HomeMy WebLinkAbout05_Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-1 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Chapter 5
Alternatives
5.1 Introduction
This chapter evaluates alternatives to the proposed project and examines the potential
environmental impacts associated with each alternative. By comparing these alternatives to the
proposed project, the relative environmental advantages and disadvantages of each may be
analyzed and weighed. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)
states that an environmental impact report (EIR) must describe and evaluate a reasonable range of
alternatives to the proposed project 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.
The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR
to set forth only those potentially feasible alternatives necessary to foster informed public
participation and an informed and reasoned choice by the decision-making body (per CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). Therefore, an EIR does not need to address every conceivable
alternative or consider infeasible alternatives. CEQA generally defines “feasible” to mean the ability
to be accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account
economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal factors (per CEQA Guidelines
Section 15364). The following factors may also be considered.
l Site suitability
l Economic viability
l Availability of infrastructure
l General plan consistency
l Other plans or regulatory limitations
l Jurisdictional boundaries
l Ability of the project’s proponent to attain site control (per CEQA Guidelines section
15126.6(f)(1))
An EIR does not need to consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and
whose implementation is remote and speculative (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(3)).
Nine alternatives to the project were considered, including the required No Project Alternative. To
determine which of the alternatives should be evaluated in this draft EIR, each alternative was
screened to determine whether it would meet most of the objectives of the project, reduce any of the
significant impacts identified in the draft EIR, and be potentially feasible.
This chapter provides a description of the alternatives considered but rejected, followed by an
analysis of the No Project Alternative and the two alternatives selected for evaluation: the Reduced
Surface Parking Lot Demolition Alternative and the Reduced Building Footprint Alternative.
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-2 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
5.1.1 Project Objectives
Refer to Section 3.1.1 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this draft EIR for a list of the project
objectives that have been identified by the project sponsor.
5.1.2 Significant Impacts of the Project
Based on the analysis provided in Chapter 4 of this draft EIR, the project would have the following
significant and unavoidable impacts.
l 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. The
proposed project would result in a net loss of trees, reducing carbon sequestration in the land
use sector. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would plant additional trees on
existing surface parking lots, but would still result in a net loss of trees. In addition, the
proposed project would not achieve the 16.8 percent vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per service
population reduction target. The proposed project would be subject to regulatory programs
related to fuel and vehicle efficiency as well as vehicle electrification. In addition,
implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-1, as discussed in Section 4.9, Transportation and
Circulation, would contribute a fair share towards funding the design and construction of off-site
improvements to support the proposed project’s first- and last-mile transit connection
strategies, which are necessary to support reductions in the number of trips made by
automobile. These improvements include fair-share contributions towards the City’s cost of
upgrading sidewalks, upgrading and extending bicycle and pedestrian pathways, providing a
more direct connection to on-street shuttle stops, participating in first/last shuttle programs,
and striping unmarked crosswalks contributing to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
However, the lead agency cannot determine with certainty that implementation of Mitigation
Measure TR-1 would reduce the proposed project’s VMT to a less-than-significant level because
there are a range of GHG reductions associated with the measures in TR-1, making precise
quantification of reductions difficult. Consequently, although emissions from the stationary-
source, area, energy, waste, and water sectors would generally be consistent with the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) stationary threshold or the scoping plan and
regulatory programs, land use and mobile-source emissions from the proposed project would
not be consistent with the scoping plan measures outlined to reduce GHG emissions consistent
with the State’s goals. Therefore, operational GHG impacts would be significant and unavoidable
with mitigation.
l 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. Stationary-source
emissions would be below BAAQMD’s stationary-source threshold. In addition, the proposed
project would achieve U.S. Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) Gold certification and implement sustainability measures, such as waste
diversion programs and water reduction measures, consistent with the 2017 scoping plan. This
would reduce GHG emissions and associated impacts from area energy, water, and waste
sources to less-than-significant levels. These reductions would help the State meet its GHG
reduction goals. However, the proposed project would not be consistent with the scoping plan’s
overall goal of avoiding losses in carbon sequestration, given the net tree loss despite
implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-2. In addition, implementation of Mitigation
Measure TR-1 would reduce mobile-source emissions during operation but would not reduce
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-3 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
emissions enough to meet the 16.8 percent VMT per service population reduction target
developed by CARB. Therefore, the GHG impacts of the proposed project would be significant
and unavoidable with mitigation because the project would not be consistent with State goals to
reduce GHG emissions.
l Impact TR-1: Existing home-based work (HBW) 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. The project would generate
approximately 16.2 HBW VMT per employee under existing conditions, which is greater than
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 of 14.2 HBW VMT per employee). 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 greater than the per-employee significance threshold of 12.1 HBW VMT (based on a
VMT rate 16.8 percent below the regional average of 14.6 HBW VMT per employee). Therefore,
the project would have a significant impact on VMT under cumulative plus project conditions.
Mitigation Measure TR-1 would support and enhance the effectiveness of the project’s last-mile
transit connection strategies, but would be unlikely to substantially reduce HBW VMT per-
employee, and would aid in reducing project auto travel demand. It is appropriate mitigation
under both the existing plus project and cumulative plus project conditions; however, its
effectiveness is unknown and 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 of 16.2 to the 11.8
threshold, to reach a less-than-significant level). Therefore, this impact would be significant and
unavoidable with mitigation.
5.2 Alternatives Considered but Rejected
Section 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that an EIR should “identify any alternatives
that were considered by the lead agency but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and
briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination.” The screening process for
identifying viable EIR alternatives included consideration of the following criteria.
l Ability to meet the project objectives
l Potential ability to substantially lessen or avoid environmental effects associated with the
proposed project
l Potential feasibility
The discussion below describes alternatives that were considered during preparation and scoping of
this draft EIR, and gives the rationale for eliminating these alternatives from detailed consideration.
5.2.1 Alternative with Podium Parking
An alternative that would include a taller building with podium parking was considered based on its
potential to maximize the development potential at the project site as a result of its larger size.
However, this alternative was rejected because it would not substantially reduce or eliminate the
project’s significant VMT impact (Impact TR-1) and GHG impacts (Impacts GHG-1 and GHG-2)
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-4 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
because it would not reduce the average HBW VMT per employee.1 The project’s cumulatively
considerable GHG impacts are only related to mobile source emissions and are a direct consequence
of the significant VMT impact. Therefore, this alternative was rejected because it would not
substantially reduce or eliminate the project’s significant VMT or cumulatively considerable
contribution to significant cumulative GHG impacts.
5.2.2 Reduced Height Alternative
An alternative similar to the proposed project but with a building reduced in height by one story and
reduced in size by approximately 30,000 square feet was considered based on its potential to reduce
the project’s significant VMT impact (Impact TR-1) and GHG impacts (Impacts GHG-1 and GHG-2) as
a result of its smaller size. However, a smaller project does not directly correlate to a reduced VMT
impact because VMT is assessed based on a per-capita or per-employee rate. The project’s
cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative GHG impacts are only related to
mobile source emissions and are a direct consequence of the significant VMT impact. Therefore, this
alternative was rejected because it would not substantially reduce or eliminate the project’s
significant VMT or cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative GHG impacts. In
addition, this alternative would not fully meet the project objectives to redevelop underutilized
parcels within the project site at a higher density to build on the synergy of R&D development and to
take advantage of opportunities offered in the East of 101 Area to create a vibrant, attractive and
efficiently-designed R&D campus; provide sufficient space for tenants to employ key scientific and
business personnel in proximity to each other to foster efficient collaboration and productivity; and
maximize positive fiscal impacts for the City through the creation of jobs, enhancement of property
values, and generation of property taxes and development fees.
