HomeMy WebLinkAbout6 0 Alternatives
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1 INTRODUCTION
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)
specifies that the range of reasonable alternatives to be included in an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must consist of alternatives that "would
feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project." Project
objectives are stated in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this EIR.
Alternatives are evaluated in an EIR to provide information on whether or not a
variation of a proposed project would reduce or eliminate significant project-
induced impacts within the basic framework of the objectives. CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6(f) specifies that the range of alternatives is governed by the "rule
of reason," requiring the evaluation of only those alternatives "necessary to
permit a reasoned choice." Further, an EIR "need not consider an alternative
whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is
remote and speculative."
The 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D Project has been described and evaluated
in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 of this EIR, with an emphasis on potentially
significant impacts and recommended mitigation measures to avoid these
impacts. The alternatives selected for analysis in this chapter were identified
based on the ability of these alternatives to avoid or lessen the significant
environmental impacts identified in Chapter 4, while attempting to meet the
basic objectives of the project.
6.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Alternatives in the EIR should be feasible, and should attain most of the basic
project objectives. Objectives of the proposed 494 Forbes Office/R&D Project
originate from the development goals included in City's General Plan, including
the East of 101 Area Plan. As part of its application, the project applicant has
Impact Sciences, Inc.
868-01
6.0-1
494 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D Project DEIR
April 2007
6.0 Alternatives
provided the City of South San Francisco with the following list of proposed
project goals and objectives:
. Convert the under-utilized vacant lot and parking areas to a higher and
better use;
. Permit campus-style office, high-quality office and R&D uses (General Plan
Guiding Policy 3.5-G-3);
. Capitalize and expand upon the high-quality office and R&D development
recently built near the project site;
. Retain the flexibility to develop more or less R&D space than office space to
respond to market conditions and opportunities;
. Build a project that has the potential to create quality jobs for residents of
South San Francisco;
. Build a project that is economically viable in the East of 101 Area based upon
market conditions and projected service requirements for the area;
. Generate net property taxes, sales taxes and other fees from the project and
enhance property values;
. Provide quality research and development facilities consistent with the
General Plan land use designation of Business Commercial; and
. Take advantage of views of the Bay from proposed new buildings and open
spaces.
6.3 OVERVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The range of alternatives studied in the EIR must be broad enough to permit a
reasoned choice by decision-makers when considering the merits of the project.
Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the analysis of a "No Project
Alternative." The purpose of describing and analyzing a No Project Alternative
is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed
project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The CEQA
Guidelines state that the No Project Alternative is the circumstance under which
the project would not proceed. This could include buildout of a site under
existing plans or the preservation of existing conditions. In both cases, the
consequences of not approving the project must be discussed.
Under CEQA, alternatives that are remote or speculative should not be discussed
in the alternatives analysis. Additionally, alternatives should focus on reducing
or avoiding significant environmental impacts associated with the project as
proposed. Development of the 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D Project would
Impact Sciences, Inc.
868-01
6.0-2
494 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D Project DEIR
April 2007
6.0 Alternatives
result in significant or potentially significant impacts to the following resources
(before mitigation):
. air quality;
. geology and soils;
. hazards and hazardous materials;
. hydrology and water quality;
. noise;
. transportation/circulation; and
. utilities and service systems.
Most of the potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant
levels through incorporation of mitigation measures.
The analysis below presents the alternatives that were considered for this project.
As required by the CEQA Guidelines, a No Project Alternative is also analyzed.
Each alternative is examined for its ability to reduce environmental impacts
relative to the proposed project, feasibility of implementation, and ability to meet
project objectives.
6.4 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN DETAIL
This section presents an evaluation of four alternatives to the proposed 494
Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D Project:
. No Project Alternative
. The 0.75 Floor Area Ratio Alternative
. The 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative
. The Reduced Parking Alternative
A summary of the 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D Project alternatives is
included at the end of this section in Table 6.0-3. This table provides a
comparison of the environmental effects between the proposed project and the
proposed project alternatives.
Impact Sciences, Inc.
868-01
6.0-3
494 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D Project DEIR
April 2007
6.0 Alternatives
6.4.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
6.4.1.1
6.4.1.2
Description
As required under the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR's alternatives analysis must
include consideration of the No Project Alternative. The "No Project" analysis
discusses the existing conditions as well as what would reasonably be expected
to occur in the foreseeable future if the project was not approved (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) (2) and (3) (A)). Under the No Project Alternative,
the project site would remain a vacant industrial site formerly occupied by
clothing manufacturers. Because the site has already been cleared and some
grading has occurred, it is assumed that under this alternative, the site would
remain in an undeveloped and un-vegetated condition.
