HomeMy WebLinkAbout04_09_TransportationCity of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-1 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
4.9 Transportation and Circulation
4.9.1 Introduction
This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for transportation and circulation.
It also describes impacts associated with transportation and circulation that would result from
implementation of the proposed project and mitigation for significant impacts where feasible and
appropriate.
The Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) is provided in Appendix D of this draft environmental
impact report (EIR).
4.9.2 Environmental Setting
4.9.2.1 Roadway Facilities
The project site is at the southwest corner of the Oyster Point Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard
intersection in the City of South San Francisco’s (City’s) East of 101 employment area. Regional
access to the project site is provided via U.S. Route 101 (U.S. 101) and Oyster Point Boulevard to the
north and U.S. 101 and East Grand Avenue to the south. Relevant roadway plans and policies (i.e.,
the South San Francisco General Plan, the Mobility 20/20 Plan, and the Complete Streets Policy) are
discussed in Appendix D. Figure 4.9-1 shows the project location, study intersections, and the
surrounding roadway system. Project site vehicular access is provided via two two-way driveways
that intersect Gateway Boulevard south of Oyster Point Boulevard. A dedicated pedestrian walkway
parallels the driveway. Study intersections are listed below.
l Gateway Boulevard/Gateway Business Park Driveway
l Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue
l Gateway Boulevard/East Grand Avenue
l Gateway Boulevard/Corporate Driveway
l Dubuque Avenue/Oyster Point Boulevard
l Gateway Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard
l Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard
l Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Off-ramp
YXZ280
£[101
N:\Projects\2019_Projects\SF19-1076_499ForbesBlvd\Graphics\AIProject Location
Figure 1-1
DOWNTOWN
EAST OF101
SIERRA POINT
Oyster Point Blvd
Gateway BlvdForbes Blvd
East
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
DNA WayAirport BlvdLinden AveGrand A
v
e
Allerton AveSister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Eccles AveMarina Blvd
San Bruno Mountain State & County Park
Oyster Point Channel
San BrunoChannel
1
2
3 4
56
7
8
Project Site
Study Intersection#
Figure 4.9-1
Project Location and Study Intersections
751 Gateway Boulevard Project
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020.ICF Graphics … 00662.19 (8-3-2020) JC
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-3 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Key local roadways in the vicinity of the project site are described below.
l U.S. 101 is an eight-lane freeway and principal north-south roadway connection between San
Francisco, San José, and intermediate San Francisco Peninsula cities. In South San Francisco,
U.S. 101 is located approximately 1 mile west of the project site and serves the East of 101 area
with three primary access points. Near the project site, U.S. 101 carries about 220,000 vehicles
per day and defines the East of 101 area’s western edge and barrier to east-west bicycle and
pedestrian connectivity. Access points are listed below.
o Southern Access—Gateway Boulevard: Northbound on- and off-ramps are at South
Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane; southbound on- and off-ramps are immediately
south of the San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard intersection.
o Central Access—East Grand Avenue: Northbound off-ramps are at East Grand
Avenue/Poletti Way and on-ramps are to the west at Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard.
Southbound off-ramps are at Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue. There is no southbound
freeway access at this location.
o Northern Access—Oyster Point Boulevard: Northbound on- and off-ramps intersect
Dubuque Avenue at and immediately south of Oyster Point Boulevard. Southbound on-
ramps are at Dubuque Avenue, adjacent to the northbound off-ramp. The southbound off-
ramp intersects Gateway Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard as the intersection’s fifth leg.
l East Grand Avenue is an east-west arterial street. It has six travel lanes west of Gateway
Boulevard, four travel lanes east of Gateway Boulevard, and two travel lanes east of Haskins
Way. U.S. 101 freeway ramps at East Grand Avenue enable project site access from the south.
East Grand Avenue carries about 17,000 vehicles per day.
l Airport Boulevard runs roughly parallel to U.S. 101 in South San Francisco. Freeway ramps
south of Grand Avenue provide alternate project site access from the south. Airport Boulevard
carries approximately 24,000 vehicles per day.
l Gateway Boulevard is a four-lane north-south arterial connecting East Grand Avenue with South
Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. Class II bicycle lanes exist between East Grand
Avenue and South Airport Boulevard. The corridor provides project site access from the north
via U.S. 101 ramps at Oyster Point Boulevard. Gateway Boulevard carries approximately
12,000 vehicles per day.
4.9.2.2 Transit Facilities and Service
The project site is not served directly by regional rail, ferry, or bus transit services; however,
regional rail service (via Caltrain), ferry service (via Water Emergency Transportation Authority
[WETA]), and bus service (via San Mateo County Transit District [SamTrans]) is within walking
distance of the project site. The San Bruno Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station is approximately 2
miles from the project site, the South San Francisco Caltrain station is approximately 0.75 mile from
the project site, and the WETA ferry terminal is approximately 1 mile from the project site. No
SamTrans bus service currently exists east of U.S. 101 in South San Francisco. The project site
therefore relies on supplementary public shuttle services to connect employees with regional
transit. Relevant transit plans and policies (i.e., the South San Francisco General Plan, the East of 101
Mobility 20/20 Plan, and the Caltrain Business Plan) are discussed in Appendix D. Existing transit
services are shown in Figure 4.9-2.
YXZ280
£[101
Transit FacilitiesFigure 2-1N:\Projects\2019_Projects\SF19-1078_751 Gateway EIR\GraphicsLittlefield AveUtah Ave
Swfit Ave
Hi
l
l
s
i
d
e
B
l
v
d
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
vd Gill Dr
DOWNTOWN
EAST OF101
SIERRA POINT
Oyster Point Blvd
Gateway BlvdForbes Blvd
East
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
DNA WayAirport BlvdLinden AveGrand A
v
e
Allerton AveSister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Eccles AveMarina Blvd
San Bruno Mountain State & County Park
Oyster Point Channel
San BrunoChannel
Commute.org Shuttle Routes and Stops
Caltrain Station and Alignment
South San Francisco Ferry Terminal
Project Site
SamTrans Routes
Figure 4.9-2
Existing Transit Facilities
751 Gateway Boulevard Project
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020.ICF Graphics … 00662.19 (8-3-2020) JC
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-5 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
4.9.2.3 Regional Transit Service
The following transit services operate within South San Francisco and are accessible from the
project site using a bicycle or first- and last-mile shuttle connection provided by the Peninsula
Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (Commute.org).
l 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 3 miles west of the project site at Mission Road and McLellan Drive. The San
Bruno Station is located approximately 2 miles southwest of the project site near The Shops at
Tanforan. BART trains operate on 15-minute headways during peak hours, and 20-minute
headways during off-peak hours.
l Caltrain provides passenger rail service on the Peninsula between San Francisco and San José,
and limited service trains to Morgan Hill and Gilroy during weekday commute periods. The
South San Francisco Caltrain station is currently located approximately 0.75 mile south of the
project site at 590 Dubuque Avenue, on the east side of U.S. 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 East Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection,
and provide more direct pedestrian access to the East of 101 area via a tunnel with access at
East Grand Avenue and Poletti Way. 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 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., with approximately 30-
minute headways during peak times and 60-minute headways during off-peak times.
l WETA provides weekday commuter ferry service between the 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. The South San Francisco Ferry terminal is located
approximately 1 mile from the project site.
l SamTrans provides bus and rail service (through Caltrain) in San Mateo County but does not
serve the East of 101 employment area. The closest bus stops to the project site are
approximately 0.6 mile to the northwest near the intersection of Airport Boulevard and Sister
Cities Boulevard and are served by Routes 292 and 397.
East of 101 Commuter Shuttle Service
Commute.org shuttles provide weekday commute period first/last mile connections between BART
and Caltrain stations and the WETA ferry terminal and local employers in the East of 101 area,
including the project site. Six weekday peak period peak-direction routes serve the East of 101 area.
