industrial Wy./101 NB Ramp/E. Grand Ave.214 (417)621 (286)1,613 (747)131 (139) 592 (2,926)14 (12) 14. Grand Ave./E. Grand Ave.115 (567)167 (129)670 (290)169 (164)1,784 (679)281 (190)55 (642)160 (376)245 (87)97 (451)436 (1,729)381 (754) 15. Gateway Blvd./E. Grand Ave.165 (285)242 (60)182 (35)515 (270)1,989 (597)174 (171)269 (594)58 (191)101 (34)10 (13)480 (2,055)33 (125) 16. Forbes Blvd./Harbor Wy./E. Grand Ave. 263 (63)1,643 (412)81 (210)6 (0)17 (46)309 (1,570) 17. Allerton Ave./E. Grand Ave. 721 (101)833 (249)104 (487)54 (11)55 (39)211 (1,010) 18. DNA Way/E. Grand Ave.192 (110)45 (29)474 (362)110 (158)261 (247)149 (208)98 (161)783 (1,139)186 (139)262 (408)257 (311)888 (1,673) 19. Airport Blvd./Produce Ave./San Mateo Ave. Grand Ave.Airport Blvd.Industrial Wy.101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy.Grand Ave.E. Grand Ave.E. Grand Ave.Gateway Blvd.E. Grand Ave.Forbes Blvd.Harbor Wy.E. Grand Ave.Allerton Ave.E. Grand Ave.DNA WaySan Mateo Ave.So. Airport Blvd.Airport Blvd.Produce Ave.STOP STOP STOPSTOPSTOPSTOP STOPSTOPSTOPaaceaacffacffacccf aceabffaccfbf acef bfaaceabfdf acedaced dddd bedbeaceacef cccccaccfaeaaccfaacfcefafaffcceacccacfacccfaccfaacceaccfaacccfacffaacceaccgceaaccgfceaccfabcfaccfaaacf4 (12)57 (51)bcN. Access Rd.I-380 EB Off Ramp 1,113 (744)316 (247)aaf#Study Intersection Lane ConfigurationacfPeak Hour Traffic VolumeAM (PM) STOP Stop Sign Signalized LEGEND E. Grand Ave. Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-67 Local Intersection Level of Service/Queuing (Cumulative plus Project) Impact Transportation 6: The Project would contribute to cumulative traffic levels that would result in conflicts with applicable plans, ordinances or policies that establish measures of effectiveness for intersection levels of service (LOS) at 22 intersections. Mitigation measures identify improvements that could be made at 7 of the 22 affected intersections, but 4 of these improvements do not currently have an identified funding source. No feasible improvements have been identified as being capable of reducing impacts to less than significant levels under the Cumulative plus Project scenario at 15 affected study intersections. (Significant and Unavoidable) Based on the analysis of cumulative traffic operations at study intersections, the Project would individually contribute traffic at levels considered cumulatively significant at 22 of the 27 study area intersections. The impact of Project-generated traffic, when added to the Cumulative/No Project scenario at each of the adversely affected intersections, is described below. ● Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard (#1): The Project would increase Cumulative/No Project traffic volumes by greater than two percent at this intersection, projected to operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour and would contribute more than one percent of total vehicle volumes to the southbound left and right turn movements, which exceed available queue storage space. ● Dubuque Avenue/US-101 northbound on-ramps (#2): The Project would increase Cumulative/No Project traffic volumes by more than one percent of total volumes to the eastbound through movements in the AM peak hour, and to the eastbound through, westbound left, westbound through, and westbound right movements in the PM peak hour. Each of these movements experiences queuing in excess of available storage space in the cumulative plus project condition. ● Dubuque Avenue/US-101 northbound off-ramps (#3). The Project would cause operations under Cumulative/No Project to decrease from LOS D to LOS E in the AM peak hour, and would increase total volumes by greater than two percent at an intersection already operating at LOS F in the PM peak hour. The Project would also contribute more than one percent of total volumes to the eastbound left/through movement, contributing to a queue exceeding available storage space. ● Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard (#4): The Project would increase Cumulative/No Project traffic volumes by greater than two percent at this intersection, projected to operate at LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours. The Project would also contribute more than one percent of total volumes to the northeast-bound right turn and eastbound through movements in the AM peak hour, contributing to an existing queue that exceeds available storage space. ● Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard (#5): The Project would cause this intersection to decline from LOS D in the AM peak hour under Cumulative/No Project conditions, to LOS E in the AM peak hour. ● Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue (#6): The Project would cause this intersection to decline from LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour under Cumulative/No Project conditions, to LOS E in the AM and LOS F in the PM peak hour. ● Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue (#8): The Project would cause this intersection to decline from LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour under Cumulative/No Project conditions, to LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours. This intersection would exceed signal warrant criteria for peak- hour traffic volumes under Cumulative/No Project conditions in the AM and PM ● Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard (#9): The Project would cause this intersection to decline from LOS B in the AM peak hour under Cumulative/No Project conditions, to LOS F in the AM peak hour Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-68 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR ● Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/US-101 SB Off-Ramp (#10): The Project would cause this intersection to decline from LOS D in the PM peak hour under Cumulative/No Project conditions, to LOS E in the PM peak hour ● Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue (#11): The Project would cause this intersection to decline from LOS B in the PM peak hour under Cumulative/No Project conditions, to LOS E in the PM peak hour ● Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue (#12): The Project would increase Cumulative/No Project traffic volumes by greater than two percent at this intersection, projected to operate at LOS F in the AM and PM peak hour. The Project would also contribute more than one percent of total movement volume to the southbound left turn movement in the AM and PM peak hours, resulting in vehicular queuing that exceeds available storage length. ● East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard (#15): The Project would increase Cumulative/No Project traffic volumes by greater than two percent at this intersection, already operating at LOS F in the PM peak hour, and would cause this intersection to decline from LOS D in the AM peak hour under Cumulative/No Project conditions, to LOS F in the AM peak hour ● East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard (#16): The Project would increase Cumulative/No Project traffic volumes by greater than two percent at this intersection, projected to operate at LOS F in the AM and PM peak hour ● Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue (#19): The Project would cause this intersection to decline from LOS E in the PM peak hour under Cumulative/No Project conditions, to LOS F in the PM peak hour, and would increase Cumulative/No Project traffic volumes by greater than two percent at this intersection. The Project would also contribute more than one percent of total volumes to the westbound left turn movement, contributing to AM and PM peak hour queues that exceed available storage space. ● South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard (#20): The Project would cause this intersection to decline from LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour under Cumulative/No Project conditions, to LOS E in the AM and LOS F in the PM peak hour ● South Airport Boulevard/ US-101 On- and Off-Ramps/Wondercolor Drive (#21): The Project would increase Cumulative/No Project traffic volumes by greater than two percent at this intersection, projected to operate at LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours. The Project would also contribute more than one percent of total volume to the shared eastbound left/through movement, contributing to queues that exceed available storage space. ● South Airport Boulevard/Utah Avenue (#22): The Project would cause this intersection to decline from LOS C to LOS F in the AM peak hour, and from LOS D to LOS E in the PM peak hour ● East Grand Avenue / Littlefield Avenue (#23): The Project would cause this intersection to decline from LOS C in the AM peak hour under Cumulative/No Project conditions, to LOS F in the AM peak hour ● Mitchell Road / Harbor Way (#24): The Project would increase Cumulative/No Project traffic volumes by greater than two percent at this intersection, projected to operate at LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours ● Utah Avenue / Harbor Way (#25): The Project would increase Cumulative/No Project traffic volumes by greater than two percent at this intersection, projected to operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. Under AM and PM conditions the intersection exceeds peak hour volume signal warrant criteria levels. Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-69 ● I-380 Westbound Ramp/South Airport Boulevard (#26): The Project would cause this intersection to decline from LOS D in the PM peak hour under Cumulative/No Project conditions, to LOS E in the PM peak hour. The Project would also contribute more than two percent of total volumes to the southbound right turn movement, contributing to PM peak hour vehicle queues that exceed available storage length. ● I-380 Eastbound Ramp/South Airport Boulevard (#27): The Project would cause this intersection to decline from LOS C in the AM peak hour under Cumulative/No Project conditions, to LOS E in the AM peak hour Table 17-17 presents as summary of the level of service conditions at each of the study intersections under Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project conditions, and Figure 17-12 illustrates Cumulative plus Project traffic volumes for AM and PM peak hours at those intersections, as well as lane configurations and traffic controls (signals, stop signs, etc.). Insert Figure Label Here Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Figure 17-12 Peak Hour Traffic and Lane Configurations Cumulative plus Project Conditions Figure 6-5Peak Hour Traffic Volumesand Lane Configurations -Cumulative plus Project Conditions - Intersections 1-1123 (53)205 (191)539 (352)93 (108)1,588 (386)38 (40)189 271 749 157 (332)175 (1,009)101 (256) 1. Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd.223 (527)62 (161)1,050 (211)474 (253)1,780 (795)622 (273) 757 210 439 2. 101 NB Ramp/Dubuque Ave./Oyster Point Blvd.18 (104)78 (213)3 (3)1,254 (683)0 (2)53 (75)955 (1,864)106 (111)0 (0)3 (3)5 (0)0 (1) 3. Dubuque Ave./101 NB & SB Ramp/Driveway 527 (1,719)7 (5)121 (78)1,997 (746)833 (260)35 (135)2 (4)10 (6)2 (2)844 (3,137)43 (150) 4. Gateway Blvd./101 SB Ramp/Oyster Point Blvd.22 (150)0 (0)10 (9)770 (234)3,088 (1,021)79 (15)71 (218)2 (10)42 (19)16 (38)796 (2,921)4 (7) 5. Veterans Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd.114 (426)26 (43)2,511 (879)339 (104) 612 (2,493)29 (17) 6A. Eccles Ave./Oyster Point Blvd.5 (4)5 (0)5 (0)149 (41)2,388 (881)0 (0)37 (233)0 (0)7 (2)9 (3)599 (2,273) 6B. 345-347 Driveway/Oyster Point Blvd.297 (837)1 (1)18 (30)8 (7)1,205 (544)1,187 (332)9 (28)0 (1)0 (1)4 (1)317 (1,411)16 (36) 7. Gull Dr./Oyster Point Blvd. Sister Cities Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.Airport Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.101 NB On RampDubuque Ave.101 NB Off Ramp/101 SB On Ramp Dubuque Ave.Oyster Point Blvd.DrivewayGateway Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.Veterans Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.345-347 DrivewayOyster Point Blvd.Gull Dr.57 (195)11 (0)114 (112)21 (8)911 (257)145 (43)25 (39)7 (12)9 (4)10 (13)265 (928)211 (102) 8. Allerton Ave./Forbes Blvd. 45 (180)875 (269)225 (129)978 (240)271 (651)335 (787) 9. Gull Dr./Forbes Blvd. Forbes Blvd.Allerton Ave.Forbes Blvd.Gull Dr.53 (280)228 (626)220 (92)68 (92)587 (302)2 (70)162 (302)1,333 (820) 10. Airport Blvd./Miller Ave./101 SB Ramp 108 (44)2,141 (949)38 (75)29 (22)32 (106)891 (3,658) 11. Dubuque Ave./Grand Ave. Miller Ave.101 SB/Miller Ave. Off RampAirport Blvd.Grand Ave.Dubuque Ave.STOPSTOP STOP STOPacff acceaaacfaaceaacffaacefaaccff ae aaebffdaabfcccebfacce ae aacebffacceaaf ccfaccd aceaeceaae accfdacebf bfdaeacafcfbc fccfaaeacccafcce488636583aaccfaaceff2,2191,0701,702 Eccles Ave.#Study Intersection Lane ConfigurationacfPeak Hour Traffic VolumeAM (PM) STOP Stop Sign Signalized LEGEND acfPM Dynamic Configuration Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Figure 17-12B Peak Hour Traffic and Lane Configurations Cumulative plus Project Conditions Figure 6-5Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations -Cumulative plus Project Conditions - Intersections 12-27466 (468)1,041 (714)1,265 (175)156 (110)366 (148)456 (485)658 (1,247)108 (260)18 (10)30 (13)417 (1,119)37 (130) 20. Gateway Blvd./So. Airport Blvd./Mitchell Ave.375 (637)222 (358)14 (20)2,606 (1,051)33 (59)564 (251)122 (349)442 (556)14 (50)27 (12)51 (57)69 (28) 21. So. Airport Blvd./101 NB Ramp/Wonder Color Ln.10 (13)398 (661)1,502 (255)25 (25)0 (3)10 (18)13 (68)507 (607)558 (166)188 (329)1 (61)529 (1,642) 22. So. Airport Blvd./Utah Ave.31 (88)24 (1)899 (84)15 (3)2,038 (634)52 (59)5 (22)0 (22)4 (2)7 (3)477 (1,694)104 (734) 23. Littlefield Ave./E. Grand Ave.96 (157)223 (105)0 (0)1,259 (159)0 (0)277 (133)279 (942)134 (269)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0) 24. Harbor Way/Mitchell Avenue 144 (165)29 (61)2 (1)202 (83)1,519 (214)80 (45)132 (284)91 (40)162 (88)82 (100)410 (1,349)1 (5) 25. Harbor Way/Utah Ave.100 (422)1,694 (1,116)73 (83)526 (1,404)371 (806)363 (514)26. So. Airport Blvd./N. Access Rd.484 (877)428 (857)27. So. Airport Blvd./I-380 EB Off Ramp So. Airport Blvd.Mitchell Ave.Gateway Blvd.So. Airport Blvd.101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp Wonder Color Ln.So. Airport Blvd.Utah Ave.So. Airport Blvd.E. Grand Ave.Littlefield Ave.Mitchell Avenue Harbor WayUtah Ave.Harbor WaySo. Airport Blvd.So. Airport Blvd.35 (64)434 (482)469 (162)162 (160)297 (189)119 (85)101 (138)556 (434)1,483 (642)105 (658)140 (432)312 (1,237) 12. Airport Blvd./Grand Ave.525 (86)984 (628)30 (30)33 (10) 13. Industrial Wy./101 NB Ramp/E. Grand Ave.214 (420)722 (326)2,039 (832)131 (139) 709 (3,344)14 (12) 14. Grand Ave./E. Grand Ave.115 (575)167 (160)738 (416)170 (164)2,306 (804)285 (190)62 (793)181 (376)265 (124)99 (490)546 (1,988)531 (762) 15. Gateway Blvd./E. Grand Ave.167 (302)724 (60)260 (35)540 (362)2,569 (789)179 (175)367 (594)75 (448)195 (43)18 (13)642 (2,344)34 (308) 16. Forbes Blvd./Harbor Wy./E. Grand Ave. 549 (122)2,382 (571)134 (410)6 (0)20 (46)464 (2,055) 17. Allerton Ave./E. Grand Ave. 826 (102)1,467 (407)104 (653)72 (14)59 (44)369 (1,329) 18. DNA Way/E. Grand Ave.192 (112)46 (29)520 (362)114 (166)289 (262)149 (208)99 (183)783 (1,139)186 (143)282 (416)261 (311)1,025 (2,017) 19. Airport Blvd./Produce Ave./San Mateo Ave. Grand Ave.Airport Blvd.Industrial Wy.101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy.Grand Ave.E. Grand Ave.E. Grand Ave.Gateway Blvd.E. Grand Ave.Forbes Blvd.Harbor Wy.E. Grand Ave.Allerton Ave.E. Grand Ave.DNA WaySan Mateo Ave.So. Airport Blvd.Airport Blvd.Produce Ave.STOP STOP STOPSTOPSTOPSTOP STOPSTOPSTOPaaceaacffacffacccf aceabffaccfbf acef bfaaceabfdf acedaced dddd bedbeaceacef cccccaccfaeaaccfaacfcefafaffcceacccacfacccfaccfaacceaccfaacccfacffaacceaccgceaaccgfceaccfabcfaccfaaacfE. Grand Ave.4 (12)57 (51)bc1,383 (744)316 (247) I-380 EB Off Ramp aafN. Access Rd. #Study Intersection Lane ConfigurationacfPeak Hour Traffic VolumeAM (PM) STOP Stop Sign Signalized LEGEND Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-72 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Table 17-17: Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service – Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions (2040) Intersection Traffic Control Peak Hour Cumulative Cumulative Plus Project Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS 1 Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard Signal AM 37.1 D 40.1 D PM >80 F >80 F 2 Dubuque Avenue/101 NB On Ramp/Oyster Point Boulevard Signal AM 32.8 C 33.1 C PM 43.0 D 54.4 D 3 Dubuque Avenue/101 NB Off Ramp/101 SB On Ramp Signal AM 37.4 D 74.2 E PM >80 F >80 F 4 Oyster Pt. Boulevard/Gateway Blvd. Signal AM >80 F >80 F PM >80 F >80 F 5 Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard Signal AM 40.7 D 77.1 E PM 12.5 B 13.5 B 6 Eccles Avenue/Oyster Point Boulevard Signal AM 14.0 BC 73.7 E PM 53.9 D >80 F 7 Gull Drive/Oyster Point Boulevard Signal AM 14.6 B 52.4 D PM 22.1 C 35.2 D 8 Allerton Avenue/Forbes Boulevard AWSC AM 18.7 C >80 F PM 47.1 E >80 F 9 Forbes Boulevard/Gull Drive Signal AM 11.9 B >80 F PM 10.5 B 24.0 C 10 Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/101 SB/Miller Avenue Off Ramp Signal AM 33.3 C 39.6 D PM 36.3 D 58.5 E 11 Grand Avenue/Dubuque Avenue Signal AM 5.9 A 5.9 A PM 17.3 B 58.2 E 12 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue Signal AM >80 F >80 F PM >80 F >80 F 13 101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Way/Industrial Way/East Grand Avenue SSYC AM 10.2 B 10.3 B PM 8.6 A 8.6 A 14 East Grand Avenue/Grand Avenue Signal AM 5.4 A 4.8 A PM 11.6 B 49.4 D Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-73 Table 17-17: Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service – Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions (2040) Intersection Traffic Control Peak Hour Cumulative Cumulative Plus Project Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS 15 Gateway Boulevard/East Grand Avenue Signal AM 43.8 D >80 F PM >80 F >80 F 16 Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard/East Grand Avenue Signal AM >80 F >80 F PM >80 F >80 F 17 East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue Signal* AM 13.5 B 21.2 C PM 4.9 A 29.5 C 18 East Grand Avenue/DNA Way Signal* AM 18.3 B 7.5 A PM 21.2 C 20.7 C 19 Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/South Airport Boulevard Signal AM 38.7 D 41.3 D PM 61.0 E >80 F 20 South Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue & Gateway Boulevard Signal AM 48.8 D 74.7 E PM 74.8 E >80 F 21 South Airport Boulevard/101 NB/South Airport Boulevard Off Ramp/Wonder Color Lane Signal AM >80 F >80 F PM >80 F >80 F 22 South Airport Boulevard/Utah Avenue Signal AM 33.5 C >80 F PM 37.1 D 62.8 E 23 Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue Signal AM 32.4 C >80 F PM 19.5 B 25.4 C 24 Mitchell Road / Harbor Way AWSC AM >80 F >80 F PM 73.5 F >80 F 25 Utah Avenue/Harbor Way AWSC AM >80 F >80 F PM >80 F >80 F 26 I-380 Westbound Ramp/South Airport Boulevard Signal AM 19.4 B 19.0 B PM 40.1 D 58.5 E 27 I-380 Eastbound Ramp/South Airport Boulevard Signal AM 35.2 D 66.5 E PM 53.1 D 53.3 D Bold indicates unacceptable LOS E or F. Highlight indicates significant impact. * Indicates changed traffic control conditions Delay reported as seconds per vehicle. LOS based on the methodology in the Highway Capacity Manual, 2010. Intersections 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 26 and 27 were analyzed based on HCM 2000. For signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections, the delay shown is the weighted average for all movements in seconds per vehicle. For side-street stop controlled (SSSC) and side street yield controlled (SSYC) intersections, the delay shown is the worst operating approach delay. Calculations based on weekday counts and signal timings provided by the City of South San Francisco