Alternative 1 represents a less intense use of the development parcel and would
differ from the proposed project, in that it would not develop any of the
approximately 7.48-acre site with Office/R&D uses. However, this lack of
development/redevelopment would decrease the diversity of businesses in the
area and as a result, would not increase employment opportunities in the area, as
would occur under the proposed project.
Additionally, this alternative would not fulfill the East of 101 Area Plan's stated
purpose of maximizing the potential of underdeveloped or underused properties
in the City's East of 101 Area. This alternative would prevent the site from
contributing to the development of Office/R&D uses and the campus style
character which is promoted by the City's General Plan.
Impact Analysis
The impact analysis below focuses on those impacts that were determined to be
potentially significant under the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D
Project.
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would avoid or reduce
environmental impacts in almost all categories to less than significant levels, as
no development would occur under this alternative. Because the project site is
currently vacant and un-vegetated, the project site would not be consistent with
the aesthetic values of surrounding sites. However, all other significant
Impact Sciences, Inc.
868-01
494 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D Project DEIR
April 2007
6.0-4
6.0 Alternatives
6.4.1.3
unavoidable impacts of the proposed project would be avoided under this
alternative.
Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives
The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the primary project objectives,
including increasing quality employment opportunities, providing quality
research and development facilities for the East of 101 Area, generating net
property taxes and sales taxes, or creating campus-style office and high-quality
office and R&D uses.
6.4.2 Alternative 2: 0.75 Floor Area Ratio Alternative
6.4.2.1
Description
Under this alternative, the project's Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be reduced
from the current 1.0 FAR for the 326,020 square foot project, to a FAR of 0.75 and
a square footage of 244,515. This reduced development intensity would result in
fewer employees at the site thereby creating fewer vehicle trips. The estimated
number of employees under this alternative would range between 734 and 978.
The reduction in vehicle trips associated with fewer employees would
consequently reduce levels of air pollutant emissions associated with the project.
Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would provide extensive
landscaping and public areas on the site, as well as drainage improvements.
While the overall square footage would be reduced under this alternative, the
footprint of the project would not change. For, in order to support optimal
efficiency for Biotechnology/Research & Development businesses, a minimum
standard floor plan is required for prospective tenants, which includes minimum
floor to ceiling heights and desired floor plates. The desired footprint for
Biotechnology/Research & Development is approximately 30,000 square feet.
Using the 3.2/1,000 parking ratio for the proposed project, Alternative 2 would
require approximately 782 parking spaces, a reduction of 254 spaces (25 percent)
from the proposed project.
Impact Sciences, Inc.
868-01
494 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D Project DEIR
April 2007
6.0-5
6.0 Alternatives
6.4.2.2
Impact Analysis
The impact analysis below focuses on those impacts that were determined to be
potentially significant under the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D
Project. Less than significant impacts are discussed only if implementation of
the alternative will substantially increase the impact.
Aesthetics
Similar to the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D Project, the 0.75 Floor
Area Ratio Alternative would not result in any significant aesthetic impacts.
Air Quality
As with the proposed project, development of the 494 Forbes Boulevard
Office/R&D Project under the 0.75 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would not result
in any significant air quality impacts as a result of added vehicle trips in the area.
Because this alternative would result in fewer vehicle trips to the project site than
the proposed project, air quality impacts associated with vehicle trips would be
slightly less than those identified under the proposed project. However, this
alternative would result in air quality impacts related to construction activities at
the site. This impact would remain potentially significant under this alternative
and Mitigation 4.2-1 would be required to reduce the impact to a less than
significant level.
Geology and Soils
Impacts to the exposure of people and/or structures to strong seismic
ground shaking would be somewhat reduced under this alternative, due to the
fact that fewer people would be employed at the project site, thereby slightly
reducing the risk of human injury during a strong seismic event.
Impacts related to the exposure of structures to effects of differential settlements
and increases in erosion during the construction phase of the project would be
the same as those described for the proposed project alternative. It is assumed
that while there would be less square footage constructed under this alternative,
the footprint of the project would not change. As a result, no decreases in the
potential for erosion or the exposure of structures to differential settlements
Impact Sciences, Inc.
