Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02_Executive_Summary 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-1 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Chapter 2 Executive Summary This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed 751 Gateway Boulevard Project (proposed project) in the City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California (City). As required by Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines, this summary chapter is intended to highlight major areas of importance in the environmental analysis. Following the summary description of the proposed project, a summary table presents the environmental impacts of the proposed project, and mitigation measures identified to reduce significant impacts. Following the summary table is a description of the alternatives to the proposed project that are addressed in this EIR, including a description of the environmentally superior alternative. The final subsection in this chapter is a summary of environmental issues to be resolved and areas of known controversy. 2.1 Summary Description This draft EIR analyzes the potential for environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed 751 Gateway Boulevard Project. The proposed project would involve the redevelopment of an approximately 7.4-acre, irregularly shaped site within the City of South San Francisco’s Gateway Specific Plan planning area with a research and development (R&D) facility and office building. The project site is in an area referred to as the Gateway Campus (consisting of eight buildings at 601, 611, and 651 Gateway Boulevard; 681 to 685 Gateway Boulevard; 701 Gateway Boulevard; 801 Gateway Boulevard; and 901 to 951 Gateway Boulevard). The project site is bounded by a commercial and office building (901 Gateway Boulevard) and a surface parking lot to the north, Gateway Boulevard to the east, a surface parking lot to the south, and commercial and office buildings to the west. The 7.4-acre project site consists of two parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 015-024-290 and 015-024-360). The project site is currently occupied by an existing 6-story, approximately 176,235-square foot (sf) office building at 701 Gateway Boulevard and a surface parking lot containing approximately 558 parking spaces. The project sponsor is 701 Gateway Center LLC. The Lead Agency is the City of South San Francisco. The proposed project would require entitlements to enable development of the project site, including, but not limited to, design review, precise plan approval, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan approval, and a Conditional Use Permit required for a parking reduction. The proposed project would maintain the existing zoning designation of Zone IV under the Gateway Specific Plan District. The existing zoning allows for development at a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.25, or a maximum of 402,930 sf, within the project site. The building at 701 Gateway Boulevard is approximately 170,235 sf. Based on the zoning, 232,695 sf of unrealized FAR remains available for the project site, and the proposed project would utilize a portion of that unrealized FAR. The total proposed FAR for the site, including both the existing building at 701 Gateway Boulevard and the proposed building at 751 Gateway Boulevard, would be 1.18. City of South San Francisco Executive Summary 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-2 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 The proposed building would be constructed on the site of an existing surface parking lot. The proposed project involves the construction of a 148-foot-tall, seven-story building with approximately 208,800 sf of usable space (60 percent R&D uses, and 40 percent office uses). The existing building at 701 Gateway Boulevard would remain. The ground floor of the proposed building would include amenity space and a “through lobby” with access from the north and south. In addition, an entry plaza and landscaped visitor lot would be constructed north of the proposed building. An entrance and screened service yard would be constructed south of the proposed building. Furthermore, the proposed project would also improve pedestrian connections between the nearby Gateway Campus buildings at 701, 901, 951, and 801 Gateway Boulevard, and would provide a total of 418 surface parking spaces on-site (including 42 parking spaces in a lot north of the proposed building) for use of the tenants on-site and within the Gateway Campus. Vehicular access to the project site would be via two existing driveways from Gateway Boulevard. Construction of the proposed project, if the related entitlements are approved by the City, would begin in 2020 over the course of 18 months, with an anticipated completion date in 2021. Construction activities would include the demolition of the existing surface parking lots and removal of trees and vegetation, which would be replaced in accordance with the project’s landscape plan and consistent with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. Refer to Chapter 3, Project Description, for a detailed description of the p roject’s components. 2.2 751 Gateway Boulevard Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 2-1 provides an overview of the following: • Environmental impacts with the potential to occur as a result of the proposed project; • Level of significance of the environmental impacts before implementation of any applicable mitigation measures; ¡ NI: No Impact ¡ LTS: Less than Significant ¡ LTSM: Less than Significant with Mitigation ¡ S: Significant ¡ SUM: Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation • Mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts; and • The level of significance for each impact after the mitigation measures are implemented. A detailed description of project impacts and mitigation measures are discussed in Chapter 4, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, of this document. City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-3 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Table 2-1. Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation Aesthetics (refer to Section 4.10, Less-than-Significant Impacts) Impact AES-1: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. LTS None required. LTS Impact AES-2: The proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. NI None required. NI Impact AES-3: The proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. LTS None required. LTS Impact AES-4: The proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. LTS None required. LTS Impact C-AES-1: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on aesthetics. LTS None required. LTS Agriculture and Forest Resources (refer to Section 4.10, Less-than-Significant Impacts) Impact AG-1: The proposed project would not convert designated Farmland under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, nor would it conflict with any existing agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract, nor would it involve any changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of designated farmland. NI None required. NI City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-4 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation Impact AG-2: The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, nor would it result in the loss or conversion of forestland to non- forest uses. NI None required. NI Impact C-AG-1: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on agricultural or forest resources. NI None required. NI Air Quality Impact AQ-1: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. LTS None required. LTS Impact AQ-2: The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the project region is classified as nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Construction: S Operation: LTS Construction: Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Use Clean Diesel-Powered Equipment during Construction to Control Construction-Related NOX Emissions The project sponsor shall ensure that all off-road diesel- powered equipment used during construction is equipped with EPA-approved Tier 4 Final engines. The construction contractor shall submit evidence of the use of EPA- approved Tier 4 Final engines or cleaner for project construction to the City prior to the commencement of construction activities. Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Implement BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures The project sponsor shall require all construction contractors to implement the basic construction mitigation measures recommended by BAAQMD. The emissions reduction measures shall include, at a minimum, the following: Construction: LTSM Operation: LTS City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-5 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation l All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times a day. l All haul trucks shall be covered when transporting soil, sand, or other loose material offsite. l All visible mud or dirt track-out material on adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet-power vacuum-type street sweepers at least once a day. The use of dry-power sweeping is prohibited. l All vehicle speeds shall be limited to 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads. l All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks that are to be paved shall be paved as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading, unless seeding or a soil binder is used. l All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible-emissions evaluator. l Idling times shall be minimized, either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure). l Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Operation: None required. City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-6 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation Impact AQ-3: The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Construction: S Operation: LTS Construction: Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, above. Operation: None required. Construction: LTSM Operation: LTS Impact AQ-4: The proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. LTS None required. LTS Impact C-AQ-1: The proposed project in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on air quality plan consistency. LTS None required. LTS Impact C-AQ-2: The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts related to a net increase in criteria pollutants for which the region is in nonattainment for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. S Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, above. LTSM Impact C-AQ-3: The proposed project in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not contribute to cumulative health risks for sensitive receptors. S Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, above. LTSM Impact C-AQ-4: The proposed project in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not contribute to emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. LTS None required. LTS City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-7 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation Biological Resources Impact BIO-1: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. S Mitigation Measure BI-1: Preconstuction Nesting Bird Surveys and Buffer Areas The project sponsor shall protect nesting birds and their nests during construction by implementation of the following measures: a. To the extent feasible, conduct initial activities, including, but not limited to, vegetation removal, tree trimming or removal, ground disturbance, building or parking lot demolition, site grading, and other construction activities which may compromise breeding birds or the success of their nests outside the nesting season (February 15–September 15). b. If construction occurs during the bird nesting season, a qualified wildlife biologist* shall conduct a nesting bird preconstruction survey within 14 days prior to the start of construction or demolition at areas that have not been previously disturbed by project activities or after any construction breaks of 14 days or more. The survey shall be performed within 100 feet of the applicable construction phase area in order to locate any active nests of passerine species and within 300 feet of the applicable construction phase area to locate any active raptor (birds of prey) nests, and this survey shall be of those areas that constitute suitable habitat for these species. c. If active