Loading...
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