868-01
494 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D Project DEIR
April 2007
6.0-6
6.0 Alternatives
would be realized by this alternative. Mitigations 4.3-1 through 4.3-5 would be
required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Similar to the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D Project, the 0.75 Floor
Area Ratio Alternative would result in impacts associated with potential
exposure to contaminated soils and groundwater during construction, the
potential for a spill of hazardous materials during project operation, operation of
the project within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan for the San
Francisco International Airport, and the potential for volatile organic compounds
affecting site users through the inhalation of vapors released from the subsurface
into indoor air. Mitigations 4.4-1 through 4.4-5 would be required to reduce
impacts to less than significant levels.
Hydrology and Water Quality
While the square footage under this alternative would be reduced by
approximately 25 percent, the project footprint would not change under this
alternative. As a result, development of the 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D
Project under the 0.75 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would result in similar
impacts to hydrology and water quality as those described for the proposed
project. Mitigations 4.5-1 through 4.5-5 would be required to reduce impacts to
less than significant levels.
Land Use and Planning
Similar to the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D Project, the 0.75 Floor
Area Ratio Alternative would not result in any significant land use impacts.
Noise
While the project footprint would not change under this alternative,
development of the 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D Project under the 0.75
Floor Area Ratio Alternative would result in somewhat reduced noise impacts
compared to those described for the proposed project. Because the total square
footage of the project would be reduced by approximately 25 percent under this
alternative, it is expected that construction phases would be shortened, thereby
decreasing the duration of construction related noise in the project area.
Impact Sciences, Inc.
868-01
6.0-7
494 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D Project DEIR
April 2007
6.0 Alternatives
Mitigations 4.7-1 through 4.7-4 would be required to reduce the impact to a less
than significant level.
Transportation
Similar to the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D Project, the 0.75 Floor
Area Ratio Alternative would result in new vehicle trips in the project area.
Under this alternative, a total of 343 A.M. peak hour trips and 330 P.M. peak
hour trips would be generated. Table 6.0-1, Project Trip Generation-0.75 Floor
Area Ratio Alternative, provides a summary of the specific vehicle trips estimate
for this alternative.
The number of trips generated under this alternative would still result in an
increase of over the threshold of 100 new vehicle trips. As described previously
in this EIR, C/CAG Agency Guidelines for implementation of the 2003 Draft
Congestion Management Program (C/CAG Guidelines) specify that local
jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants would mitigate all
new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by
the development. Since the threshold would be exceeded under this alternative,
the applicant would be responsible for creating and implementing a TDM
program. Mitigations 4.8-1 through 4.8-8 would be required to reduce most
impacts to a less than significant level. Similar to the proposed project, this
alternative would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to future
freeway mainline levels of service and project on-ramp capacity and volumes.
Table 6.0-I
Project Trip Generation-0.75 Floor Area Ratio Alternative
Source: Crane Transportation Group, 2007
(1) 9.5% reduction in average trip rates due to City mandated TDM program.
Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003.
Impact Sciences, Inc.
868-01
6.0-8
494 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D Project DEIR
April 2007
6.0 Alternatives
6.4.2.3
Utilities
As the 0.75 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would reduce the total square footage of
the project, fewer employees would be accommodated at the project site. This
reduction in employees would translate in a reduced demand for water services
in the project area. However, similar to the proposed project, this alternative is
still likely to increase demand for water resources provided to the CWSC by the
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, resulting in a potentially significant
impact. This impact would remain potentially significant under this alternative
and Mitigation 4.9-1 would be required to reduce the impact to a less than
significant level.
Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives
Like the proposed project, the 0.75 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would support
the primary objectives of increasing quality employment opportunities in the
area, providing quality research and development facilities for the East of 101
Area, and creating campus-style office and high-quality office and R&D uses.
This alternative would also support objectives to convert the under-utilized lot to
a higher and better use, would capitalize and expand upon the high-quality
office and R&D development recently built near the site, and would take
advantage of bay views from proposed new buildings and open space areas.
However, this alternative would not retain the flexibility to develop more R&D
space than office space, and would not result in an economically viable project
for the East of 101 Area. This alternative would also result in decreased property
taxes and sales taxes due to the reduced square footage proposed.