nests are located during the preconstruction nesting bird survey, a qualified biologist shall determine if the schedule of construction activities could affect the active nests; if so, the following measures would apply: 1. If the qualified biologist determines that construction is not likely to affect an active nest, construction may proceed without restriction; LTSM City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-8 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation however, a qualified biologist shall regularly monitor the nest at a frequency determined appropriate for the surrounding construction activity to confirm there is no adverse effect. Spot- check monitoring frequency would be determined on a nest-by-nest basis, considering the particular construction activity, duration, proximity to the nest, and physical barriers that may screen activity from the nest. 2. If it is determined that construction may cause abandonment of an active nest, the qualified biologist shall establish a no-disturbance buffer around the nest(s), and all project work shall halt within the buffer to avoid disturbance or destruction until a qualified biologist determines that the nest is no longer active. Typically, buffer distances are 100 feet for passerines and 300 feet for raptors; however the buffers may be shortened if an obstruction, such as a building, is within line-of-sight between the nest and construction. 3. Modifying nest buffer distances, allowing certain construction activities within the buffer, and/or modifying construction methods in proximity to active nests shall be approved by the qualified biologist and in coordination with the Planning Division. To the extent necessary to remove or relocate an active nest, such removal or relocation shall be coordinated with the Planning Division, and the removal or relocation shall be in compliance with the California Fish and Game Code and other applicable laws. 4. Any work that must occur within established no- disturbance buffers around active nests shall be monitored by a qualified biologist. If adverse City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-9 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation effects in response to project work within the buffer are observed and could compromise the nest, work within the no-disturbance buffer(s) shall halt until the nest occupants have fledged. 5. Any birds that begin nesting within the project area and survey buffers amid construction activities are assumed to be habituated to construction-related or similar noise and disturbance levels. Work may proceed around these active nests subject to Measure c.2 above. * The experience requirements for a “qualified biologist” shall include a minimum of 4 years of academic training and professional experience in biological sciences and related resource management activities, and a minimum of 2 years of experience conducting surveys for each species that may be present within the project area. Impact BIO-2: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. NI None required. NI Impact BIO-3: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands, including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pools, coastal areas, etc., through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. NI None required. NI Impact BIO-4: The proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. S Implement Mitigation Measure BI-1, above. Mitigation Measure BI-2: Lighting Measures to Reduce Impacts on Birds During design, the project sponsor shall ensure that a qualified biologist experienced with bird strikes and building/lighting design issues shall identify lighting- LTSM City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-10 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation related measures to minimize the effects of the building’s lighting on birds. The project sponsor shall incorporate such measures, which may include the following and/or other measures, into the building’s design and operation. a. Use strobe or flashing lights in place of continuously burning lights for obstruction lighting. Use flashing white lights rather than continuous light, red light, or rotating beams. b. Install shields onto light sources not necessary for air traffic to direct light towards the ground. c. Extinguish all exterior lighting (i.e., rooftop floods, perimeter spots) not required for public safety. d. When interior or exterior lights must be left on at night, the operator of the buildings shall examine and adopt alternatives to bright, all-night, floor-wide lighting, which may include installing motion-sensitive lighting, using desk lamps and task lighting, reprogramming timers, or using lower-intensity lighting. e. Windows or window treatments that reduce transmission of light out of the building shall be implemented to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure BI-3: Building Design Measures to Minimize Bird Strike Risk During design, the project sponsor shall ensure that a qualified biologist experienced with bird strikes and building/lighting design issues shall identify measures related to the external appearance of the building to minimize the risk of bird strikes. The project sponsor shall incorporate such measures, which may include the following and/or other measures, into the building’s design. a. Minimize the extent of glazing. b. Use low-reflective glass and/or patterned or fritted glass. City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-11 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation c. Use window films, mullions, blinds, or other internal or external features to “break up” reflective surfaces rather than having large, uninterrupted areas of surfaces that reflect, and thus to a bird may not appear noticeably different from, vegetation or the sky. Impact BIO-5: The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. LTS None required. LTS Impact BIO-6: The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. NI None required. NI Impact C-BIO-1: The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts on biological resources. S Implement Mitigation Measures BI-1, BI-2, and BI-3, above. LTSM Cultural Resources Impact CR-1: The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, pursuant to Section 