Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20_Ch6_Alternatives_web CHAPTER 6AlternativestotheProposedProject 6.1ALTERNATIVES The following discussion evaluates alternatives to the proposed project and examines the potential environmental impacts associated with each alternative. Through comparison of these alternatives to the proposed project, the relative environmental advantages of each can be weighed and analyzed. The CEQA Guidelines require that a range of alternatives be addressed, governed by a rule of reason. Not every conceivable alternative must be addressed, nor do infeasible alternatives need to be considered (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[a]). When addressing feasibility, Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines states, ?among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries. ?? The Guidelines state that the discussion of alternatives must focus on alternatives capable of either avoiding or substantially lessening any significant environmental effects of the project while also achieving the project objectives, which are identified in Section 3.3 (Project Description, Project Objectives) of this MEIR. The alternatives discussion should not consider alternatives whose implementation is remote or speculative, and the analysis need not be presented in the same level of detail as the assessment of the proposed project. Based on the CEQA Guidelines, several factors must be considered in determining the range of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR and the level of analytical detail that should be provided for each alternative. These factors include (1) the nature of the significant impacts of the proposed project, (2) ability of alternatives to avoid or lessen the significant impacts associated with the project, (3) the ability of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the project, and (4) the feasibility of the alternatives. The analysis in this MEIR indicates that the proposed project will result in significant unavoidable impacts with respect to air quality, noise and vibration, and traffic. Thus, the alternatives examined herein represent alternatives that would minimize or avoid the air quality, noise and vibration and traffic impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. 6.2DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT A number of alternatives that feasibly attain most of the project objectives were considered as a part of the planning process by Genentech and in this environmental review for the proposed project. In order to meet the intent of CEQA, a range of alternatives was developed. The anticipated significant and unavoidable impacts to occur as a result of the proposed project were factors in determining the type and range of alternatives to be evaluated in the MEIR. That is, the range of alternatives to be evaluated were defined in part by those alternatives that would have the potential to reduce or avoid significant effects of the proposed project, even if the alternative would impede, to some degree, the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 6-1 Chapter 6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project This section provides an analysis of the impacts of project alternatives. The analysis of each alternative provides a comparison of the potential impacts of the alternative to the proposed project. In summary, the alternatives that are evaluated in this section in more detail below include the following: Alternative 1: No Project-Continuation of 1995 Master Plan?The Continuation of the 1995 Master Plan alternative would continue development of the Genentech Campus under the terms of the 1995 Master Plan. Under Alternative 1, the existing campus would continue on its current 124-acre site and the building area would be limited to current project entitlements (which are all under construction or approved). See Table 6.1 for details of this alternative development under the proposed land use categories of Office, Laboratory, Manufacturing, and Amenity. Methodology for Selection of Alternative 1: Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A) of the CEQA Guidelines states that when the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the no project alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan, policy, or operation into the future. Therefore, under Alternative 1, the impacts of the proposed Master Plan (e.g., the 2006 FMPU) are compared to the impacts that would occur under the existing plan (e.g., the 1995 Master Plan). Compared to the 6 million gsf under the 2006 FMPU, this alternative would result in approximately 2.828 million gsf of development, and an associated employee population of 5,828 Because of the reduced development and employment levels, impacts of this alternative would generally be less than the proposed project. Alternative 2:Reduced Development?Under this alternative, the total campus buildout area would be 160 acres, which is the same as the proposed project, but the projected building square footage would be only 4.63 million sf, and an associated employee population of 11,025. See Table 6.1 for this alternative development under the proposed land use categories of Office, Laboratory, Manufacturing, and Amenity. Methodology for Selection of Alternative 2: This alternative was selected as the one that would still meet most of the growth needs of Genentech while reducing the overall amount and density of development. As such, some potential environmental impacts related to construction and operation would be avoided or reduced. Table 6-1 Proposed Master Plan and Project Alternatives: Comparison of Buildout Areas Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Proposed Project 1995 Master Plan Reduced Development Land Area 160 acres 124 acres 160 acres Office 2,629,395 sf 1,008,801 sf 2,462,500 sf Laboratory 2,002,482 sf 970,173 sf 1,532,500 sf Manufacturing/Warehouse 1,041,668 sf 779,892 sf 317,500 sf Amenity 322,000 sf 69,500 sf 302,500 sf Total Building Area 5,995,545 sf 2,828,366 