5.2.3 Residential Land Use Alternative
An alternative that would develop all residential uses at the project site was considered based on its
potential to reduce the project’s significant VMT impact (Impact TR-1) and GHG impacts (Impacts
GHG-1 and GHG-2). A residential alternative would have the potential to reduce the average HBW
VMT per employee2 by locating residential uses in an area predominantly occupied by employment
uses, providing more opportunities for employees in the East of 101 area to live closer to their place
of work. The project site is identified as Business Commercial (BC) in the General Plan and is zoned
Gateway Specific Plan District under the City’s zoning ordinance. Neither of these designations permit
residential uses, nor would residential uses be consistent with existing land uses in the vicinity of the
project site. Residential development at this site is not consistent with current General Plan
direction and policies to preserve land East of 101 for employment uses. As part of the City’s Shape
SSF 2040 General Plan process, the City is considering residential uses in the East of 101 area,
including high-density mixed use residential uses in areas adjacent to and within 0.5 mile to the
Caltrain station in one of the alternatives. The areas along Gateway Boulevard that are under
consideration for residential uses are within 0.5 mile of the Caltrain station, and do not include the
1 The key metric used to determine a VMT impact is home-based work HBW VMT per capita, which is expressed
as a rate per employee. For example, if an alternative would have fewer employees compared to the proposed
project, it would still be required to substantially reduce the average trip length between employees’ home and
work to substantially reduce the average HBW VMT per employee compared to the proposed project.
2 Ibid.
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-5 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
project site.3 The City does not anticipate that the Shape SSF 2040 General Plan will consider
residential uses for the project site. Furthermore, a residential alternative would be inconsistent
with virtually all of the project objectives. Therefore, this alternative was rejected based on its
infeasibility and inability to meet the basic project objectives.
5.2.4 Mixed-Use (Residential, Office, and R&D) Alternative
An alternative that would include a mix of housing, office, and R&D space on the project site was
considered based on its potential to reduce the project’s significant VMT impact (Impact TR-1) and
GHG impacts (Impacts GHG-1 and GHG-2). A mixed-use alternative with a residential component
would have the potential to reduce the average HBW VMT per employee4 by locating residential
uses in an area predominantly occupied by office uses, providing more opportunities for employees
in the East of 101 area to live closer to their place of work. Because of FAR constraints, a Mixed-Use
(Residential, Office, and R&D) Alternative would require a substantial reduction of the office/R&D
uses in the project, in order to accommodate residential uses on site. A Mixed-Use (Residential,
Office, and R&D) Alternative therefore would not fully meet the project objectives for many of the
same reasons as the Reduced Height Alternative. However, introducing residential uses on the
project site is not feasible for the same reasons discussed above for the Residential Land Use
Alternative. Therefore, this alternative was rejected.
5.2.5 Mixed Use (Retail, Office, and R&D) Alternative
An alternative that would include a mix of retail (e.g., pharmacy chain such as CVS or Walgreens),
office, and R&D space on the project site was considered based on its potential to reduce the
project’s significant VMT impact (Impact TR-1) and GHG impacts (Impacts GHG-1 and GHG-2). A
mixed-use alternative with a retail component would have the potential to reduce VMT by locating
retail uses in an area predominantly occupied by office uses, providing more opportunities for
employees in the East of 101 area to shop closer to their place of work. This alternative could also
attract new trips associated with the retail use from the surrounding area. A Mixed-Use (Retail,
Office, and R&D) Alternative would be generally consistent with most of the project objectives. In
addition, this alternative would comply with the project site’s current General Plan designation as
BC, which permits “administrative, financial, business, professional, medical and public offices,
research and development facilities, and visitor-oriented and regional commercial activities”, and
retail sales is a permitted use in the GSPD IV zoning district. However, a project with increased retail
does not directly correlate to a reduced VMT impact because VMT is assessed based on a per-capita
or per-employee rate. Therefore, this alternative was rejected because it would not substantially
reduce or eliminate the project’s significant VMT impact (Impact TR-1) and GHG impacts (Impacts
GHG-1 and GHG-2) for the proposed office and R&D uses.
3 City of South San Francisco. 2020. Shape SSF 2040 General Plan. Available: https://shapessf.com/alternatives/.
Accessed: July 24, 2020.
4 The key metric used to determine a VMT impact is home-based work HBW VMT per capita, which is expressed
as a rate per employee. For example, if an alternative would have fewer employees compared to the proposed
project, it would still be required to substantially reduce the average trip length between employees’ home and
work to substantially reduce the average HBW VMT per employee compared to the proposed project.
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-6 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
5.2.6 Alternative Project Location
An alternative that would construct the proposed project at a different location in other areas of the
City or in locations in the East of 101 area or within 0.5 mile to transit was considered based on its
potential to reduce the project’s significant VMT impact (Impact TR-1) and GHG impacts (Impacts
GHG-1 and GHG-2).
Two potential alternative project locations were considered in the East of 101 area. One location is
bounded by Sylvester Road to the west, Associated Road to the south, U.S. 101 to the east, and East
Grand Avenue to the north. The site is currently occupied by a mix of light industrial and retail uses
including an electric vehicle charging station, a bakery, a restaurant, a consignment shop, equipment
rentals, and sheet metal fabrication. A second location is bounded by East Grand Avenue to the north,
west, and south and Poletti Way to the east. The site is currently occupied by a Comfort Inn and Suites.
As part of the City’s Shape SSF 2040 General Plan process, the City is considering mixed-use
development with residential uses at these sites in several of the land use alternatives. An alternative
that would construct the proposed project closer to transit was considered based on its potential to
reduce the project’s significant VMT impact (Impact TR-1) and GHG impacts (Impacts GHG-1 and GHG-
2). The Caltrain Station at East Grand Avenue is approximately 0.25 to 0.5 mile north of the two
alternative project locations. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) (1), states that
“generally, projects within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop5 or a stop along an existing high
quality transit corridor6 should be presumed to cause less-than-significant transportation impact.”
OPR (2018) advises that the less than significant presumption would not apply, however, if project-
specific or location-specific information indicates the project will still generate significant levels of
VMT. As shown in in Section 4.9, Transportation and Circulation, HBW VMT per employee in the East of
101 area is higher than that of the Bay Area Region (16.2 compared to 14.2). Given the high levels of
VMT generated by sites in the East of 101 area, sites within 0.5 mile of an existing major transit stop in
the East of 101 area may still generate significant levels of VMT. Furthermore, this alternative was
rejected because neither of the potential alternative sites are owned by the project sponsor. In
addition, both sites have long-term leases and tenants and neither site may be available for purchase
or development. These sites therefore would not be consistent with the project objectives.
It is anticipated that an alternative that would construct the proposed project in another area of the
city (possibly outside of the East of 101 area) would not reduce the project’s significant VMT impact
(Impact TR-1) and GHG impacts (Impacts GHG-1 and GHG-2) because there are no low VMT office
areas anywhere in the City outside of areas in close proximity to major transit stations.7 In addition,
this alternative would not reduce the project’s significant VMT impact and GHG impacts because any
new jobs added to the City of South San Francisco (particularly in the East of 101 area and in the
biotech industry) would likely attract employees from throughout the Bay Area, which would
generate substantially more VMT and worsen the regional balance between jobs and housing.
Therefore, this alternative was rejected because of its potential infeasibility.
5 A “major transit stop” means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a
bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service
interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.
6 A “high-quality transit corridor” means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer
than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.
7 City of South San Francisco. 2020. City of South San Francisco Significance Thresholds for Transportation.
Available: https://ci-ssf-ca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4563798&GUID=D74B6441-5B43-4DE4-
A0C3-1EFBBEC7ECB2&FullText=1. Accessed: July 29, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-7 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
5.3 Alternatives Selected for Further Review
As discussed in Section 5.2, the lead agency considered six alternatives that would have the potential
to reduce the project’s significant and unavoidable VMT impact (Impact TR-1) and GHG impacts
(Impacts GHG-1 and GHG-2), and each alternative was rejected based on its inability to reduce or
avoid the significant impacts of the project, its infeasibility, and/or its inability to meet the basic
project objectives. Therefore, the lead agency also considered alternatives that would substantially
reduce or avoid the impacts of the project that would require mitigation to be reduced to a less-
than-significant level. These impacts include:
l Impact AQ-2 (construction): 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 after mitigation.
l Impact AQ-3 (construction): The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations after mitigation.
l Impact C-AQ-2 (construction): 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 after mitigation.
l 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
after mitigation.
l 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 after mitigation.
l 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 after mitigation.
l Impact C-BIO-1: The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to significant cumulative impacts on biological resources after mitigation.
l 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 after mitigation.
l Impact CR-3: The proposed project would not disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries after mitigation.
l 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 after
mitigation.
l 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 after mitigation.