from May 2016 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-74 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Table 17-18 presents a summary of vehicle queues at study area intersections near US-101 ramps under Existing and Existing plus Project conditions. The Project would extend or contribute to queues beyond existing storage distances at the following intersections: ● Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard (#1) ● Dubuque Avenue/101 NB On Ramp/Oyster Point Boulevard (#2) ● Dubuque Avenue/101 NB Off Ramp/101 SB On Ramp (#3) ● 101 SB Off Ramp/Gateway Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard (#4) ● Airport Blvd./Grand Avenue (#12) ● Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue (#19) ● South Airport Boulevard/101 NB/South Airport Boulevard off Ramp/Wondercolor Lane (#21), and ● I-380 Westbound Ramp/South Airport Boulevard (#26) Table 17.18 Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project, 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues Near US-101 Intersection Storage Distance1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Cumulative Cumulative + Project Cumulative Cumulative + Project #1 Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard SB Left 320 180 260 320 >320 (8.2% SB Through 320 270 270 280 290 SB Right 320 30 30 310 >320 (4.1%) #2 Dubuque Avenue/101 NB On Ramp/Oyster Point Boulevard NB Left 260 100 100 230 240 NB Through 260 70 70 160 160 NB Right 240 >240 >240 (0%) 40 40 EB Left 170 >170 >170 (0%) 90 100 EB Through 240 >240 >240 (16.7%) >240 >240 (7.0%) EB Right 240 70 100 70 180 WB Left 500 260 260 >500 >500 (2.0%) WB Through 830 70 70 >830 >830 (6.9%) WB Right 500 40 50 400 >500 (12.7%) #3 Dubuque Avenue/101 NB Off Ramp/101 SB On Ramp EB Left/Through 260 350 370 (0%) 270 280 (4.3%) #4 101 SB Off Ramp/Gateway Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard NEB Through 3000 1,120 1420 240 260 NEB Right 350 >350 >350 (19.6%) 270 270 EB Through/Right 900 1,190 1,330 (9.0%) 310 320 #10 Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/101 SB/Miller Avenue Off Ramp WB Left/Through 750 430 610 260 280 Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-75 Table 17.18 Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project, 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues Near US-101 Intersection Storage Distance1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Cumulative Cumulative + Project Cumulative Cumulative + Project #12 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue SB Left 280 >280 >280 (28.4%) >280 >300 (11.7%) SB Through 280 220 170 150 150 SB Right 280 20 10 30 30 #14 East Grand Avenue/Grand Avenue NB Right 420 210 250 40 40 NB Left 240 190 180 490 490 (0.7%) #19 Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue WB Left 220 210 >220 (15.4%) >220 >220 (20.6%) WB Through 220 210 210 190 140 WB Right 100 100 100 80 30 #20 South Airport Boulevard/ Gateway Boulevard EB Left 130 80 90 50 50 EB Through 500 380 420 100 100 EB Right 500 20 10 10 10 #21 South Airport Boulevard/101 NB/South Airport Boulevard Off Ramp/Wondercolor Lane EB Left/Through 750 >750 >750 (28.3%) 730 >750 (15.5%) EB Right 750 190 110 70 80 #26 I-380 Westbound Ramp/South Airport Boulevard NB Through 120 10 0 10 10 NB Left 120 10 10 40 40 SB Right 120 70 70 >120 >120 (6.8%) #27 South Airport Boulevard/I-380 EB EB Left/Through 1000 460 640 400 400 SB Through 120 50 50 50 50 Notes: 95th Percentile Queues based on the methodology in the Highway Capacity Manual, 2010 analyzed with Synchro software. Intersections 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 26, and 27 were analyzed based on HCM 2000. Queues do not take into account downstream spillover from adjacent intersections. Storage Distance and Queues in feet per lane. Gray highlight indicates a significant change in queues. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Transportation 6A: Implement Existing plus Project Measures. Pursuant to regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified under Existing plus Project conditions, the Project applicant shall pay its fair-share toward the following intersection improvements by either; 1) fully Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-76 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR funding the following improvement subject to fee credits if the improvement is subsequently included in the City’s CIP update; or 2) paying the City’s Transportation Impact Fees if the City has included these improvements in its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) prior to issuance of building permits for development that triggers these mitigation improvements. These Existing plus Project improvements also improve traffic conditions under the Cumulative plus Project condition, as indicated below: a) Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue (#8): Implement Mitigation Measure Transportation 1(b), which provides for installation of a traffic signal with optimized signal timing. This measure would improve Cumulative intersection operations to an acceptable LOS B in the AM and LOS C in the PM peak hour. (LTS) b) Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue (#23): Implement Regulatory Requirement Transportation 1A (d), which provides for an adjustment to the signal timing to allow the northbound right turn phase to overlap with the westbound left turn phase. This measure would reduce Cumulative delay to LOS D in the AM peak hour. (LTS) c) Mitchell Road/Harbor Way (#24): Implement Mitigation Measure Transportation 1(f), which provides for installation of a traffic signal at this intersection, and adding an additional 250-foot eastbound left turn pocket as well as a 100-foot northbound left turn pocket. These improvements would improve Cumulative intersection operations to LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour. (LTS with MM) Mitigation Measure Transportation 6B: Additions to East of 101 Transportation Impact Fee Program: If the City includes the following improvements in its East of 101 Transportation Impact Fee Program and Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the Project applicant shall pay its fair-share toward these intersection improvements by paying the City’s Transportation Impact Fees: a) Airport Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard (#1): Add overlap phases for the southbound right and northbound right movements, and optimizing signal timing. This measure would improve Cumulative intersection operations to an acceptable LOS D. However, this mitigation measure would not reduce the length of the southbound left turn or southbound right turn vehicle queues (to which the Project contributes more than 1% of the queue volume) to an acceptable level. There are no other feasible mitigations at this location. (SU) b) Dubuque Avenue/US-101 Ramps (#3): Change the eastbound through-right lane to a left- through-right lane, introduce an overlap phase for the southbound right turn movement and optimize the signal timing. This measure would reduce Cumulative delay to achieve LOS D during the AM and PM peak hour, and would reduce eastbound left/through queue length to an acceptable level in the PM peak hour. However, this intersection is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans and also has no identified funding source, and the City cannot ensure this mitigation is implemented. (LTS with MM, conservatively SU) c) Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard (#4): Increase cycle length to 160 seconds, providing an overlap phase for the northeast-bound right turn movement, and optimizing timing splits.6 These changes would decrease delay and improve Cumulative operations to an acceptable level of service in the AM peak hour, but would not improve Cumulative operations to an acceptable 6 If the City chooses to include these improvements in its Capital Improvement Program (CIP), an additional design consideration may include prohibiting the currently permitted left turns from eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard into the Cove and prohibiting through movements onto southbound Gateway and southbound left turns out of the Cove onto eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard. These changes to the existing intersection configuration would improve overall operations of this 5-leg intersection. Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-77 level of service in the PM peak hour, would not reduce Cumulative queuing to acceptable lengths, the intersection is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, and no funding source is identified. (SU) d) Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/US-101 SB Off-Ramp (#10): Adjust the signal timing to lengthen the westbound green time. This measure would improve Cumulative intersection operations to an acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour. However, this intersection is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans and the City cannot ensure this mitigation is implemented. (LTS with MM, conservatively SU) e) Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue (#11): Adjust the signal timing to lengthen the westbound green time. This measure would improve Cumulative intersection operations to an acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour. However, this intersection is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans and also has no identified funding source, and the City cannot ensure this mitigation is implemented. (LTS with MM, conservatively SU) f) Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue (#19). Modify the signal timing. This measure would decrease delay but would not improve Cumulative operations to an acceptable level of service. There are no additional feasible mitigations at this intersection. (SU) g) South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard (#20). Update the signal timing. This measure