sf 4,630,000 sf Total Employees 13,319 5,828 11,025 6-2 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project 6.3ALTERNATIVES REJECTED AS INFEASIBLE The City considered during the planning process the feasibility of alternatives to the proposed project that would involve development of similarly-scaled facilities, but located outside of South San Francisco and the Bay Area. These offsite alternatives were found to be infeasible because they do not achieve the operational needs, project requirements, project objectives, or long term goals of Genentech. South San Francisco is the birthplace and headquarters for Genentech. The proposed project would meet the functional goals in the following ways: (1) South San Francisco is the company?s historic home and center of its operations; (2) retention of the current workforce, many of whom could not be expected to move (or commute) to a new location outside the Bay Area; (3) expansion of the current campus is important to Genentech?s identity and to its effective functioning, as this will promote continuing and informal interactions between existing employees from various sectors of the company; (4) the academic ambience of the existing campus in a picturesque and accessible location helps to attract and retain employees, along with the top graduate students entering the field; (5) proximity of the current headquarters to UC Berkeley, UC San Francisco and Stanford University, and maintaining close relationships with these academic institutions contributes immeasurably to the research and development functions of the biopharmaceutical industry; (6) because the administrative functions of the company are as broad and diverse as the types of expertise that the employees possess, and because administrative staff is integral to supporting the research and development activities at Genentech, it is vital to keep all functions physically affiliated to ensure close coordination and communication among Research and Development, manufacturing, and administrative functions; (7) by expanding the current campus, Genentech is able to further its vision of an interconnected community, which also promotes alternatives to automobile transportation by emphasizing shuttles, linkages, transportation demand management, pedestrian access, and ease of movement between buildings. By contrast, creating new facilities outside South San Francisco and the Bay Area would undermine the company?s ability to thrive and to retain employees. Specifically, an offsite alternative would not meet Genentech?s functional objectives because: (1) it would separate the company from its historic roots; (2) it would risk the loss of key employees who were unable or unwilling to relocate; (3) it would result in poorer quality of communications between employees from various sectors of the company who would no longer be in close proximity to one another; (4) physical separation from the research facilities at nearby academic institutions would result in difficulty borrowing materials from and conferring with individuals at those institutions, and would further harm recruiting efforts; (5) it would prevent Genentech from creating and maintaining an interconnected community environment. Expanding at its existing headquarters also allows Genentech to continue and strengthen its civic and community ties and relationships. This would also serve to reinforce the vitality of the existing campus, further enhancing the aforementioned reasons for expanding it in South San Francisco. For these reasons, the alternative of building new facilities at locations away from South San Francisco and the Bay Area was considered and rejected. 6-3 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project 6.4ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 6.4.1Alternative 1?No Project: Continuation of 1995 Master Plan Alternative CEQA requires the evaluation of a ?No Project No Build? alternative, which means ?the existing conditions, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services? (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[e][2]). Further, Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A) of the CEQA Guidelines states that when the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the no project alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan, policy, or operation into the future. Evaluation of this alternative allows the City to compare the impact of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. Description The No Project: Continuation of 1995 Master Plan alternative would allow for development under the 1995 Master Plan which includes the Genentech R&D Overlay District of 124 acres. It is likely that Genentech would pursue development within the East of 101 Plan independent of expanding the overlay district in accordance with the provisions of the P-I District requirements. Thus, some portion of the proposed project?s growth would still occur; however, without the mechanisms of the Genentech R&D Overlay District. Additional growth of non-Genentech related projects would also occur. Impacts In general, the No Project Alternative would reduce the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. There would be less demand on utilities and public services with less additional development in the City. Additionally, with less development, biological resources, cultural resources, traffic, air quality, and noise impacts, as well as exposure to geological hazards would be reduced. However, development under this alternative would not expand the Genentech R&D Overlay District and continued expansion of Genentech?s campus would occur without the benefits provided by the proposed project. Without the proposed project, the interconnectedness of the Campus would not occur, with resulting benefits to separating parking uses from the central campus area as well as promoting even greater TDM effectiveness. Alternative 1 would also not achieve the City?s or Genentech?s objectives with regard to fostering the City?s reputation as a bio-technology capital. The City?s objectives with regard to completing the transition of the East of 101 Area from an industrial and light industrial area to a research and development and office center would also not be realized, as this would not occur under the No Project Alternative. Further, regional traffic growth would still occur, resulting in the potential for traffic impacts that would otherwise be mitigated by the proposed project. In general, this alternative would result in less severe impacts than under the proposed project. In the areas of aesthetics and land use, impacts of the No Project Alternative could actually be greater overall than with the proposed project because these beneficial impacts would not be realized. 