Service is roughly distributed between the East of 101 area’s north (i.e., the Oyster Point area) and
south (i.e., the Utah/Grand area) geographic halves. Project shuttle access is provided by an existing
stop 0.2 mile away at the intersection of Oyster Point and Gateway Boulevards, which is served by
all Oyster Point area shuttles. These routes connect with Caltrain, BART, and the WETA ferry
terminal.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-6 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
4.9.2.4 Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, trails, and pedestrian signals. In the project
vicinity, continuous sidewalks exist along both sides of Gateway Boulevard except south of Larkspur
Landing driveway, where continuous sidewalks exist on the east side of the roadway for
intermittent sections to East Grand Avenue.
At the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard (a signal-controlled
intersection immediately adjacent to the project site), marked crosswalks are provided on two of the
four intersection legs. Sidewalks exist on the north side of Oyster Point Boulevard, which provides
continuous pedestrian connectivity between the project site and the nearest existing Commute.org
shuttle stop.
A segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail) runs along the shoreline in the East of 101 area,
providing a continuous off-street shared-use trail connection between Brisbane’s Sierra Point to the
north and South Airport Boulevard at the San Bruno Canal to the south. 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 site, the Bay Trail connects to the South San Francisco ferry terminal to Oyster
Point Boulevard, allowing bicyclists and pedestrians to access the ferry terminal. Currently, there
are gaps in the trail to the north of Brisbane, and just south of South San Francisco.
Relevant pedestrian plans and policies (i.e., the South San Francisco General Plan, the Mobility 20/20
Plan, and the South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan) are discussed in Appendix D.
4.9.2.5 Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities consist of separated bikeways, bicycle lanes, routes, trails, and paths, as well as
bicycle parking, bicycle lockers, and showers for cyclists. The California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) recognizes four classifications of bicycle facilities as described below.
l Class I—Shared-Use Pathway: Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive
use of cyclists and pedestrians with crossflow minimized (e.g., off-street bicycle paths).
l Class II—Bicycle Lanes: 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.
l Class III—Bicycle Route: Provides for shared use with motor vehicle traffic; however, are often
signed or include a striped bicycle lane.
l Class IV—Separated Bikeway: Provides a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel
adjacent to a roadway and which are protected from vehicular traffic. Types of separation
include, but are not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or
on-street parking.
The area surrounding the project site has a partially complete bicycle network that provides first-
and last-mile connectivity to the South San Francisco ferry terminal but lacks dedicated bicycle
connections to the Caltrain station and residential and commercial uses west of U.S. 101. Current
bicycle facilities in the project vicinity, as designated by the City’s Bicycle Master Plan and the draft
Active South City: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (ongoing), are shown in Figure 4.9-3 and
discussed below.
YXZ280
£[101
N:\Projects\2019_Projects\SF19-1078_751 Gateway EIR\GraphicsBicycle Facilites
Figure 2-2
Oyster Point Blvd
Gateway BlvdForbes Blvd
E G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
DNA WayAirport BlvdLinden AveGrand A
v
e
Allerton AveSister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Eccles AveMarina Blvd
Littlefield AveUtah Ave
Swfit Ave
Hi
l
l
s
i
d
e
B
l
v
d
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d Gill Dr
Miller A
v
e
San Bruno Mountain State & County Park
Oyster Point Channel
San BrunoChannel
Existing Class II Bicycle Lane
Existing Class I Shared Path Planned Class I Shared Path
Planned Class II Bicycle Lane
South San Francisco Ferry Terminal
South San Francisco Caltrain StationExisting Class III Bicycle Route Planned Class III Bicycle Route
Planned Class IV Protected Bicycle Lane Project SiteExisting Class IV Protected Bicycle Lane
DOWNTOWN
EAST OF101
SIERRA POINT
Figure 4.9-3
Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities
751 Gateway Boulevard Project
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020.ICF Graphics … 00662.19 (8-3-2020) JC
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-8 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
l Gateway Boulevard has proposed Class II bicycle lanes between Oyster Point Boulevard and
East Grand Avenue to connect to existing bicycle lanes on both roads; proposed bicycle lanes on
Gateway Boulevard will provide direct access to the project site.
l Poletti Way has a short Class I mixed-use trail connection from the street’s terminus to the
Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection; an extension of the trail is planned to
the new Caltrain station to the south and the Bay Trail to the north (under the Oyster Point
Boulevard overpass).
l Oyster Point Boulevard has Class II bicycle lanes between Gull Drive and Gateway Boulevard;
Class II bicycle lanes are planned for the remainder of Oyster Point Boulevard to connect to
existing bicycle lanes on Sister Cities Boulevard and Airport Boulevard.
l East Grand Avenue has intermittent Class II bicycle lanes in the East of 101 Area. A Class I trail is
planned and will connect the new Caltrain station with planned trails near Forbes Boulevard,
while Class II bicycle lanes are expected to be installed from Gateway Boulevard to DNA Way by
summer 2020.
l The Bay Trail is a Class I mixed-use trail along the Oyster Point shoreline and Point San Bruno,
part of a planned 400-mile regional trail system encircling the San Francisco Bay shoreline.
Bicyclists primarily access the project site via Gateway Boulevard, Poletti Way, Oyster Point
Boulevard, East Grand Avenue, and/or the Bay Trail. Commute trip lengths, lack of continuous low
stress bicycle facilities, lack of connectivity to residences and transit stations, and topography
present barriers to bicycle commuting to the East of 101 area.
The reconstructed South San Francisco Caltrain station (currently under construction, with
completion expected in late 2020) features a bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing that will connect
the East of 101 area to the upgraded South San Francisco Caltrain station, Downtown South San
Francisco, housing, and commercial services to the west. The undercrossing represents the first non-
motorized connection spanning the Caltrain and U.S. 101 corridors, which are substantial barriers to
east-west bicycle and pedestrian travel.
Additional relevant bicycle plans and policies (e.g., South San Francisco General Plan, East of 101
Mobility 20/20 Plan, South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan) are discussed in Appendix D of this
draft EIR.
4.9.2.6 Emergency Vehicle Access
Emergency vehicles typically use major streets through the study area when heading to and from an
emergency and/or an emergency facility. Arterial roadways allow emergency vehicles to travel at
higher speeds and provide enough clearance space to permit other traffic to maneuver out of the
path of the emergency vehicle and yield the right-of-way. The nearest fire station to the project is
Fire Station 62 at 249 Harbor Way, approximately 0.8 mile south of the project site. Emergency
vehicle access to the project site is primarily from the two driveways on Gateway Boulevard, which
have two travel lanes in each direction.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-9 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
4.9.3 Regulatory Framework
4.9.3.1 State
Senate Bill 743
Senate Bill (SB) 7431 is intended to better align California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
transportation impact analysis practices and mitigation outcomes with the State’s goals to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, encourage infill development, and improve public health through
more active transportation. SB 743 creates several key statewide changes to CEQA as described below.
First, SB 743 requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to establish new
metrics for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority
areas (TPAs) and allows OPR to extend use of these metrics beyond TPAs. OPR selected vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) as the preferred transportation impact metric and applied their discretion to
require its use statewide.
Second, SB 743 establishes that aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential,
or employment center projects on an infill site within a TPA shall not be considered significant
impacts on the environment.
Third, the new CEQA Guidelines that implement SB 743 requirements state that vehicle level of
service (LOS) and similar measures related to auto delay shall not be used as the sole basis for
determining the significance of transportation impacts, and that as of July 1, 2020, this requirement
shall apply statewide, but that until that date, lead agencies may elect to rely on VMT rather than
LOS to analyze transportation impacts.
Finally, SB 743 establishes a new CEQA exemption for a residential, mixed-use, and employment
center project that is a) within a transit priority area, b) consistent with a specific plan for which an
EIR has been certified, and c) consistent with a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). This
exemption requires further review if the project or circumstances changes significantly.
To aid in SB 743 implementation, the following state guidance has been produced.
l OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA2
l California Air Resources Board (CARB)’s 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions and
Relationship to State Climate Goals3
l Caltrans’ Local Development–Intergovernmental Review Program Interim Guidance, Implementing
Caltrans Strategic Management Plan 2015-2020 Consistent with SB 7434
1 Full text of SB 743: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB743
2 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.