15064.5. NI None required. NI Impact CR-2: The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, pursuant to Section 15064.5. S Mitigation Measure CR-1: Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) The project applicant shall ensure that a qualified archaeologist shall conduct a WEAP training for all construction personnel on the project site prior to construction and ground-disturbing activities. The training shall include basic information about the types of artifacts that might be encountered during construction activities, and procedures to follow in the event of a discovery. This training shall be provided for any additional personnel added to the project even after the initiation of construction and ground-disturbing activities. LTSM City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-12 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation Mitigation Measure CR-2: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find, and Implement Mitigation for Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Resources In the event that previously unidentified archaeological, historical, or tribal resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation, or other construction activity, the project applicant shall cease or ensure the ceasing of all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified professional, and specific measures can be implemented to protect these resources in accordance with sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code. If the find is significant, the project applicant shall ensure that a qualified archaeologist excavate the find in compliance with state law, keeping project delays to a minimum. If the qualified archaeologist determines the find is not significant then proper recordation and identification will ensue and the project shall continue without delay. Impact CR-3: The proposed project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. S Mitigation Measure CR-3: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Remains, and Take Appropriate Action in Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission In the event that human remains are uncovered during site preparation, excavation, or other construction activity, the project applicant shall cease or ensure the ceasing of all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery until the remains have been evaluated by the County Coroner, and appropriate action taken in coordination with the NAHC, in accordance with section 7050.5 of the CHSC or, if the remains are Native American, section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code. LTSM City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-13 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation Impact CR-4: The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined in Public Resource Code Section 21074. S Implement Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2, above. LTSM Impact C-CR-1: The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts on archeological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources. S Implement Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3, above. LTSM Energy Impact EN-1: The proposed project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. Construction: S Operation: LTS Construction: Implement Mitigation Measure GHG-1, below. Operation: None required. Construction: LTSM Operation: LTS Impact EN-2: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. LTS None required. LTS Impact C-EN-1: The proposed project in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction or operation. LTS None required. LTS Impact C-EN-2: The proposed project in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. LTS None required. LTS City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-14 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation Geology and Soils Impact GEO-1: The proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismically related ground failure, including liquefaction, or landslides. LTS None required. LTS Impact GEO-2: The proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. LTS None required. LTS Impact GEO-3: The proposed project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project. LTS None required. LTS Impact GEO-4: The proposed project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. LTS None required. LTS Impact GEO-5: The proposed project would not have soils that would be incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. NI None required. NI Impact GEO-6: The proposed project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource on site or unique geologic feature. S Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find, and Implement Mitigation for Paleontological Resources In the event that previously unidentified paleontological resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation, or other construction activity, the project sponsor shall cease or ensure that all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery cease until the resources have LTSM City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-15 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation been evaluated by a qualified professional, and specific measures can be implemented to protect these resources in accordance with sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code. If the find is significant, a qualified paleontologist shall excavate the find in compliance with state law, keeping project delays to a minimum. If the qualified paleontologist determines the find is not significant then proper recordation and identification shall ensue and the project will continue without delay. Impact C-GEO-1: The project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on geology and soils. LTS None required. LTS Impact C-GEO-2: The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts on paleontological resources. S Implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1, above. LTSM Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact GHG-1a: The proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have significant impact on the environment during construction. S Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Require Implementation of BAAQMD-recommended Construction BMPs The project