6-4 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project 6.4.2Alternative 2?Reduced Development Under this alternative, the total campus buildout area would be 160 acres and the projected building square-footage would be 4.63 million sf, compared to nearly 6 million sf under the proposed project. While the buildout area would remain the same (160 acres) under this alternative, the amount of overall development would be reduced. This alternative would result in less development, less traffic volumes and less traffic-related air quality and noise impacts, and would involve less construction. This alternative would still meet most of the growth needs of Genentech. Due to the reduced development potential under this alternative, some potential environmental impacts related to construction and operation would be avoided or reduced. See Table 6-1 for a description of the types and amounts of uses. Description Under the Reduced Development Alternative, Genentech would prepare the 2006 FMPU, and apply for an expansion of the Genentech R&D Overlay District from the current 124-acres to 160-acres. However, with this alternative, the projected development within the expanded Genentech R&D Overlay District would be reduced to 1.8 million sf, for a total buildout of 4.63 million sf. The Reduced Development Alternative would allow Genentech to meet most of their growth needs while still being consistent with and compatible with the City?s General Plan policies, ensuring that future growth and development within the project area avoids potential conflicts with the City?s objectives of promoting the East of 101 Area as a premier biotechnology, and research and development sector. Impacts Biological Resources As described in the Environmental Setting, the majority of the MEIR Study Area has been developed, paved, or landscaped and supports largely non-native plant species. Suitable habitat for sensitive mammal, reptile, amphibian, or fish species does not exist within the Genentech Campus and only small fragmented coastal salt marsh habitat occurs along the shoreline at the end of Forbes Boulevard near the San Francisco Bay Trail public access parking area, and there are no wildlife migration corridors. In addition, it is assumed that the identified mitigation measures for the proposed project would be less- implemented for any construction activities under this alternative. This would reduce the impacts to than-significant levels. Some migratory avian species and other raptors may use portions of the site and adjacent areas during breeding season, and are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). It is assumed that the identified mitigation measures that reduce impacts to migratory birds for the proposed project would be implemented and compliance with the MBTA, similar to the proposed project, and impacts would be less-than-significant reduced to levels. 6-5 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Similar to the proposed project, landscaped areas in the Genentech Campus may contain trees defined as ?protected? by the South San Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance, Title 13, Chapter 13.30. However, less than significant compliance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance would reduce this impact to . Flood and Inundation Hazards Similar to the proposed project, coastal flooding and wave action during a 100-year storm would inundate the narrow strip of shoreline bordering the Genentech Campus to the east. However, as the wider strip of land just inland and along the shoreline is designated by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission as the Bay Trail, a public open space area; it is unlikely that development would occur in this area under this alternative. Buildings constructed in flood hazard areas are required to comply with the construction standards contained in Chapter 15.56 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC.) Section 15.56.140 identifies standards specific to construction in coastal high hazard areas. Developments shall be elevated above the flood level, anchored, and constructed of less-than-significant materials resistant to flood damage. For these reasons, this alternative would have impacts resulting from exposure to flooding as a result of a levee or dam, or effects of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, similar to the proposed project, if not reduced due to less development. Air Quality The Reduced Development Alternative would concentrate less development (about 40 percent less) within the expanded Genentech R&D Overlay District area of 160 acres. As this alternative would be consistent with the City?s General Plan and zoning regulations, and would implement and conform to various transportation control and trip reduction measures that are consistent with the BAAQMD?s goals for reducing regional air pollutants, and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Clean Air Plan. This alternative would be consistent with the BAAG 2000 Clean Air Plan; therefore, this impact less-than-significant would be . As less construction activity would occur under this alternative, and it is anticipated that the identified mitigation measures to reduce the effects of construction related emissions would be implemented under this alternative, impacts related to construction emissions under this less than significant alternative would be reduced and remain . While the reduced development under this alternative would reduce the amount of emissions from stationary and mobile source, these emissions would likely not be reduced to levels below the BAAQMD?s threshold; therefore, as these emissions would exceed the BAAQMD?s threshold, this significant and unavoidable impact would remain . However, with the reduction of vehicle trips and development this alternative would not expose sensitive receptors within and adjacent to the MEIR Study Area to substantial pollutant concentrations, nor would this alternative expose people to objectionable odors. Under this alternative, the impacts associated with exposing sensitive receptors to less than substantial pollutant concentrations or objectionable odors would be reduced and remain significant . 