December. Available: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf. Accessed: June 10, 2020.
3 California Air Resources Board. 2017. 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State
Climate Goals. January. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-
01/2017_sp_vmt_reductions_jan19.pdf. Accessed: June 10, 2020.
4 Caltrans. 2016. Local Development–Intergovernmental Review Program Interim Guidance, Implementing Caltrans
Strategic Management Plan 2015-2020 Consistent with SB 743. November. Available:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-planning/office-of-smart-mobility-climate-change/sb-743.
Accessed: June 10, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-10 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals provides
recommendations for VMT reduction thresholds that would be necessary to achieve the State’s GHG
reduction goals. CARB finds per-capita light-duty vehicle travel would need to be approximately
16.8 percent lower than existing, and overall per-capita vehicle travel would need to be
approximately 14.3 percent lower than existing levels under that scenario. CARB also acknowledges
that the SCS targets are not sufficient to meet climate goals. As stated in the report, “…the full
reduction needed to meet our climate goals is an approximately 25 percent reduction in statewide
per capita on-road light-duty transportation-related GHG emissions by 2035 relative to 2005.” This
estimate was made with a model that does not fully capture emerging transportation trends such as
a growing e-commerce market, greater use of ridesharing services such as Uber and Lyft, plus future
transitions to autonomous vehicles. As such, the level of VMT reduction necessary to reach the
State’s GHG reduction goals may exceed 25 percent.
OPR considered this research when developing recommended VMT thresholds. In their Technical
Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, OPR recommends that a per-capita or per-
employee VMT that is 15 percent below that of existing development may be a reasonable threshold.
This threshold is based on the abovementioned research documents from CARB as well as evidence
that suggests a 15 percent reduction in VMT is achievable at the project level in a variety of place
types5 and would help the State achieve its climate goals. However, each jurisdiction must apply the
statewide VMT analysis guidance based on available travel data and tools.
As discussed below, the analysis of GHG reduction goals performed by CARB indicates that a
reduction of at least 16.8 percent of light-duty vehicle VMT is necessary to reach statewide goals.
Light-duty VMT is appropriate for the project because most project trips are expected to be light
duty vehicles such as personal automobiles used for commuting. Therefore, 16.8 percent was
applied as the VMT reduction factor for the proposed project.
4.9.3.2 Regional
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 and is authorized to set State and federal funding priorities for
improvements affecting the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadway
system. The C/CAG-designated CMP roadway system in South San Francisco includes State Route
(SR) 82 (El Camino Real), U.S. 101, Interstate (I-)380, and I-280. C/CAG has set the LOS standards for
U.S. 101 segments in the vicinity of the project site.
C/CAG has adopted guidelines to reduce the number of net new vehicle trips generated by new land
development. 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 these
guidelines is that developers and/or tenants will reduce demand for all new peak hour trips
(including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by a development.
5 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures--A
Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. Available:
http://www.capcoa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf.
Accessed: June 10, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-11 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
C/CAG has adopted guidelines as a part of its CMP, which are intended to reduce the regional traffic
impacts of substantive new developments. The guidelines apply to all projects in San Mateo County
that will generate 100 or more net new peak-hour trips on the CMP network and are subject to
CEQA review. C/CAG calls for projects that meet the criteria to determine if a combination of
acceptable measures is possible that has the capacity to “fully reduce,” through the use of a trip
credit system, the demand for net new trips that the project is anticipated to generate on the CMP
roadway network (including the first 100 trips). C/CAG has published a list of mitigation options in a
memorandum. South San Francisco’s TDM ordinance is consistent with CCAG’s ordinance, so by
adhering to the City’s ordinance, the proposed project would also be compliant with CCAG’s
guidelines.
Commute.org
Commute.org is a joint powers authority dedicated to implementing transportation demand
management programs in San Mateo County and providing alternatives to single-occupant auto
travel, including both commuter and community shuttles. A Board of Directors consisting of elected
officials from each of its 17 member cities, including the City of South San Francisco, and one
representative from the County Board of Supervisors governs Commute.org. Commute.org manages
26 shuttle routes in San Mateo County. In South San Francisco, the Commute.org runs seven first-
and last-mile weekday peak hour and direction commuter routes that connect the South San
Francisco Caltrain and BART stations, and the WETA terminal within the East of 101 employment
area.
Caltrain Business Plan
Caltrain is developing the Caltrain Business Plan6 to guide the rail corridor’s growth through year
2040. The Business Plan includes both policy and technical recommendations and will help define
how Caltrain service should grow and evolve in the near-term and long-term to best serve existing
and future passengers. The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, Caltrain’s board of directors,
adopted a 2040 Service Plan Vision7 in October 2019 that calls for increasing peak commute service
to a minimum of eight trains per direction per hour and increased off-peak and weekend service.
4.9.3.3 Local
South San Francisco General Plan
The 1999 South San Francisco General Plan (General Plan) provides a vision for long-range
physical and economic development of the City, provides strategies and specific implementing
actions, and establishes a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public
projects are consistent with the City’s plans and policy standards. The general plan contains a
Transportation Element, which includes policies, programs, and standards to enhance capacity
and provide new linkages to provide “Complete Streets” that are safe, comfortable, and convenient
routes for walking, bicycling, and public transportation to increase use of these modes of
6 Caltrain. Under development. Caltrain Business Plan. Available: https://caltrain2040.org/. Accessed: June 10,
2020.
7 Caltrain. 2019. 2040 Service Plan Vision. October. Available: https://caltrain2040.org/wp-
content/uploads/Caltrain_ServiceVisionFactSheet_V12-1.pdf. Accessed: June 20, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-12 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
transportation, enable active travel as part of daily activities, reduce pollution, help reduce
transportation demand, and meet the needs of all users of the streets, including bicyclists,
children, persons with disabilities, pedestrians, users of public transportation, seniors, youth, and
families, while continuing to maintain a safe and effective transportation system for motorists and
movers of commercial goods. The general plan includes the following policies that are applicable
to transportation and circulation.
l Guiding Principle 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.
l Guiding Principle 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.
l Implementing Policy 4.2-1-10: Design roadway improvements and evaluate development
proposals based on LOS standards.
l Implementing Policy 4.3-I-16: Favor Transportation Systems Management programs that limit
vehicle use over those that extend the commute hour.
On June 10, 2020 the City adopted a VMT threshold in accordance with the Office of Planning and
Research (OPR)’s guidance in implementing Senate Bill 743; the threshold is effective July 1, 2020.
East of 101 Mobility 20/20 Plan
The City’s Mobility 20/20 plan8 analyzes existing and future land use in the East of 101 area, with the
goal of providing a framework for multimodal improvements to the area’s transportation network.
Mobility 20/20 findings and recommendations will be incorporated into the City’s new Shape SSF 2040
General Plan.9 This new general plan envisions reducing VMT and drive-alone mode share while
expanding throughput capacity along major corridors serving core employment areas in the City.
Key project opportunities identified in the City’s Mobility 20/20 plan include U.S. 101 interchange
improvements and secondary north-south arterial connections to Brisbane’s Sierra Point to the
north and the San Francisco International Airport area to the south via a new causeway spanning
San Bruno Channel. The bicycle and pedestrian network would also be substantially upgraded with
separated bikeways, expanded sidewalks, and new pedestrian crosswalks. Mobility 20/20 transit
enhancements include transit-only lanes along the Oyster Point Boulevard corridor complemented
by new or upgraded direct service connections between job centers and regional transit stations.
South San Francisco Complete Streets Policy
In 2012, the City adopted its Complete Streets Policy via Resolution 86-2012. The Complete Streets
Policy’s objective is to serve all street users as articulated in the resolution below.
l 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
8 https://www.ssf.net/government/mobility-20-20
9 https://shapessf.com/about/
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-13 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
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.
The Complete Streets Policy was incorporated into the City’s amended general plan and includes the
following policy related to the project.
l Policy 4.2-I-11: In all street projects include infrastructure that improves transportation options
for pedestrians, bicyclists, and users of public transportation of all ages and abilities.