would decrease delay but would not improve Cumulative operations to an acceptable level of service. There are no additional feasible mitigations at this intersection. (SU) h) South Airport Boulevard/Utah Avenue (#22): Separate the westbound left turn lane into one westbound left and one westbound through lane, and adjust the signal timing to allow the northbound right and westbound left movements to overlap in the AM peak hour. This improvement would reduce Cumulative delay, but would not achieve an acceptable level of service in the AM peak hour. In the PM peak hour, changing configuration of the westbound approach would reduce Cumulative delay to LOS D. There are no additional feasible mitigations at this intersection. (SU) i) Utah Avenue/Harbor Way (#25): Implement Mitigation Measure Transportation 1(g), which provides for installation of a traffic signal at this intersection. Additionally, reconfigure the approaches to add one eastbound left turn pocket and one westbound left-turn pocket, and convert the existing shared westbound through-right lane to a right turn lane. This measure would improve Cumulative intersection operations to LOS B in the AM and PM peak hours. However, the additional lane reconfigurations do not have an identified funding source, and implementation of this mitigation cannot be ensured. (LTS with MM, conservatively SU) j) Westbound Ramp/South Airport Boulevard (#26). Extending cycle length and optimizing the signal timing at this location would improve intersection operations to an acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour, but would not result in decreased queue lengths on the southbound right turn movement (to which the Project contributes more than 1% of the queue volume). (SU) k) I-380 Eastbound Ramp/South Airport Boulevard (#27): Extending the cycle length and optimizing the signal timing at this location. This measure would improve Cumulative intersection operations to an acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour. However, these improvements do not have an identified funding source, and implementation of this mitigation cannot be ensured. (LTS with MM, conservatively SU) Figure 17-13 illustrates Cumulative plus Project conditions, with implementation of mitigation measures. This figure shown traffic volumes during the AM and PM peak hours at those intersections, as well as lane configurations and traffic controls (signals, stop signs, etc.). Insert Figure Label Here Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Figure 17-13 Peak Hour Traffic and Lane Configurations Cumulative plus Project Conditions, with Mitigation Figure 6-7Peak Hour Traffic Volumesand Lane Configurations -Cumulative plus Project Mitigation Conditions - Intersections 1-1123 (53)205 (191)539 (352)93 (108)1,588 (386)38 (40)189 271 749 157 (332)175 (1,009)101 (256) 1. Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd.223 (527)62 (161)1,050 (211)474 (253)1,780 (795)622 (273) 757 210 439 2. 101 NB Ramp/Dubuque Ave./Oyster Point Blvd.18 (104)78 (213)3 (3)1,254053955 (1,864)106 (111)3 (3)5 (0)0 (1) 3. Dubuque Ave./101 NB & SB Ramp/Driveway 527 (1,719)7 (5)121 (78)1,997 (746)833 (260)35 (135)2 (4)10 (6)2 (2)844 (3,137)43 (150) 4. Gateway Blvd./101 SB Ramp/Oyster Point Blvd.22 (150)0 (0)10 (9)770 (234)3,088 (1,021)79 (15)71 (218)2 (10)42 (19)16 (38)796 (2,921)4 (7) 5. Veterans Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd.114 (426)26 (43)2,511 (879)339 (104) 612 (2,493)29 (17) 6A. Eccles Ave./Oyster Point Blvd.5 (4)5 (0)5 (0)149 (41)2,388 (881)0 (0)37 (233)0 (0)7 (2)9 (3)599 (2,273) 6B. 345-347 Driveway/Oyster Point Blvd.297 (837)1 (1)18 (30)8 (7)1,205 (544)1,187 (332)9 (28)0 (1)0 (1)4 (1)317 (1,411)16 (36) 7. Gull Dr./Oyster Point Blvd. Sister Cities Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.Airport Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.101 NB On RampDubuque Ave.101 NB Off Ramp/101 SB On Ramp Dubuque Ave.Oyster Point Blvd.DrivewayGateway Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.Veterans Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.Eccles Ave.Oyster Point Blvd.345-347 DrivewayOyster Point Blvd.Gull Dr.57 (195)11 (0)114 (112)21 (8)911 (257)145 (43)25 (39)7 (12)9 (4)10 (13)265 (928)211 (102) 8. Allerton Ave./Forbes Blvd. 45 (180)875 (269)225 (129)978 (240)271 (651)335 (787) 9. Gull Dr./Forbes Blvd. Forbes Blvd.Allerton Ave.Forbes Blvd.Gull Dr.53 (280)228 (626)220 (92)68 (92)587 (302)2 (70)162 (302)1,333 (820) 10. Airport Blvd./Miller Ave./101 SB Ramp 108 (44)2,141 (949)38 (75)29 (22)32 (106)891 (3,658) 11. Dubuque Ave./Grand Ave. Miller Ave.101 SB/Miller Ave. Off RampAirport Blvd.Grand Ave.Dubuque Ave.acff acceaaacfaaceaacffaacefaaccff aeaaecffd aabfcccebfacce ae aacebffacceaaf ccfaccd aceaeceaae accfdacebf bfdaeacafcfbc fccfaaeacccafcce488636583aaccfaaceff2,2191,0701,702 683275aad #Study Intersection Lane ConfigurationacfPeak Hour Traffic VolumeAM (PM) STOP Stop Sign Signalized LEGEND acfPM Dynamic Configuration Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Figure 17-13B Peak Hour Traffic and Lane Configurations Cumulative plus Project Conditions, with Mitigations Figure 6-7Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations - Cumulative plus Project Mitigation Conditions - Intersections 12-27466 (468)1,041 (714)1,265 (175)156 (110)366 (148)456 (485)658 (1,247)108 (260)18 (10)30 (13)417 (1,119)37 (130) 20. Gateway Blvd./So. Airport Blvd./Mitchell Ave.375 (637)222 (358)14 (20)2,606 (1,051)33 (59)564 (251)122 (349)442 (556)14 (50)27 (12)51 (57)69 (28) 21. So. Airport Blvd./101 NB Ramp/Wonder Color Ln.10 (13)398 (661)1,502 (255)25 (25)0 (3)10 (18)13 (68)507 (607)558 (166)188 (329)1 (61)529 (1,642) 22. So. Airport Blvd./Utah Ave.31 (88)24 (1)899 (84)15 (3)2,038 (634)52 (59)5 (22)0 (22)4 (2)7 (3)477 (1,694)104 (734) 23. Littlefield Ave./E. Grand Ave.96 (157)223 (105)0 (0)1,259 (159)0 (0)277 (133)279 (942)134 (269)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0) 24. Harbor Way/Mitchell Avenue 144 (165)29 (61)2 (1)202 (83)1,519 (214)80 (45)132 (284)91 (40)162 (88)82 (100)410 (1,349)1 (5) 25. Harbor Way/Utah Ave.100 (422)1,694 (1,116)73 (83)526 (1,404)371 (806)363 (514)26. So. Airport Blvd./N. Access Rd.484 (877)428 (857)27. So. Airport Blvd./I-380 EB Off Ramp So. Airport Blvd.Mitchell Ave.Gateway Blvd.So. Airport Blvd.101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp Wonder Color Ln.So. Airport Blvd.Utah Ave.So. Airport Blvd.E. Grand Ave.Littlefield Ave.Mitchell Avenue Harbor WayUtah Ave.Harbor WaySo. Airport Blvd.So. Airport Blvd.35 (64)434 (482)469 (162)162 (160)297 (189)119 (85)101 (138)556 (434)1,483 (642)105 (658)140 (432)312 (1,237) 12. Airport Blvd./Grand Ave.525 (86)984 (628)30 (30)33 (10) 13. Industrial Wy./101 NB Ramp/E. Grand Ave.214 (420)722 (326)2,039 (832)131 (139) 709 (3,344)14 (12) 14. Grand Ave./E. Grand Ave.115 (575)167 (160)738 (416)170 (164)2,306 (804)285 (190)62 (793)181 (376)265 (124)99 (490)546 (1,988)531 (762) 15. Gateway Blvd./E. Grand Ave.167 (302)724 (60)260 (35)540 (362)2,569 (789)179 (175)367 (594)75 (448)195 (43)18 (13)642 (2,344)34 (308) 16. Forbes Blvd./Harbor Wy./E. Grand Ave. 549 (122)2,382 (571)134 (410)6 (0)20 (46)464 (2,055) 17. Allerton Ave./E. Grand Ave. 826 (102)1,467 (407)104 (653)72 (14)59 (44)369 (1,329) 18. DNA Way/E. Grand Ave.192 (112)46 (29)520 (362)114 (166)289 (262)149 (208)99 (183)783 (1,139)186 (143)282 (416)261 (311)1,025 (2,017) 19. Airport Blvd./Produce Ave./San Mateo Ave. Grand Ave.Airport Blvd.Industrial Wy.101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy.Grand Ave.E. Grand Ave.E. Grand Ave.E. Grand Ave.Gateway Blvd.E. Grand Ave.Forbes Blvd.Harbor Wy.E. Grand Ave.Allerton Ave.E. Grand Ave.DNA WaySan Mateo Ave.So. Airport Blvd.Airport Blvd.Produce Ave.STOPaaccfaacffacffacccf aceabffaccfbf accf acfaaceaacfdf acedaceae aebfdae aceaebcfaceacef cccccaccfaeaaccfaacfefafaffcceacccacfacccfaccfaacceaccfaacccfacffaacceaccgceaaccgfceaccfabcfaccfaaacf4 (12)57 (51)bcN. Access Rd. 1,383 (744)316 (247)aafI-380 EB Off Ramp #Study Intersection Lane ConfigurationacfPeak Hour Traffic VolumeAM (PM) STOP Stop Sign Signalized LEGEND Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-80 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Resulting Level of Service Implement Existing plus Project Measures Pursuant to regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified under Existing plus Project conditions (Mitigation Measure Transportation 6A), Cumulative traffic impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels at the following 3 intersections: ● Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue (#8) ● Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue (#23) ● Mitchell Avenue/Harbor Way (#24) Additions to East of 101 Transportation Impact Fee Program Of the 22 intersections that would be adversely affected by Cumulative plus Project-generated traffic, improvements identified in Mitigation Measures Transportation 6B could effectively reduce impacts to less than significant levels at the following 4 of intersections: ● Dubuque Avenue/US-101 Ramps (#3) ● Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue (#11) ● Utah Avenue/Harbor Way (#25) ● I-380 Eastbound Ramp/South Airport Boulevard (#27) However, the improvements identified in MM Transportation 6B are not currently included under the City’s East of 101 Transportation Impact Fee Program or in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Project applicant shall implement their fair-share towards these intersections improvements by paying the City’s Transportation Impact Fees if the City incorporates these improvements into the Fee Program and CIP. However, updating the City’s Transportation Impact Fee Program and CIP to include these additional improvements is a separate discretionary action that may or may not be taken by the City. If no fair-share funding mechanism is established by the City to provide for fair-share payments toward the improvements needed