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-8 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
l Impact EN-1 (construction): 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 after mitigation.
l Impact GEO-6: The proposed project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource on site or unique geologic feature after mitigation.
l Impact C-GEO-2: The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to significant cumulative impacts on paleontological resources after mitigation.
l Impact GHG-1a (construction): The proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have significant impact on the environment during construction
after mitigation.
l Impact NOI-1 (construction): 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
after mitigation.
l Impact C-NOI-1 (construction): 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 after mitigation.
l Impact TR-4: The proposed project would not produce a detrimental impact to local transit or
shuttle services, or conflict with adopted plans and programs after mitigation.
The project impacts requiring mitigation to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels are largely
related to construction impacts including ground disturbance, tree removal, and equipment
emissions. Therefore, the alternatives selected for evaluation focus on reducing ground disturbance
associated with the project, which would in turn reduce tree removals and emissions.
The three alternatives are evaluated in this chapter as listed below.
l Alternative A—No Project Alternative
l Alternative B—Reduced Surface Parking Lot Demolition Alternative
l Alternative C—Reduced Building Footprint Alternative
Under Alternative A—No Project Alternative, existing land uses and site conditions at the project
site would not change and the existing floor area ratio (FAR) would remain at 0.55. Under
Alternative B—Reduced Surface Parking Lot Demolition Alternative, a smaller part of the existing
surface parking lot at the project site would be demolished, 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 C—Reduced Building Footprint Alternative would
involve constructing a building with office, research and development (R&D), and retail (i.e., café
and fitness center) space of the same height as the project, but with a reduced building footprint,
approximately 25 percent less square footage, and the same ratio of uses as the proposed project.
Table 5-1 compares the main features of the proposed project to those of the alternatives.
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-9 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Table 5-1. Comparison of Main Features of the Proposed Project to the Alternatives
Feature
Proposed
Project
Alternative A—
No Project
Alternative
Alternative B—
Reduced Surface
Parking Lot
Demolition
Alternative
Alternative C—
Reduced Building
Footprint
Alternative
Total
proposed
new uses at
751 Gateway
Boulevard
208,800
square feet
None 208,800 square feet 156,600 square
feet
Building
Height
148 feet None
(existing 97-foot high
building to remain)
148 feet 148 feet
Vehicle
Parking
418 spaces None
(existing 558 spaces
to remain)
Approximately 443
spaces
418 spaces
Existing
Trees to be
Removed
175 trees None 143 trees 175 trees
Employees 1,181
employees
(731 net new
employees and
450 existing)
450
(No net new
employees and 450
existing)
1,181 employees
(731 net new
employees and 450
existing)
998 employees
(548 net new
employeesa and
450 existing)
Source: 701 Gateway Center LLC, 2020; ICF, 2020.
Notes: ~ = approximately; ADA = Americans with Disabilities Act; BC = business commercial; GSPD = Gateway
Specific Plan District; R&D = research and development; sf = square feet (foot)
a This employee number is 25 percent reduced compared to the project because employee calculations are based
on sf.
5.4 Alternative A—No Project Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires evaluation of a “no project” alternative, stating “The
purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare
the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed
project.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires that the no project alternative analysis
“discuss the existing conditions... as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the
foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and policies and
consistent with the available infrastructure and community services.” As noted in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6, an EIR for “a development project on identifiable property” typically analyzes a no
project alternative, i.e., “the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Such a
discussion would compare the environmental effects of the property remaining in its existing state
against environmental effects that would occur if the project is approved. If disapproval of the
project under consideration would result in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of
some other project, this ‘no project’ consequence should be discussed.”
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-10 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
5.4.1 Description
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.
5.4.2 Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Under Alternative A—No Project Alternative, the physical environment of the project site would
remain generally unchanged. Therefore, Alternative A would fail to meet all of the basic project
objectives (refer to Section 3.1.1 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this draft EIR for a list of the
project objectives that have been identified by the project sponsor and Table 5-3 for a comparison of
the ability of this alternative to meet the objectives of the proposed project).
5.4.3 Impacts
The impact analysis below focuses on those impacts that were determined to be significant and
unavoidable and less than significant with mitigation under the proposed project. Less-than-
significant impacts are generally discussed at the end of the impact analysis.
This environmental analysis assumes that the existing structure, surface parking lot, and existing
uses on the project site would not change and that the existing physical conditions, as described in
detail for each environmental topic in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation,
would remain the same. If Alternative A were implemented, none of the impacts associated with the
proposed project as described in Chapter 4 would occur. However, development and growth would
continue within the vicinity of the project site as reasonably foreseeable future projects are
approved, constructed, and occupied. These projects could contribute to cumulative impacts in the
vicinity, but under Alternative A, land use activity on the project site would not contribute to these
cumulative impacts beyond existing levels.
5.4.3.1 Air Quality
Under Alternative A, there would be no demolition or construction activities and no new operational
sources of air pollutants on the project site. The project site would remain in its current condition.
Existing stationary sources of air pollution on and near the project site and major roadways
contributing to air pollution in the project vicinity would remain. Alternative A would have no
impact related to air quality compared to the proposed project, which would result in less-than-
significant with mitigation project-level air quality impacts and a less than cumulatively
considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. Potential construction-
related air quality impacts that would occur under the proposed project would not occur under
Alternative A; thus, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, Use Clean Diesel-Powered
Equipment during Construction to Control Construction-Related NOX Emissions, and AQ-2,
Implement BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, would not be required for this
alternative.
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-11 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
5.4.3.2 Biological Resources
Under Alternative A, there would be no demolition activities, construction activities, or removal of
trees or vegetation at the project site. The project site would remain in its current condition.
Alternative A would have no impact related to biological resources compared to the proposed
project, which would result in less-than-significant with mitigation project-level biological
resources impacts and a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to significant
cumulative biological resources impacts. Potential biological resources impacts that would occur
under the proposed project would not occur under Alternative A; thus, implementation of
Mitigation Measures BI-1, Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys and Buffer Areas; BI-2,
Preconstruction Bat Survey for Roosting Bats and Roosting Habitat Abatement; BI-3, Lighting
Measures to Reduce Impacts on Birds; and BI-4, Building Design Measures to Minimize Bird Strike
Risk, would not be required for this alternative.
5.4.3.3 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Under Alternative A, there would be no excavation, grading, or demolition activities at the project
site. The project site would remain in its current condition. Alternative A would have no impact
related to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources compared to the proposed project,
which would result in less-than-significant with mitigation project-level cultural resources and
tribal cultural resources impacts and a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to
significant cumulative cultural resources and tribal cultural resources impacts. Potential cultural
resources and tribal cultural resources impacts that would occur under the proposed project
would not occur under Alternative A; thus, implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1, Cultural
Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP); CR-2, Halt Construction Activity,
Evaluate Find, and Implement Mitigation for Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Resources; and
CR-3, Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Remains, and Take Appropriate Action in Coordination
with Native American Heritage Commission, would not be required for this alternative.
5.4.3.4 Energy
Under Alternative A, there would be no demolition or construction activities and no new
operational demand for energy. The project site would remain in its current condition. Existing
demand for energy at the project site would remain. Alternative A would have no impact related
to energy compared to the proposed project, which would result in less-than-significant with
mitigation project-level energy impacts and less than significant cumulative energy impacts.
Potential energy impacts that would occur under the proposed project would not occur under
Alternative A; thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, Require Implementation of
BAAQMD-recommended Construction BMPs, and Mitigation Measure TR-1, First- and Last-mile
Strategies, would not be required for this alternative.
5.4.3.5 Geology and Soils
Under Alternative A, there would be no excavation, grading, or demolition activities at the project
site. The project site would remain in its current condition. Alternative A would have no impact
related to geology and soils compared to the proposed project, which would result in less-than-
significant with mitigation project-level geology and soils impacts and a less than cumulatively
considerable contribution to significant cumulative geology and soils impacts. Potential
paleontology impacts that would occur under the proposed project would not occur under
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-12 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Alternative A; thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, Halt Construction Activity,
Evaluate Find, and Implement Mitigation for Paleontological Resources, would not be required for
this alternative.
5.4.3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative A, there would be no demolition or construction activities and no new operational
sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on the project site. The project site would remain in its
current condition. Existing sources of GHG emissions on and near the project site would remain.