Incorporate this infrastructure into all construction, reconstruction, retrofit, maintenance,
alteration, and repair of streets, bridges, and other portions of the transportation network.
South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan
The City’s Bicycle Master Plan identifies and prioritizes street improvements to enhance bicycle
access. The plan analyzes bicycle demand and gaps in bicycle facilities and recommends
improvements and programs for implementation as described in the policy below.
l Policy 3.2-1: All development projects shall be required to conform to the Bicycle
Transportation Plan goals, policies and implementation measures.
The City’s Bicycle Master Plan is currently being updated. The current Bicycle Master Plan remains
active until completion and adoption of the new Active South City: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan.
South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan
The City’s Pedestrian Master Plan10 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:
l Policy 3.2: Pedestrian facilities and amenities should be provided at schools, parks, and transit
stops, and shall be required to be provided at private developments, including places of work,
commercial shopping establishments, parks, community facilities and other pedestrian
destinations.
South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Ordinance
The City’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, which is specified in Title 20 of
the City’s Municipal Code in Chapter 20.400, Transportation Demand Management seeks to reduce
the amount of traffic generated by nonresidential development and minimize drive-alone commute
trips. The ordinance establishes a performance target of 28 percent minimum alternative mode
share for all nonresidential projects resulting in more than 100 average daily trips and identifies
higher thresholds for projects requesting a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus.
10 City of South San Francisco. 2011. South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/Home/ShowDocument?id=516. Accessed: June 10, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-14 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Per the ordinance, all projects are required to submit annual mode share surveys. Project sponsors
seeking an FAR bonus are required to submit triennial reports assessing project compliance with
the required alternative mode share target. Where targets are not achieved, the report must include
program modification recommendations and City officials may impose administrative penalties
should subsequent triennial reports indicate mode share targets remain unachieved.
4.9.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
4.9.4.1 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a transportation and
circulation impact if it would do any of the following.
l Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities
l Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) related to VMT;
l Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.g., farm equipment); or
l Result in inadequate emergency access.
In addition to the Appendix G thresholds, City and C/CAG guidance was used to identify the following
relevant thresholds of significance. Under these additional thresholds, the proposed project would have
a transportation and circulation impact if it would do any of the following.
l Cause vehicle queues approaching a given movement downstream of Caltrans freeway facilities to
exceed existing storage space for that movement, or considerably contribute to baseline vehicle
queues that exceed storage space for that movement, resulting in a hazardous condition11
l Produce a detrimental impact to existing bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, or local transit or
shuttle service
4.9.4.2 Approach to Analysis
Potential project impacts to the surrounding transportation system were evaluated for the four
scenarios listed below.
l Scenario 1: Existing Conditions—Existing conditions represent the baseline condition upon which
project impacts are measured. The baseline condition represents existing conditions as of 2019.
l Scenario 2: Existing Plus Project Conditions—Existing plus project conditions represent the
baseline condition with the addition of the project. Traffic volumes for existing plus project
conditions include existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated by the project. Existing plus project
conditions were compared to existing conditions to determine potential immediate project impacts.
11 While SB 743 notes that “traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment”
the freeway on- and off-ramp vehicle queuing criteria was retained to assess potential hazards from project
traffic exceeding ramp storage capacities. Traffic in queue represents congested, stop-and-go conditions; if
queues interfere with through, or free-moving traffic streams on a freeway mainline, hazards could arise due
to the differences in speed.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-15 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
l Scenario 3: Cumulative Conditions—Cumulative conditions include transportation demand
resulting from reasonably foreseeable land use changes and conditions associated with funded
transportation projects by 2040. Cumulative conditions are based on land use and
transportation conditions included in Plan Bay Area 2040,12 as represented in the C/CAG-VTA
Bi-County Transportation Demand Model (C/CAG model). The C/CAG model is a four-step trip-
based travel demand model designed to forecast how land uses and transportation interact
within San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.
l Scenario 4: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions—Cumulative plus project conditions
represent the cumulative condition with the addition of the project to determine the extent to
which the project would contribute to long-term cumulative transportation impacts.
A description of the methods used to develop the VMT threshold and estimate the amount of
traffic and VMT generated by the project is provided below.
Vehicle Miles Traveled
VMT Threshold
As a part of the Shape SSF 2040 General Plan, the City is updating its transportation impact
thresholds. On June 10th, 2002, the City adopted a VMT threshold in accordance with OPR’s
guidance for implementing SB 743 requirements, which has become effective on July 1, 2020. The
adopted VMT threshold for land use projects determines that a project would have a significant
transportation impact if the VMT for the project would be 15 percent below the applicable
baseline VMT.
At the time of this project analysis, the City had not yet adopted a VMT threshold. In accordance
with OPR guidance, an interim threshold was developed for this project based on the metrics and
methods described in detail in Appendix D and summarized here.
As discussed above, analysis of GHG reduction goals performed by CARB indicates that a reduction
of at least 16.8 percent of light-duty vehicle VMT is necessary to reach statewide goals. Light-duty
VMT is appropriate for the project because most project trips are expected to be light duty
vehicles such as personal automobiles used for commuting. Therefore, 16.8 percent was applied
as the VMT reduction factor. This threshold is more stringent than the City’s recently adopted
threshold of 15 percent below baseline VMT.
Home-based work (HBW) VMT per employee was identified as the project analysis metric. This
metric follows OPR guidance for measuring office project VMT and helps compare the project’s
relative transportation efficiency to the regional average. OPR recommends using a regional
geography for office projects. Neither the local City or county level geographic area is robust
enough to capture the full length of most trips or evaluate the interaction of the project in a
regional setting, as many commute trips exceed the City and county borders. As a result, the nine-
county Bay Area region was selected as the geographic boundary for the assessment as shown in
Table 4.9-1.
12 Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments. 2019. Plan Bay Area 2040
Final Plan. Available: http://2040.planbayarea.org/. Accessed: June 10, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-16 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Table 4.9-1. Home-Based Work Vehicle Miles Traveled Per Employee Thresholds
Location Total HBW VMT (a) Total Employees (b)
HBW VMT per
Employee
(a)/(b)
Bay Area Region
(Existing)
63,336,200 4,461,670 14.2
VMT Reduction Factor (16.8%)
HBW VMT Per Employee Threshold 11.8
Bay Area Region
(2040 Cumulative)
78,980,240 5,406,190 14.6
VMT Reduction Factor (16.8%)
HBW VMT Per Employee Threshold 12.1
Source: Fehr & Peers 2020; C/CAG-VTA Bi-County Transportation Demand Model, 2019.
Notes: HBW = home-based work; VMT = vehicle miles traveled
Based on these factors, a significant impact would occur if existing HBW VMT per employee in the
travel demand model’s transportation analysis zone (TAZ) results in greater than 11.8 HBW VMT
per employee under existing conditions. This is based on a reduction of 16.8 percent below the
existing regional average of 14.2 HBW VMT per employee as shown in Table 4.9-1. A TAZ is the
smallest resolution available in the C/CAG model, and represents a scale somewhere between a
census block group and a census tract. Each TAZ included in the model contains information
related to the existing and proposed land uses and transportation options for zone. Therefore, the
transportation properties of the project’s TAZ are an appropriate proxy for transportation
properties of the project itself.
Project VMT Generation
Project-generated HBW VMT per employee is calculated based on the average HBW VMT
generated by employees working in the C/CAG travel demand model TAZ where the project is
located divided by the number of jobs within the TAZ as described in Appendix D. Based on this
methodology, the project would generate 16.2 HBW VMT per employee under existing conditions.
The C/CAG model variables are presented in Table 4.9-2.
Table 4.9-2. Home-Based Work Vehicle Miles Traveled per Employee
Location Total HBW VMT (a) Total Employment (b)
HBW VMT per Employee
(a)/(b)
East of 101 Area 581,977 35,831 16.2
Bay Area Region 63,336,203 4,461,670 14.2
VMT Reduction Factor (16.8%)
VMT Per Employee Threshold 11.8
Source: Fehr & Peers 2020; C/CAG-VTA Bi-County Transportation Demand Model, 2019.