6.4.3 Alternative 3: 0.5 Floor Area Ratio Alternative
6.4.3.1
Description
Under this alternative, the project's Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be reduced
from the current 1.0 FAR for the 326,020 square foot project, to a FAR of 0.50 and
a square footage of 162,914 square feet. This reduced development intensity
would result in fewer employees at the site thereby creating fewer vehicle trips.
The estimated number of employees under this alternative would range between
489 and 652.
Impact Sciences, Inc.
868-01
494 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D Project DEIR
April 2007
6.0-9
6.0 Alternatives
6.4.3.2
Similar to Alternative 2, reduced development intensity and fewer employees
would produce fewer vehicle trips and consequently decreased levels of air
pollutant emissions. As described for Alternative 2, the project footprint under
this alternative would not change from that proposed for the project alternative.
This alternative would develop a smaller version of the proposed project within
the project site. Like the other alternatives, Alternative 3 would also result in
extensive landscaping and public areas on the site, as well as drainage
improvements. Due to the substantially decreased FAR under this alternative,
parking facilities required for the project could be substantially reduced in size
over the proposed project. Using the 3.2/1,000 ratio for the proposed project,
Alternative 3 would require approximately 521 parking spaces, a reduction of
515 spaces (50 percent) over the proposed project.
Impact Analysis
The impact analysis below focuses on those impacts that were determined to be
potentially significant under the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D
Project. Less than significant impacts are discussed only if implementation of
the alternative would substantially increase the impact.
Aesthetics
Similar to the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D Project, the 0.5 Floor
Area Ratio Alternative would not result in any significant aesthetic impacts.
Air Quality
As with the proposed project, development of the 494 Forbes Boulevard
Office/R&D Project under the 0.5 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would not result
in any significant air quality impacts as a result of increased vehicle trips in the
area. However, this alternative, like the others discussed would result in air
quality impacts related to construction activities at the site. This impact would
remain potentially significant under this alternative and Mitigation 4.2-1 would
be required to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Impact Sciences, Inc.
868-01
494 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D Project DEIR
April 2007
6.0-10
6.0 Alternatives
Geology and Soils
Impacts to the exposure of people and/or structures from strong seismic
ground shaking would be the same under this alternative as compared to the
proposed project. These impacts include exposure of people and structures to
strong seismic ground shaking events, exposure of structures to adverse effects
of differential settlements, and increased erosion during project construction.
Mitigations 4.3-1 through 4.3-5 would be required to reduce impacts to less than
significant levels.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Development of the 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D Project under the 0.5
Floor Area Ratio Alternative would result in similar impacts to hazards and
hazardous materials as those described for the proposed project, including
potential exposure to contaminated soils and groundwater during construction,
the potential for a spill of hazardous materials during project operation,
operation of the project within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan for
the San Francisco International Airport, and the potential for volatile organic
compounds affecting site users through the inhalation of vapors released from
the subsurface into indoor air. Mitigations 4.4-1 through 4.4-5 would be required
to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
Hydrology and Water Quality
While the square footage under this alternative would be reduced by
approximately 50 percent, the project footprint would not change under this
alternative. As a result, development of the 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D
Project under the 0.5 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would result in an impact
associated with increased runoff flows from the project site to the City's
stormwater facilities. Mitigations 4.5-1 through 4.5-5 would be required to
reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
Land Use and Planning
Similar to the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D Project, the 0.5 Floor
Area Ratio Alternative would not result in any significant land use impacts.
Impact Sciences, Inc.
868-01
6.0-11
494 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D Project DEIR
April 2007
6.0 Alternatives
Noise
While the project footprint would not change under this alternative,
development of the 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D Project under the 0.5 Floor
Area Ratio Alternative would result in significantly reduced noise impacts
compared to those described for the proposed project. Because the total square
footage of the project would be reduced by approximately 50 percent under this
alternative, it is expected that construction phases would be significantly
shortened, thereby decreasing the duration of construction related noise in the
project area. However, this alternative would still result in a significant noise
impact and Mitigations 4.7-1 through 4.7-4 would be required to reduce this
im pact to a less than significant level.
Transportation
Similar to the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D Project, the 0.5 Floor
Area Ratio Alternative would result in new vehicle trips in the project area.
Under this alternative, a total of 228 A.M. peak hour trips and 219 P.M. peak
hour trips would be generated. Table 6.0-2, Project Trip Generation, 0.5 Floor
Area Ratio Alternative, provides a summary of the specific vehicle trips estimate
for this alternative.