6-6 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project NoiseandVibration The Reduced Development Alternative would concentrate less development (about 40 percent less) within the expanded Genentech Overlay District area of 160 acres. Less construction activity would occur under this alternative, and it is anticipated that the identified mitigation measures to reduce the effects of construction related noise impacts would be implemented under this alternative. Further, although construction related activities could exceed the City?s established noise standard, the SSFMC exempts construction activities from the noise standard; therefore, impacts related to construction related less than noise exceeding the City?s noise standard under this alternative would be reduced and remain significant . As less development would occur under this alternative, impacts associated with operation and traffic noise impacts exceeding the City?s noise standard would be reduced and remain less than significant. Construction and operation related vibration impacts would similarly be reduced, and it is anticipated that development and construction under this alternative would implement the identified mitigation measures to reduce construction related vibration impacts; therefore, impacts associated with less than significant construction and operational vibration impacts would be reduced and remain . While the decrease in development would reduce the amount of vehicle trips under this alternative, vehicle trips would increase over existing conditions. Therefore, as no feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact, impacts associated with an increase in ambient noise levels due to an increase in significant and unavoidable traffic related noise would remain . The less-than-significant impacts associated with increases in ambient noise levels resulting from construction and operation under this alternative would remain similar to the proposed project, although reduced due to less development and no mitigation would be required. Geology and Soils Slightly less development is proposed under this Alternative, and thus, geologic hazards associated with seismic ground shaking would be of a lesser magnitude than the proposed project because the smaller amount of overall development would lessen the risk of exposing structures to damage during ground shaking. Site-specific hazards associated with erosion, loss of topsoil, liquefaction, subsidence, landslides, and expansive soils would also be of a slightly lesser magnitude than the proposed project because less development would occur in the Campus under this alternative. As all future development in the project area would be required to adhere to the most recent California Building Codes, which include strict building specifications to ensure structural and foundational stability, this alternative would have a less- less than significant than-significantimpact. On the whole, impacts would be under this alternative, and less than the proposed project due to the reduced amount of development associated with this alternative. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials would be largely similar to the proposed project, as the intensity of development would not substantially affect the potential for impacts to this resource. 6-7 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Similar to the proposed project, implementation of this alternative could result in the development of additional laboratories and other research facilities that would use, store, or require the transportation and disposal of hazardous materials. Genentech will continue to use materials, some of which are considered hazardous, during the course of daily operations. As with the proposed project, compliance with Genentech programs, practices, and procedures and safety standards related to the use, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials and wastes, and the safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations (RCRA, California Hazardous Waste Control Law, and principles prescribed by the USDHS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Institutes of Health) would ensure that risks resulting from the routine use of hazardous materials and less than significant disposal of hazardous wastes remain . Similar to the proposed project, there is potential for encountering soil contamination at the listed sites during construction, which could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. As projects are reviewed on a site-by-site basis, it is expected that mitigation measures would be identified to less-than-significant reduce this impact to a level. Impacts to emergency access would be similar to the proposed project, as construction activities could temporarily encroach onto roadways. As projects are reviewed on a site-by-site basis, it is expected that less-than-significant mitigation measures would be identified to reduce this impact to a level. Transportation/Traffic The Reduced Development Alternative would concentrate less development (about 40 percent less) within the expanded Genentech R&D Overlay District area of 160 acres. The