Notes: HBW = home-based work; VMT = vehicle miles traveled
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-17 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, the project is required to implement a TDM
program. While SSFCM Section 20.400 does not call out a specific alternate mode-share (AMS)
requirement for the Gateway Specific Plan District, similar zoning districts, and General Plan
requirements in the East of 101 area require an AMS of 35 – 40 percent for development of a Floor
Area Ratio of 1.0 – 1.25, and this standard would be applied to the 751 Gateway project, consistent
with the City’s requirements, and policies to increase AMS and decrease single occupancy vehicle
traffic. While the City interprets the regulatory TDM requirements to require a 35 – 40 percent AMS,
the CEQA analysis assumes a higher and more conservative drive-alone share (AMS of 26 percent),
consistent with the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) model,
and analysis for other similar projects within the City and the region. The proposed project would
include a flexible TDM plan to achieve an alternative mode use goal13 of 35 percent for the proposed
project within the first three years of reporting, with an increase to 40 percent in the fourth year of
reporting.14 However, reductions in non-drive alone mode share are not necessarily
interchangeable with VMT reductions on a percentage-point-for-percentage-point basis. First,
mode share targets do not necessarily correlate with trip generation and trip length; although
many East of 101 employers meet their non-drive alone mode share targets, vehicle trip
generation and trip lengths are similar (if not higher than) regional averages based on the C/CAG
travel demand model outputs. Second, a non-drive alone mode share target includes passenger
vehicle-based modes such as vanpools and carpools, which may dilute its effectiveness for VMT
reductions. Third, VMT is a measure of daily activity for all trips, whereas accounting for non-
drive alone mode share targets focuses only on commute trips. Therefore, project HBW VMT per
employee was not adjusted based on the project TDM program’s plan. This analysis therefore
represents a conservatively high estimate of project VMT, because it does not fully account for the
VMT reductions that may occur as a result of the project’s TDM program.
The project’s effect on VMT describes changes in VMT generation from neighboring land uses by
comparing area VMT for “no project” and “plus project” scenarios. Given the similarities in the
project land uses to those of the surrounding land uses (e.g., location that generates higher than
average VMT for the region, single-use employment centers, and limited non-auto access), the
analysis of project-generated HBW VMT per employee based on East of 101 Area VMT provides a
reasonable estimation of the environmental consequences associated with the project’s effect on
VMT.
While land use changes are currently under consideration for the Shape SSF 2040 General Plan, the
current general plan and the current City land use policy envisions continued single-use
employment within the East of 101 area; therefore, VMT is unlikely to be substantially reduced
from existing conditions, although implementation of programmatic TDM measures and
improving first- and last-mile transit connections can help to increase transit use, and reduce
single-occupancy vehicle trips.
13 The alternative mode use goal indicates the percentage of total trips that would use alternative transportation
modes rather than single-occupancy vehicle trips.
14 Silvani Transportation Consulting. 2019. Proposed Transportation Management Plan: 751 Gateway Blvd., South
San Francisco CA. December.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-18 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Overall, the existing land use and transportation characteristics of the East of 101 area contribute
to the East of 101 area’s higher-than-average VMT per employee. As a single-use employment
center, all home-based trips begin or end outside the East of 101 area, requiring longer travel
along auto-oriented roadways or via transit service that is currently not competitive with the
automobile. In contrast, mixed-use settings near transit can further reduce trip generation and
trip lengths while increasing the use of non-auto modes.
Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment
The amount of traffic added to the roadway system by the project was estimated using a three-
step process: trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment. The first step estimates the
amount of traffic that would be generated once the project was built and fully occupied. The
second step estimates the direction of travel to and from the project site. The third step assigns
project trips to specific street segments and intersection turning movements. Analysis results are
described below.
Project Trip Generation
Project traffic added to the surrounding roadway system was estimated using data collected in fall
2019 for the existing office and research and development (R&D) campus adjacent to the project
site. Local travel demand data were used instead of national averages because of the unique
conditions in the East of 101 area, including peak period spreading, employment land use mix, and
higher rates of participation in TDM programs. In contrast, national trip generation databases
such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th edition15 is
generally collected at suburban sites with limited non-auto access and less congestion.
Driveway count data were collected at nine driveways at the surrounding office/R&D campus
representing trip generation for nine existing buildings and 1.4 million square feet. A trip
generation rate for existing uses was developed and applied to the project square footage to
calculate project travel demand. The sample site driveway traffic data are presented in
Appendix D.
The project trip generation rate was derived from the site-specific data and was multiplied by the
size of the project in gross square feet to determine daily, weekday morning, evening peak hour
vehicle trip generation volume (Table 4.9-3). Vehicle trips are summarized for the entire project
site (including both the existing 701 Gateway building, which would remain, and the proposed
751 Gateway building), and for each building individually. The net new project trips are for the
proposed 751 Gateway only, and the trip generation analysis subtracted existing trips associated
with the existing 701 Gateway building from the project site trips. According to this trip
generation analysis, the new 208,800 square foot office building would generate approximately
1,784 daily, 206 morning peak hour (i.e., 143 inbound and 64 outbound), and 172 evening peak
hour (i.e., 45 inbound and 127 outbound) net new trips.
15 Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2017. Trip Generation Manual. 10th edition. September. Available:
https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/trip-and-parking-generation/trip-generation-10th-edition-
formats/. Accessed: June 10, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-19 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Table 4.9-3. Project Trip Generation
Land Use Size (KSF)
Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Total Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Rate
Total Trips for the project site
(701 and 751 Gateway Boulevard buildings)
382.3 3,267 8.6 262 116 378 0.99 82 232 315 0.82
Existing Trips for the 701 Gateway Boulevard
building, which would remain
173.5 1,483 119 53 172 37 105 143
Net New Trips for the proposed
751 Gateway Boulevard building
208.8 1,784 143 64 206 45 127 172
Source: Fehr & Peers 2020.
Notes: Trip generation rates based on 2019 driveway count data collected at the Gateway Campus in the East of 101 area.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-20 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Project Trip Distribution
The directions of approach and departure for the project traffic were estimated based on C/CAG’s
travel demand model and the City’ travel demand model, which has greater sensitivity to local
travel patterns. Figure 4.9-4 shows the general trip distribution pattern for the project. Most of the
project traffic is split between the north (33 percent) and south (49 percent) U.S. 101 approaches
to the East of 101 area. Within South San Francisco, approximately 16 percent of project traffic is
projected to come from west of U.S. 101, while 2 percent is expected to come from within the East
of 101 area.
Project Trip Assignment
Project trips were assigned to the roadway system based on the directions of approach and
departure discussed above. The locations of complementary land uses and local knowledge of the
study area determined specific trip routes. Figure 4.9-5 shows the expected increases in peak hour
intersection turning movement volume due to the project.
Project traffic would access the roadway network via two driveways along the Gateway Boulevard
frontage, to the south of Oyster Point Boulevard. Inbound vehicular traffic accesses the project site
via Gateway Boulevard from both sides and outbound traffic departs via Gateway Boulevard in the
opposite direction.
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 Highway Capacity Manual.
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.
Freeway Ramp Queuing Analysis
Three freeway off-ramps were selected for analysis based on local traffic patterns, project trip
assignment forecasts, input from the City, and engineering judgment to assess conditions where
the addition of project trips may result in hazards to road users. The study locations are listed
below.
l U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp at Oyster Point Boulevard
l U.S. 101 northbound off-ramp at East Grand Avenue
l U.S. 101 northbound off-ramp at Dubuque Avenue
In November 2019, traffic counts were collected at the approaches and departures to the three
freeway off-ramps during the morning (i.e., from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m.) and evening (i.e., from 4:00 to
6:00 p.m.) peak periods. During all counts, weather conditions were generally dry, no unusual
traffic patterns were observed, and the South San Francisco Unified School District was in regular
session.