The number of trips generated under this alternative would still result in an
increase of over the threshold of 100 new vehicle trips. As described previously
in this EIR, C/CAG Agency Guidelines for implementation of the 2003 Draft
Congestion Management Program (C/CAG Guidelines) specify that local
jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants would mitigate all
new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by
the development.
Since the threshold would be exceeded under this alternative, the applicant
would be responsible for creating and implementing a TDM program. However,
compared to the proposed project, this alternative would likely result in a
reduced mode-shift goal below that of 35 percent proposed for the project.
Mitigations 4.8-1 through 4.8-8 would be required to reduce most impacts to a
less than significant level. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would
Impact Sciences, Inc.
868-01
6.0-12
494 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D Project DEIR
April 2007
6.0 Alternatives
result in significant and unavoidable impacts to future freeway mainline levels
of service and project on-ramp capacity and volumes.
Table 6.0-2
Project Trip Generation-0.5 Floor Area Ratio Alternative
OfficejR&D 162,914
11.01
1,794
1.23(1)
200
0.17(1)
28
0.23(1)
37
1.12(1)
182
Source: Crane Transportation Group, 2007
(1) 9.5% reduction in average trip rates due to City mandated TDM program.
Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003.
Utilities
As the 0.5 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would reduce the total square footage of
the project, fewer employees would be accommodated at the project site. This
reduction in employees would translate in a substantially reduced demand for
water services in the project area. However, similar to the proposed project, this
alternative is still likely to increase demand for water resources provided to the
CWSC by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, resulting in a
potentially significant impact. This impact would remain potentially significant
under this alternative and Mitigation 4.9-1 would be required to reduce the
im pact to a less than significant level.
6.4.3.3
Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives
Like the proposed project, the 0.5 Floor Area Ratio Alternative would support
the primary objectives of increasing quality employment opportunities in the
area, providing quality research and development facilities for the East of 101
Area, and converting the under-utilized lot to a higher and better use. This
alternative would capitalize and expand upon the high-quality office and R&D
development recently built near the site, and would likely take advantage of
some bay views from proposed new buildings and open space areas.
Impact Sciences, Inc.
868-01
6.0-13
494 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D Project DEIR
April 2007
6.0 Alternatives
While this alternative would result in campus-style office and R&D
development, it would do so at a greatly reduced density compared to other
alternatives. Due to the limited square footage proposed, this alternative would
not retain the flexibility to develop more R&D space than office space, and
would not result in an economically viable project for the East of 101 Area. This
alternative would also result in decreased property taxes and sales taxes due to
the reduced square footage.
6.4.4 Alternative 4: Reduced Parking Alternative
6.4.4.1
6.4.4.2
Description
Under this alternative, parking for the project would be reduced from the
proposed 1,036 stalls to approximately 938 stalls. This would represent a parking
ratio of approximately 2.88/1,000 square feet of development. The reduction in
parking would coincide with the target reduction in single occupancy vehicles of
9.5 percent, which is derived from the conservative assumptions used for the
traffic modeling for the General Plan Amendment, from the City's standard
Research and Development parking requirements (City of South San Francisco
Municipal Code section 20.74.060).
Such a reduction in vehicle trips would act as a motivator for and sign of
commitment to create and maintain a successful TDM Plan over the life of the
project site. All other aspects of the project would remain the same as the
proposed project.
This alternative would allow for a reduction in the size of the proposed parking
structure and would translate to fewer vehicle trips and consequently, fewer air
emissions. Reduced vehicle trips would also result in improved Levels of
Service on nearby freeway segments as well as on surface street intersections
near the project site.
Impact Analysis
This alternative would coincide with the City's policy to promote reduction in
parking from City zoning standards.
Impact Sciences, Inc.
868-01
494 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D Project DEIR
April 2007
6.0-14
6.0 Alternatives
Aesthetics
Similar to the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D Project, the Reduced
Parking Alternative would not result in any significant aesthetic impacts. This
alternative would result in a parking structure that is reduced in size, and
therefore, height, as compared to the proposed project. Therefore, aesthetic
impacts would be slightly less substantial than those identified under the
proposed project.
Air Quality
As with the proposed project, development of the 494 Forbes Boulevard
Office/R&D Project under the Reduced Parking Alternative would not result in
any significant air quality impacts as a result of increased vehicle trips in the
area. However, this alternative would result in air quality impacts related to
construction activities at the site. This impact would remain potentially
significant under this alternative and Mitigation 4.2-1 would be required to
reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Geology and Soils
Impacts to the exposure of people and/or structures from strong seismic
ground shaking would be the same under this alternative as compared to the
proposed project. These impacts include exposure of people and structures to
strong seismic ground shaking events, exposure of structures to adverse effects
of differential settlements, and increased erosion during project construction.
Mitigations 4.3-1 through 4.3-5 would be required to reduce impacts to less than
significant levels.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Similar to the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D Project, the Reduced
Parking Alternative would result in impacts associated with potential exposure
to contaminated soils and groundwater during construction, the potential for a
spill of hazardous materials during project operation, operation of the project
within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Francisco
International Airport, and the potential for volatile organic compounds affecting
site users through the inhalation of vapors released from the subsurface into
Impact Sciences, Inc.
868-01
6.0-15
494 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D Project DEIR
April 2007
6.0 Alternatives
indoor air. Mitigations 4.4-1 through 4.4-5 would be required to reduce impacts
to less than significant levels.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Because the overall project footprint would not change under this alternative,
development of the 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D Project under the Reduced
Parking Alternative would result in an impact associated with increased runoff
flows from the project site to the City's stormwater facilities. Mitigations 4.5-1
through 4.5-5 would be required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
Land Use and Planning
Similar to the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D Project, the Reduced
Parking Alternative would not result in any significant land use impacts.
Noise
Impacts related to construction noise would be slightly less under the Reduced
Parking Alternative, given that the parking structure required for the project
would be reduced in size. This smaller parking structure would result in a
slightly shortened construction phase, thereby decreasing the duration of
construction-related noise in the project area. Mitigations 4.7-1 through 4.7-4
would be required to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels.
Transportation
Similar to the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D Project, the Reduced
Parking Alternative would result in new vehicle trips in the project area.
However, it is assumed that while the square footage of the project would not
change, AM and PM peak hour trips would be somewhat reduced under this
alternative, compared to the proposed project. Further, because no on-street
parking is permitted on Allerton Avenue or Forbes Boulevard, it is assumed that
the reduced vehicle trips would result in either increased car/van pooling or
increased use of public transit. It should be noted that because research and
development has higher square footage per person ratios, the ultimate parking
demand for the project would be determined by the final tenant mix.
Impact Sciences, Inc.
868-01
6.0-16
494 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D Project DEIR
April 2007
6.0 Alternatives
Utilities
Similar to the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D Project, the Reduced
Parking Alternative would result in an increased demand for water services
provided to the CWSC by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.
Mitigation 4.9-1 would be required to reduce the impact to a less than significant
level.
6.4.4.3
Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives
Like the proposed project, the Reduced Parking Alternative would support the
primary project objectives of converting the under-utilized vacant area to better
use, permitting campus style office and high-quality office and R&D uses,
retaining the flexibility of developing more or less R&D than office space,
providing quality jobs for residents of South San Francisco, and creating quality
research and development facilities that are consistent with the General Plan.
Additionally, this alternative would meet all other objectives outlined previously
in this chapter.
6.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
The CEQA Guidelines require that an environmentally superior alternative to the
proposed project be identified in an EIR. The CEQA Guidelines also require that
"if the environmentally superior alternative is the 'no project' alternative, the EIR
shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other
alternatives" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6( e )(2)). In general, the
environmentally superior alternative minimizes adverse impacts to the
environment, while still achieving the basic project objectives.
The No Project Alternative would avoid most of the significant environmental
impacts of development under the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D
Project because most of these impacts are population driven. Consequently, the
No Project Alternative would not increase the population in the project area.
This alternative would avoid significant traffic and air quality impacts and
potentially significant impacts on aesthetics, geology and soils, hazards and
hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and utilities.
Therefore, this alternative would the environmentally superior alternative.
Impact Sciences, Inc.
868-01
6.0-17
494 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D Project DEIR
April 2007
6.0 Alternatives
However, the No Project Alternative would not meet key project objectives of the
proposed project with respect to office and R&D development.
If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires that the EIR identify another
alternative as environmentally superior.