to address cumulative traffic congestion, these improvements would not be funded. Therefore, traffic impacts at these 3 intersections are conservatively identified as being significant and unavoidable. No Feasible Mitigation Even with the improvements identified in MM Transportation 6B, there are 15 additional intersections that would be adversely affected by Cumulative plus Project-generated traffic for which there are no feasible improvements capable of reducing cumulative impacts to below threshold levels, and these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at the following locations: ● Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard (#1): The identified mitigation measure would reduce delay but would not reduce the length of the southbound left turn vehicle queue to an acceptable level. There are no other feasible mitigations at this location due to constrained roadway right-of-way. ● Dubuque Avenue/Oyster Point Boulevard (#2). Due to constrained right of way at this location, there is not space available to add additional queuing space. As such, there are no feasible mitigation measures for this location ● Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard (#4). The identified mitigation measure would decrease delay and improve operations to an acceptable level of service in the AM peak hour, but would not improve operations to an acceptable level of service in the PM peak hour, and would not reduce Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-81 queuing to acceptable lengths. There are no additional feasible mitigations at this intersection due to constrained roadway right-of-way. ● Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard (#5). There are no feasible mitigations at this intersection due to constrained street right-of-way. ● Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue (#6). There are no feasible mitigations at this intersection due to constrained street right-of-way. ● Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard (#9): There are no feasible mitigations at this intersection due to constrained street right-of-way. ● Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue (#12): There are no feasible mitigations at this intersection. Changes to Grand Avenue or Airport Boulevard to add vehicle capacity would be inconsistent with the Pedestrian Priority Zone identified in the South San Francisco Station Area Specific Plan. ● East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard (#15):There are no viable mitigations at this intersection as additional roadway widening would conflict with the City of South San Francisco’s Complete Streets Policy by further lengthening pedestrian crossing distances in an area with a high expected pedestrian demand (given its proximity to the planned Caltrain station). ● East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard (#16): There are no viable mitigations at this intersection due to constrained roadway right-of-way. ● Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue (#19): The identified mitigation measure would decrease delay at this intersection but would not improve operations to an acceptable level of service. There are no additional feasible mitigations at this intersection. ● South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard (#20): The identified mitigation measure would decrease delay at this intersection but would not improve operations to an acceptable level of service. There are no additional feasible mitigations at this intersection. ● South Airport Boulevard/US-101 On- and Off-Ramps (#21): There are no feasible mitigations at this intersection due to constrained roadway right-of-way. ● South Airport Boulevard/Utah Avenue (#22): The identified mitigation measure would decrease delay at this intersection to an acceptable level of service in the PM, but would not improve operations to an acceptable level of service in the AM peak hour. There are no additional feasible mitigations at this intersection. ● I-380 Westbound Ramp/South Airport Boulevard (#26): The identified mitigation measure would decrease delay at this intersection to an acceptable level of service, but would not decrease queue lengths on the southbound right turn movement. There are no additional feasible mitigations at this intersection. Freeway Ramps (Cumulative plus Project) Impact Transportation 7: The Project would generate more than 100 peak hour trips onto the Congestion Management Program roadway network, contributing to cumulative traffic levels that would conflict with applicable plans, ordinances or policies that establish measures for effective levels of service at two nearby freeway interchanges. No feasible improvements have been identified that are capable of reducing these impacts to less than significant levels. (Significant and Unavoidable) Based on the analysis of cumulative traffic operations at freeway ramps near the study area, the Project would individually contribute traffic at levels considered cumulatively significant at each of the two nearby Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-82 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR freeway interchanges, as shown on Table 17-19. The impact of Project-generated traffic, when added to the Cumulative/No Project scenario at each of these adversely affected freeway ramps, follows: ● US-101/Oyster Point Boulevard Interchange: The Project would contribute more than one percent of the cumulative PM peak hour traffic to the northbound on-ramp, which is already expected to operate at LOS F condition in the Cumulative/No Project scenario. ● US-101/Produce Avenue Interchange: The Project would contribute more than one percent of the cumulative AM peak hour traffic to the northbound off-ramp, causing the off-ramp to decline from LOS E in the Cumulative/No Project scenario to LOS F condition. Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-83 Table 17-19: Peak Hour Freeway Interchange Levels Of Service – Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project Conditions US 101 Ramp Cumulative/No Project Cumulative plus Project Peak Hour Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS % Contrib. Oyster Point Boulevard NB On AM 1,192 0.54 C 1,227 0.56 C PM 2,750 1.25 F 2,999 1.36 F 8% NB Off AM 1,311 0.87 D 1,309 0.87 D PM 700 0.47 B 729 0.49 B SB On AM 947 0.43 B 945 0.43 B PM 1,987 0.90 E 2,027 0.92 E SB Off AM 2,073 1.38 F 2,351 1.57 F 12% PM 497 0.33 B 538 0.36 B Grand Avenue NB On AM 714 0.36 B 796 0.40 B PM 1,451 0.73 D 1,631 0.48 B NB Off AM 1236 0.44 B 1,332 0.48 B PM 643 0.23 A 679 0.24 A SB Off AM 1,099 0.73 D 1,320 0.88 D PM 1,316 0.88 D 1,381 0.92 E Produce Avenue NB On AM 540 0.27 A 540 0.27 A PM 897 0.45 B 922 0.46 B NB Off AM 2,605 0.93 E 3,179 1.14 F 18% PM 1,314 0.47 B 1,454 0.52 C SB On AM 1,768 0.44 B 1,882 0.47 B PM 2,949 0.74 D 3,291 0.82 D SB Off AM 565 0.38 B 592 0.39 B PM 456 0.30 B 401 0.27 A Notes: V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio. Bold indicates unacceptable LOS F. Existing volumes based on weekday counts from May 2016, provided by City of South San Francisco. Assumes an off-ramp capacity of 1,500 vph for one lane and 2,800 vph for two lane, based on HCM 2010; diamond on-ramp capacity of 2,200 vph for one lane and 4,000 vph for two lanes; and looped on-ramp capacity of 2,000 vph. On-ramp capacity may be limited by downstream congestion on mainline freeway segments, while off-ramp capacity may be limited by downstream congestion on surface streets and at intersections. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Mitigation Measures None available Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-84 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Resulting Level of Significance There are no feasible mitigation measures for these impacts to freeway interchanges. The northbound freeway on-ramp at Oyster Point Boulevard has a constrained right-of-way, and the Produce Avenue northbound off-ramp also has constrained right-of-way and a lack of capacity on surface roadways to accommodate more exiting vehicles. These impacts remain significant and unavoidable. Consistent with C/CAG guidelines, the Project will implement a TDM program that is consistent with, and exceeds City requirements. That TDM program will serve to reduce its otherwise greater contribution of trips on the CMP network, including its contributions of traffic to freeway interchanges. Freeway Segments (Cumulative plus Project) Impact Transportation 8: The Project would generate more than 100 peak hour trips onto the Congestion Management Program roadway network, contributing to cumulative traffic levels that would conflict with applicable plans, ordinances or policies that establish measures for effective levels of service on the freeway. No feasible improvements have been identified as capable of reducing impacts to less than significant levels. (Significant and Unavoidable) Table 17-20 presents Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project freeway segment levels of service during the peak hours. The impact of Project-generated traffic at each of the adversely affected freeway segments is described below. ● Northbound US-101, north of Oyster Point Boulevard: This northbound freeway segment is projected to operate at LOS F conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative/No Project conditions, and the Project would contribute more than 1 percent of the cumulative traffic on this freeway segment during both peak hours. ● Southbound US-101, north of Oyster Point Boulevard: This southbound freeway segment is projected to operate at LOS F conditions during the AM peak hour under Cumulative/No Project conditions, and the Project would contribute more than 1 percent of the cumulative traffic on this freeway segment during the AM peak hour. ● Northbound US-101, between Oyster Point Boulevard and Grand Avenue: This northbound freeway segment is projected to operate