YXZ280
£[101
N:\Projects\2019_Projects\SF19-1076_499ForbesBlvd\Graphics\AIProject Trip Distribution
Figure 3-1
DOWNTOWN
EAST OF101
SIERRA POINT
Oyster Point Blvd
Gateway BlvdForbes Blvd
East
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
DNA WayAirport BlvdLinden AveGrand A
v
e
Allerton AveSister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Eccles AveMarina Blvd
San Bruno Mountain State & County Park
Oyster Point Channel
San BrunoChannel
Project Site
Trip Distribution
33%
2%
16%
49%
Figure 4.9-4
Project Trip Distribution
751 Gateway Boulevard Project
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020.ICF Graphics … 00662.19 (8-3-2020) JC
Figure 3-2Project Trip Assignment
0 (0)
9 (3)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (4)
0 (0)
1. Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd.0 (0)0 (0)54 (17)0 (0)
9 (3)
0 (0)
21 (42)
2 (4)
13 (25)
2. 101 NB On Ramp/Dubuque Ave./Oyster Point Blvd.0 (0)5 (1)0 (0)49 (15)
0 (0)
0 (0)13 (25)0 (0)3. Dubuque Ave./101 NB Off Ramp/101 SB On Ramp
0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
9 (3)
0 (0)0 (0)30 (0)5 (1)4 (8)
4 (8)
6 (12)
6. Airport Blvd./Grand Ave.0 (0)23 (7)0 (0)0 (0)28 (56)0 (0)7. Gateway Business Pkwy/Larkspur Landing Dwy
23 (7)0 (0)0 (0)36 (71)
0 (0)
28 (56)110 (35)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
8. Gateway/Coporate Dwy36 (71)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
0 (0)
63 (20)
0 (0)
47 (15)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
4. Future 101 NB Ramp/Gateway Blvd/Oyster Point Blvd.
Sister Cities Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.Airport Blvd.101 NB Off Ramp/101 SB On Ramp Dubuque Ave.Grand Ave.Airport Blvd.Gateway Business Pkwy Larkspur Landing DwyGateway Coporate Dwy GatewayOyster Point Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.GatewayFuture 101 NB Ramp/Gateway Blvd0 (0)11 (3)0 (0)9 (3)
0 (0)
0 (0)14 (28)13 (25)0 (0)0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
5. Gateway Blvd./E. Grand Ave.
E. Grand Ave.Gateway Blvd.Oyster Point Blvd.101 NB On RampDubuque Ave.acff
acceaaccfaaceaacffaacefaacff ae
abfcffdaccf
beabcfaacface
aeaceaeace
bfacedaabf
acce ccfbeacceace
acceaceacce#Study Intersection
Lane ConfigurationacfPeak Hour Traffic VolumeAM (PM)
STOP Stop Sign
Signalized
LEGEND0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
Figure 4.9-5
Project Trip Assignment
751 Gateway Boulevard Project
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020.ICF Graphics … 00662.19 (8-3-2020) JC
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-23 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
The morning peak hour was selected as the analysis period since the project, and the East of 101
area generally generate the majority of inbound trips during the morning peak period where
inbound trips would be using the freeway off-ramps. Conversely, during the evening peak period,
the study off-ramps have significantly lower volumes, and few project trips would use the off-ramps.
Therefore, the off-ramps queuing analysis performed for the morning peak hour is expected to
encompass all potential impacts.
4.9.4.3 Impact Evaluation
Impact TR-1: Existing HBW VMT per employee in the travel demand model TAZ that
encompasses the project result in greater than 16.8 percent below the regional average HBW
VMT per employee under existing plus project and cumulative plus project conditions.
(Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation)
As shown in Table 4.9-4, using the average VMT in the East of 101 area, the project would generate
approximately 16.2 HBW VMT per employee under existing conditions, which is greater than the
regional average total of 14.2 HBW VMT per employee and the per-employee significance threshold of
11.8 HBW VMT (based on a VMT rate of a reduction of 16.8 percent below the regional average).
Therefore, the project would have a significant impact on VMT under existing plus project conditions.
Under cumulative conditions, the project would generate approximately 14.0 HBW VMT per
employee, which is similar to the cumulative regional average total of 14.6 HBW VMT per employee
but greater than the per-employee significance threshold of 12.1 HBW VMT per employee (based on
a reduction of 16.8 percent below the cumulative regional average HBW VMT per employee).
Therefore, the project would be a cumulatively considerable contributor to a cumulatively
significant impact on VMT under cumulative plus project conditions. A comparison between the
Bay Area region and East of 101 per-employee VMT averages under Existing and Cumulative
conditions is presented in Table 4.9-4.
Table 4.9-4. VMT Impact Determination
Location Total HBW VMT (a) Total Employment (b)
HBW VMT
per Employee
(a)/(b)
Bay Area 63,336,203 4,461,670 14.2
East of 101 Area 581,997 35,831 16.2
VMT Per Employee Threshold (16.8% below regional average) 11.8
Project VMT Impact? Yes
Bay Area 78,980,239 5,406,188 14.6
East of 101 Area 736,810 52,660 14.0
VMT Per Employee Threshold (16.8% below regional average) 12.1
Cumulatively Considerable Contributor to Significant Cumulative VMT Impact? Yes
Source: Fehr & Peers 2020; C/CAG-VTA Bi-County Transportation Demand Model, 2019.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-24 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
First- and last-mile transit connections and active transportation improvements would likely yield the
greatest project VMT reductions. Mitigation Measure TR-1, First- and Last-mile Strategies, would
support and enhance the effectiveness of the project’s last-mile transit connection strategies, and
decrease use of single-occupancy vehicles. Mitigation Measure TR-1 would be unlikely to substantially
reduce HBW VMT per-employee, but would aid in reducing project auto travel demand. The
components of Mitigation Measure TR-1 are shown in Figure 4.9-6. Mitigation Measure TR-1 includes
some improvements that are not fully funded; as a result their implementation timeline is uncertain in
regard to the project’s construction timeline. Additionally, the mitigation measure is unlikely to reduce
the project’s HBW VMT by 27 percent (i.e., the amount needed to reduce the project’s HBW VMT per
employee to below the applicable thresholds, as shown in Table 4.9-4). Therefore, this impact would
be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
For the off-site improvements where a fair-share contribution is identified, the City would collect
payment from the project sponsor and would allocate those funds for the specific improvements
identified. Specific details of the fair-share contributions would be addressed in the project’s
conditions of approval, but in any case would comply with the Mitigation Fee Act. Specific right-of-
way needs for Mitigation Measure TR-1 are described as part of each off-site improvement, if
applicable. The potential environmental impacts of the first two strategies under Mitigation
Measure TR-1, the upgrades to the Poletti Way sidewalk and the extension of the Class II bicycle
lanes on Gateway Boulevard, would be analyzed under the CEQA review prepared for the Active
South City: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Any impacts associated with the construction of
upgrades to the Poletti Way sidewalk and the extension of the Class II bicycle lanes on Gateway
Boulevard would be temporary and minor in nature (e.g., short-term construction impacts related
to air quality, noise, and traffic), and would not result in a substantial adverse impact on the
environment. The third strategy, participation in first-/last-mile shuttle program(s), would not
increase the number or frequency of shuttles operating, and as such would not result in long-term
air quality, GHG, or noise impacts. If existing shuttle stops are used as part of this strategy, existing
conditions would not change and there would be no effect on the environment. If new shuttle
stops are used, shuttles may need to be re-routed and additional shuttle trips may be required,
but VMT would likely still be reduced because the additional shuttle activity would replace single-
occupancy vehicle trips. Any impacts associated with the construction of new shuttle stops would
be temporary and minor in nature (e.g., short-term construction impacts related to air quality,
noise, and traffic), and would not result in a substantial adverse impact on the environment. The
last strategy, adding directional curb ramps and high visibility crosswalks, would not increase the
number or frequency of shuttles operating, and as such would not result in long-term air quality,
GHG, or noise impacts. Any impacts associated with this strategy would occur during construction
and would be temporary and minor in nature. Thus, no adverse secondary impacts on the
environment would occur with implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-1.