Of the remaining alternatives, the environmentally superior alternative is the
Reduced Parking Alternative because it would reduce the project's significant
impacts with regards to traffic and air quality. While the actual square footage
of office and R&D space would be to the same as the proposed project,
Alternative 4 would require fewer parking spaces, and would in turn result in
decreased vehicle trips to the project site. This reduction in vehicle trips would
result in fewer vehicle emissions, thereby resulting in improved air quality
conditions compared to the other alternatives. Additionally, the reduction in
vehicle trips for this alternative would be achieved by project design, as opposed
to the proposed project which would be required to implement, operate, and
monitor a transportation demand management plan.
Table 6.0-3, Summary Comparison of 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D
Project Alternatives, provides a comparison of the environmental effects
between the proposed project and the proposed project alternatives.
Impact Sciences, Inc.
868-01
6.0-18
494 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D Project DEIR
April 2007
6.0 Alternatives
Table 6.0-3
Summary Comparison of
494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D Project Alternatives
Impact
4.1-1
Impact
4.1-2
Impact
4.1-3
Implementation of the project would
introduce two new office/R&D
buildings and a parking structure, and
remove trees, which could degrade the
visual character of the site. This would
result in a less than significant impact.
Construction of project buildings
would impact scenic vistas such as the
San Bruno Mountains. This would
result in a less than significant impact.
Implementation of the project would
introduce new sources of light and
glare into the project area, which could
adversely affect daytime and
nighttime views in the area. This
would result in a less than significant
impact.
LS
LS
LS
LS
NI
LS
LS
LS-
LS
NI
LS
LS
LS-
LS
NI
Impact
4.2-1
Impact
4.2-2
Impact
4.2-3
Impact
4.2-4
Earthmoving and demolition activities
during construction of the proposed
project would generate criteria
pollutant emissions. This would result
in a significant impact.
Office/Research and development
envisioned by the project would
generate criteria pollutant emissions
from motor vehicles associated with
worker's trips and area sources (e.g.,
natural gas combustion. This would
result in a less than significant impact.
Traffic generated by workers of the
proposed project could contribute to
carbon monoxide concentrations in
excess of State and federal ambient air
quality standards. This would result in
a less than significant impact.
The project site may be located close to
sources of toxic air contaminants that
could expose sensitive receptors to
toxic air contaminants in excess of
acceptable levels. This would result in
a less than significant impact.
Impact Sciences, Inc.
868-01
S
S-
S-
S-
NI
LS
LS-
LS-
LS
NI
LS
LS
LS-
LS
NI
LS
LS
LS
LS
NI
6.0-19
494 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D Project DEIR
April 2007
6.0 Alternatives
Impact
4.3-1
Impact
4.3-2
Impact
4.3-3
Development of the project would
expose people and/or structures to
substantial adverse effects from strong
seismic ground shaking. This would
result in a significant impact.
Development of the site as envisioned
by the project would possibly expose
structures to substantial adverse
effects of differential settlements. This
would result in a significant impact.
The construction phase of the project
would result in a substantial increase
in erosion and would displace topsoil
at the project site. This would be
considered a significant impact.
S
S-
S-
S
NI
S
S-
S-
S
NI
S
S-
S-
S
NI
Impact
4.4-1
Impact
4.4-2
Impact
4.4-3
Impact
4.4-4
Contaminated soil and groundwater
could be exposed during excavation
and grading activities, exposing
construction workers to hazardous
materials. This would be considered a
potentially significant impact.
PS
PS
PS
PS
NI
Accident conditions during the
transportation or use of hazardous
substances during project operation
could create a spill of hazardous
materials which could create a
significant hazard to the public or
environment. This would result in a
potentially significant impact.
PS
PS
PS
PS
NI
The project would be located within
the jurisdiction of the Airport Land
Use Plan for the San Francisco
International Airport and could
conflict with the Plan's policies. This
would be considered a potentially
significant impact.
PS
PS-
PS-
PS
NI
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
from contaminated groundwater may
pose a risk to si te users through
inhalation of vapors released from the
subsurface into indoor air. This would
be considered a potentially significant
impact.
PS
PS
PS
PS
NI
6.0-20
494 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D Project DEIR
April 2007
Impact Sciences, Inc.
868-01
6.0 Alternatives
Implementation of the project would
increase the amount of runoff that
Impact flows from the site into the Ci ty' s
stormwater facilities and could exceed LS NI LS LS LS
4.5-1 the capacity of the existing storm drain
system. This would result in a less
than significant impact.
