HomeMy WebLinkAbout4 Alternatives_112309
4 Analysis of Alternatives
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) mandates consideration and analysis of
alternatives to the proposed Amendment. According to CEQA Guidelines, the range of
alternatives "shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of
the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant impacts"
(Section 15126(d)(2)). The alternatives may result in new impacts that do not result from the
proposed Amendment.
Case law suggests that the discussion of alternatives need not be exhaustive and that
alternatives be subject to a construction of reasonableness. The impacts of the alternatives may
be discussed "in less detail than the significant effects of the project proposed" (CEQA
Guidelines ~15126.6(d)). Also, the Guidelines permit analysis of alternatives at a less detailed
level for general plans and other program Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), compared to
project EIRs. The Guidelines do not specify what would be an adequate level of detail.
Quantified information on the alternatives is presented where available; however, in some cases
only partial quantification can be provided because of data or analytical limitations.
4.1 BACKGROUND ON DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
The buildout for the proposed Amendment assumes that approximately 45% of the corridor
will be redeveloped at an FAR of approximately 2.0, which is approximately 75% of the
maximum base FAR. Because increased population projections and resultant increases in
traffic is the major impact associated with the proposed Amendment, and the purpose of the
alternatives is to minimize the adverse impacts of a project, the Alternative assumes the same
amount of development potential, with different land use mix assumptions to evaluate whether
this would lead to reduced traffic. The Employment Center Alternative assumes that the
corridor will remain primarily commercial and redevelopment will result in more non-
residential development and fewer housing units, when compared to the proposed
Amendment. The No Project Alternative assumes continuation of the current General Plan.
4.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
This chapter describes and evaluates two alternatives, the Employment Center Alternative and
the No Project Alternative, and compares them to the proposed Amendment. The
Employment Center Alternative assumes the same development potential but a higher
distribution of non-residential uses in the Planning Area, compared to the proposed
Amendment. Consideration of the No Project Alternative is required by CEQA in all EIRs to
help decision-makers compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts
of not approving the proposed project. The No Project scenario is based on the South San
Francisco 1999 General Plan, which represents the continuation of the existing plans and
policies if the proposed Amendment is not adopted. Table 4.2-1 summarizes the buildout of
the proposed Amendment, the Employment Center Alternative and the No Project scenario.
Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment
Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives
Table 4.2-1 Comparison of Alternatives at Buildout (2020)
No Project
(1999 General Employment Center
Plan) Proposed Amendment Alternative
Change Change
from No from No
Total Total Project Total Project
Populationl
Housing Units
Households'
67,400
22,180
21,071
69,810
23,020
21,831
+2,410
+840
+790
69,210
22,810
21,671
+1,810
+630
+600
Non-Residential (million s.f.) 27.1 27.4 +0.3 27.6 +0.5
Jobs' 71,400 72,100 +700 72,700 +1,300
Employed Residents' 32,352 33,509 +1,157 33,222 +870
Jobs/Employed Residents 2.21 2.15 2.19
I. Buildout population was calculated assuming 3.04 persons per household; totals are rounded to the nearest hundred.
2. Households are estimated as 95 percent of the total housing units, assuming a 5 percent vacancy rate.
3. Jobs at buildout rounded to the nearest hundred.
4. Employed residents at buildout for the proposed Amendment and Employment Center Alternative were calculated
using the ratio of employed residents to total population as estimated for the current General Plan for 2020 (48% of
total population).
Sources: City of South San Francisco General Plan J 999; ABAG Projections 2007; Dyett & Bhatia 2009.
EM PLOYMENT CENTER ALTERNATIVE
The Employment Center Alternative assumes the same amount of redevelopment potential as
the proposed Amendment. It also assumes that future development will be more non-
residential compared to the proposed Amendment. The Alternative assumes half of the
development would be residential, including 630 housing units, expected to accommodate
1,810 residents, resulting in a total of 22,810 housing units and 69,210 residents at buildout.
The other half of the development would be non-residential, adding approximately 538,000
square feet of non-residential development to what is anticipated in the No Project scenario,
resulting in approximately 27.6 million square feet of non-residential at buildout. Compared
with the proposed Amendment, the Alternative would result in 210 fewer housing units, and
600 fewer residents but 600 more jobs, at buildout.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
The No Project Alternative assumes continuation of land use development under the 1999
General Plan. Buildout of the No Project Alternative would result in an increase of 2,780
housing units and nine million square feet of non-residential space to the city's 1999 inventory
of an estimated 19,400 housing units and 18.1 million square feet of non-residential space. The
total number of housing units at will be 22,180 and the total non-residential square footage will
4-2
Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment
Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives
be 27.1 million square feet at buildout. The No Project Alternative will accommodate a total
population of 67,400 in 2020. Compared with the proposed Amendment, the No Project
scenario would result in 840 fewer housing units, 2,410 fewer residents, and 700 fewer jobs, at
buildout.
4.3 COMPARATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
This comparative analysis of alternatives evaluates impacts in the same environmental issue
areas analyzed in Chapter 3 of this EIR for the proposed Amendment.
TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION AND PARKING
Appendix B includes a detailed section on methodology for analysis of the No Project,
proposed Amendment, and the Employment Center Alternative. Methodology for the No
Project and proposed Amendment is also detailed in section 3.1: Traffic, Circulation, and
Parking. Intersection operational levels of service (LOS) along with their associated delays are
summarized and compared by alternative in Table 4.3-1. Table 4.3-2 provides a summary and
comparison by alternative of the roadway segments operation conditions, including Measures
of Effectiveness (MOE) and LOS.
Overall, LOS is expected to deteriorate to approximately the same level for all alternatives. As
discussed in 3.1: Traffic, Circulation, and Parking, impacts to traffic are cumulative in nature.
Intersection LOS deteriorates to significant levels in all future conditions. Both the proposed
General Plan Amendment and Employment Center Alternative result in increased delays when
compared to the No Project. While LOS under the No Project, proposed Amendment and
Employment Center Alternative wouJd be the same, total wait time would increase under the
proposed Amendment and Employment Center Alternative. Because this increase indicates a
worsening of already significant conditions, the both the proposed Amendment and
Employment Center Alternative are determined to have a considerable contribution to the
significant impact regarding intersection LOS, despite the threshold being exceeded in the No
Project scenario. The Employment Center Alternative experiences the greatest increase in wait
times, indicating that it is has the most adverse impact to intersection LOS.
In terms of arterial segments, all segments that reach an unacceptable LOS under the No
Project also reach the same unacceptable LOS under the proposed General Plan Amendment
and Employment Center Alternative.
Under both the proposed Amendment and the Employment Center Alternative, the addition
of traffic generated by new development would result in one significant impact to a segment of
1-280 from Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevard during the PM peak hour. The
increase in traffic on this segment would increase the v/c ratio from 0.91 under the No Project
to 0.92 under the proposed Amendment and the Employment Center Alternative, violating the
significance standard for freeways and resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact on
arterial LOS under both the proposed Amendment and the Employment Center Alternative.