YXZ280
£[101
Project Mitigation Measures
Figure 4-1
DOWNTOWN
EAST OF101
SIERRA POINT
Oyster Point Blvd
Gateway BlvdForbes Blvd
East
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
DNA WayAirport BlvdLinden AveAllerton AveSister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Eccles AvePoletti WayProject Site
Improvement Areas
Caltrain Station
Pay fair-share contribution toward upgrading Poletti Way path to Class I shared path standards, including trail crossing treatments and
connections to Project building entries and bicycle parking facilities.
Pay fair-share contribution toward extending Class II bicycle lanes on Gateway Boulevard between East Grand Avenue and Oyster
Point Boulevard
Participate in TMA or Commute.org shuttle program. Construct new southbound on-street shuttle stop, if desired by Project sponsor.
Provide high visibility crosswalks and directional curb ramps at the Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard and Gateway
Boulevard / Gateway Business Park intersections
1
2
1
2
3 4
3
4
Figure 4.9-6
Components of Mitigation Measure TR-1
751 Gateway Boulevard ProjectICF Graphics … 00662.19 (8-3-2020) JCSource: Fehr & Peers, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-26 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Mitigation Measure TR-1: First- and Last-mile Strategies
The project sponsor shall fund the design and construction of the following off-site
improvements to support the project’s first- and last-mile strategies necessary to support auto
trip reduction measures.
l The project shall provide a fair-share contribution towards the City’s cost of facilities and
improvements identified below for the purposes of upgrading Poletti Way sidewalk to a
Class I shared-use bicycle and pedestrian pathway between the Caltrain Station at East
Grand Avenue, and the street’s northern terminus as identified in the Active South City:
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (currently in draft form), or if said Master Plan is in the
process of being amended or updated at the time of the first building permit for the
project, then the project shall instead provide a fair-share contribution in an equivalent
amount towards improvements and upgrades of equivalent design and purpose, as
determined by the City’s Chief Planner in his reasonable discretion. The Gateway Property
Owners Association is currently in the process of dedicating the Poletti Way right-of-way
to the City and the dedication is expected to be completed by the end of 2020. The
improvement will include curb ramps, curb and gutter, signage, markings, and other
changes necessary to meet Caltrans and City of South San Francisco Class I bikeway
standards. Specific improvements will include upgrades at vehicular crossings (such as
driveways and minor streets) to provide 10-foot minimum wide barrier-free accessible
ramps that permit direct, two-way bicycle and pedestrian travel. Adequate warning and
regulatory signage and markings will be provided to alert road users of potential conflicts
per the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). Existing
pavement conditions will be assessed and reconstructed if necessary, per City of South
San Francisco standards. The project’s obligation to pay a fair share contribution toward
this improvement is contingent upon the City (i) adopting a final Active South City Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan that includes the improvement, or City approval of a plan for
improvements of equivalent design and purpose; (ii) acquiring any necessary right of way;
and (iii) implementing a program that will require fair share contributions from other
developments in the East of 101 area that will benefit from the improvement.
l The project shall provide a fair share contribution toward the City’s cost of facilities and
improvements identified below for the purposes of extending Class II bicycle lanes on
Gateway Boulevard between East Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard, assuming
1,100 linear feet of frontage. This improvement will include striping new bicycle lanes and
restriping existing lanes. Extending bicycle lanes will support enhanced bicycle access
from south of the project site as identified in the Active South City: Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan (currently in draft form). If said Master Plan is in the process of being
amended or updated at the time of the first building permit for the project, then the
project shall instead provide a fair-share contribution in an equivalent amount towards
improvements and upgrades of equivalent design and purpose, as determined by the
City’s Chief Planner in his reasonable discretion.
l The project shall participate in first-/last-mile shuttle program(s) to Caltrain, BART, and
the ferry terminal. Shuttles may be operated by Commute.org and/or a future East of 101
transportation management agency. The project may provide an on-site loading zone for
potential future private shuttles or pick-up/drop-off operations; however, public shuttle
shall utilize on-street shuttle stops located adjacent to the project site in order to
minimize additional travel time for shuttles. Southbound shuttles on Gateway Boulevard
shall use the existing shuttle stop at the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and the
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-27 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Gateway Business Park driveway (approximately 500 feet south of the project site) or the
project may construct a new southbound shuttle stop along the project frontage on
Gateway Boulevard. A new shuttle stop shall accommodate small shuttles and larger buses
and shall be designed in close coordination with the City and the shuttle operators taking
into consideration planned roadway improvements, other new developments, and rider
needs. Northbound shuttles on Gateway Boulevard shall use the future shuttle stop at the
Gateway Business Park driveway (directly across the street from the project site) as
proposed as part of the Gateway of Pacific project.
l The project shall provide a more direct connection to on-street shuttle stops by adding
directional curb ramps and high visibility crosswalks at the northern leg of the Gateway
Boulevard/Gateway Business Park driveway/Project driveway intersection. Since no
crosswalk currently existing across the northern leg of this intersection, the project shall
review existing intersection signal timing and adjust if necessary, to accommodate the
new pedestrian phase. Add high-visibility crosswalks on the south side of the Oyster Point
Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection (southern and eastern legs of the
intersection) to improve access to shuttle stops on Oyster Point Boulevard.
Impact TR-2: The proposed project would not cause vehicle queues approaching a given
movement downstream of Caltrans freeway facilities to exceed existing storage space for that
movement or add vehicle trips to existing freeway off-ramp vehicle queues that exceed
storage capacity resulting in a potentially hazardous condition. (Less than Significant)
Table 4.9-5 presents existing weekday morning peak hour vehicle queues at the three U.S. 101 off-
ramp study locations. The project would extend or contribute to queues longer than storage
distances at the U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp at Oyster Point Boulevard. Specifically, the queue
would spill back from the eastbound right turn lane approaching the Oyster Point
Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection. However, the queue would not interfere with the
U.S. 101 freeway mainline as the combined right turn and through queue lengths are less than the
overall 3,100-foot ramp storage distance. The project therefore would not result in a hazardous
condition at this location.
Table 4.9-5. Existing Weekday Morning Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queues
Approach
Lanes
Storage
Distance
Existing Existing Plus Project
Volume Queue Length Volume Queue Length
U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Oyster Point Boulevard (A.M. Peak)
Through 3,100 704 513 704 513
Right 350 319 547 366 650
U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at East Grand Avenue (A.M. Peak)
Left 1,775 131 200 131 200
Right 1,775 639 1,020 639 1,020
U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at Dubuque Avenue (A.M. Peak)
Left/Through 1,000 891 365 940 386
Right 300 74 27 74 27
Notes: Bold type indicates conditions where queue length exceeds intersection movement capacity. Queues do not
take into account downstream spillover from adjacent intersections. Storage distance and queues in feet per lane.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-28 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Table 4.9-6 presents cumulative weekday morning peak hour vehicle queues at the three U.S. 101
off-ramp study locations. The project would extend or contribute to queues longer than storage
distances at the U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp at Oyster Point Boulevard. Specifically, the queue
would spill back from the eastbound right turn lane approaching the Oyster Point
Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection. However, similar to existing plus project conditions,
the queue would not interfere with the U.S. 101 freeway mainline as the combined right turn, and
through queue lengths are less than the overall 3,100-foot ramp storage distance. Cumulative plus
project traffic therefore would not result in a hazardous condition at this location.
The analysis shows that Project vehicle trips that could interfere with the freeway mainline are
concentrated at the U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp at Oyster Point Boulevard and the U.S. 101
northbound off-ramps at East Grand Avenue and Dubuque Avenue, but project trips would not
exceed ramp storage capacities and interfere with the freeway mainline. Therefore, the project
would have a less-than-significant impact on freeway ramp queuing under existing plus project
conditions and a less than cumulatively considerable impact under cumulative plus project
conditions. No mitigation is required.