Alternative A would have no impact related to operational GHG emissions compared to the
proposed project, which would result in significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable
contribution to significant cumulative VMT-related GHG impacts during operation. In addition,
Alternative A would have no impact compared to the less-than-significant GHG impacts during
construction. Potential GHG impacts that would occur under the proposed project would not occur
under Alternative A; thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, Require Implementation of
BAAQMD-recommended Construction BMPs, Mitigation Measure GHG-2, Operational GHG Reduction
Measures, and Mitigation Measure TR-1, First- and Last-mile Strategies, would not be required for
this alternative.
5.4.3.7 Noise and Vibration
Under Alternative A, there would be no demolition or construction activities and no new operational
sources of noise or vibration on the project site. The project site would remain in its current
condition. Existing sources of noise and vibration on and near the project site and major roadways
contributing to noise in the project vicinity would remain. Alternative A would have no impact
related to noise and vibration compared to the proposed project, which would result in less-than-
significant with mitigation project-level noise and vibration impacts and a less than cumulatively
considerable contribution to significant cumulative noise and vibration impacts. Potential noise
impacts that would occur under the proposed project would not occur under Alternative A; thus,
implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1, Construction Noise Control Plan to Reduce Noise
Outside of the Standard Construction Hours in the City of South San Francisco, and NOI-2,
Operational Noise Study to Determine Attenuation Measures to Reduce Noise from Project
Mechanical Equipment, would not be required for this alternative.
5.4.3.8 Transportation and Circulation
Under Alternative A, there would be no changes to transportation and circulation on or near the
project site. The project site would remain in its current condition. Existing traffic conditions would
remain. Alternative A would have no impact related to transportation and circulation compared to
the proposed project, which would result in significant and unavoidable with mitigation project-
level VMT-related transportation impacts and a cumulatively considerable contribution to
significant and unavoidable cumulative VMT-related transportation impacts. In addition, Alternative
A would have no impact compared to the other less-than-significant impacts of the project related to
queuing, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit, hazards, and emergency access. Potential
transportation and circulation impacts that would occur under the proposed project would not
occur under Alternative A; thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-1, First- and Last-mile
Strategies, would not be required for this alternative.
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-13 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
5.4.3.9 Less-than-Significant Impacts
This draft EIR concludes that the proposed project would have no impact or less-than-significant
impacts in all topics of the following analysis areas.
l Aesthetics
l Agricultural and Forest Resources
l Hazards and Hazardous Materials
l Hydrology and Water Quality
l Land Use
l Mineral Resources
l Population and Housing
l Public Services
l Recreation
l Utilities
l Wildfire
Alternative A would result in no impact related to any of the above-listed environmental topics
because this alternative would result in no changes to existing site conditions.
5.5 Alternative B—Reduced Surface Parking Lot
Demolition Alternative
5.5.1 Description
Alternative B—Reduced Surface Parking Lot Demolition Alternative would demolish a smaller part
of an 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 in the northern portion of the project site. Alternative B would redevelop
approximately half of the existing surface parking lot in the northern portion of the project site with
new parking, landscaping, trees, pedestrian entryway elements, and streetscape features compared
to the proposed project, which would redevelop the entire surface parking lot. The other half of the
existing surface parking lot would remain under Alternative B with the exception of possible asphalt
resurfacing and new striping for the parking spaces. It is anticipated that the portion of the existing
surface parking lot that would remain includes approximately 46 parking spaces compared to the 21
parking spaces that would be constructed in this area under the proposed project (refer to Figure 3-
4 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this draft EIR). 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 with the project. Thus, this alternative would result in approximately 25 more
parking spaces than the proposed project, for a total of approximately 443 parking spaces compared
to the 418 parking spaces proposed under the project, as shown in Table 5-1.
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-14 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
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. It is anticipated that the amount of
pervious surface under this alternative would be slightly less than under the proposed project
because the existing surface parking lot includes more impervious surface area than the
improvements proposed for the area under the project. Overall, Alternative B would involve a
slightly reduced development area compared to the project. Site access and circulation would be
similar to the proposed 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 FITWELL standards.
Alternative B would include the same design features that support VMT reduction as the proposed
project, including the TDM plan, the new employee shuttle stop along the western portion of the
project site, and the installation of electric charging stations and bicycle parking within the project
site. Alternative B would implement the same sustainability features, such as Energy Star-rated
appliances, green infrastructure (e.g., biotreatment areas and other low-impact development), low-
flow shower heads, aerators, and toilets, and waste diversion programs.
Alternative B, like the proposed project, would maintain the existing zoning designation of Zone IV
under the Gateway Specific Plan District (GSPD) and the same existing zoning would apply to this
alternative, which allows for development at a FAR of 1.25, or a maximum of 402,930 square feet,
within the project site.
Infrastructure improvements associated with Alternative B would be similar to those described for
the proposed project. The project site is serviced by existing potable water, stormwater, sanitary
sewer, natural gas, electric, and trash and recycling services. New on-site facilities would be
connected to new services through the installation of new, localized connections. Expansion or an
increase in capacity of off-site infrastructure would occur as required by the utility providers. As
with the project, Alternative B could include off-site infrastructure improvements outside of the
project site but within the Gateway Campus.
The construction activities for Alternative B would be similar to the proposed project. The
construction schedule for Alternative B may be slightly shorter than the proposed project. In addition,
Alternative B would require substantially less ground disturbance in the northern portion of the
project site and slightly less ground disturbance overall compared to the proposed project. Overall,
Alternative B would result in a slightly reduced construction program in terms of timeline and activity.
As for the anticipated approvals, Alternative B would still require a TDM Plan approval, design
review, and precise plan approval. Alternative B would also require standard City engineering,
building, fire, and protected tree removal permits, along with other agency approvals (e.g., Bay Area
Regional Water Quality Control Board, BAAQMD, and Federal Aviation Administration).
5.5.2 Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Alternative B—Reduced Surface Parking Lot Demolition Alternative would only partially meet the
project objective to “develop a building that is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding
vicinity, with height, massing and design treatment” because it would not maximize the visual
potential and compatibility with surrounding uses regarding the proposed landscape, hardscape,
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-15 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
and site plan. Alternative B would not redevelop a portion of the existing surface parking not in the
northeastern portion of the project site. In addition, existing shrubs and other landscaping in the
northeastern part of the project site would remain and would not be renovated. Similarly,
Alternative B would also only partially meet the project objective to redevelop underutilized parcels
within the project site at a higher density to build on the synergy of R&D development and to take
advantage of opportunities offered in the East of 101 Area” because it would not maximize the
opportunity to create a vibrant, attractive site. Alternative B would only partially meet the project
objective to “develop an R&D campus with a high level of design quality” because it would not
maximize the potential for high-quality landscape design treatments around the Gateway Campus.
Alternative B would only partially meet the project objective to “enhance the visual quality of
development around the existing Gateway Campus by providing a high-quality, modern building and
functional and attractive landscape areas” because it would not maximize the potential for high-
quality landscape design treatments around the campus. Alternative B would only partially meet the
project objective to “promote alternatives to automobile transportation to further the City’s
transportation objectives by emphasizing linkages, transportation demand management (TDM),
pedestrian access, and ease of movement between buildings” and the project objective to “enhance
vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation and access in the area” because it would not maximize
pedestrian circulation and ease of movement. Alternative B would fully meet the other project
objectives. Therefore, Alternative B would meet some but not all of the project objectives (refer to
Section 3.1.1 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this draft EIR for a list of the project objectives that
have been identified by the project sponsor and Table 5-3 for a comparison of the ability of this
alternative to meet the objectives of the proposed project).
5.5.3 Impacts
The impact analysis below focuses on those impacts that were determined to be significant and
unavoidable and less than significant with mitigation under the proposed project. Less-than-
significant impacts are generally discussed at the end of the impact analysis.
5.5.3.1 Air Quality
Under the slightly reduced construction program of Alternative B, slightly less demolition and
construction activities would occur in the northern portion of the project site, which would reduce
construction emissions. This would slightly reduce construction-related emissions impacts, but
would not eliminate the impacts. Thus, Mitigation Measures AQ-1, Use Clean Diesel-Powered
Equipment during Construction to Control Construction-Related NOX Emissions, and AQ-2,
Implement BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, would continue to apply to
Alternative B. Impacts associated with construction criteria air pollutant emissions under this
alternative would be less than significant with mitigation, although slightly reduced compared to the
proposed project. In addition, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2,
Alternative B’s contribution to a cumulative criteria pollutant emissions impact would be less than
cumulatively considerable, although slightly reduced compared to the proposed project.
During operations, the area and building energy sources of emissions under Alternative B would be
similar to the proposed project. In addition, Alternative B would generate a similar number of
vehicle trips. As with the project, Alternative B would be designed to meet LEED Gold certification
and International WELL Building Institute WELL and FITWELL standards. Consequently, Alternative
B would generate a similar level of operational air quality emissions. Impacts associated with
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-16 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
operational criteria air pollutant emissions under this alternative would be less than significant,
similar to the proposed project. In addition, similar to the proposed project, the alternative’s
contribution to cumulative operational air quality impacts would be less than cumulatively
considerable under Alternative B.
Similar to the proposed project, construction and operation of Alternative B would generate toxic air
contaminants (TACs), including diesel particulate matter and particulate matter (PM2.5), within the
same proximity from the same sensitive receptors (Gateway Child Development Center Peninsula)
that would be affected by the proposed project. Under the slightly limited construction program of
Alternative B and with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2, health-risks from
construction-related DPM and PM2.5 concentrations during construction would be less than
significant with mitigation, although slightly reduced compared to the proposed project. Alternative
B would include the same generator and testing activity as the proposed project. As with the
proposed project, all new stationary sources under Alternative B would be subject to the permit
authority of BAAQMD. Thus, operational TAC impacts under Alternative B would be less than
significant, similar to the proposed project. Operational PM2.5 concentrations would also be less than
significant, similar to the proposed project. In addition, the alternative’s contribution to cumulative
health risks and substantial PM2.5 concentrations would be less than cumulatively considerable
under Alternative B, although slightly reduced compared to the proposed project.
5.5.3.2 Biological Resources
Alternative B would involve a slightly reduced development area, which would require slightly less
demolition, ground disturbance, and tree and landscape removal compared to the project. Thus,
construction impacts to biological resources would be reduced because more existing habitat for
birds, bats, and other animals would be retained. Specifically, 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. This would slightly reduce impacts to wildlife species such as
migratory birds and roosting bats, but would not eliminate the impacts. Thus, Mitigation Measures
BI-1, Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys and Buffer Areas; BI-2, Preconstruction Bat Survey for
Roosting Bats and Roosting Habitat Abatement; BI-3, Lighting Measures to Reduce Impacts on Birds;
and BI-4, Building Design Measures to Minimize Bird Strike Risk, would continue to apply to
Alternative B. Alternative B, like the project, would be required to abide by all conditions specified in
the City’s Municipal Code, which requires that the project sponsor obtain permits to remove
protected trees and to compensate for their removal by planting replacement trees of certain sizes
and species as specified in the Municipal Code and by the Parks and Recreation director. With
implementation of Mitigation Measures BI-1, BI-2, BI-3, and BI-4, project-level and cumulative
biological resources impacts under Alternative B would be less than significant/less than
cumulatively considerable with mitigation and slightly reduced compared to the proposed project.
5.5.3.3 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Alternative B would involve a slightly reduced development area, which would require slightly less
ground disturbance compared to the project. This would slightly reduce the potential for ground-
disturbing activities to unearth previously unknown archaeological resources, but would not
eliminate the impacts. Thus, Mitigation Measures CR-1, Cultural Resources Worker Environmental
Awareness Program (WEAP); CR-2, Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find, and Implement
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-17 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Mitigation for Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Resources; and CR-3, Halt Construction
Activity, Evaluate Remains, and Take Appropriate Action in Coordination with Native American
Heritage Commission, would continue to apply to Alternative B. With implementation of Mitigation
Measures CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3, project-level and cumulative cultural resources and tribal cultural
resources impacts under Alternative B would be less than significant/less than cumulatively
considerable with mitigation and slightly reduced compared to the proposed project.
5.5.3.4 Energy
Under the slightly reduced construction program of Alternative B, less demolition and construction
activities would occur in the northern portion of the project site. This would slightly reduce the
construction-related energy usage and consumption, but would not eliminate the impacts. Mitigation
Measure GHG-1, Require Implementation of BAAQMD-recommended Construction BMPs, would
continue to apply to Alternative B. Operation of Alternative B would result in a similar operation-
related energy usage and consumption compared to the proposed project. As with the project,
Alternative B would be designed to meet LEED Gold certification and International WELL Building
Institute WELL and FITWELL standards. With implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1, project-
level and cumulative energy impacts under Alternative B would be less than significant /less than
cumulatively considerable with mitigation and slightly reduced compared to the proposed project.
5.5.3.5 Geology and Soils
Alternative B would involve a slightly reduced development area, which would require slightly less
ground disturbance compared to the project. This would slightly reduce the potential for ground-
disturbing activities to disturb geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity, but would not
eliminate the impacts. Thus, Mitigation Measure GEO-1, Conduct Construction Personnel Training
and Stop Work and Prepare and Implement a Recovery Plan If Paleontological Resources Are
Discovered, would continue to apply to Alternative B. With implementation of Mitigation Measure
GEO-1, project-level and cumulative geology and soils impacts under Alternative B would be less
than significant/less than cumulatively considerable with mitigation and slightly reduced compared
to the proposed project.
5.5.3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the slightly reduced construction program of Alternative B, less demolition and construction
activities would occur in the northern portion of the project site. This would slightly reduce the
construction-related GHG emissions, but would not eliminate the impacts. Mitigation Measure GHG-
1, Require Implementation of BAAQMD-recommended Construction BMPs, would continue to apply
to Alternative B. Alternative B would generate a similar number of vehicle trips compared to the
proposed project. In addition, direct emissions generated by emergency generators, natural gas
combustion, and landscaping activities and indirect emissions associated with electricity
consumption, waste and wastewater generation, and water use would be similar to the proposed
project. As with the project, Alternative B would be designed to meet LEED Gold certification and
International WELL Building Institute WELL and FITWELL standards. Alternative B would
implement the same sustainability features, such as Energy Star-rated appliances, green
infrastructure (e.g., biotreatment areas and other low-impact development), low-flow shower heads,
aerators, and toilets, and waste diversion programs. Operation of Alternative B would result in
similar operation-related GHG emissions compared to the proposed project. Mitigation Measure
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-18 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Mitigation Measure GHG-2, Operational GHG Reduction Measures, would continue to apply to
Alternative B. With implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2, project contribution
to significant cumulative GHG emissions impacts under Alternative B would be cumulatively
considerable, and cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation, similar
to the proposed project.
5.5.3.7 Noise and Vibration
Under the slightly reduced construction program of Alternative B, less demolition and construction
activities would occur in the northern portion of the project site, which would reduce construction
noise and vibration. This would slightly reduce construction-related noise and vibration impacts,
but would not eliminate the impacts. Thus, Mitigation Measure NOI-1, Construction Noise Control
Plan to Reduce Noise Outside of the Standard Construction Hours in the City of South San Francisco,
would continue to apply to Alternative B. During operations, noise from the proposed heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and mechanical equipment and emergency
generators under Alternative B would be similar to the proposed project. In addition, Alternative B
would generate a similar number of vehicle trips and traffic noise would be similar to the proposed
project. Thus, Mitigation Measure NOI-2, Operational Noise Study to Determine Attenuation
Measures to Reduce Noise from Project Mechanical Equipment, would continue to apply to
Alternative B. With implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, project-level and
cumulative noise and vibration impacts under Alternative B would be less than significant/less than
cumulatively considerable with mitigation and slightly reduced compared to the proposed project.
5.5.3.8 Transportation and Circulation
Under the slightly reduced construction program of Alternative B, less demolition and construction
activities would occur in the northern portion of the project site, which would reduce construction
trips. During operations, site access and circulation would be similar to the proposed project.
Alternative B would generate a similar number of vehicle trips. Thus, Mitigation Measure TR-1,
First- and Last-mile Strategies, would continue to apply to Alternative B. Mitigation Measure TR-1
requires approval and implementation of several off-site improvements and paying a fair-share
contribution toward other off-site improvements. Alternative B would include the same design
features that support VMT reduction as the proposed project, including the TDM plan measures, the
new employee shuttle stop along the western portion of the project site, and the installation of
electric charging stations and bicycle parking within the project site. Operation of Alternative B
would result in similar operation-related transportation and circulation impacts compared to the
proposed project. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-1, project-level and cumulative
transportation and circulation impacts under Alternative B would be significant and unavoidable
with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.
5.5.3.9 Less-than-Significant Impacts
This draft EIR concludes that the proposed project would have no impact or less-than-significant
impacts in all topics of the following analysis areas.
l Aesthetics
l Agricultural and Forest Resources
l Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-19 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
l Hydrology and Water Quality
l Land Use
l Mineral Resources
l Population and Housing
l Public Services
l Recreation
l Utilities
l Wildfire
Alternative B would occupy the same project site and construct the same building with a slightly
reduced development plan and demolition requirement compared to the proposed project. As a result,
the construction and operational impacts of Alternative B for each of the environmental topics noted
above would be similar to, or would be reduced compared to those of the proposed project.
5.6 Alternative C—Reduced Building Footprint
Alternative
5.6.1 Description
Alternative C—Reduced Building Footprint Alternative would construct 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. Alternative C includes a total of 156,600 square feet compared to 208,800 square feet under
the proposed project, as shown in Table 5-1. The site plan for this alternative would otherwise be
similar to the proposed project. Site access and circulation would be similar to the proposed project.
Alternative C would include the same overall pedestrian and landscape improvements to the site as
the proposed project. Thus, it is anticipated that the amount of pervious surface under this
alternative would be similar to the proposed project. Overall, Alternative B would involve a similarly
sized development area compared to the project even though the building footprint would be
reduced because it is anticipated that additional site improvements (e.g., landscaping and
hardscaped areas) would be constructed around the perimeter of the building. In addition,
Alternative C would require the removal of 175 existing trees, as with the proposed project.
The building design under Alternative C would be the same in height, architecture, and materials as
the proposed project. However, the building under Alternative C would include less square footage
and, thus, less bulk than the proposed project. The building under Alternative C would similarly be
designed to meet LEED Gold certification and International WELL Building Institute WELL and
FITWELL standards. Alternative C would include the same design features that support VMT reduction
as the proposed project, including the TDM plan measures, the new employee shuttle stop along the
western portion of the project site, and the installation of electric charging stations and bicycle parking
within the project site. Alternative C would implement the same sustainability features, such as Energy
Star-rated appliances, green infrastructure (e.g., biotreatment areas and other low-impact
development), low-flow shower heads, aerators, and toilets, and waste diversion programs.
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-20 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Alternative C, like the proposed project, would maintain the existing zoning designation of Zone IV
under the GSPD and the same existing zoning would apply to this alternative, which allows for
development at a FAR of 1.25, or a maximum of 402,930 square feet, within the project site.
Infrastructure improvements associated with Alternative C would be similar to those described for
the proposed project. The project site is serviced by existing potable water, stormwater, sanitary
sewer, natural gas, electric, and trash and recycling services. New on-site facilities would be
connected to new services through the installation of new, localized connections. Expansion or an
increase in capacity of off-site infrastructure would occur as required by the utility providers. As
with the project, Alternative C could include off-site infrastructure improvements outside of the
project site but within the Gateway Campus.
The construction activities for Alternative C would be similar to the proposed project. The
construction schedule for Alternative C may be substantially shorter than the proposed project. In
addition, Alternative C would require substantially less ground disturbance near the building
footprint and slightly less ground disturbance overall compared to the proposed project. Overall,
Alternative C would result in a substantially reduced construction program.
As for the anticipated approvals, Alternative C would still require a TDM Plan approval, design
review, precise plan approval, and a CUP to Authorize a Parking Decrease. Alternative C would also
require standard City engineering, building, fire, and protected tree removal permits, along with
other agency approvals (e.g., Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board, BAAQMD, and Federal
Aviation Administration).
5.6.2 Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Alternative C—Reduced Building Footprint Alternative would only partially meet the project
objective to “create state-of-the-art R&D facilities consistent with the South San Francisco General
Plan (General Plan) designation for the site as well as General Plan goals and policies” because it
would not maximize allowable uses under the existing General Plan land use designation (BC).
Alternative C would involve constructing a building that is the same height as the proposed project
with the same ratio of office, R&D, and retail uses, but with a reduced building footprint and
approximately 25 percent less square footage. Similarly, Alternative C would only partially meet the
project objective to “promote the City’s ongoing development of the “East of 101 Area” into a
nationally recognized biotechnology and R&D center” because it would not maximize the site’s
potential uses to the same extent as the project. Alternative C would only partially meet the project
objective to “further the City’s policies for developing the East of 101 Area with new opportunities
for continued evolution from manufacturing and warehousing/distribution to biotechnology and
R&D” because it would not maximize biotechnology and R&D uses at the site compared to the
proposed project. Alternative C would only partially meet the project objective to “redevelop
underutilized parcels within the project site at a higher density” because it would not maximize the
allowable land uses on the project site. Alternative C would only partially meet the project objective
to “build a project that creates quality jobs for the City” because it would not maximize quality job
creation to the extent possibly under the allowable land uses. Alternative C would generate fewer
jobs than the proposed project. Alternative C would only partially meet the project objectives to
“build a project that is viable in the East of 101 Area, based on market conditions and project service
requirements for the area” and to “maximize positive fiscal impacts for the City through the creation
of jobs, enhancement of property values, and generation of property taxes and development fees”
because it would be less viable, generate a lower fewer jobs, enhance the property to a lesser extent,
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-21 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
and generate fewer taxes and fees compared to the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative C would
meet some but not all of the project objectives (refer to Section 3.1.1 in Chapter 3, Project
Description, of this draft EIR for a list of the project objectives that have been identified by the
project sponsor and Table 5-3 for a comparison of the ability of this alternative to meet the
objectives of the proposed project).
5.6.3 Impacts
The impact analysis below focuses on those impacts that were determined to be significant and
unavoidable and less than significant with mitigation under the proposed project. Less-than-
significant impacts are generally discussed at the end of the impact analysis.
5.6.3.1 Air Quality
Under the substantially reduced construction program of Alternative C, less construction activities
would be required for the reduced building footprint, which would reduce construction emissions.
This would reduce construction-related emissions impacts, but would not eliminate the impacts.
Thus, Mitigation Measures AQ-1, Use Clean Diesel-Powered Equipment during Construction to
Control Construction-Related NOX Emissions, and AQ-2, Implement BAAQMD Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures, would continue to apply to Alternative C. Impacts associated with
construction criteria air pollutant emissions under this alternative would be less than significant
with mitigation, although slightly reduced compared to the proposed project. In addition, with
implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2, Alternative C’s contribution to a
cumulative criteria pollutant emissions impact would be less than cumulatively considerable,
although slightly reduced compared to the proposed project.
During operations, the area and building energy sources of emissions under Alternative C would
be less than the proposed project because the proposed building would be approximately 25
percent smaller. In addition, Alternative C would generate a fewer vehicle trips than the proposed
project because there would be fewer employees at the project site. Consequently, Alternative C
would generate fewer operational air quality emissions. As with the project, Alternative C would
be designed to meet LEED Gold certification and International WELL Building Institute WELL and
FITWELL standards. Impacts associated with operational criteria air pollutant emissions under
this alternative would be less than significant, although slightly reduced compared to the
proposed project. In addition, similar to the proposed project, the alternative’s contribution to
cumulative operational air quality impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable under
Alternative C.
Similar to the proposed project, construction and operation of Alternative C would generate toxic
air contaminants (TACs), including diesel particulate matter and particulate matter (PM2.5), within
the same proximity from the same sensitive receptors (Gateway Child Development Center
Peninsula) that would be affected by the proposed project. Under the slightly limited construction
program of Alternative C and with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2, health-
risks from construction-related DPM and PM2.5 concentrations during construction would be less
than significant with mitigation, although slightly reduced compared to the proposed project.
Alternative B would include the same generator and testing activity as the proposed project. As
with the proposed project, all new stationary sources under Alternative C would be subject to the
permit authority of BAAQMD. Thus, operational TAC impacts under Alternative C would be less
than significant, similar to the proposed project. Operational PM2.5 concentrations would also be
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-22 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
less than significant, similar to the proposed project. In addition, the alternative’s contribution to
cumulative health risks and substantial PM2.5 concentrations would be less than cumulatively
considerable under Alternative C, although slightly reduced compared to the proposed project.
5.6.3.2 Biological Resources
Alternative C would involve a similarly sized development area, which would require the removal of
175 existing trees, as with the proposed project. Impacts to wildlife species such as migratory birds
and roosting bats under this alternative would be similar to the proposed project. Thus, Mitigation
Measures BI-1, Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys and Buffer Areas; BI-2, Preconstruction Bat
Survey for Roosting Bats and Roosting Habitat Abatement; BI-3, Lighting Measures to Reduce Impacts
on Birds; and BI-4, Building Design Measures to Minimize Bird Strike Risk, would continue to apply
to Alternative C. Alternative C, like the project, would be required to abide by all conditions specified
in the City’s Municipal Code, which requires that the project sponsor obtain permits to remove
protected trees and to compensate for their removal by planting replacement trees of certain sizes
and species as specified in the Municipal Code and by the Parks and Recreation director, and
impacts. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BI-1, BI-2, BI-3, and BI-4, project-level and
cumulative biological resources impacts under Alternative C would be less than significant with
mitigation and slightly reduced compared to the proposed project.
5.6.3.3 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Alternative C would involve a reduced building footprint, which would require substantially less
ground disturbance near the building footprint and slightly less ground disturbance overall
compared to the proposed project. This would reduce the potential for ground-disturbing activities
could unearth previously unknown archaeological resources, but would not eliminate the impacts.
Mitigation Measures CR-1, Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program
(WEAP); CR-2, Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find, and Implement Mitigation for
Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Resources; and CR-3, Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate
Remains, and Take Appropriate Action in Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission,
would continue to apply to Alternative C. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2,
and CR-3, project-level cultural resources and tribal cultural resources impacts and under
Alternative C would be less than significant with mitigation and the project’s contribution to
cumulative cultural resources and tribal cultural resources impacts and under Alternative C would
be less than cumulatively considerable with mitigation and slightly reduced compared to the
proposed project.
5.6.3.4 Energy
Under the substantially reduced construction program of Alternative C, less construction activities
would be required for the reduced building footprint. This would slightly reduce the construction-
related energy usage and consumption, but would not eliminate the impacts. Mitigation Measure
GHG-1, Require Implementation of BAAQMD-recommended Construction BMPs, would continue to
apply to Alternative C. During operations, the energy usage and consumption under Alternative C
would be less than the proposed project because the proposed building would be approximately 25
percent smaller. As with the project, Alternative C would be designed to meet LEED Gold
certification and International WELL Building Institute WELL and FITWELL standards. With
implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1, project-level energy impacts under Alternative C
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-23 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
would be less than significant with mitigation the project’s contribution to cumulative energy
impacts and under Alternative C would be less than cumulatively considerable with mitigation and
slightly reduced compared to the proposed project.
5.6.3.5 Geology and Soils
Alternative C would involve a reduced building footprint, which would require substantially less
ground disturbance near the building footprint and slightly less ground disturbance overall
compared to the proposed project. This would reduce the potential for ground-disturbing activities
to disturb geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity, but would not eliminate the impacts.
Thus, Mitigation Measure GEO-1, Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find, and Implement
Mitigation for Paleontological Resources, would continue to apply to Alternative C. With
implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, project-level geology and soils impacts under
Alternative C would be less than significant with mitigation the project’s contribution to cumulative
geology and soils impacts and under Alternative C would be less than cumulatively considerable
with mitigation and slightly reduced compared to the proposed project.
5.6.3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the substantially reduced construction program of Alternative C, less construction activities
would be required for the reduced building footprint. This would slightly reduce the construction-
related GHG emissions, but would not eliminate the impacts. Mitigation Measure GHG-1, Require
Implementation of BAAQMD-recommended Construction BMPs, would continue to apply to
Alternative C. Alternative C would generate fewer vehicle trips than the proposed project because
there would be fewer employees at the project site. In addition, direct emissions generated by
emergency generators, natural gas combustion, and landscaping activities and indirect emissions
associated with electricity consumption, waste and wastewater generation, and water use would be
reduced compared to the proposed project because the proposed building would be approximately
25 percent smaller. As with the project, Alternative C would be designed to meet LEED Gold
certification and International WELL Building Institute WELL and FITWELL standards. Alternative C
would implement the same sustainability features, such as Energy Star-rated appliances, green
infrastructure (e.g., biotreatment areas and other low-impact development), low-flow shower heads,
aerators, and toilets, and waste diversion programs. Operation of Alternative C would result in
reduced operation-related GHG emissions compared to the proposed project. Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure GHG-2, Operational GHG Reduction Measures, would continue to apply to
Alternative B. With implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2, cumulative GHG
emissions impacts under Alternative C would be cumulatively considerable with mitigation, similar
to the proposed project because it would not reduce the average HBW VMT per employee.8
5.6.3.7 Noise and Vibration
Under the substantially reduced construction program of Alternative C, less construction
activities would be required for the reduced building footprint, which would reduce construction
noise and vibration. This would slightly reduce construction-related noise and vibration impacts,
8 The key metric used to determine a VMT impact is home-based work HBW VMT per capita, which is expressed
as a rate per employee. For example, if an alternative would have fewer employees compared to the proposed
project, it would still be required to substantially reduce the average trip length between employees’ home and
work to substantially reduce the average HBW VMT per employee compared to the proposed project.
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-24 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
but would not eliminate the impacts. Thus, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 , Construction Noise Control
Plan to Reduce Noise Outside of the Standard Construction Hours in the City of South San
Francisco, would continue to apply to Alternative C. During operations, Alternative C would
generate fewer vehicle trips than the proposed project because there would be fewer employees
at the project site, which would reduce traffic noise. Noise from the proposed HVAC systems and
mechanical equipment and emergency generators under Alternative C would be similar to the
proposed project. Thus, Mitigation Measure NOI-2, Operational Noise Study to Determine
Attenuation Measures to Reduce Noise from Project Mechanical Equipment, would continue to
apply to Alternative C. With implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, project-
level noise and vibration impacts under Alternative C would be less than significant and less than
cumulatively considerable with mitigation and slightly reduced compared to the proposed
project.
5.6.3.8 Transportation and Circulation
Under the substantially reduced construction program of Alternative C, less construction
activities would be required for the reduced building footprint, which would reduce construction
trips.
During operations, site access and circulation would be similar to the proposed project. The
number of daily vehicle trips under Alternative C would be less than the proposed project
because the proposed building would be approximately 25 percent smaller. Alternative C would
generate approximately 1,400 net daily vehicle trips, with 160 in the morning peak hour and 130
in the evening peak hour (compared to 1,784 net daily vehicle trips, with 206 in the morning
peak hour and 172 in the evening peak hour under the proposed project). This represents a
decrease of approximately 38 net daily vehicle trips (or 25 percent) compared to the proposed
project. Trip distribution percentages and choices of routes to and from the project site for
Alternative C were assumed to be consistent with the assumptions used for analysis of the
proposed project. These assumptions are based on the City/County Association of Governments
of San Mateo County (C/CAG)’s Travel Demand Model and the City’s Travel Demand Model, which
have greater sensitivity to local travel patterns. Vehicle trips generated by Alternative C would
result in some reduced transportation impacts as compared to the proposed project. While
Alternative C would generate fewer employees and trips compared to the proposed project, it
would not substantially reduce the average trip length between employees’ home and work and
would not substantially reduce the average HBW VMT per employee compared to the proposed
project.9 Thus, Mitigation Measure TR-1, First- and Last-mile Strategies, would continue to apply
to Alternative C. Mitigation Measure TR-1 requires approval and implementation of several off-
site improvements and paying a fair-share contribution toward other off-site improvements.
Alternative C would include the same design features that support VMT reduction as the
proposed project, including the TDM plan, the new employee shuttle stop along the western
portion of the project site, and the installation of electric charging stations and bicycle parking
within the project site. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-1, project-level and
cumulative transportation and circulation impacts under Alternative C would be significant and
unavoidable with mitigation, similar to the proposed project because it would not reduce the
average HBW VMT per employee.
9 Ibid.
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-25 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
5.6.3.9 Less-than-Significant Impacts
This draft EIR concludes that the proposed project would have no impact or less-than-significant
impacts in all topics of the following analysis areas.
l Aesthetics
l Agricultural and Forest Resources
l Hazards and Hazardous Materials
l Hydrology and Water Quality
l Land Use
l Mineral Resources
l Population and Housing
l Public Services
l Recreation
l Utilities
l Wildfire
Alternative C would occupy the same project site but with a smaller building footprint and reduced
building square footage than the proposed project and would otherwise have a similar development
program and site plan overall. As a result, the construction and operational impacts of
Alternative C—Reduced Building Footprint Alternative, for each of the environmental topics noted
above would be similar or reduced compared to those of the proposed project.
5.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires identification of an environmentally superior
alternative (i.e., 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 to a less-than-significant level. If the No Project Alternative (i.e., Alternative A) is found to
be the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior
alternative among the other alternatives.
Table 5-2 compares the significant and less-than-significant with mitigation impacts of the proposed
project to those of the alternatives. Table 5-3 compares the ability of the alternatives to meet the
objectives of the proposed project.
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. Alternative B
would also meet more of the project objectives compared to Alternative C, although it would not
meet all of the project objectives and it would only partially meet some of the project objectives,
as shown in Table 5-3.
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-26 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
[page left blank intentionally]
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-27 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Table 5-2. Comparison of Proposed Project Significant Impacts and Less-than-Significant Impacts with Mitigation to Alternatives
Potential Environmental Impacts Proposed Project
Alternative A—
No Project
Alternative B—
Reduced Surface Parking Lot
Demolition Alternative
Alternative C—
Reduced Building
Footprint Alternative
Significant Impacts
Impact TR-1: The project would generate per-employee VMT greater
than the City threshold.
Significant and Unavoidable
with Mitigation
No Impact Significant and Unavoidable
with Mitigation
(similar to the project)
Significant and Unavoidable
with Mitigation
(similar to the project)
Impact GHG-1b: The project would generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment during operation.
Significant and Unavoidable
with Mitigation
No Impact Significant and Unavoidable
with Mitigation
(similar to the project)
Significant and Unavoidable
with Mitigation
(similar to the project)
Impact GHG-2: The project would conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases.
Significant and Unavoidable
with Mitigation
No Impact Significant and Unavoidable
with Mitigation
(similar to the project)
Significant and Unavoidable
with Mitigation
(similar to the project)
Less-than-Significant Impacts with Mitigation
Impact AQ-2 (construction): 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.
Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Impact AQ-3 (construction): The proposed project would not expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Impact C-AQ-2 (construction): The proposed project would not result
in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative
impacts related to a net increase in criteria pollutants or which the
region is in nonattainment for an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard.
Less than Cumulatively Considerable
Contributor with Mitigation
No Impact Less than Cumulatively Considerable
Contributor with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Less than Cumulatively Considerable
Contributor with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
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.
Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
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.
Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation
(similar to the project)
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.
Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation
(similar to the project)
Impact C-BIO-1: The proposed project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative
impacts on biological resources.
Less than Cumulatively Considerable
Contributor with Mitigation
No Impact Less than Cumulatively Considerable
Contributor with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Less than Cumulatively Considerable
Contributor with Mitigation
(similar to the project)
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.
Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Impact CR-3: The proposed project would not disturb any human
remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-28 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Potential Environmental Impacts Proposed Project
Alternative A—
No Project
Alternative B—
Reduced Surface Parking Lot
Demolition Alternative
Alternative C—
Reduced Building
Footprint Alternative
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.
Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
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.
Less than Cumulatively Considerable
Contributor with Mitigation
No Impact Less than Cumulatively Considerable
Contributor with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Less than Cumulatively Considerable with
Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Impact EN-1 (construction): 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.
Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Impact GEO-6: The proposed project could directly or indirectly
destroy a unique paleontological resource on site or unique geologic
feature.
Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Impact C-GEO-2: The proposed project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative
impacts on paleontological resources.
Less than Cumulatively Considerable
Contributor with Mitigation
No Impact Less than Cumulatively Considerable
Contributor with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Less than Cumulatively Considerable
Contributor with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Impact GHG-1a (construction): The proposed project would not
generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have
significant impact on the environment during construction.
Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Impact NOI-1 (construction): 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.
Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Impact C-NOI-1 (construction): 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.
Less than Cumulatively Considerable
Contributor with Mitigation
No Impact Less than Cumulatively Considerable
Contributor with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
Impact TR-4: The proposed project would not produce a detrimental
impact to local transit or shuttle services, or conflict with adopted
plans and programs.
Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation
(similar to the project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation
(slightly reduced compared to the
project)
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-29 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
Table 5-3. Ability of Alternatives to Meet Project Objectives
Project Objective
Alternative A—
No Project
Alternative B—
Reduced Surface Parking Lot
Demolition Alternative
Alternative C—
Reduced Building
Footprint Alternative
Create state-of-the-art R&D facilities consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan (General Plan) designation for the
site as well as General Plan goals and policies.
No Yes Partial: does not maximize allowable
uses under the existing General Plan
land use designation (BC)
Develop a building that is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding vicinity, with height, massing and design treatment
that is compatible with other recent development in the East of 101 Area.
No Partial: does not maximize visual
potential and compatibility with
surrounding uses regarding landscape,
hardscape, and site plan
Yes
Promote the City’s ongoing development of the “East of 101 Area” into a nationally recognized biotechnology and R&D center
to attract other life science uses.
No Yes Partial: does not maximize this
potential
Further the City’s policies for developing the East of 101 Area with new opportunities for continued evolution from
manufacturing and warehousing/distribution to biotechnology and R&D.
No Yes Partial: does not maximize this
opportunity
Redevelop underutilized parcels within the project site at a higher density to build on the synergy of R&D development and to
take advantage of opportunities offered in the East of 101 Area to create a vibrant, attractive, and efficiently-designed R&D
campus.
No Partial: does not maximize the
opportunity to create a vibrant,
attractive site
Partial: does not maximize allowable
land uses
Develop an R&D campus with a high level of design quality, as called for in the design policies and guidelines of the East of
101 Area Plan.
No Partial: does not maximize the
potential for high-level of landscape
and site design quality
Yes
Build a project that creates quality jobs for the City. No Yes Partial: does not maximize quality job
creation to the extent possible under
allowable land uses
Provide sufficient space for tenants to employ key scientific and business personnel in proximity to each other to foster
efficient collaboration and productivity.
No Yes Partial
Capitalize on the project’s proximity to the new Caltrain station to provide transit-oriented employment opportunities,
encourage employees to commute using public transit, and reduce VMT and air emissions by reducing single-occupancy
vehicle trips.
No Yes Yes
Enhance the visual quality of development around the existing Gateway Campus by providing a high-quality, modern building
and functional and attractive landscape areas. The project will take advantage of and enhance access to the Caltrain station by
upgrading the pedestrian and bicycle connections within and to the Gateway Campus.
No Partial: does not maximize the
potential for high-quality landscape
design treatments around the Gateway
Campus
Yes
Promote alternatives to automobile transportation to further the City’s transportation objectives by emphasizing linkages,
transportation demand management (TDM), pedestrian access, and ease of movement between buildings.
No Partial: does not maximize pedestrian
circulation and ease of movement
experience
Yes
Enhance vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation and access in the area surrounding the project site. No Partial: does not maximize user
circulation and access potential
Yes
Build a project that is viable in the East of 101 area based on market conditions and project service requirements for the area. No Yes Partial: less viable than the proposed
project
Incorporate flexibility for office and R&D uses to ensure that the project is responsive to tenant demands, based on market
conditions.
No Yes Yes
Maximize positive fiscal impacts for the City through the creation of jobs, enhancement of property values, and generation of
property taxes and development fees.
No Yes Partial: does not maximize jobs,
property values, property taxes, and
fees
City of South San Francisco
Alternatives
751 Gateway Boulevard Project 5-30 September 2020
ICF 0662.19
[page left blank intentionally]