intent of the alternative would be to reduce impacts related to traffic, and traffic-related impacts like air quality and noise impacts. While the reduced level of development would mean reduced traffic volumes and less impact at the 10 identified intersections, it is still likely that the affected intersections would be potentially significant and would require the implementation of the mitigation identified for the proposed project. With mitigation less than significant identified for the project, these impacts would be . With regard to freeway operations (both mainline and on- and off-ramps), the Reduced Development Alternative would still significantunavoidable result in the and impact related to the segment of US 101 north of Oyster Point Boulevard in the peak commute hour during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour. The other freeway segments and on- and off-ramps would be affected less than and similar to the proposed project. The less-than-significant impacts related to transit use, air traffic patterns, parking capacity, design hazards, emergency access, and policies supporting alternative transportation would be similar to the proposed project, and would not require mitigation. Land Use and Planning Under this alternative, the Genentech R&D Overlay District would be expanded to 160 acres, as with the project. With the Reduced Development Alternative, growth strategy aims for expansion and redevelopment throughout the campus would be similar to the proposed project, concentrating on more intense administrative and office development in the Upper Campus and West campus. Research and 6-8 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project development will continue to expand in the Mid and Lower Campuses. The Lower Campus will also support product development and related functions. In addition, the amenities will continue to be distributed throughout the Campus. The expected growth of the Campus to 4.63 million sf of building space on 160 acres will result in an overall Genentech R&D Overlay District FAR of 0.38. Within the Campus, development intensity will vary in each neighborhood in response to available land. Maximum FARs of each neighborhood will not exceed 2.0, with a Genentech R&D Overlay District overall FAR maximum of 1.0, as with the proposed project. Building typology will further dictate the development intensities throughout the Campus. The Genentech R&D Overlay District would be expanded as part of adoption of this alternative to include the Genentech property currently outside the boundaries of the Genentech R&D Overlay District. Therefore, impact to the proposed project would be less-than- less than significant significant. On the whole, impacts would be under this alternative, and less than the proposed project. Aesthetics The types of impacts associated with degradation of scenic vistas, changes in visual character and quality, obstruction/alteration of scenic resources within a state- or locally-designated scenic highway, and increased light and glare would be roughly similar to the proposed project under this alternative (with a few minor exceptions), as Genentech would continue to expand its Campus into the P-I zoned areas that it currently owns. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative could result in obstruction of views of a scenic vista and/or focal views of places of public interest (e.g., historic resources, public art, or landmarks). Similar to the proposed project, this alternative could obstruct views of San Bruno Hill and the Wind Harp Sculpture. This alternative would have to comply with Policy DE-5 of the East of 101 Area Plan, which directs development in the East of 101 Area to be designed to take advantage of views of Point San Bruno Hill with its ?Windchime.? Additionally, this alternative would comply with project requirements less- as dictated by the 2006 FMPU, as well as FAA height limitations, which would reduce this impact to than-significant levels. Development under this alternative would result in changes to the visual character and quality of the Genentech Campus. Similar to the proposed project, temporary degraded visual conditions associated with construction activities under this alternative would be temporary visual distractions typically associated with construction activities and equipment. As such, construction-related visual impacts less than significant associated with this alternative are considered , and would be equal to the proposed project. The City will use the design policies specified in the City?s East of 101 Area Plan in evaluating proposals for new development. For example, Policy LU-2 in the Land Use Element encourages new land uses to be similar to or compatible with surrounding development, and that new developments should visually enhance and contribute to the aesthetic character of the East of 101 Area; Policy DE-1 in the Design Element states that developments on parcels adjacent to San Francisco Bay should emphasize the bay shore atmosphere and take advantage of the design and visual opportunities associated with the bay. Therefore, as this alternative would follow the design guidelines from the 2006 FMPU, permanent 6-9 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project impacts to the visual character or quality of the Genentech Campus as a result of continued development less than significant under this alternative would be . In addition, light and glare would also be expected to increase with full buildout of the existing Genentech R&D Overlay District, as described for the proposed project. The proposed project includes mitigation measures to ensure that future project design features would be developed to ensure that lighting and glare impacts from specific development projects would remain at less-than-significant levels, and as this alternative would follow the design guidelines from the 2006 FMPU. Therefore, light less than significant and glare impacts from the reduced development alternative would also be , and would be less than the