Given the significant impacts to intersection and arterial LOS under the proposed Amendment
and the Employment Center Alternative, the No Project alternative has the least substantial
impacts to transportation.v
4-3
"
<U
E
'"
"
<U
E
<C
"
"
a:
"6
~
<U
"
<U
~
"6
<U
'"
"
"
E
(J
LiJ
""
'5
"
V>
~
"'-
'"
" ~
<>..~
~'5
~ "
u ~
" <U
<>..""
~~
"0 ~
~~
E "
" "
,,<C
"S: ~
" ~
LU~
<:=.<>..
" "
~""
au
~
<U
"
<U <U
U .=:
t: '0
<U "
t~
..2<(
<>..
E
LU
'"
>
~
"
..
'"
...
<
...
..c
'"
~ t:
" <U
%E
ct]
o <U
"" E
O<C
N
~ "
.. z
E g
E ;;:
"
III
'"
u
.~
'"
III
...
o
0;
>
'"
...J
"
o
..
u
'"
~
'"
...
"
"
.g
'6
~~
ug
""N
.f5 --
~
."
LU
..
"
o
J:
-"
..
'"
a..
'"
>
i
..
..
c.
E
o
u
M
...
'"
:;;
..
I-
V>
ouu~~~~~w~~~~owo~~~~u
--'
,..,
-'"
<U
a
00 '"
ccir""i
'" '"
l.I'Jo.MMI.I'J
O:"':occi"':
OOM-.....
M-M-M
~;:;~
.....~N
-oML.t')QMM
~MM.o...n~
~ !:: L.t'J -0 "'f" ~
"'f"......L.t')"'O
ciO-:~O-:
- - - N
V>
ouu~~~~~w~~~~owo~~~~u
--'
,..,
-'"
<U
a
'" -
r--.:r""i
'" '"
CO~I.I'Jr;~_M MOo
r--: - d - M 0'- -.:r -.:r
0.0 - M-M-o
--M-
-,.:
~-o_
....
",M
",'"
N"':"'f"CO
~-ciO-:
"'f"~--
V>
ouu~~~~~w~~~~owo~~~~u
--'
~
U
<U
"e'
Q"
..2'MC"!
QJ ~ -
a"''''
-oMo.-oMMM"'f"I.I'J-O'-I.I'J
MMQ~.o.oQr--.:"":I.I'Jr--.:....:
!::co~o.~I.I'J=-=::!"'f"W'J
o--"'1"'f""'f"
o'W'Jcio'
M=--
V>
o~~uuuuu~~~uuuu~~~~~u
--'
';..,
-'"
<U
a
O'O'-"'!O'-
O-:LI'i-~
- - M M
~~~~~~~~~~~
MNM-- NMNN-
"'M
~o-:
--....
r""io'r""i
- - '"
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
~Q"~Q,,~Q,,~Q,,~Q,,~Q,,~Q,,~Q,,~Q,,~Q,,
"
"
e
<U
~
<U
,g
ci
Z
"
<U
'"
o
"
'E
"
u
LU
~
L
o
o
>-
o
L
L
~
o
.'=
E
"
U
LU
."
>
'"
-'"
""
=>
o
L
o
..c
1;:
<u"
5:~
'"
o
"
'E
"
u
LU
<U
=>
"
<U
J:
<U
""
"
"
L
0"
5:~
M
"
<U
'"
o
.'=
E
"
U
LU
."
'"
"
~
o
L
<U
."
"
o
Q"
....
"
<U
'"
o
"
'E
"
u
LU
~
L
o
..c
=>
U
~
~
"
=>
o
U
'"
"
<U
'"
o
"
'E
"
u
LU
<U
>
~
<U
U
=>
L
a.
V>
V>
-.0
"
<U
'"
o
.'=
E
"
U
LU
~
"
...J
-'"
~
"
<U
"
V>
....
"
<U
'"
o
"
'E
"
u
LU
03
5:
o
00
M
00
"
<U
'"
o
"
'E
"
u
LU
03
L.LJ
o
00
M
'"
M '"
r--.:o-:
- '"
~~
'"
"
...J
-'"
1;1
<U
"
V>
03
z
00
o
'"
o
'0
.~ a)
fij U
c :..c
'" '"
"Vi >
L
'"
Q,
...
'"
L _
. '0
_ C
C 0
o u
",j:i Q)
u -
'" c
-
~ .!!l
~
."
~
<U
<0
'0
o
-
-
<C
'"
"
>- a
.
...
<1; 0
~
~
"
o
'"
....
...
"
'" ~
<U ~
E 15
""2 E
E~
<e;::
" 0
-'" ~
~~
~ 0
<U "
,,<e
~~
"0 Qj
<UZ"
ct: 0
go
E
(J
LiJ
""
'5
o
'"
~
""-
~
~
o
.0..
<U
ct:
~
u
o
.0..
1':
"6
'"
<U
E
"
e
'5o
"
LU
""-
o
~
a
'"
>
~
"
..
'"
...
<
>-
..c
~
..
E
E
"
III
'"
u
.~
'"
III
...
o
0;
>
'"
...J
...
"
'"
E
..
'"
III
~
]
o
a:
..
"
o
J:
'"
>
i
..
..
c.
E
o
u
~
M
...
'"
:;;
..
I-
E .9 t:
~tJE'-
QJ.%!., :>..,2:)
b.lJ 0 0 s::
~ ct :a.~
"" 0 E
UZLU
t: ~
<U ._
E 15
,..,,,
o ~
- <U
.o..~
E;;o-
LU ~
o~
"" "
o <U
"'U
E~
~tJ
~.&
~ct
"" 0
UZ
",'"
<U <U
is E
%]
~ <U
Q" E
<e
'" '"
~ t: 0
o <U --'
%E_
~'"
Q" "
o <U LU
"" E 0
~ <e <
o
ZtJ
0"&-
"" ~
o Q" LU
'" 0
<
""
.f5-
~
Jj
"
.g
8
o
--'
,.., ~
o "
" <U
'" E
o ""
o <U
ct:'"
'"
o
--'
LU
o
<
'"
o
--'
'"
o
--'
Lu
o
<
'"
...
"
'"
E
..
'"
III
..
'i:
'"
'C
<l:
*
00
~
<(
....
'"
M
*
'"
~
<(
'"
'"
M
<(
....
'"
M
<(
'"
'"
M
:;:
<(
0..0
~ =>
-fi~u
=>
o <( ~
'" <U ~
E ~ ~
o L 0 L
L.tSfuo
*
'"
o!
'"
'"
d
M
*
00
~
'"
....
d
M
'"
~
M
<(
'"
'"
M
:;:
c.
*
'"
"\'
U
M
r..:
'"
*
'"
"\'
U
'"
r..:
'"
'"
....
<Xi
'"
<(
00
'"
M
:;:
<(
~
~
~ S
o L
Uo
E..o
o =>
L.tO
o
"
oE rti
" <U
i:iJua::
*
"!
* *
00 00
q r-;i
<(
<( <(
....
r..:
M
'" '"
0' ...n
M M
*
~
* *
'" '"
si r-;i
<(
<( <(
....
r..:
M
M ....
0-: ...n
M M
<(
<( <(
<Xi
M
'" -.0
0-: ...0
M M
<(
<( <(
....
'"
M
'" ....
0-: 0-:
M M
:;:
c.
:;: :;:
<( c.
<U
U
=>
L
a.