Table 4.9-6. Cumulative Weekday Morning Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queues
Approach Lanes
Storage
Distance
Cumulative Cumulative Plus Project
Volume Queue Length Volume Queue Length
U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Oyster Point Boulevard (A.M. Peak)
Through 3,100 1,813 1,553 1,813 1,553
Right 350 654 1,162 701 1,255
U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at East Grand Avenue (A.M. Peak)
Left 1,775 216 330 216 330
Right 1,775 683 1,090 683 1,090
U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at Dubuque Avenue (A.M. Peak)
Left/Through 1,000 425 1,317 1,366 442
Right 300 22 374 74 321
Notes: Bold type indicates conditions where queue length exceeds intersection movement capacity. Queues do not
take into account downstream spillover from adjacent intersections. Storage distance and queues in feet per lane.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020.
Impact TR-3: The proposed project would not produce a detrimental impact to existing
bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or conflict with adopted plans and programs. (Less than
Significant)
Construction
Construction activities could potentially interfere with programs, plans, ordinances, or policies if
temporary closures impede roadways, bikeways, or pedestrian paths in a way that prohibits the
achievement of identified goals. Similarly, construction activities could have a detrimental impact on
existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities if temporary closures impede the use of these facilities.
However, no temporary road closures that would affect the public right-of-way would be required
during project construction. While temporary sidewalk rerouting on Gateway Boulevard is expected
and roadway traffic control would be used as needed during construction, both detours would be
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-29 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
temporary in nature and would not fully impede movement or have a sustained detrimental impact
on existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, the project would not produce a detrimental
impact on existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities during construction and construction-related
conflicts with programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system would be
less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Operation
The project would generate additional vehicle trips adjacent to existing sidewalks and bicycle
facilities and would generate some new walking and bicycling trips. However, the project would not
worsen existing or planned bicycle or pedestrian facilities. The project includes both long-term
protected (i.e., Class I) and short-term (Class II) bicycle parking spaces in compliance with the City’s
code requirements. Class I bicycle parking spaces are typically lockers or restricted access parking
rooms and are intended for employees. Class II bicycle parking spaces are standard bicycle racks
and are mostly intended for visitors. Bicycle racks should be located near entrances where they are
highly visible.
The project would not produce a detrimental impact to existing bicycle or pedestrian facilities or
conflict with adopted policies in adopted City plans summarized in Appendices B through
Appendix D. Therefore, the project’s impacts to walking and bicycling would be less than
significant under existing plus project and less than cumulatively considerable under cumulative
plus project conditions. In addition, operation-related conflicts with programs, plans, ordinances, or
policies addressing the circulation system would be less than significant under existing plus
project conditions and less than cumulatively considerable under cumulative plus project
conditions. No mitigation is required.
Impact TR-4: The proposed project would not produce a detrimental impact to local transit
or shuttle service, or conflict with adopted plans and programs. (Less than Significant with
Mitigation)
The project would generate vehicle trips in the vicinity of existing transit services and would
generate some new transit trips to existing routes. Commute.org shuttles travel along the project’s
frontage on Gateway Boulevard and Caltrain operates less than 1 mile from the project site. The
addition of 206 vehicle trips during the morning peak hour, or three to four new vehicles per
minute, would not create a disruption to transit service surrounding the project site. Project-added
vehicle trips represent approximately 3 percent of entering volumes at study intersections during
the morning and evening peak hours. The project may add net new transit trips to both Caltrain and
Commute.org shuttles, but both operators are expected to be able to handle the additional ridership
either through existing available capacity or additional service.
Other than the proposed on-site shuttle stop (discussed below), the project would not include
features (including the proposed driveways) that would cause disruptions to existing or planned
transit service or transit stops. The project would not conflict with any adopted transit system plans,
guidelines, policies, or standards, as described in Appendix D.
As shown in Figure 3-4 in Chapter 3, Project Description, the project’s site plan identifies an on-site
shuttle stop intended for use by private Gateway shuttles and public Commute.org shuttles. The on-
site shuttle stop placement and access constraints has the potential to add several minutes to
existing Commute.org shuttle routes as described below.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-30 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
l The current Oyster Point BART shuttle and Oyster Point ferry shuttle would need to divert from
its route in a 0.25 mile loop, which would include two new traffic light cycles at the Oyster Point
Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection and the Gateway Boulevard/Gateway Business Park
driveway entrance. The Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection experiences
congested traffic conditions, operating at LOS F in the existing morning peak hour and LOS F in
the cumulative morning and evening peak hours, suggesting these shuttles may experience
substantial delays. New routing and/or additional route creation for both routes are likely as
public and private services consolidate to improve overall frequency and other efficiencies. New
signal timing, new turn lanes and other street improvements planned may also improve
conditions.
l The current Oyster Point Caltrain shuttle would require an extensive route diversion for
northbound shuttles since no access is provided via Gateway Boulevard, forcing shuttles to
navigate through parking lots accessed via Poletti Way to access the shuttle stop. This diversion
would be approximately 0.5 mile via slow speed parking aisles, suggesting this shuttle may also
experience noticeably longer run times. Again, the potential new routing, new stop locations,
and new routes are likely to minimize these additional delays.
Commute.org’s existing shuttle routes already include numerous route diversions, the sum of these
diversions results in longer travel times and wait times, which ultimately discourages transit
ridership. Adding new such diversions should be avoided. The project’s site plan therefore may pose
a significant impact to public shuttle operations. The project sponsor should coordinate closely
with shuttle operators.
Enhanced shuttle routes and stops could potentially look different than the existing Commute.org
network with the consolidation of private and public services. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure TR-1, First- and Last-mile Strategies Improvements, would improve pedestrian
connections with existing and/or new public shuttle stops and enable the project to limit travel time
effects on existing shuttle routes by eliminating additional route diversions. By providing on-street
rather than on-site shuttle stops, Mitigation Measure TR-1 would accommodate first- and last-mile
connections without causing diversions to existing transit routes, which would limit the project’s
effect on travel time for existing shuttles.
The project’s effects under cumulative 2040 conditions would be similar to that of existing
conditions. Improvements to Caltrain via the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project and the
South San Francisco Station Improvement Project would provide enhanced connectivity and
capacity to accommodate project trips. There are no fully funded changes to bicycle, pedestrian, or
transit conditions adjacent to the project site.
Therefore, project transit impact impacts would be less than significant with mitigation under
existing plus project conditions and less than cumulatively considerable under cumulative plus
project conditions.
Impact TR-5: The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature or incompatible uses. (Less than Significant)
The proposed project would not create any new or worsen any existing geometric design features
that cause hazards. The project would use two existing driveways off Gateway Boulevard (one is
right-in right-out only and the other is signalized and full access), but would not change the
geometry of the adjacent roadways. Sight distance at the driveways is not expected to change from
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 4.9-31 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
what is available under existing conditions and is expected to be adequate for drivers exiting the
project site and for pedestrians crossing the driveways. Any future vegetation located in the sight
triangles at driveways would be maintained to prevent restricting drivers’ sight distance when
exiting the driveways. The project would not include any uses that are incompatible with the
surrounding land use or the existing roadway system. Therefore, the project is not expected to result
in a substantial increase to hazards, and the project’s impacts to hazards would be less than
significant under existing plus project conditions and less than cumulatively considerable under
cumulative plus project conditions. No mitigation is required.
Impact TR-6: The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. (Less
than Significant)
Vehicle trips generated by the project would represent a small percentage of overall daily and peak
hour traffic on roadways and freeways in the study area. The project would generate 206 morning
peak hour and 172 evening peak hour net new vehicle trips, which are distributed to study
intersections. Project-added vehicle trips represent approximately 3 percent of entering volumes at
study intersections during peak hours. The project would not include features that would alter
emergency vehicle access routes or roadway facilities; fire and police vehicles would continue to
have access to all facilities around the entire City. Upon construction, emergency vehicles would
have full access to the project site. Therefore, the project would result in adequate emergency
access, and the project’s impacts to emergency access would be less than significant under existing
plus project conditions and less than cumulatively considerable under cumulative plus project
conditions. No mitigation is required.
4.9.4.4 Cumulative Impacts
The impact evaluation above considered cumulative plus project conditions; as a result, the
analysis above considers cumulative impacts.