proposed project due to less overall development. Cultural Resources Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would not require demolition of a structure or structures less than significant which are potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR. This impact is , similar to the proposed project. Ground-disturbing activities would continue to occur in order to accommodate new development. Consequently, the potential of encountering fossil-bearing soils and rock formations, destroying below- ground paleontological resources, affecting archaeological sites and sites of cultural significance to Native Americans would still occur, similar to the proposed project. Mitigation measures would be expected to be developed on a site-by-site basis as individual projects are proposed and reviewed. Therefore, it is less than significant anticipated that impacts under this alternative would be , and would be less than the proposed project due to less overall development. Population, Employment, and Housing Development proposed under this alternative would make maximum use of existing infrastructure, and future development would be required to include provisions to make any necessary improvements. Thus, the indirect population growth impact resulting from infrastructure improvements associated with this less than significant Alternative is considered , similar to the proposed project. Continued job growth in the City will promote a greater regional balance between jobs and housing. As an inner Bay Area community well served by all modes of transit?including air and rail, BART and ferry service in the near future?future employees from and traveling to the City will have varied means of reaching employment sites. Additionally, the Housing Element Summary of Quantified Objectives exceeds the RHND by 24 units, and Genentech?s continued employment growth would serve to balance regional needs between less than significant jobs and housing. On the whole, impacts would be under this alternative, and less than the proposed project. Public Services Implementation of this alternative would constitute a negligible increase in the city?s population, and would not result in SSFPD?s inability to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. As the current response times and service ratio?s are adequate, and no new 6-10 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project facilities that would result in potential significant impacts would be required, the project will result in a less-than-significant impact. The same holds true for fire service protection, as the fire fighter to population service ratio be reduced from what it is currently projected under the proposed project. The fire flow requirements will need to be analyzed specific to each building in order to determine if the local system can adequately handle the fire flow needs. If the local system is found undersized or deteriorating, then the pipelines will need to be modified by upsizing, new connections, and or the installation of less than significant pumps and tanks to supply the new requirements. On the whole, impacts would be under this alternative, and less than the proposed project due to the reduced size at project buildout. Utilities and Services Demand for public utilities, water, sewer, power, will be reduced proportionally with the reduction in less than significant development. Impacts to these services would be with mitigation still required for demand management, and less than the proposed project due to the reduced size at project buildout. Requirements for storm water drainage are independent of the amount of redevelopment in the Genentech R&D Overlay; however, increases in commercial and industrial activities may result in increases in pollutant loading. The reduced commercial and industrial activity in Alternative 2 will potentially result in reduced stormwater pollutant loads, but any benefit will likely be offset by reduced implementation of storm water quality control devices required as part of the redevelopment. Storm less than significant water impacts of this alternative would be , and similar to the proposed project. 6.4.3Environmentally Superior Alternative Based on the information in this section, and as summarized in Table 6-2 (Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project), Alternative 1 would be superior to the proposed project, and would avoid or reduce impacts related to biological resources, air quality, noise and vibration, transportation and traffic, population and housing, public services, and utilities and services. The reduced impacts would occur because Genentech has largely built out its existing acreage within the Genentech R&D Overlay District. Without further new development, impacts would be avoided that are associated with new development. However, some impacts under Alternative 1 could be greater than the proposed project, for example, transportation and traffic impacts related to supporting alternative transit and pedestrian safety. Without the proposed project, the interconnectedness of the Campus would not occur, with resulting benefits to separating parking uses from the central campus area as well as promoting even greater TDM effectiveness. Alternative 1 would also not achieve the City?s or Genentech?s objectives with regard to fostering the City?s reputation as a bio-technology capital. The City?s objectives with regard to completing the transition of the East of 101 Area from an industrial and light industrial area to a research and development and office center would also not be realized. Finally, Alternative 1 cannot be selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternative as it is not a build alternative. As specified in the CEQA Guidelines, the MEIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives when the environmentally superior alternative is the no-build alternative. Thus, Alternative 2 would be the environmentally superior alternative. This Reduced Development 6-11 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Alternative