'"
""
~
=> <U
a~
0""
~ ""
rh ~
~ L
~ 0
- ..0
Et::-o
o <U >
.1:5:05
*
-.0
of
'"
~
M
*
'"
o!
'"
~
M
'"
'"
M
M
<(
....
'"
M
:;:
<(
""~
""'"
~ 1;;
L _
"g 0
Et;;~
o <U >
.1:5:05
*
""!
<(
'"
r..:
M
*
~
<(
00
M
<(
....
<Xi
M
<(
-.0
'"
M
:;:
c.
'"
...
"
'"
E
..
'"
III
~
~
'"
E
...
*
"':
U
o
....
d
*
"':
U
o
....
d
U
'"
-.0
d
U
....
'"
d
:;:
<(
"" "
~ 0
""
<U >
.ii<(
E 0
o ~
L " L
U-...Jo
'"
...
*
C>
o
* *
o 0
ci ci
...
o U
"!
M 00
.... '"
ci ci
*
C>
o
* *
o 0
ci ci
...
o U
"!
M 00
.... '"
ci ci
...
o U
"!
M 00
.... '"
ci ci
c
U '"
....
co
o
'" 0
.... ....
ci ci
I:
a..
:;: :;:
<( c.
,,""
o 1;1
" <U
> "
<('"
E B
o L
L.to.5
o
00
~
"
<U
E
'"
"
<U
E
<C
"
"
a:
"6
~
<U
"
<U
~
"6
<U
'"
"
"
E
(J
LiJ
""
'5
"
V>
~
"'-
'"
" ~
-g..;g
"'15
~ "
u ~
" <U
<>..""
~~
"0 ~
~~
E "
" "
,,<C
"S: ~
" ~
LU~
<:=.<>..
" "
~""
au
* * * * * ...~... * * * * * * * * * * * *
0 C> 0 ""! 0 0 C> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- ......;...
U w 0 0 0 '" 0 w 0 '" '" 0 0 U '" L.LJ 0 0
00 M M -.0 .... ...~... M '" 00 :; .... '" '" -.0 .... 0 -.0 '"
-.0 '" 00 .... 00 .... '" .... M .... 00 '" .... '" 00 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
* * * * * ...~... * * * * * * * * * * * *
0 C> 0 ""! 0 0 C> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- ....;
U w 0 0 0 ...""'... 0 w 0 '" '" 0 0 U '" L.LJ 0 0
00 M M -.0 .... ...~... M '" 00 .... .... '" '" -.0 .... 0 -.0 '"
-.0 '" 00 .... 00 .... '" .... .... M .... 00 '" .... '" 00 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U w 0 0 0 "'" 0 w 0 '" U 0 0 U U L.LJ 0 0
00 M M '" .... ...~... M '" 00 .... .... '" '" -.0 .... 0 -.0 '"
-.0 '" 00 .... 00 .... '" .... .... M .... 00 '" .... '" 00 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U C 0 U U C U C 0 '" '" U 0 '" '" 0 0 0
.... M '" '" .... @ '" - .... -.0 0 '" - -.0 .... -.0 00 M
'" co .... '" '" -.0 .... .... M M -.0 00 .... M .... .... ....
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
:;: I: :;: :;: :;: ...~... :;: I: :;: :;: :;: :;: :;: :;: :;: :;: :;: :;:
<( a.. <( "- <( <( a.. <( "- <( "- <( "- <( "- <( "-
" "" "" "" "" 0 " " - 0 <U
0 => => => ." ." => 0 .'= <U <U 0 .'= >
" 0 0 L 0 > > 0 00 E '" '" - - E <(
> L L 0 0 L 0 '" '" L 0 V> ."
<( 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 '" " - 0 0 - 0 - :J " - "
..Q ..Q " ..Q >- >- ..Q - U <U " 00 L.LJ " U Q) "
E 0 ~ ." E ~ ." 0 ~ ." <U <U ~ ." E E .- '" E 0- V') E -'" L
~ ~ > ~ > ~ > -'" -'" ~ > LU LU u l?
0 <U '" 0 <U '" " <U '" ." ." <U '" 0 " o E - o E :J 0 " ~ <U
L 5: 5: J: 5: 5: <U L " L " 0 <U J:
L 0 L I I 0 L 0 0 L 0 f 0
u.. -'" u.. -'" -'" ~ -'" u.. ~ '" u..U ~ u..U~ u.. ~ '" ~
0 -
00 0
M -
- V>
:J
'"
...
" ~
<U ~
E 15
""2 E
E~
<e;::
" 0
-'" ~
~~
~ 0
<U "
,,<e
~~
"0 Qj
<UZ"
'" 0
go
E
(J
LiJ
""
'5
o
V>
~
""-
~
~
o
.0..
<U
'"
*
"1
U
00
-.0
o
*
"1
~
u
o
.0..
1':
"6
"
<U
E
"
e
'5o
"
LU
""-
o
~
a
U
00
-.0
o
U L.LJ
.... -
-.0 '"
ci ci
o 0
- '"
.... ....
ci ci
:;: :;:
<( "-
<U-
~]
u
""0 .~
~ L (])
15S~
*
o
o
*
o
o
L.LJ
L.LJ
'"
o
'"
00
o
*
o
o
*
o
o
L.LJ
L.LJ
'"
o
'"
00
o
L.LJ L.LJ
'" '"
00 00
ci ci
o 0
-.0 '"
.... ....
ci ci
:;: :;:
<( "-
<U L'"
<(> <U >
t;;;::o
." >- ~
~ 0 C
L 0 '0
l?~,,-
*
o
o
*
"1
o
U
'"
00
o
00
-.0
o
*
*
"1
o
U
00
00
o
00
-.0
o
U L.LJ
.... '"
-.0 00
ci ci
o 0
00 '"
.... ....
ci ci
:;: :;:
<( "-
~
"
'0 Q)
"- J:
~S"'O
t;; ""0 c
~>E
UClil?
*
L.LJ
'"
o
u
";;
c
d
."
.
L
. u
",,,;;
c
.
~
u
~
c
~ 'u
~ ~
Q,
.
~
~
-
*
L.LJ
~
~
.
.
L
- ~
e .
. L
f".2
.
-
'"
o
>-
.
~
.
~
L
.2
il\,
c
.
~
u
-ij .!!l
.
.
Q,
-
'u
~ .!!!
.
L ...
...... oi:
. .
iii' t
~ <(
>
.
c
c
.
L
. .2
u w
~ 0
~ :;:
'" .
:.0 ...c
. ~
~
~
..
;,;
-
.
c
- .
~ >
c o,i:j
. u
E ~
~w
~ 15
Oi: III
. ~
t 0
. ~
L .
.2 :;:
. "
gpw
. 0
u :;:
....
...
..
."
g
;j
.
.
Q,
'"
...
>
~
f-
.
'"
.
L
.
-<
>-
."
"
.
j;i
'u
o
-
-
<(
'"
'"
o
OJ
U
L
o
o
'"
Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment
Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives
Employment Center Alternative
Study intersections that operate at an unacceptable LOS F under the No Project would
continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F under the Employment Center Alternative. Traffic
with the Employment Center Alternative would result in significant impacts to five
intersections during the AM peak hour and six intersections during the PM peak hour, similar
to under the No Project and the proposed Amendment. While LOS under the No Project,
proposed Amendment, and Employment Center Alternative would be the same, total wait time
would increase by the most under the Employment Center Alternative. Because this increase
indicates a worsening of already significant conditions, the Employment Center Alternative is
determined to have a considerable contribution to the significant impact, despite the threshold
being exceeded in the No Project scenario.