sponsor shall require its contractors, as a condition in contracts (e.g., standard specifications), to reduce construction-related GHG emissions by implementing BAAQMD’s recommended BMPs as set forth in BAAQMD’s 2017 CEQA Guidelines, including (but not limited to) the following measures.1 l Ensure alternative-fuel (e.g. biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment make up at least 15 percent of the fleet; LTSM 1 Ibid. City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-16 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation l Use local building materials (at least 10 percent) sourced from within 100 miles of the planning area; and l Recycle and reuse at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials. The project sponsor shall submit evidence of compliance to the city prior to the start of construction. Impact GHG-1b: The proposed project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment during operation. S Implement Mitigation Measure TR-1, below. Mitigation Measure GHG-2: Operational GHG Reduction Measures The project sponsor shall: l Plant 44 additional trees on existing surface parking lots; and l Install 28 more electric vehicle (EV) charging spots than required by the 2019 Building Code. SUM Impact GHG-2: The proposed project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. S Implement Mitigation Measure TR-1, below. SUM Hazards and Hazardous Materials (refer to Section 4.10, Less-than-Significant Impacts) Impact HAZ-1: The proposed project would not create a significant hazard for the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. LTS None required. LTS Impact HAZ-2: The proposed project would not create a significant hazard for the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. LTS None required. LTS Impact HAZ-3: The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. LTS None required. LTS City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-17 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation Impact HAZ-4: The proposed project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard for the public or the environment. LTS None required. LTS Impact HAZ-5: The proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. LTS None required. LTS Impact HAZ-6: The proposed project would not impair implementation of, or physical interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. LTS None required. LTS Impact HAZ-7: The proposed project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. NI None required. NI Impact C-HAZ-1: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on hazards and hazardous materials. LTS None required LTS Hydrology and Water Quality (refer to Section 4.10, Less-than-Significant Impacts) Impact HY-1: The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface water or groundwater quality. LTS None required. LTS Impact HY-2: The proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. LTS None required. LTS City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-18 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation Impact HY-3: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding onsite or offsite; create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect floodflows. LTS None required. LTS Impact HY-4: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, the proposed project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. LTS None required. LTS Impact HY-5: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. LTS None required. LTS Impact C-HY-1: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on hydrology and water quality. LTS None required. LTS Land Use (refer to Section 4.10, Less-than-Significant Impacts) Impact LU-1: The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. LTS None required. LTS Impact LU-2: The proposed project would not result in a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. LTS None required. LTS City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-19 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation Impact C-LU-1: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on land use. LTS None required. LTS Mineral Resources (refer to Section 4.10, Less-than-Significant Impacts) Impact MIN-1: The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state and/or a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. NI None required. NI Noise and Vibration Impact NOI-1: The proposed project would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. S Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Construction Noise Control Plan to Reduce Noise Outside of the Standard Construction Hours in the City of South San Francisco. The project sponsor and/or the contractor(s) for the proposed project shall obtain a permit to complete work outside of the standard construction hours outlined in the City Municipal Code. In addition, the project sponsor and/or the contractor(s) for the proposed project shall develop a construction noise control plan to reduce noise levels to within the City’s daytime and nighttime noise standards. Specifically, the plan shall demonstrate that noise from construction activities that occur daily between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. weekdays and Saturday will comply with the applicable City noise limit of 65 dBA at the nearest existing land use, and construction activities that occur between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. will comply with the applicable City noise limit of 60 dBA at the nearest existing land use. Measures to help reduce noise from construction activity during non-standard construction hours to these levels shall be incorporated into this plan and may include, but are not limited to, the following. LTSM City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-20 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation l Require all construction equipment be equipped with mufflers and sound control devices (e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) that are in good condition (at least as effective as those originally provided by the manufacturer) and appropriate for the equipment. l Maintain all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. l Locate construction equipment as far as feasible from adjacent or nearby noise-sensitive receptors. l Require all stationary equipment be located to maintain the greatest possible distance to the nearby existing buildings, where feasible. l Require stationary noise sources associated with construction (e.g., generators and compressors) in proximity to noise-sensitive land uses to be muffled and/or enclosed within temporary enclosures and shielded by barriers, which can reduce construction noise by as much as 5 dB. l Use noise-reducing enclosures around noise- generating equipment during nighttime/non- standard daytime hours. Prohibit the use of impact tools (e.g., jack hammers) during these hours. l Prohibit idling of inactive construction equipment for prolonged periods during nighttime hours (i.e., more than 2 minutes). l Advance notification shall be provided to surrounding land uses disclosing the construction schedule, including the various types of activities that would be occurring throughout the duration of the construction period. l The construction contractor shall provide the name and telephone number an on-site construction liaison. If construction noise is found City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-21 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation to be intrusive to the community (complaints are received), the construction liaison shall investigate the source of the noise and require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. l Use electric motors rather than gasoline- or diesel- powered engines to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools during nighttime hours. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust could be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by about 10 dB. External jackets on the tools themselves could be used, which could achieve a reduction of 5 dB. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Operational Noise Study to Determine Attenuation Measures to Reduce Noise from Project Mechanical Equipment Once equipment models and design features to attenuate noise have been selected, the project sponsor shall conduct a noise analysis to estimate actual noise levels of project- specific mechanical equipment, including heating and cooling equipment (such as boilers, chillers, cooling towers, and exhaust fans), to reduce potential noise impacts resulting from project mechanical equipment. Feasible methods to reduce noise below the significant threshold include, but are not limited to, selecting quieter equipment, siting equipment further from the roofline, and/or enclosing all equipment in a mechanical equipment room designed to reduce noise. This analysis shall be conducted, and its results and reduction methods provided to the City, prior to the issuance of building permits. The analysis shall be prepared by persons qualified in acoustical analysis and/or engineering and shall demonstrate with reasonable certainty that the mechanical equipment selected for the project and the attenuation City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-22 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation features incorporated into project design would ensure noise from these equipment do not result in noise at the nearest existing land use of 65 dBA Leq during the daytime and 60 dBA Leq during the nighttime. The project sponsor shall incorporate all recommendations from the acoustical analysis necessary to ensure that noise sources would meet applicable requirements of the noise ordinance into the building design and operations. Impact NOI-2: The proposed project would not generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. LTS None required. LTS Impact NOI-3: The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. NI None required. NI Impact C-NOI-1: The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. S Implement Mitigation Measure NOI-2, above. LTSM Impact C-NOI-2: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not expose persons to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. LTS None required. LTS City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-23 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation Population and Housing (refer to Section 4.10, Less-than-Significant Impacts) Impact PH-1: The proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). LTS None required. LTS Impact PH-2: The proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. NI None required. NI Impact C-PH-1: The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact on population and housing. LTS None required. LTS Public Services (refer to Section 4.10, Less-than-Significant Impacts) Impact PS-1: The proposed project would not require the provision of new or physically altered fire and emergency medical services in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. LTS None required. LTS Impact PS-2: The proposed project would not require the provision of new or physically altered police protection services in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. LTS None required. LTS Impact PS-3: The proposed project would not require the provision of new or physically altered schools or other public facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. LTS None required. LTS City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-24 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation Impact C-PS-1: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on public services. LTS None required. LTS Recreation (refer to Section 4.10, Less-than-Significant Impacts) Impact REC-1: The proposed project would not require the provision of new or physically altered park facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. LTS None required. LTS Impact REC-2: The proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. LTS None required. LTS Impact REC-3: The proposed project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. LTS None required. LTS Impact C-REC-1: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on recreation. NI None required. NI Transportation and Circulation Impact TR-1: Existing home-based work (HBW) vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per employee in the travel demand model transportation analysis zone (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. S 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 SUM City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-25 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation 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; City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-26 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation (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 Gateway Business Park driveway (approximately 500 feet south of the project site) or the project may choose to construct a new southbound City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-27 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation 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. LTS None required. LTS City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-28 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation 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. LTS None required. LTS 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. S Implement Mitigation Measure TR-1, above. LTSM Impact TR-5: The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. LTS None required. LTS Impact TR-6: The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. LTS None required. LTS Utilities (refer to Section 4.10, Less-than-Significant Impacts) Impact UT-1: The proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. LTS None required. LTS Impact UT-2: The proposed project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. LTS None required. LTS Impact UT-3: The proposed project would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. LTS None required. LTS City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-29 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation Impact UT-4: The proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. In addition, the proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. LTS None required. LTS Impact C-UT-1: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on utilities and service systems. LTS None required. LTS Wildfire (refer to Section 4.10, Less-than-Significant Impacts) Impact WF-1: The proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. LTS None required. LTS Impact WF-2: The proposed project would not, because of slope, prevailing winds, or other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations form a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. LTS None required. LTS Impact WF-3: The proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of associate infrastructure, such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities, that may exacerbate the fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts on the environment. NI None required. NI City of South San Francisco Executive Summary Notes: NI= No Impact; LTS= Less than Significant; LTSM= Less than Significant with Mitigation; S= Significant; SUM= Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation. 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-30 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 Potential Environmental Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation Impact WF-4: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. NI None required. NI Impact C-WF-1: The proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on a statewide or locally adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. LTS None required. LTS Source: ICF, 2020. City of South San Francisco Executive Summary 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-31 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 2.2.1 Alternatives CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires an EIR to evaluate the No Project Alternative and a reasonable range of alternatives to the project that would feasibly attain most of the project’s basic objectives, but that would also avoid or substantially reduce any identified significant environmental impacts of the project. The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to greenhouse gas emissions (related to vehicle miles traveled [VMT]) and transportation and circulation (related to VMT). In addition, the proposed project would result in impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, and noise that would be less than significant with mitigation. There are no project alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the proposed project’s basic objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project. Accordingly, the range of project alternatives presents options that would avoid or reduce a less-than-significant impact with mitigation. As described in Chapter 5, Alternatives, three alternatives are evaluated in this EIR: • Alternative A—No Project Alternative • Alternative B—Reduced Surface Parking Lot Demolition Alternative • Alternative C—Reduced Building Footprint Alternative As also described in Chapter 5, the EIR also evaluated, but ultimately rejected six alternatives that were considered by the City but rejected as infeasible during the scoping and environmental review process. 2.2.1.1 Alternative A: No Project Alternative Under Alternative A—No Project Alternative, the existing land uses and site conditions at the project site would not change. The existing six-story, approximately 170,235-square-foot office building on the project site would remain, as would the existing surface parking, which has approximately 558 parking spaces. There would be no tree removal. Under the Alternative A, the FAR at the project site would remain at 0.53. Alternative A would not preclude potential future development of the project site with a range of land uses that are permitted at the project site. 2.2.1.2 Alternative B: Reduced Surface Parking Lot Demolition Alternative Alternative B—Reduced Surface Parking Lot Demolition Alternative would demolish a smaller part of the existing surface parking lot at the project site, resulting in the same building as the proposed project but with a reduced area for parking, streetscape, and landscape improvements compared to the proposed project. Alternative B would redevelop approximately half of the proposed parking area in the northeast corner of the project site (shown in Figure 3-4 as a parking lot with 46 parking spaces in a lot north of the proposed building) with new parking, landscaping, trees, pedestrian entryway elements, and streetscape features. Most of the northeastern portion of the project site, which abuts an unnamed street to the north, Gateway Boulevard to the east, and the proposed entry plaza to the west, would remain in its current state as an existing surface parking lot with the exception of possible asphalt resurfacing and new striping for the parking spaces. This alternative would result in approximately 32 more parking spaces than the proposed project, for a total of City of South San Francisco Executive Summary 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-32 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 approximately 450 parking spaces. The 376 existing parking spaces in the rectangular parking lots in the southern portion of the project site would be included in this alternative, as is also proposed for the project. Alternative B would retain approximately 32 existing trees in the northeastern part of the project site that are proposed for removal under the project, bringing the total number of trees to be removed to 143 compared to 175 under the proposed project. Additionally, existing shrubs and other landscaping in the northeastern part of the project site would remain and would not be renovated. The Gateway Campus site plan would be redesigned for the reduced development area under this alternative and would most likely result in a reimagined Gateway pedestrian connection with a potentially reduced art wall, biotreatment planting, and tree planting plan. It is anticipated that the landscaped square footage and permeable and impermeable surface areas of the project site would remain approximately the same as the proposed project. Site access and circulation would be otherwise similar to that proposed for the project. The building design under Alternative B would be the same in height, square footage, bulk, architecture, and materials as the proposed project and would similarly be designed to meet LEED Gold certification and International WELL Building Institute WELL and Fitwel standards. 2.2.1.3 Alternative C: Reduced Building Footprint Alternative Alternative C—Reduced Building Footprint Alternative would involve constructing a building that is the same height as the proposed project with the same ratio of office, R&D, and retail (i.e., café and fitness center) uses, but with a reduced building footprint and approximately 25 percent less square footage, with a total of 156,600 gsf. The site plan would be similar to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative C would involve demolishing and removing an existing surface parking lot and the construction of a new building on the existing parking lot; however, the finished building would have a smaller footprint. Similar to the project, Alternative C would include surface parking lots with a total of 418 parking spaces on-site (including approximately 42 parking spaces in a lot north of the proposed building) for tenant use both on- site and within the Gateway Campus. Site access and circulation would be similar to that proposed for the project. Alternative C would include the same overall pedestrian and landscape improvements to the site as the proposed project, and would also improve pedestrian connections between the nearby Gateway Campus buildings at 701, 901, 951, and 801 Gateway Boulevard by creating a pedestrian hub central to the campus. Alternative C would result in project site coverage of similar proportions of pervious to impervious surfaces (or increased pervious surfaces compared to the project, as would be expected with a smaller building footprint), three biotreatment areas, and a similar number of overall and new street trees planted on site compared to the project. The design of the building under Alternative C would be similar in architecture and materials as the proposed project and would similarly be designed to meet LEED Gold certification and International WELL and Fitwel standards. 2.2.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires identification of an environmentally superior alternative (the alternative that has the fewest significant environmental impacts) from among the other alternatives evaluated if the proposed project has significant impacts that cannot be mitigated City of South San Francisco Executive Summary 751 Gateway Boulevard Project 2-33 September 2020 ICF 0662.19 to a less-than-significant level. If Alternative A, the No Project Alternative, is found to be the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Alternative B and Alternative C would result in the same significant and unavoidable impacts with mitigation related to transportation and circulation and GHG emissions because neither alternative would reduce the average HBW VMT per employee. Among the alternatives to the project, Alternative B would offer a lower level of impact by reducing the site-specific impacts that would be less than significant with mitigation. Specifically, Alternative B would require less ground disturbance and fewer tree removals, which would reduce impacts to biological resources, cultural resources and tribal resources, and geology and soils (paleontology) to a greater extent than Alternative C. Therefore, Alternative B is the environmentally superior alternative. 2.2.3 Areas of Known Controversy and Issues to be Resolved The City of South San Francisco Planning Division of the Economic and Community Development Department (Planning Division), issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed 751 Gateway Boulevard Project on January 21, 2020, in compliance with Title 14, Sections 15082(a), 15103, and 15375 of the California Code of Regulations. The NOP review period commenced on January 21, 2020, and concluded on February 20, 2020, and a scoping meeting was held on January 30, 2020. Two commenters spoke at the meeting. The Planning Division received three comment letters from interested parties during the public review and comment period, and one letter from the State Clearinghouse providing the NOP to responsible agencies. The Planning Division has considered the comments made by the public in preparation of the draft EIR for the proposed project. A copy of the NOP and all comments are provided in Appendix A. Based on the comments received during the scoping process, there are no known controversy or issues to be resolved.