proposes less development (total final buildout of 4.6 million sf compared to 6.0 million sf with the proposed project) on the expanded Genentech Overlay District area of 160 acres. This alternative would result in less development, less traffic volumes and less traffic-related air quality and noise impacts, and would involve less construction. Specifically, impacts related to transportation and traffic, population, employment and housing, public services, and utilities and service systems would be similar or less than the proposed project. In addition, Alternative 2 would meet most of the City?s objectives for the site and East of 101 Area, specifically: Provide appropriate settings for a diverse range of non-residential uses Promote campus-style biotechnology, high-technology, and research and development uses Unless otherwise stated in a specific plan, allow building heights in the East of 101 Area to the maximum limits permissible under the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 Do not vary permitted maximum development intensities based on lot size Encourage the development of employee-serving amenities with restaurants, cafes, and support commercial establishments such as dry cleaners, to meet the need of the employees in the East of 101 Area. Such uses could be located in independent centers or integrated into office parks or technology campuses In addition, Alternative 2 would meet Genentech?s objectives, as follows: First, allow Genentech to keep its key scientific personnel in proximity, so that they many continue to work together in support of its research, development and production goals. Second, to keep certain central aspects of its business, both scientific and administrative, together physically for efficiency and maximum support. Third, to assure Genentech?s proximity to world-class scientific and academic institutions. Fourth, to foster a sense of community among its employees, creating interconnectivity and ease of access. Further, Alternative 2 would also comply with five General Plan policies that also serve as project objectives: Articulate vision and policies that will serve as general guide for the placement and design of individual buildings and other Genentech Campus elements, as well as an overall development program to provide the basis for future approvals Foster development of a Genentech Campus befitting its setting on the City?s eastern bayshore, that capitalizes on views and access to the waterfront Promotes alternatives to automobile transportation to further the City?s transportation objectives by emphasizing shuttles, linkages, transportation demand management, and pedestrian access and ease of movement between buildings Establishes the basis for the zoning provisions to be contained in an amended Genentech R&D Overlay District Provide design guidelines that are proposed to be enacted after adoption of the 2006 FMPU and that will serve as a basis for design review and approval for development in the 2006 FMPU area. Thus, Alternative 2 would meet most of Genentech?s growth objectives and in addition would meet all of the objectives of the City and Genentech related to the East of 101 Area. 6-12 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project 6.4.4Comparison of Alternatives Table 6-2 (Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project), provided at the end of this section, presents a summary comparison of post-mitigation project impacts with those of each alternative, assuming that feasible mitigation measures are also implemented for each alternative. This table presents the level of significance for impacts resulting from each project alternative, by issue area, as compared to the impacts of the proposed project (e.g., ?LTS (greater)? indicates that although the level of significance of the project alternative is ?less than significant,? the impacts are greater than the proposed project). Table 6-2 Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project Proposed Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Project Impact 1995 Master Reduced (After Mitigation) PlanDevelopment Environmental Issue Area BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES—Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special NI/LTS Less Similar status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or LTS Less Similar by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination with the NI Similar Similar known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or LTS Similar Similar wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such LTS Similar Similar as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural NI Similar Similar Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? FLOOD AND INUNDATION HAZARDS—Would the project: a. Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard NI Similar Similar Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? b. Place within a 100-year floodplain structures, which would impede or redirect LTS Similar Similar flood flows? c. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving LTS Similar Similar flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? d. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? LTS Similar Similar AIR QUALITY—Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? LTS Similar Similar b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or LTS Less Similar projected air quality violation? 