All roadway segments would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with four exceptions
under the Employment Center Alternative. 1-280 from Sneath Lane to Avalon Drive, Avalon
Drive to Westborough Boulevard, Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevard, and from
Hickey Boulevard to Westborough Boulevard would all operate at LOS E during the PM peak
hour, the same as under the No Project and the proposed Amendment. The addition of traffic
generated by new development would result in one significant impact to a segment of 1-280
from Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevard during the PM peak hour. The increase in
traffic on this segment would increase the vlc ratio from 0.91 under the No Project to 0.92
under the Employment Center Alternative, violating the significance standard for freeways.
Given the lack of feasible mitigation measures, this indicates a significant and unavoidable
impact on arterial LOS under the Employment Center Alternative. This impact is the same as
under the proposed Amendment. Impacts to parking would potentially be worse than under
the No Project Alternative because more development would be expected in the area, thereby
increasing parking demand. However, the Employment Center Alternative would be subject to
parking requirements in South San Francisco's Municipal Code, reducing the impact to less
than significant. Parking demand would be comparable to the proposed Amendment, though
with less opportunity for shared parking due to the commercial focus of new development.
Impacts in all other areas, including emergency access, air traffic patterns, incompatible design
features and uses, and adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation, are expected to be the same for the proposed Amendment, the No Project and
the Employment Center Alternative.
No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, five intersections during the AM peak hour and six
intersections during the PM peak hour would deteriorate from an acceptable LOS (LOS D or
better) to a deficient LOS (LOS E or F) during both peak hours. This is the same under all
alternatives in 2030.
Four of the study roadway segments would exceed the level of service standard for that
respective segment under the No Project. 1-280 from Sneath Lane to Avalon Drive, Avalon
Drive to Westborough Boulevard, Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevard, and from
Hickey Boulevard to Westborough Boulevard would all operate at LOS E or F during the PM
peak hour. These segments are expected to exceed the LOS standard under all alternatives.
4-8
Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment
Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives
Impacts to parking under the No Project are expected to be less than significant. The No
Project would result in the smallest amount of development, and therefore the smallest amount
of parking demand. In addition, development under the No Project would also be subject to
parking requirements in South San Francisco's Municipal Code.
Impacts in all other areas, including emergency access, air traffic patterns, incompatible design
features and uses, and adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation, are expected to be the same for the proposed Amendment, the No Project and
the Employment Center Alternative.
NOISE
Noise is qualitatively evaluated here based on proposed and eXlstmg land uses for each
alternative that would increase noise in the Planning Area or that would introduce sensitive
receptors to the area. The No Project would be the preferred Alternative regarding noise
impacts due to the lower traffic levels and the smaller number of potential sensitive receptors
introduced into the Planning Area.
Employment Center Alternative
The Employment Center Alternative is expected to have similar impacts as the proposed
Amendment regarding exposing existing noise-sensitive uses to construction-related
temporary increases in ambient noise, since a comparable amount of construction is expected.
More noise is expected than in the No Project scenario since the No Project Alternative
includes less development overall.
New development under the Employment Center Alternative may result in a noticeable
increase in the ambient noise levels along EI Camino Real, which would impact nearby existing
and proposed sensitive receptors. While the proposed Amendment would result in an increase
in noise levels, the increase would be less than three dB, indicating that the increase would not
be noticeable. However, more traffic is generated in the Employment Center Alternative,
indicating that noise levels may be higher. It is unlikely that the increase in noise levels would
exceed three dB given that trips generated are only 30% greater than in the proposed
Amendment, and generally speaking a doubling of traffic volumes would result in a three dB
increase in noise levels.
Fewer new residential uses will be located within the CNEL 60 to 70 dB noise contours for
SFIA under the Employment Center Alternative, indicating that fewer new sensitive receptors
would be developed in close proximity to major sources of transportation noise. However, 600
new housing units would be developed in the Employment Center Alternative, indicating that
mitigating policies similar to those in the proposed Amendment would be necessary in the
Employment Center Alternative in order to avoid a significant impact.
The Employment Center Alternative is not expected to expose people to excessive ground-
borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. Similar to the proposed Amendment, no new
industrial uses are included in the Employment Center Alternative.
4-9
Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment
Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives
No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative is expected to have the least impact regarding exposing existing
noise-sensitive uses to construction-related temporary increases in ambient noise, since less
development overall is expected for the No Project when compared to the proposed
Amendment and the Employment Center Alternative, resulting in less construction.
Because the smallest amount of development is expected in the No Project scenario, impacts to
ambient noise levels along EI Camino Real are expected to be minimal, and less than under the
proposed Amendment. While this is preferred to the increases expected under the proposed
Amendment and the Employment Center Alternative, the increases in noise levels are not
expected to be noticeable in any of the alternatives.
The smallest number of residential uses would located within the CNEL 60 dB to 70 dB noise
contours for SFIA under the No Project, indicating that fewer new sensitive receptors would be
developed in close proximity to major sources of transportation noise. Under the No Project
Alternative, residential units would only be located in the CNEL 60-65 dB contour. For units
located in the CNEL 60-65 dB contour, mitigating policies similar to those in the proposed
Amendment would be necessary in order to avoid a significant impact.
The No Project is not expected to expose people to excessive ground-borne vibration or
ground-borne noise levels, though the continuation of industrial uses in the area under the No
Project makes the chance of such vibration or noise more likely than under the proposed
Amendment or the Employment Center Alternative.
AIR QUALITY
For the analysis of air quality impacts of local plans, the BAAQMD recommends that the
analysis focus on evaluating the consistency of the plan with the most recently adopted regional
clean air plan (CAP). For a local plan to be consistent with the Clean Air Plan, the proposed
plan must conform to the following:
1. The population growth for the jurisdiction will not exceed the values included in the
current regional air quality plan;
2. The rate of increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the jurisdiction is equal to or
lower than the rate of increase in population; and
3. Consistency with Clean Air Plan transportation control measures.
All of the alternatives are inconsistent with the CAP, and therefore all result in a significant
impact. The proposed Amendment, however, does the most to reduce the inconsistency. Table
4.3-3 compares population and VMT growth for the No Project, proposed Amendment and
the Employment Center Alternative.
4-10
Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment
Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives
Table 4.3-3: Alternatives Comparison for Population and VMT Growth
Change Change 2020 with Change
2020 from 2020 with from Employment from
No existing proposed existing Center existing
200S Project condition Amendment condition Alternative condition
Population 61,700 67,400 9.2% 69,810 13.1% 69,210 12.2%
Average AM and PM
peak VMT (million miles) 4.61 5.60 21.7% 5.61 21.7% 5.61 21.8%
Average AM and PM
peak VMT per capita 74.6 83.1 11.4% 80.3 7.6% 81.0 8.6%
Difference in Population %
Change and VMT % Change 12.4% 8.6% 9.6%
Source: Oyett & Bhatia, 2009, OKS, 2009.
Employment Center Alternative
When compared to existing conditions, the Employment Center Alternative average AM and
PM peak VMT is expected to increase by approximately 22% while population would only
increase by 12%. Since the rate of increase in VMT would exceed the rate of increase in
population, the Employment Center Alternative scenario would not be consistent with the
regional Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the Employment Center Alternative has a significant
impact regarding air quality. Furthermore, while the Employment Center Alternative
somewhat reduces the disparity between VMT and population growth in the No Project
scenario, the proposed Amendment is slightly more effective, making the proposed
Amendment preferable to the No Project and Employment Center Alternative in regard to
Clean Air Plan consistency.
Impacts due to construction and exposure of people to odors are expected to be comparable to
the proposed Amendment since both assume a similar amount of growth and both the
proposed Amendment and the Employment Center Alternative would not allow additional
industrial uses.
Exposure of sensitive receptors to pollution may be somewhat lower than with the proposed
Amendment since there would be fewer housing units in the area under this Alternative.
However, the South San Francisco High School sensitive receptor would be present in all
alternatives.
Exposure of people to odors is expected to be comparable to the proposed Amendment since
neither would allow additional industrial uses.
No Project Alternative
The current General Plan, when adopted in 1999, was found in the EIR to be inconsistent with
the Bay Area Clean Air Plan. When compared to existing conditions, No Project average AM
and PM peak VMT is expected to increase by approximately 22% while population would only
4-11
Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment
Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives
increase by 9%. Since the rate of increase in VMT would exceed the rate of increase in
population, the No Project scenario would not be consistent with the regional Clean Air Plan.
Therefore, the No Project Alternative has a significant impact regarding air quality.
Furthermore, both the proposed Amendment and the Employment Center Alternative
somewhat reduce the disparity between VMT and population growth, making the proposed
Amendment or Employment Center Alternative preferable to the No Project in regard to plan
consistency.
Impacts would be less than expected for the proposed Amendment regarding exposure of
sensitive receptors to emissions from construction since there would be less development and
fewer housing units than under the proposed Amendment. However, the South San Francisco
High School sensitive receptor would be present in all alternatives.
Exposure of people to odors is expected to be more likely under the No Project, since it is the
only alternative that would continue to allow industrial uses.
PARKS AND RECREATION
The City has a parkland ratio standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 new residents and one- half acre
per 1,000 new employees in the General Plan. The proposed Amendment increases the total
need for parkland from 38.4 acres to 45.7 acres. The Employment Alternative would require
slightly less parkland to be provided, compared to the proposed Amendment. Table 4.3-4
shows the amount of parkland needed in each scenario. Given the 33.5 acres of parkland
currently being developed, all three future scenarios will meet the parkland ratio standards.
4-12
Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment
Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives
Table 4.3-4: New Parkland Needed Citywide
No Project
Alternative
Proposed
Amendment
Employment
Center Alternative
Standard
Population
Increase
to
Buildout
Population
Increase
to
Acres Buildout
Acres
Population
Increase to
Buildout
Acres
Parks in
Residential
Areas
Parks in
Employment
Areas
3.0 acres/I ,000 new
residents
8,200 24.6
10,600
31.8
10,000
30.0
0.5 acres/I ,000 new
employees
27,500 13.75
28,200
14.1
28,800
14.4
Total Parkland
Needed at
Buildout 38.4 45.9 44.4
Remaining Parkland Needed' 22.0 29.5 28.0
I. Remaining parkland needed accounts for 16.4 acres of parkland that have been developed since the adoption of the
1999 General.
Source: SSF General Plan, J 999; City of South San Francisco, 2009; Dyett & Bhatia, 2009.
Employment Center Alternative
The provision of parkland is contingent on new housing units and population, and new
employees in the Planning Area. Because this Alternative supports fewer housing units and
therefore a smaller population, and more jobs, compared to the proposed Amendment, the
potential parkland needed is slightly less. Overall, similar to the proposed Amendment, the
impacts to parks will be less than significant because there is enough existing and proposed
parkland to accommodate the projected population and employee increase, and limit the
physical deterioration of existing parkland.
No Project Alternative
The provision of parkland is contingent on new housing units and population, and new
employees in the Planning Area. Because the No Project scenario supports fewer housing units
and less population, and fewer jobs compared to the proposed Amendment and Employment
Center Alternative, the potential parkland needed is less. Overall, similar to the proposed
Amendment, the impacts to parks will be less significant because there is enough existing and
proposed parkland to accommodate the projected residential and employee population at
buildout, and limit the physical deterioration of existing parkland.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
The comparison of impacts on public facilities is based on the degree of increased demand on
public schools, water supply, wastewater treatment, solid waste, and public safety facilities and
services. The proposed Amendment and the Employment Center Alternative result in some
4-13
Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment
Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives
increased demand on these public services and utilities. With little new demand for public
services, the No Project Alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative in this issue
area. However, impacts on all public services and utilities were found to be less than significant
for the proposed Amendment given that there is enough existing capacity to accommodate
future population.
Schools
The comparison of impacts on school facilities is based on the degree of increased student
enrollment and demand for new school facilities. This analysis considered the same enrollment
factor of 0.075 students per unit for the Employment Center Alternative, as was used to
evaluate the proposed Amendment. Table 4.3-5 shows the projected student enrollment for the
proposed Amendment, Employment Center and No Project scenario. All three scenarios
would result in a student population below District capacity of 10,701 in 2022.
Table 4.3-5: New Demand for Public Schools for Alternatives
No Project
Proposed Amendment
Employment Center
Alternative
Projected Enrollment for 2022'
9,240
9,300
Total Capacity Remaining'
1,461
1,401
9,290
1,411
I. Enrollment Projections for the South San Francisco Unified School District projected school
enrollment for the year 2017 and 2022. The year 2022 is used for a more conservative analysis.
2. Total capacity is 10,701 students.
Source: SSF General Plan, J 999; City of South San Francisco, 2009; Dyett & Bhatia, 2009.
Employment Center Alternative
Under this scenario, there will be approximately 50 more students, resulting in a total projected
enrollment of 9,290, well within the capacity of existing schools.
No Project Alternative
Under this scenario, projected enrollment is expected to be 9,240, as projected by the South San
Francisco Unified School District, well within the capacity of existing schools.
Fire and Police
Current police and fire protection is designed to meet the needs of the existing population and
employment base. Implementation of the proposed Amendment may potentially increase the
long-term demand for police assistance and fire response citywide. However, because the
Planning Area is served by existing police and fire stations within one to two miles away,
response time to the Planning Area will be within response time goals.
Water Supply
As part of the California Water Service Company (CWSC) South San Francisco District, the
Planning Area's water demand is considered in the CWSC 2006 Urban Water Management
Plan (UWMP). This EIR considers whether changes in population projections in the proposed
4-14
Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment
Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives
General Plan or alternatives would make a significant difference on water demand currently
planned for in the UWMP. The UWMP has projected that the population in the South San
Francisco District will increase to approximately 60,050 in 2020. Within the South San
Francisco District, population for the South San Francisco Service Area is projected to increase
to 57,977. Table 4.3-6 projects population growth in the South San Francisco Service Area
under each alternative. None of the alternatives exceed the population projections in the
UWMP. Future population under the proposed Amendment, the Employment Center
Alternative, and the No Project Alternative will be less than what is projected in the UWMP.
This indicates that the future population under all three scenarios is sufficiently accounted for
in CWSC's planning document, and the CWSC is expected to be able to service this growth.
However, the No Project Alternative will require less water because it has the lowest population
growth compared to the proposed Amendment and Employment Center Alternative.
Table 4.3-6: South San Francisco Water Service Area Population Projection
Comparison of Alternatives
South San Francisco
South San Francisco Service
Area
No Project
67,400
Proposed Amendment Employment Center Alternative
69,810
69,210
55,268
57,678
57,078
Population Exceeding 2006
UWMP Population Projections -2,709 -299 -899
Source: Source: California Water Service Company, 2006; US Census, 2000; SSF General Plan, J 999; Dyett & Bhatia,
2009.
Employment Center Alternative
Under this scenario, population within the South San Francisco Service Area is projected to
increase to 57,078 in 2020, which is below the projected population in the UWMP. Therefore
CWSC capacity is still expected to be sufficient under this Alternative.
No Project Alternative
The No Project scenario results in the lowest South San Francisco Service Area population.
CWSC capacity is expected to be sufficient under this Alternative.
Wastewater
All wastewater produced within the City of South San Francisco is treated at the City's Water
Quality Control Plant (WQCP). Currently, the WQCP has the capacity to provide secondary
treatment for 13 MGD in dry weather and 60 MGD in wet weather.1 The average wastewater
flow was 9.2 MGD for 2008; average peak wet weather flows approach 30 MGD. The WQCP
treats wastewater generated by South San Francisco and San Bruno. Currently, the City of
South San Francisco has an allocation of treatment capacity of 8.74 MGD, and is currently
generating 5.6 MGD2
1 City of South San Francisco, 328 Roehling Road Initial Study, February 2009.
City of South San Francisco. Centrum Logistics Project DEIR, Appendix B: Initial Study, June 2009., p. 11-13.
4-15
Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment
Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives
Wastewater generation varies depending on the type of development. A per capita wastewater
generation rate was calculated using current wastewater generation and population to project
future wastewater generation. Currently, the City of South San Francisco is currently
generating 5.6 MGD of wastewater and has a population of 63,554. This results in a wastewater
generation per capita rate of 88.1 gallons per day. Assuming that the per capita wastewater
generation rate stays constant, the wastewater generated at buildout under the proposed
Amendment would be 6.2 MGD. Table 4.3-7 shows projected wastewater generation for the
Employment Center Alternative and the No Project Alternative. For all three scenarios,
projected wastewater generation would not exceed South San Francisco's existing allocated
treatment capacity.
Table 4.3-7: Wastewater Generation Comparison of Alternatives
Projected Population at Buildout
Wastewater Generation (MGD)
Wastewater Capacity Remaining
(MGD)'
No Project
67,400
5.94
Proposed Amendment Employment Center Alternative
69,810
6.15
69,210
6.10
2.8
2.6
2.6
I. Total capacity is 8.74 MGD.
Source: US Census, 2009; City of South San Francisco, 2009; Dyett & Bhatia, 2009.
Employment Center Alternative
This Alternative results in the second highest average daily wastewater demand. South San
Francisco's existing allocated treatment capacity at the WQCP is still expected to be sufficient
in this scenario.
No Project Alternative
The No Project scenario results in the lowest average daily wastewater generation.
Solid Waste
Waste generation rates for South San Francisco are maintained by the California Integrated
Waste Management Board (CIWMB). According to the CIWMB, the total amount of solid
waste landfilled in 2007 was 88,194 tons. This equals a solid waste generation rate of
approximately 7.77 pounds per resident per day. As shown in Table 4.3-8, for all the
alternatives, South San Francisco solid waste generation is just over 7% of the capacity at the
Ox Mountain Landfill. Due to lower population growth, the No Project Alternative results in
the smallest amount of waste generation.
4-16
Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment
Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives
Table 4.3-8: Solid Waste Generation Comparison of Alternatives
Landfilled Waste (tons per year)
Landfilled Waste (tons per day)
No Project
95,573
262
Proposed Amendment Employment Center Alternative
98,991
271
98,140
269
Percent of permitted waste at Ox
Mountain Landfill (per day) 7.3%
Source: C1WMB, 2009; US Census, 2007; Oyett & Bhatia, 2009.
7.5%
7.5%
Employment Center Alternative
The Employment Center Alternative results in higher waste generation compared to the No
Project, but less waste generation when compared to the proposed Amendment. Waste
generation is still approximately 7.5% of Ox Mountain Landfill's daily allowance.
No Project Alternative
The No Project scenario results in the lowest amount of waste generation.
ENERGY AND GREENHOUSE GASES
As described in the methodology and assumptions section of section 3.6: Energy and
Greenhouse Gases (GHG), this analysis includes fuel efficiency estimates for No Pavley, Pavley
Phase 1, and Pavley Phase 2 and the GHG analysis also considers the implementation of SB
1078 33% Renewables Portfolio and Executive Order S-01-07 Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
Overall, the proposed Amendment results in the most energy use and GHG emissions when
compared to the No Project and the Employment Center Alternative. The No Project
Alternative results in the lowest energy use and lowest GHG emissions of all of the alternatives.
However, the proposed Amendment results in the lowest per capita energy use and per capita
greenhouse gas emissions. The Employment Center Alternative results in the lowest emissions
per service population. This indicates that the proposed Amendment and Employment Center
Alternative are more efficient at accommodating growth than the No Project.
Energy Use
Table 4.3-9 compares transportation energy use and Table 4.3-10 compares total annual energy
use in BTUs for the No Project, proposed Amendment and the Employment Center
Alternative.
4-17
Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment
Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives
Table 4.3-9 : Comparative Transportation Energy Use in BTUs by Alternative
Annual
Fuel % Per
Fuel Consump- change BTUs CaPita
Efficiency tion Annual from per BTU
Annual (miles per (million BTUs existing CaPita Change
Population VMT ~allon) ~allons) (Billions) condition (Millions) from 2005
Existing
Conditions 61,700 491 17.5 28 3,508 57
Project
No Pavley 69,810 598 18.2 33 4,107 17.1% 59 3.5%
Pavley I 69,810 598 24.6 24 3,038 -13.4% 44 -23.5%
Pavley I & /I 69,810 598 27.3 22 2,738 -22.0% 39 -31.0%
No Project
No Pavley 67,400 598 18.2 33 4,104 17.0% 61 7.1%
Pavley I 67,400 598 24.6 24 3,036 -13.4% 45 -20.8%
Pavley I & /I 67,400 598 27.3 22 2,736 -22.0% 41 -28.6%
Alternative
No Pavley 69,210 598 18.2 33 4,108 17.1% 59 4.4%
Pavley I 69,210 598 24.6 24 3,040 -13.3% 44 -22.8%
Pavley I & /I 69,210 598 27.3 22 2,739 -21.9% 40 -30.4%
Source: Oyett & Bhatia, 2009; OKS, 2009, MTC, 2008, ICLEI/ City o(South San Francisco, 2009.
Table 4.3-10: Comparative Annual BTU use and BTU per Capita Projections by Alternative
2020
2005 2020 No Project 2020 proposed Amendment Employment
Annual BTUs Annual BTUs Annual BTUs Center
Alternative
(billions) (billions) (billion) Annual BTUs
(billion)
Electricity 1,661 1,814 1,879 1,863
Natural Gas 2,912 3,181 3,295 3,266
Transportationl 3,508 2,736 2,738 2,739
Total BTU 8,080 7,731 7,911 7,868
Per Capita 0.131 0.115 0.113 0.114
Transportation BTU estimates assume Pavley I and 2 as shown in Table 4.3-9.
Source: Oyett & Bhatia, 2009; OKS, 2009, MTC, 2008, ICLEI/ City o(South San Francisco, 2009.
Employment Center Alternative
The Employment Center Alternative results in slightly more transportation energy use than the
proposed Amendment, though the difference is minimal. As in the proposed Amendment and
4-18
Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment
Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives
No Project scenarios, the Employment Center Alternative would result in a slight increase in
BTUs per capita in the No Pavley scenario with substantial improvements when Pavley Phases
1 and 2 are applied.
When considering total energy use, the Employment Center Alternative uses more energy than
the No Project, but less than the proposed Amendment. Per capita energy shows a slight
improvement over the No Project. However, the proposed Amendment performs slightly
better than the Employment Center Alternative per capita, making it the most energy efficient
alternative.
No Project Alternative
The No Project results in slightly less transportation energy use than the proposed Amendment
and the Employment Center Alterative, though the difference in minimal. However, the No
Project also results in slightly more transportation use per capita. As in the proposed
Amendment and Employment Center Alterative scenarios, the No Project would result in a
slight increase in BTUs per capita in the No Pavley scenario, with substantial improvements
when Pavley Phases 1 and 2 are applied.
When considering total energy use, the No Project Alternative is projected to use the least
energy annually. However, the per capita energy use in the No Project scenario is slightly more
than in the proposed Amendment and the Employment Center Alterative, indicating that the
No Project is not as efficient as the higher intensity alternatives.
Greenhouse Gases
Table 4.3-11 compares greenhouse gas emissions for the No Project, proposed Amendment
and the Employment Center Alternative.
4-19
Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment
Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives
Table 4.3-11: Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG Emissions 2020 Business-os-Usual GHG Emissions 2020 with State Mandates
(MTCo2e) (MTCo2e)'-4
Employment Employment
Proposed Center Proposed Center
Sectorl,2 No Project Amendment Alternative No Project Amendment Alternative
Residential 76,531 79,268 78,587 68,508 70,957 70,348
Commercial
/Industrial 202,353 209,588 207,787 173,253 179,448 177,906
Transportation 292,334 292,5 15 292,654 232,113 232,257 232,367
Waste 34,093 35,312 35,009 34,093 35,312 35,009
Total 605,3 I I 6 16,684 614,037 507,967 517,975 5 15,630
Emissions Per
Capita 9.0 8.8 8.9 7.5 7.4 7.5
Emissions Per
Service
PopulationS 4.4 4.3 4.3 3.7 3.7 3.6
I. Forecast for residential and commercial! industrial based 2005 on annual growth rate of population 2005 and 2020.
GHG estimates based on baseline developed by ICLEI and the City of South San Francisco, as described in section
3.6.
2. Forecast for Transportation based on annual rate of increase of peak hour YMT between 2005 and 2030. Peak
hour YMT data provided by DKS Associates.
3. Reductions for residential and commercial! industrial reflect electricity savings, based on Senate Bill 1078.
4. Reductions for transportation reflect fuel efficiency and low carbon fuel savings, based on Assembly Bill 1493:
Pavley Phases I and 2 and Executive Order S-O 1-07.
5. Service population is the sum of population and job projections for 2020.
Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2009
Employment Center Alternative
As shown in Table 4.3-11, the Employment Center Alternative, when considering State
mandates, results in more GHG emissions than the No Project, and fewer GHG emissions than
the proposed Amendment. However, the Employment Center Alternative results in more
GHG emissions per capita than the proposed Amendment and about the same GHG emissions
per capita as the No Project. The Employment Center Alternative results in the lowest
emissions per service population.
No Project
As shown in Table 4.3-11, the No Project, when considering state mandates, results in fewer
GHG emissions than the Employment Center Alternative and the proposed Amendment.
However, the No Project Alternative results in more GHG emissions per capita when
compared to the proposed Amendment, about the same GHG emissions per capita as the
Employment Center Alternative. Similarly, the No Project results in the about the same GHG
4-20
Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment
Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives
emissions per service population as the proposed Amendment, and slightly more GHG
emissions per service population when compared to the Employment Center Alternative.
AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Differences in impacts on visual resources relate primarily to the extent and type of
development under each of the alternatives and to the streetscape character. The proposed
Amendment, Employment Center Alternative, and No Project Alternative would have similar
impacts on visual resources, while the proposed Amendment and Employment Center
Alternative would provide some environmental benefits.
Employment Center Alternative
With less new development projected for housing units but more non-residential development,
this Alternative would still include improved streetscape character. In addition, like the
proposed Amendment, this Alternative would allow buildings along EI Camino Real up to 80
feet in height and 120 feet with discretionary review. As with the proposed Amendment,
impacts to adjacent neighborhoods and existing visual resources would be less than significant
through the establishment of development standards in the Zoning Ordinance and design
guidelines to minimize bulk at higher levels of buildings, which will help ensure that some
views of Sign Hill and the San Bruno Mountains will be available.
No Project Alternative
This Alternative would not have as much development as the Employment Center Alternative
and buildings in the No Project Alternative would be limited to 50 feet. However, buildings 50
feet in height have similar impacts on existing neighborhoods and visual resources as buildings
80 feet in height and this Alternative would not afford as much protection of views or
improved streetscape character as the proposed Amendment and Employment Center
Alternative.
LAND USE AND HOUSING
The proposed Amendment and the Employment Alternative differ in the amount of residential
and non-residential development assumed at buildout. Table 4.3-12 shows the buildout
comparison between the alternatives. None of the alternatives would divide an established
community or displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people. None are expected
to create any land use incompatibilities. Because there are no agricultural lands in South San
Francisco, no agricultural land would be converted.
Table 4.3-12 Buildout Comparison of Alternatives
No Project Proposed Amendment Employment Center Alternative
Housing Units 22,180 23,020
Non-Residential (million sf) 27.1 27.4
Sources: City of South San Francisco General Plan J 999; ABAG Projections 2007; Dyett & Bhatia 2009.
22,810
27.6
Employment Center Alternative
This Alternative assumes more non-residential development in the Planning Area. This comes
at a slight comparative loss of residential development, with this approach providing
4-21
Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment
Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives
approximately 21 0 fewer units than in the proposed Amendment. The Employment Center
Alternative, like the proposed Amendment would increase connectivity between the northern
and southern portions of EI Camino Real.
No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would result in fewer housing units and less non-residential
development compared to the proposed Amendment and the Employment Center Alternative.
In the No Project scenario, housing is only allowed on the east side of EI Camino Real north of
South San Francisco High School to Second Street and on one parcel across the street from
South San Francisco High School. The No Project Alternative would also result in the least
dense development. Furthermore, the No Project Alternative would not make any changes in
terms of increasing connectivity.
IMPACTS NOT POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT
Biological Resources
The proposed Amendment would result in no impacts associated with biological resources.
The Planning Area is urbanized and does not contain natural area that could be lost or
degraded of habitat for biological resources. Three special-status species were identified to have
the potential to occur within the Planning Area; however habitats and observed occurrences of
these species are outside the Planning Area.
Employment Center Alternative
Like the proposed Amendment, this Alternative would result in no impacts associated with
biological resources. Although this Alternative assumes a higher amount of non-residential
development compared to the proposed Amendment, it would not vary the potential effects to
biological resources. Since the Planning Area does not contain any special-status species, there
would be no impacts associated with biological resources.
No Project Alternative
The 1999 DEIR for the General Plan identified biological resources and the occurrence of
special status species within the city; no biological resources of significance were identified
within the Planning Area. No additional impacts would be created by the No Project
Alternative.
Cultural Resources
The proposed Amendment would have no impacts on cultural resources. There are no federal-,
State- or locally-listed historic sites within the Planning Area. There are no known
archeological or human remains located within the Planning Area. The University of
California Museum of Paleontology identifies a fossil locality in South San Francisco; however,
the lithology of the fossil is not known to occur in the Planning Area so it is unlikely that the
locality of the fossil is in the Planning Area.
4-22
Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment
Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives
Employment Center Alternative
Like the proposed Amendment, this Alternative would result in no impacts associated with
cultural resources. This Alternative would impact the same sites as the proposed Amendment,
so the potential impacts would be the same.
No Project Alternative
Additional buildout that would occur under the 1999 General Plan would also impact the same
sites as the proposed Amendment. The 1999 General Plan DEIR evaluated impacts of future
development on cultural resources and found that impacts were less than significant due to
General Plan policies. The No Project Alternative would not result in any impacts to cultural
resources beyond those identified in the DEIR.
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
The potential impacts of geological and seismic hazards are considered less than significant
under the proposed Amendment based on the implementation of existing regulations.
Mandatory compliance with existing building codes and construction standards established in
the California Building Code, the requirements of the City of South San Francisco Municipal
Code, and policies contained in the South San Francisco General Plan would reduce potential
impacts of development to less than significant.
Employment Center Alternative
This Alternative includes the same overall amount of development as the proposed
Amendment and therefore would have the same potential impacts from geological and seismic
hazards as the proposed Amendment. In addition, this Alternative would be subject to the
same existing regulations as the proposed Amendment. The potential impacts of geological and
seismic hazards would be less than significant.
No Project Alternative
The No Project scenario includes less intensive development than the proposed Amendment
and would likely be less impacted by geological and seismic hazards than the proposed
Amendment. In addition, the No Project scenario would be subject to the same existing
regulations as the proposed Amendment, resulting in less than significant impacts.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The proposed amendment would have less than significant impacts on hazardous materials
and safety based on adherence to existing regulatory framework that controls hazardous
materials. In addition, potential hazardous materials handlers such as automobilelvehicle
service and repair uses would not be permitted as a future commercial land use. No hazardous
materials handlers are anticipated to be built under the proposed Amendment.
Employment Center Alternative
This Alternative proposes development throughout the Planning Area, like the proposed
Amendment. Since this Alternative includes the same overall amount of development as the
proposed Amendment, it would have the same potential impacts from hazards and hazardous
4-23
Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment
Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives
materials as the proposed Amendment. Adherence to eXlstmg regulatory framework that
controls hazardous materials would result in less than significant impacts.
No Project Alternative
The No Project scenario proposes less intense development throughout the Planning Area than
anticipated under the proposed Amendment. In the No Project scenario, potential hazardous
materials handlers such as automobilelvehicle service and repair uses would be a permitted as a
future commercial land use. However, hazardous materials generation, storage and clean-up
are heavily regulated by federal, State, and local regulations that would apply to all three
scenarios; therefore potential impacts of hazardous materials are similar to those in the
proposed Amendment.
Hydrology and Flooding
The impacts of the proposed Amendment on hydrology and flooding would be less than
significant due to existing regulations such as General Plan policies, standard development
conditions, and mandatory adherence to best management practices.
Employment Center Alternative
This Alternative would result in the same less than significant impacts to hydrology and
flooding as identified for the proposed Amendment. Additional development would occur on
sites that are currently developed. When compared to the proposed Amendment, impacts
related to hydrology and flooding would be addressed by the same regulatory framework which
requires new development to adhere to standard development conditions and best
management practices, as well as existing General Plan policies that reduce impacts to less than
significant.
No Project
The No Project Alternative would not result in impacts beyond those identified in the EIR for
the 1999 General Plan. The development that would occur under the No Project Alternative
would be required to adhere to all local and state requirements related to storm water controls
and permitting, like the proposed Amendment and Employment Center Alternative. The No
Project Alternative would result in the same less than significant impacts as identified for the
proposed Amendment.
4.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA Guidelines (Section 15123(e)(2)) require the identification of an environmentally
superior alternative among the alternatives analyzed. The No Project Alternative, because of
the lower amount of growth and the resulting lessening of adverse impacts, would in many
cases, be environmentally superior. However, CEQA Guidelines mandate that if the No Project
Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, then another
environmentally superior alternative must be identified. Although the environmental
superiority can vary depending on the topic, or even depending on analysis criteria for the
same topic, overall the Employment Center Alternative represents the environmentally
superior alternative.
4-24
Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment
Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives
The Employment Center Alternative, with less population compared to the proposed
Amendment, would have fewer impacts on South San Francisco's public utilities and services.
It would also result in the lowest GHG emissions per service population, indicating it
efficiently accommodates population and employment growth. In addition, the demand for
parks would be less in the Employment Center Alternative. The Employment Center
Alternative represents the environmentally superior alternative because it minimizes these
impacts while achieving much of the purpose of the proposed Amendment.
Nonetheless, while the Employment Center Alternative represents the environmentally
superior alternative, the proposed Amendment does a better job at achieving its purpose and
would have fewer environmental impacts compared to the environmentally superior
alternative. In particular, the proposed Amendment focuses on establishing a high intensity,
mixed-use, and pedestrian oriented district along EI Camino Real, thereby achieving the
greatest jobslhousing balance in South San Francisco of all alternatives. The Employment
Center Alternative does not effectively achieve some of the primary objectives of the proposed
Amendment, such as allow the City to pro actively address issues identified in the State of
California 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32) and the State's greenhouse gas emission
law (SB375).
Since all new development under the proposed Amendment would be in the form of infill
development-the redevelopment of existing sites-each alternative expects development on
the same set of sites. Therefore, impacts are no different for many issue areas, including land
use and housing, traffic, circulation and parking, and all of the impacts included in the impacts
not potentially significant category. However, the proposed Amendment proves to be an
efficient alternative by showing preferable per capita results for the important issue areas of
energy and GHG emissions, though the emissions per service population are preferable under
the Employment Center Alternative and total energy use and GHG emissions are less with the
Employment Center Alternative. The proposed Amendment also has preferred outcomes in
the issue areas of air quality and aesthetics.
4-25
Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment
Chapter 4: Analysis of Alternatives
This page intentionally left blank.
4-26