at LOS F conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative/No Project conditions, and the Project would contribute more than 1 percent of the cumulative traffic on this freeway segment during the PM peak hour. ● Southbound US-101, between Oyster Point Boulevard and Grand Avenue: This southbound freeway segment is projected to operate at LOS F conditions during the PM peak hour under Cumulative/No Project conditions, and the Project would contribute more than 1 percent of the cumulative traffic on this freeway segment during the PM peak hour. ● Northbound US-101, between Grand Avenue and Produce Avenue: This northbound freeway segment is projected to operate at LOS F conditions during the AM peak hour under Cumulative/No Project conditions, and the Project would contribute more than 1 percent of the cumulative traffic on this freeway segment during the AM peak hour. ● Southbound US-101, between Grand Avenue and Produce Avenue: This southbound freeway segment is projected to operate at LOS F conditions during the PM peak hour under Cumulative/No Project conditions, and the Project would contribute more than 1 percent of the cumulative traffic on this freeway segment during the PM peak hour. ● Northbound US-101, south of Produce Avenue: This northbound freeway segment is projected to operate at LOS F conditions during the AM peak hour under Cumulative/No Project conditions, and Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-85 the Project would contribute more than 1 percent of the cumulative traffic on this freeway segment during the AM peak hour. Table 17-20: Peak Hour Freeway Segment Levels Of Service – Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions US 101 Segment Cumulative (2035) Cumulative plus Project (2035) Peak Hour Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS % Contrib. North of Oyster Point Boulevard NB AM 10,132 1.15 F 10,254 1.16 F 1.2% PM 12,363 1.40 F 12,795 1.45 F 3% SB AM 8,824 1.01 F 9,368 1.07 F 5% PM 7,925 0.90 E 8,031 0.92 E Oyster Point Boulevard to Grand Avenue NB AM 10,252 1.17 F 10,334 1.18 F 0.8% PM 10,314 1.17 F 10,524 1.20 F 2% SB AM 8,372 0.95 E 8,621 0.98 E PM 9,790 1.12 F 9,895 1.13 F 1.1% Grand Avenue to Produce Avenue NB AM 12,840 1.17 F 13,509 1.24 F 5% PM 9,923 0.91 E 10,105 0.92 E SB AM 8,477 0.97 E 8,591 0.98 E PM 10,967 1.25 F 11,405 1.30 F 4% South of Produce Avenue NB AM 8,795 1.01 F 9,235 1.06 F 5% PM 7,336 0.84 D 7,435 0.85 D SB AM 7,589 0.69 C 7,703 0.70 D PM 7,946 0.73 D 8,327 0.76 D Notes: V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio. Bold indicates unacceptable LOS F. Assumes a capacity of 2,400 vehicles per hour (vph) based on LOS E capacity for 70 mph freeways in HCM 2010. Analysis excludes northbound auxiliary lanes between I-380 and South Airport Boulevard, South Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue, Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard, and Oyster Point Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard. Analysis excludes southbound auxiliary lanes between Oyster Point Boulevard and Grand Avenue and between Produce Avenue and I-380. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019 Mitigation Measures None available Resulting Level of Significance As there are no feasible mitigation measures for these impacts to freeway segment due to constrained right of way on US-101, and these cumulative impacts remain significant and unavoidable. Consistent with C/CAG guidelines, the Project will implement a TDM program that is consistent with, and exceeds City requirements. That TDM program will serve to reduce its otherwise greater contribution to cumulative trips on the CMP network, including increased traffic on US-101 freeway segments. Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-86 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Non-CEQA Transportation Topics The following topics do not relate to any environmental thresholds established by the City of South San Francisco and are not required to be evaluated in this EIR pursuant to CEQA. To aid the public and City decision-makers in evaluating and considering the merits of the Project, these topics are discussed below for informational purposes. Parking Since the 2003 State Appellate Court ruling in San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco, the courts have generally held that parking (on its own) does not need to be treated as a significant impact on the environment. As of 2010, parking is no longer included as an environmental factor to be considered under CEQA Guidelines. Parking supply/demand varies by time of day, day of week, and seasonally. Although not required by CEQA, parking conditions are evaluated in this document as a non- CEQA topic for informational purposes. The following provides an evaluation of whether the Project’s estimated parking demand would be met by the proposed parking supply. Existing Parking Supply and Parking Requirements The Genentech Campus’ baseline (2017) parking supply is provided in a combination of surface parking lots and parking structures. The total number of parking spaces serving the Campus is nearly 8,000 spaces, as shown in Table 17-21. Table 17-21: Existing (2017) Campus Parking Supply Surface Lots Structured Total Upper Campus 3,080 1,420 4,500 South Campus 220 2,180 2,400 Other Surface Lots 1,060 0 1,060 Total 4,360 3,600 7,960 Parking demand at the Campus is primarily a function of the effectiveness of the TDM Plan - the higher the TDM trip reduction, the lower the parking demand. A TDM-based approach to calculating parking demand was reflected in the prior 2007 Master Plan and incorporated into the parking requirements of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Section 20.260.003[D]). To test the validity of these TDM-based parking ratios, the predicted current parking demand based on Genentech’s current 42% TDM rate and existing building space has been compared to observed parking demand. The predicted current parking demand is for 6,631 parking spaces, as shown in Table 17-22. This predicted parking demand is compared to the actual occupancy of Genentech’s existing parking facilities, based on average occupancy over a three-day survey conducted in the fall of 2017. 7According to this survey, by 10 a.m. on weekdays there was an average of 6,527 vehicles parked throughout the Campus, at an 85% average occupancy rate. 7 Nelson|Nygaard, Genentech South San Francisco Campus Mode Share and Parking Report, Fall of 2017 Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-87 Table 17-22: Predicted vs. Actual Parking Demand, Fall of 2017 Land Use Existing (KSF) Parking Ratio at 42% TDM (spaces/1,000 sf) 1 Predicted Parking Demand Office 1,566 2.26 3,539 Labs/R&D 1,718 1.15 1,975 Manufacturing 1,285 0.74 950 Amenity 145 1.15 167 Total 4,715 6,631 Surveyed Parking Occupancy, Fall of 2017 2 6,527 Difference: 1.6% Source: 1: Extrapolated from 2007 Genentech Master Plan 2. Nelson|Nygaard, Genentech South San Francisco Campus Mode Share and Parking Report, Fall of 2017 As indicated, the parking ratios presented in Table 17-22 are an accurate predictor of parking demand, resulting in a Campus-wide parking prediction that is within approximately 2 percent of actual surveyed parking use. Predicted Parking Demand at Buildout The Master Plan Update (the Project) includes updated parking requirements for the Campus. These updated parking requirements represent a progressively lower parking rate for higher TDM trip reductions, as shown in Table 17-23. Table 17-23: Projected Parking Ratios at Increased TDM (Spaces per 1,000 SF) Office Lab, R&D Mfg. Warehouse Parking Rates, from the Prior (2007) Master Plan At 24% TDM 2.75 1.40 0.90 0.50 At 30% TDM 2.59 1.32 0.85 0.47 At 32% TDM 2.53 1.29 0.83 0.46 Updated Parking Rates, Based on Improved TDM Trip Reductions Office Lab/ R&D Mfg. Amenity At 35% TDM 2.45 1.25 0.80 1.25 At 40% TDM 2.37 1.20 0.77 1.20 At 42% TDM 2.26 1.15 0.74 1.15 At 44% TDM 2.20 1.12 0.72 1.12 At 46% TDM 2.15 1.09 0.70 1.09 At 48% TDM 2.09 1.06 0.68 1.06 At 50% TDM 2.04 1.04 0.67 1.04 Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-88 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Given the demonstrated accuracy of the parking ratios presented in Table 17-22, the predicted parking demands resulting from buildout of the Project can be similarly calculated. It is estimated that Genentech’s TDM program will need to be increased in effectiveness to achieve approximately 47 percent reductions in drive alone trips to meet the Trip Cap limits for this EIR Project Description at buildout. At this TDM ratio, the total parking demand is predicted at approximately 13,550 spaces. Alternatively, a 50 percent TDM ratio and its corresponding parking ratios would yield a total parking demand predicted at approximately 12,850 spaces, as indicated in Table 17-24. Table 17-24: Range of Predicted Parking Demand at Buildout, Based on TDM Total Building Space (SF) Parking Ratio, at 46% TDM Parking Required. Parking Ratio, at 50% TDM Parking Required Existing Campus Office 3,991,000 2.15 8,580 2.03 8,100 Lab Parking Ratio, at 42% TDM 3,282,000 1.09 3,580 1.04 3,415 Manufacturing (SF)Existing Parking Requirement 1,285,000 0.70 900 0.67 865 Amenity (SF) Bldg. SF 450,000 1.09 490 1.04 470 Total 9,008,000 13,550 12,850 Less existing structured parking to remain: -3,600 -3,600 Net New Parking Required: 9,950 9,250 The Project Description assumes that all of the existing 3,600 structured parking spaces on Campus today will remain, but that the majority of existing surface parking spaces will be redeveloped as new Opportunity Sites for Campus buildings. To accommodate the predicted buildout demand of approximately 12,850 total parking spaces (assuming achievement of 50% TDM), approximately 9,245 new parking spaces will need to be provided (up to 4,360 to replace existing surface spaces that will likely have been redeveloped, and 4,885 net new spaces).8 The actual number of new parking spaces required to meet the incremental increase in parking demand at any given time will be a function of several factors, including: ● the increased parking demand for each new building, based on the number of new employees per building and the currently effective TDM trip reduction rate ● less any excess parking supply that may be available on Campus, and ● replacement of any existing parking (e.g., surface parking lots) that may be lost due to the new development 8 It is unlikely that all existing surface parking space throughout the Campus will be redeveloped with new buildings and facilities. Many of the smaller clusters of surface parking spaces adjacent to existing buildings, service vehicle spaces and other specialty parking spaces likely will not all be relocated into garages. Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-89 Vehicle Miles Travelled Pursuant to Senate Bill 743, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released proposed changes to the state’s CEQA Guidelines in 2016 that will amend the way transportation impacts are analyzed. Specifically, SB 743 (Public Resources Code Section 21099) requires OPR to amend CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to Level of Service (LOS) methodology for evaluating transportation impacts.9 The new CEQA Guidelines sections created by SB 743 do not go into full effect statewide until July 2020, and South San Francisco has yet to determine how these changes will be implemented within the City. Therefore, the following analysis is provided for informational purposes only, and is not considered a CEQA topic. The changes to CEQA Guidelines will result in significant changes in how transportation impacts are evaluated pursuant to CEQA. These analytic changes may also result in significant changes in how mitigation is imposed through the CEQA process, potentially including measures that seek to reduce or avoid impacts related to VMT and/or trip generation, rather than improvements to increase levels of service (LOS) to accommodate increased traffic demands. These changes are not effective in South San Francisco yet, but they will likely become effective in the relatively near term. The analysis provided in this section of the EIR is for informational purposes only, and may provide a context for future City consideration of appropriate new VMT thresholds, mitigation strategies and alternative investment programs for how the City uses its development impact fees. Criteria Used for this Analysis In the absence of a City-preferred methodology or threshold, this analysis relies on OPR’s Revised Proposal on Updates to the CEQA Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (January 2016), which suggests several alternative means by which to assess transportation impacts, including the following: 10 1. Would the project achieve 15 percent lower per capita or per employee VMT than existing development? 2. Would the project achieve an average daily VMT per employee (worker) that is 15% lower than the regional average daily VMT rate or 15% lower than the City’s average daily VMT rate, whichever is higher? The OPR’s Revised Proposal on Updates to the CEQA Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA finds (absent any more project-specific information to the contrary) that per capita or per employee VMT fifteen percent below that of existing development may be a reasonable threshold, for the reasons described below: ● SB 743 states that the criteria for determining significance must promote the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. SB 743 also states the Legislature’s intent that the analysis of transportation in CEQA should better promote the state’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It cites in particular the reduction goals in the Global Warming Solutions Act and the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, both of which call for substantial reductions. The California Air Resources Board established long-term GHG reduction targets for the largest regions in the state that ranged from 13 to 16 percent. 9 Implementation of SB 743 must “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks and a diversity of land uses.” (New Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(1).) Measurements of transportation impacts may include “vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated.” Once the CEQA Guidelines are amended to include those alternative criteria, auto delay will no longer be considered a significant impact under CEQA. 10 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Revised Proposal on Updates to the CEQA Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, Implementing Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013), January 20, 2016 Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-90 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR ● Caltrans has developed a statewide VMT reduction target in its Strategic Management Plan. Specifically, it calls for a 15 percent reduction in per capita VMT compared to 2010 levels, by 2020. ● The First Update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan states, "Recognizing the important role local governments play in the successful implementation of AB 32, the initial Scoping Plan called for local governments to set municipal and communitywide GHG reduction targets of 15 percent below then- current levels by 2020, to coincide with the statewide limit." Achieving 15 percent lower per capita or per employee VMT than existing development is, therefore, both reasonably ambitious and generally achievable.11 If the Project were to result in VMT rates that exceed a 15% reduction threshold, the Project’s transportation effects could be considered inconsistent with pending statewide and local environmental and transportation policies. Use of OPR’s recommended VMT thresholds for this informational analysis do not preclude the City from ultimately adopting another methodology or alternative significance threshold. Methodology For purposes of this analysis, Project-generated VMT per employee was measured relative to baseline data provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) through their Travel Demand Model (“Travel Model One”).12 General components of the Travel Model One model include a wide array of analytical approaches including various transportation mode-choice models, activity duration models, time-use models and models of individual micro-simulations, etc. Ultimately, the combination of these datasets is designed to realistically represent travel behavior, adequately replicate observed activity-travel patterns and ensure model sensitivity to infrastructure and policies. MTC’s Travel Model One contains 1,454 regional Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) that span across the San Francisco Bay Area. The model includes nine TAZs that represent the City of South San Francisco (TAZ #s 209 through 215, and 230 and 231). The Project Area is located in TAZ #212, which represents all of the East of 101 Area, as well as large portions of the industrialized areas south of Downtown along Spruce and Linden Avenues (see Figure 17-14.). Several steps were taken to analyze the potential effects of the Project relative to VMT. These steps include:  Identifying the baseline VMT and potential target thresholds on a per employee basis  Calculating the Project’s VMT per employee by applying VMT reductions resulting from Genentech’s proposed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, as well as daily VMT reductions based on other factors that influence daily travel behavior (i.e., on-Campus amenities, the DNA shuttle vans, etc.), and  Comparing the Project’s resulting VMT rate per employee to existing conditions, to a 15 percent lower per employee VMT than existing development, and to a 15 percent reduction in the City of South San Francisco and the San Francisco Bay Area regional VMT, to determine if the Project would exceed these alternative thresholds 11 Note: Lead agencies may apply more stringent thresholds at their discretion (Section 21099) 12 The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Travel Demand Model (“Travel Model One”) transportation model is an activity-based (or tour-based) travel demand model for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, and widely used by counties and communities throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. The development methodology, datasets and metrics provided in the Model are often used by city and county agencies to develop their own travel demand models, and the data is regularly validated for consistency among all nine counties. Source: MTC Travel Model One, 2018 Figure 17-14 MTC’s Regional Traffic Analysis Zone Boundaries Genentech Master Plan Update VMT Analysis Genentech Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 8 Figure 3 South San Francisco Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Map Source: MTC Travel Model One, 2016. Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-92 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR VMT Baseline and Targeted VMT Reductions Based on Travel Model One data, the most current (year 2015) VMT rate for TAZ #212 (the TAZ in which the Project is located) is 26.3 VMTs per employee. The citywide average VMT rate for 2015 is 23.9 VMT per employee, and the regional average VMT rate is 25.9 VMT per employee. The higher VMT rate for TAZ #212 as compared to the City average reflects the broader commute-shed for many of the tech and biotech companies located within this TAZ, where employees from across the region, travelling longer distances, commute to the East of 101 Area for highly desirable jobs. The latest data from Plan Bay Area also provides worker-based VMTs for the region of 22.7 VMT per employee for year 2015, and a worker-based VMT for the region of 20.3 VMT per employee by year 2040). Based on the thresholds used in this analysis, the target thresholds for VMT reductions are 15% below the 2015 and 2040 worker-based regional VMT rates. This is a target rate of 19.3 VMT per employee (or 15% below the 2015 rate of 22.7 VMT per employee) in year 2015, and a target rate of 17.3 VMT per employee (or 15% below the 2040 rate of 20.3 VMT per employee) in year 2040. Estimating the Project’s VMT Based on standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates as applied to the Project’s net new land uses, the Project would generate approximately 32,200 daily trips.13 This is a baseline number of daily trips that does not account for any application of the Project’s TDM measures. ● The Project’s proposed TDM reductions (i.e., a 47 percent reduction in AM peak hour drive alone trips to the Campus as necessary to maintain the Trip Cap) are applied to all AM peak period trips to the Campus, all PM peak period trips from the Campus and partial application to mid-day trips to mirror the existing GenenBus schedules. This results in a 31% overall reduction in daily trips as compared to standard ITE rates, or approximately 22,200 total daily trips.14 ● Conservatively assuming an additional 5% reduction for internalized trips (i.e., daily trip reductions attributable to the availability of on-Campus amenities (e.g., cafeterias, personal services and daycare facilities), access to on-Campus DNA shuttles, and bicycle and pedestrian amenities, results in approximately 21,000 daily trips attributable to the Project. ● Multiplying these 21,000 daily trips by an average trip length of 10.2 miles per trip (a weighted average of home-based work trips and non-home-based trips for TAZ #212) for year 2015,15 the Project would generate approximately 214,200 total vehicle miles travelled. ● Multiplying these 21,000 daily trips by an average trip length of 9.3 miles per trip (the same weighted average of home-based work trips and non-home-based trips for TAZ #212) for year 2040, the Project would generate approximately 194,900 daily total vehicle miles travelled. ● Dividing these total daily vehicle miles travelled by the total number of new employees pursuant to the Project (12,500) yields an average of 17.1 VMT per employee for year 2015, and an average of 15.6 VMT per employee for year 2040. This calculation of these Project-specific VMT rates per employee, and a comparison to calculated VMT based on standard ITE rates (i.e., without the Project’s Trip Cap and associated TDM) is shown below in Table 17-25. 13 Fehr & Peers (EIR Transportation consultant), personal communication, October 2018 14 This is the number of daily trips (conservatively) used in the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions analysis as included in this EIR. 15 Derived from the MTC Travel Model One data Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-93 Table 17-25: Calculation of Project VMT per Employee Project Project, Based on Standard ITE Rates For Year 2015 Project Daily Trips 21,000 32,200 Average Trip Length x 10.2 x 10.2 Total VMT 214,200 328,440 Project Employees ÷ 12,500 ÷ 12,500 Per Capita VMT 17.1 26.3 Regional Average Worker-Based VMT vs. 22.7 vs. 22.7 Percent Below/Above Regional Average Target -25% + 116% For Year 2040 Project Daily Trips 21,000 32,200 Average Trip Length x 9.3 x 9.3 Total VMT 194,880 298,816 Project Employees ÷ 12,500 ÷12,500 Per Capita VMT 15.6 23.9 Regional Average Worker-Based VMT vs. 20.3 vs. 20.3 Percent Below/Above Regional Average -23% + 117% Source: Correspondence with Fehr & Peers, 2019 Comparison against Thresholds As indicated in Table 17-25, the Project’s calculated rate of 17.1 VMT per employee (year 2015) and 15.6 VMT per employee (year 2040) is lower than the VMT target reduction thresholds of 15% below the regional average worker-based VMT for both year 2015 and year 2040. The Project would not exceed the VMT thresholds used in this analysis. If assessed as a CEQA topic, the VMT impacts of the Project would be less than significant. If the City of South San Francisco were to rely on the VMT thresholds used in this analysis for assessment of transportation impacts and mitigation measures under CEQA, then no mitigation measures beyond the Project’s proposed Trip Cap and corresponding TDM trip reductions (i.e., 47 percent reduction in drive-alone trips) would be required. Possible Implications for Future Project Analysis and Mitigation Measures Even if project-specific VMT impacts were to be determined less than significant, the City of South San Francisco could still require projects, particularly those in the East of 101 Area, to pay traffic fees and/or implement roadway improvements. Existing General Plan policies address these Traffic Impact Fee requirements (i.e., General Plan Policy 4.2-I-6 regarding needed intersection and roadway improvements to enhance mobility in the East of 101 Area, and Policy 4.2-G-12 providing for a fair and equitable means for paying for future street improvements via development impact fees). However, the focus of CEQA analysis and applicable mitigation of traffic impacts would shift in a direction more consistent with General Plan Policy 4.2-G-10, which calls for making “efficient use of existing transportation facilities, improved alternate travel Chapter 17: Transportation Page 17-94 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR modes and enhanced integration of transportation systems serving South San Francisco to reduce vehicle- miles traveled.” 16 The Project’s VMT analysis presented above demonstrates the relative importance of an effective TDM program as a VMT reduction and overall trip reduction strategy. Alternatively, the cumulative traffic analysis presented under Impacts Transp 8, 9 and 10 above demonstrate that, even with implementation of all feasible LOS-based mitigation measures, traffic congestion will continue to be significant and unavoidable throughout many parts of the East of 101 Area, at freeway ramps and on the freeway. By reducing the number of cars from the overall transportation system with increased TDM performance, a more sustainable transportation system may be achievable, rather than increasing the capacity of roadways and intersections to accommodate increased vehicle demand levels. Genentech will be able to achieve its Campus-wide TDM goal of 50% TDM trip reductions for Campus arrivals by increasing its current TDM program capacity commensurate with new employee growth, and by increasing its overall non-single occupant mode share split by an additional approximately 10 percent. Additionally, Genentech expects to continue its flexible work arrangement initiatives. Assuming that these initiatives maintain the current average of 13 percent of the Genentech workforce choosing a flexible work option, this would further reduce the number of AM peak hour Campus arrivals, resulting in a total trip reduction rate of approximately 57 percent - far exceeding the 47 percent trip reduction rate needed to achieve the Trip Cap. Genentech is able to attain these drive-alone trip reductions in part because of the scale of the Genentech Campus and employment base, the substantial capital investments already made in buses, ferries and shuttles, and the commitment to on-going financial assistance to off-set the transit/alternative travel mode costs of its employees. Not all developments within the East of 101 Area will have the resources and capabilities of Genentech to be able to achieve such a highly efficient TDM program on an independent basis. The City of South San Francisco could assist in helping to achieve higher TDM trip reduction rates across the entire East of 101 Area by reconsidering its investment strategy in East of 101 transportation improvements. Rather than investing its accrued and future cumulative development Transportation Impact Fees solely on intersection and roadway improvements that increase vehicle capacity, the City may consider alternative investments of these fees. Alternative investments might include projects and programs that make the most efficient use of existing transportation facilities, improve alternate travel modes, and enhance the transit systems serving the East of 101 Area, thereby reducing the total vehicle trips generated and commensurate VMT. Such investments could include measures to make TDM more efficient, available and desirable for the East of 101 employers and employees, consistent with the recommendations of the City’s recent Mobility 20/20 Report, including but not limited to:  Capital investments in buses and shuttle vans to provide “last-mile service” between regional transit stations (i.e., the relocated Caltrain station and the South San Francisco BART station) and employment centers in East of 101  Designs and improvements at the relocated Caltrain station to improve circulation efficiency for TDM shuttles and buses that pick-up and drop-off employees at the station  Establishing Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lanes on East Grand Avenue and potentially on Oyster Point Boulevard  BRT improvements may include dedicated bus or transit lanes with signal priority, queue jumps, and median or curb improvements at bus stop locations  Increasing the frequency and origin/destination of ferry service at the Oyster Point ferry landing 16 South San Francisco, General Plan Transportation Element Chapter 17: Transportation 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 17-95  Increasing bicycle and pedestrian use by filling gaps in the existing bike and pedestrian network and increasing bike and pedestrian routes, especially along abandoned rail alignments within the East of 101 area, and  Establishment of a special Transit Management Agency (TMA) and/or a Community Facilities District (CFD), whereby employers in the East of 101 area could pool their resources and TDM needs, thereby creating efficiencies of scale similar to those achieved by Genentech.