Implementation of the project would
increase the amount of runoff that
flows from the site into the Ci ty' s
stormwater facilities, which could
Impact introduce sediments and other PS NI PS PS PS
4.5-2 pollutants into the surface water
runoff and could potentially degrade
water quali ty. This would be
considered a potentially significant
impact.
Implementation of the project would
Impact result in less than significant noise LS NI LS- LS- LS
4.7-1 impacts to uses proposed within the
project site.
Impact Implementation of the project would
result in less than significant impacts LS NI LS LS- LS
4.7-2 to off-site sensitive noise receptors.
The project would result in temporary
Impact or periodic noise impacts associated
4.7-3 with construction activities. This S NI S- S- S-
would be considered a significant
impact.
Trips generated by the project would
Impact exceed 100 net new trips during AM S NI S- S- S-
4.8-1 and PM peak hours. This would be
considered a significant impact.
Implementation of the project would
increase traffic volumes which would
Impact result in operational impacts to nine S NI S- S- S-
4.8-2 intersections due to decreases in levels
of service. This would be considered a
significant impact.
Impact Sciences, Inc.
868-01
6.0-21
494 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D Project DEIR
April 2007
6.0 Alternatives
Impact
4.8-3
Impact
4.8-4
Impact
4.8-5
Impact
4.8-6
Impact
4.8-7
Impact
4.8-8
Impact
4.8-9
Implementation of the project would
increase traffic volumes, which would
result in a signal warrant to be met at
one intersection. This would result in
a significant impact.
Implementation of the project would
increase traffic volumes which would
increase vehicle queuing at one
intersection above levels determined
to be acceptable by the City of South
San Francisco and Caltrans. This
would result in a significant impact.
Implementation of the project would
increase traffic volumes which would
increase backups extending to the
freeway mainline at one off-ramp
segment, result in operational impacts
to three U.S. 101 off-ramps and one
U.S. 101 on-ramp. This would result in
a significant and unavoidable impact.
Implementation of the project would
increase traffic volumes which would
result in operational impacts to two
freeway mainline segments. This
would result in a significant and
unavoidable impact.
Project-related traffic would turn from
Forbes Boulevard and Allerton
Avenue into project driveways which
would create safety impacts on Forbes
Boulevard and Allerton Avenue. This
would result in a significant impact.
On-site circulation could result in
excessive traffic flow through various
parts of the project site, resulting in
confusion to drivers.
Implementation of the project would
not provide a walkway from the
project buildings to Allerton Avenue
or provide sidewalks along Forbes
Boulevard or Allerton Avenue. This
lack of infrastructure would result in a
significant impact to pedestrian safety.
S
S-
S-
S-
NI
S
S-
S-
S-
NI
SU
SU
SU
SU
NI
SU
SU
SU
SU
NI
S
S
S-
S-
NI
LS
LS
LS-
LS
NI
S
S
S
S
NI
Impact Sciences, Inc.
868-01
6.0-22
494 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D Project DEIR
April 2007
6.0 Alternatives
Impact
4.8-10
Project operation would involve
commuters traveling to and from the
project site which would increase the
need for parking spaces. This would
result in a less than significant impact.
LS
LS-
LS-
LS-
NI
Impact
4.9-1
Impact
4.9-2
Impact
4.9-3
Impact
4.9-4
The proposed project would increase
demand for water services in the
project area. The increased demand
could require offsite improvements.
This would be considered a potentially
significant impact.
The proposed project would generate
increased demand for wastewater
services. This would be considered a
less than significant impact.
The proposed project would increase
the amount of runoff that flows from
the site into the City's stormwater
facilities. This would be considered a
less than significant impact.
Implementation of the proposed
project would not exceed the solid
waste permitted capacity for either
Scavenger Company's Blue Line
MRF/TS or the Ox Mountain Sanitary
Landfill. This would be considered a
less than significant impact.
KEY
NA: Not Applicable
NI: No Impact
L5: Less than significant impact
P5 Potentially significant impact
5 Significant impact
5U Significant and unavoidable impact
Source: Impact Sciences 2007
PS
PS-
PS-
PS
NI
LS
LS-
LS-
LS
NI
LS
LS
LS
LS
NI
LS
LS
LS-
LS
NI
Impact Sciences, Inc.
868-01
6.0-23
494 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D Project DEIR
April 2007