6-13 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Table 6-2 Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project Proposed Alt. 1 Alt. 2 ProjectImpact1995MasterReduced (After Mitigation) PlanDevelopment Environmental Issue Area c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for SU Less Similar which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? LTS Similar Similar e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? LTS Similar Similar NOISE AND VIBRATION—Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards LTS Less Similar established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or LTS Less Similar groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity Less Similar SU above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project LTS/NI Similar Similar vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the NI Similar Similar project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose NI Similar Similar people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? GEOLOGY AND SOILS—Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for LTS Similar Similar the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. LTS Similar Similar ii. Strong seismic groundshaking? LTS Similar Similar Iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? LTS Similar Similar iv. Landslides? b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? LTS Similar Similar c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become LTS Similar Similar unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building LTS Similar Similar Code (1994) creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or NI Similar Similar alternative wastewater disposal systems, where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS—Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine LTS Similar Similar transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 6-14 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Table 6-2 Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project Proposed Alt. 1 Alt. 2 ProjectImpact1995MasterReduced (After Mitigation) PlanDevelopment Environmental Issue Area b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably LTS Similar Similar foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, NI Similar Similar substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would LTS Similar Similar it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the NI Similar Similar project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a NI Similar Similar safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency LTS Similar Similar response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving NI Similar Similar wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—Would the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic LTS Similar Similar load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established SU Less Similar by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic LTS Similar Similar levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase vehicular and/or pedestrian safety hazards due to a design LTS Similar Similar feature or incompatible uses? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? LTS Similar Similar f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? LTS More Similar g. Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus LTS More Similar turnouts, bicycle racks)? LAND USE AND PLANNING—Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? NI Similar Similar b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific LTS More Similar plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities NI Similar Similar conservation plan? AESTHETICS—Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? LTS Similar Similar 6-15 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Table 6-2 Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project Proposed Alt. 1 Alt. 2 ProjectImpact1995MasterReduced (After Mitigation) PlanDevelopment Environmental Issue Area b. Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, NI Similar Similar and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its LTS More Similar surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day LTS Similar Similar or nighttime views in the area? CULTURAL RESOURCES—Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as LTS Similar Similar defined in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological LTS Similar Similar resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique LTS Similar Similar geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal LTS Similar Similar cemeteries? POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING—Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through LTS Less Less extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction NI Similar Similar of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of NI Similar Similar replacement housing elsewhere? PUBLIC SERVICES—Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a. Fire protection? LTS Less Less b. Police protection? LTS Less Less UTILITIES AND SERVICES—Would the project: a. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-LTS Less Less existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? b. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including LTS Less Similar through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase LTS Less Similar the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site? 6-16 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Table 6-2 Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project Proposed Alt. 1 Alt. 2 ProjectImpact1995MasterReduced (After Mitigation) PlanDevelopment Environmental Issue Area d. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or LTS Similar Similar planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? e. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause LTS More Less significant environmental effects? f. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant LTS Similar Similar environmental effects? g. Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing LTS Less Less entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? h. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s LTS Less Less projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? i. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the LTS Less Less project’s solid waste disposal needs? j. Comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid NI Similar Similar waste? NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable 6-17 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR