Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 106-1994RESOLUTION NO. 106-94 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR). The following certification is based on evidence contained in the record, including the project files, the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the Final Environmental Impact (hereafter the EIR), and public hearing testimony regarding the proposed East of 101 Area Plan ("Project") within the City limits of South San Francisco. WHEREAS, a Draft and Final EIR on the East of 101 Area Plan was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for public review in August 1993, and was subsequently revised and recirculated as the Revised Draft EIR. WHEREAS, the Revised Draft EIR was made available for public review and comment for 45 days beginning in January 7, 1994 and ending February 22, 1994. WHEREAS, the EIR was presented for review before the City Planning Commission at a public hearing on July 7, 1994, at the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. The Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR prior to recommending approval of the Area Plan. WHEREAS, the EIR was presented for review before the City Council at a public hearing on July 27, 1994 at the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. The review focused on the responses to comments on the Draft EIR. The City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR prior to approving the Area Plan. WHEREAS, The EIR represents the independent judgement of the City of South San Francisco regarding the potential impacts of, appropriate mitigation measures for, and possible alternatives to the East of 101 Area Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby certifies the adequacy of the East of 101 Area Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Additionally, the City Council makes the findings identified in Exhibit A. The City Council further adopts and imposes the mitigation measures as set forth therein. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 27thday of July ,1994, by the following vote: AYF_3 Councilmembers Jack Drago, Roberta Cerri Teglia, and Mayor Pro Tem Robert Yee NOES None ABSTAdNED Council members John R. Penna and Mayor Joseph A. Fernekes ABSENT None ATTEST City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION NO. 106-94 WHEREAS, CEQA requires the City to make one of the following three findings regarding each significant impact identified in the EIR: · Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR. · Changes or alterations that would limit an identified impact are outside the jurisdiction of the City but are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. · Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: 1. Impacts Mitigated by Project Modification The following impacts have resulted in changes or alterations that have been required and incorporated into the project. The mitigation measures identified for each significant impact would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to a level of insignificance as identified in the Final EIR. Impact POP-DI: The Directed Growth Alternative is inconsistent with the City's existing Housing Element, since it does not allow housing on the Koll site. Mitigation Measure POP-DI: Before adoption of the Area Plan, the City shall amend its Housing Element to identify a methodology to replace the affordable housing currently shown on the Koll site. This mitigation measure corrects the inconsistency between the City's existing Housing Element, and the East of 101 Area Plan by identifying a methodology to replace the affordable housing currently shown on the Koll site. The City has before it, and will adopt, a Housing Element Amendment that removes the Koll site from the identified housing opportunity sites of the Housing Element. The City has identified affordable housing funds and additional housing sites to provide for additional affordable housing units. Impact CIR-DI: The Area Plan does not establish a means for funding projects which serve both the City of South San Francisco and other Peninsula cities. Mitigation Measure CIR-DI: The City of South San Francisco shall institute an impact fee for joint benefit transportation projects in cooperation with other Peninsula cities. The City and other local agencies will be required to comply with all applicable provisions of law in instituting any fee program. The City will establish a means for funding projects identified in the East of 101 Area Plan EIR which will serve both the City of South San Francisco and other Peninsula cities. The impact fee will fund joint benefit transportation projects already identified in the Area Plan EIR, two of which are at the Highway 101/Bayshore Boulevard interchange. As identified in Table 16 of the East of 101 Area Plan, a second through lane from the Highway 101 southbound off-ramp to Bayshore Boulevard will be implemented when 200,000 square feet of development is proposed north of East Grand Avenue, and traffic signals at Bayshore Boulevard and the southbound Highway 101 off-ramp will be implemented when I00,000 square feet of development north of East Grand Avenue is proposed, or when Oyster Point Boulevard is widened. The impact fee will be instituted before either of these traffic improvements are triggered by development. Costs for these improvements are estimated in the East of 101 Area Plan. Impact CIR-D2: Acceptable levels of service would be exceeded at nine East of 101 Area intersections with development of the Directed Growth Alternative through 2003. Mitigation Measure CIR-D2: Improvements listed in the East of 101 Area Plan and summarized in Table 21 shall be implemented to accommodate intermediate level development through 2003 of the Directed Growth Alternative. The City of South San Francisco seeks to ensure that acceptable levels of service are maintained at intersections in the East of 101 Area through 2003. Levels of service were calculated for 29 intersections within or adjacent to the Plan area for both AM and PM peak-hour conditions. It was found that acceptable levels of service would be maintained at 20 intersections, but would be exceeded at nine East of 101 Area intersections with development of the Directed Growth Alternative. The City will implement a set of transportation improvements at study area intersections and roadways to mitigate these potential impacts. The improvements that the City will implement include roadway widenings, intersection signalizations, intersection channelizations (adding lanes at the intersections), and pavement restripings. The City of South San Francisco will implement the required traffic improvements in accordance with the implementation triggers identified in the East of 101 Area Plan. These triggers are based on the traffic analysis conducted for the Plan and EIR. With these improvements, the nine impacted intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service. The results of the level of service calculations both with and without the improvements are presented in Table 37 of the Final EIR. With these improvements, no significant impacts on vehicle circulation would result from East of 101 Area Plan development through 2003. Impact NO-DI: As the East of 101 Area is built out, each construction project will introduce short-term construction noise into the vicinity immediately surrounding the area. Mitigation Measure NO-DI: Construction noise impacts will be evaluated on a case by case basis to determine necessary noise mitigation measures, and such measures shall be applied as conditions of project approval. Until buildout of the area, there will be construction noise at one location or another. Construction noise impacts are generally localized and depend upon the distance from the nearest receptor to the construction project, the construction activity underway, and the type of use adjacent to the construction site. In accordance with this mitigation measure, the City of South San Francisco will analyze and evaluate each development project for potential noise impacts related to construction, and will determine their significance and apply any required mitigation measures for the project. This review will occur through the Discretionary Permit review period. If a Discretionary Permit is not required, this review will take place during Building Permit review. With this review and mitigation, noise impacts from construction will be adequately mitigated during each individual construction project. 5 Impact HAZ-DI: Development of the Directed Growth Alternative could result in the exposure of the public to hazardous waste contamination. Mitigation Measure HAZ-DI: Each site identified in Table 54 potentially containing hazardous materials shall be subject to further environmental analysis related to soil and groundwater contamination prior to any subsequent discretionary approval of development. Remediation of any such site, as required by applicable federal, State, or local statute or regulation, shall occur prior to issuance of building permits for that site. There are seven vacant or underutilized sites with known hazardous waste contamination in the area, and approximately 45 other sites with known contamination, underground storage tanks, or both. The' City of South San Francisco will require further environmental analysis related to soil and groundwater contamination, and remediation of any contaminated site prior to any subsequent discretionary approval, thereby mitigating the possible exposure of the public to hazardous waste contamination. This review and evaluation will occur when there is an application for any Discretionary Permit. Remedial actions must be complete prior to issuance of building permits. These processes will be coordinated with the USEPA, Cai-EPA, and the RWQCB. These agencies enforce State and federal laws governing the generation, handling, processing, treatment, transportation, disposal, and remediation of hazardous materials. The City of South San Francisco will track remediation efforts through these agencies and seek to ensure that hazardous material site mitigation and remediation in the East of 101 Area are coordinated efficiently. Impact MUNI-DI: Development under the Directed Growth Alternative would decrease the service provisions of the Fire Department to unacceptable levels unless additional service provisions are made. Mitigation Measure MUNI-DI: The City shall hire three new firefighters and purchase a fire ladder truck as additional development dictates and as determined by the City Fire Department. It is expected that these improvements will be needed in 1995. The Fire Department analyzed the East of 101 Area Plan to determine required fire protection improvements to support the new development. It was determined that no new fire stations would be required to support the new development; however, three additional firefighters would be required to augment the existing personnel. The costs of these additional personnel are shown in Table 68 of the East of 101 Area Plan EIR. In addition, it is expected that the City will need a new fire ladder truck by 1995. The City of South San Francisco will provide these additional improvements to adequately serve the East of 101 Area when they are deemed necessary by the South San Francisco Fire Department. The addition of three firefighters and a ladder truck will maintain acceptable levels of fire protection service in the City as development occurs in the East of 101 Area. Impact MUNI-D2: Development under the Directed Growth Alternative would decrease the service abilities of the Police Department to unacceptable levels unless additional service provisions are made. Mitigation Measure MUNI-D2: The City shall maintain a minimum service standard of 1.35 officers per 1,000 residents, with additional personnel as needed to serve commercial and industrial development, and shall maintain police vehicles at a ratio of one vehicle per 2.7 officers to accommodate development under the Area Plan. Using data on response activity, the Police Department determined the quantity of each commercial land use which could be serviced by the addition of each new sworn officer. On top of these standards for provision of new sworn officers in response to new commercial development, the City maintains a minimum service standard of 1.35 officers per 1,000 residents. The quantity of new officers generated in response to new commercial development is cross-checked to insure that the overall ratio of officers/residents is also maintained. In addition to personnel costs, a standard police vehicles requirement is one vehicle per 2.7 new officers. The estimated costs of these improvements are shown in Table 69 of the East of 101 Area Plan EIR. The City of South San Francisco will maintain these service requirements for the East of 101 Area and will provide funding and necessary resources for these requirements when it is deemed necessary by the South San Francisco Police Department. These steps will maintain adequate police service in the East of 101 Area and the City as a whole. Impact MUNI-D3: Development under the Directed Growth Alternative would impact the Public Works Department's ability to provide adequate infrastructure maintenance unless additional service provisions are made. Mitigation Measure MUNI-D3: The City shall hire the required employees and purchase needed equipment to maintain infrastructure in the East of 101 Area. New development in the East of 101 Area will generate increases in traffic and sewage volumes, which in turn generates a need for increased roadway and infrastructure maintenance. Estimates of increased road maintenance costs are given in Table 70 of the East of 101 Area Plan EIR. The City of South San Francisco will seek to ensure the current level of infrastructure maintenance in the East of 101 Area through implementation of this mitigation measure. Impact AIR-D3: Grading, scraping, and other earthmoving activities would generate fugitive dust emissions which would be likely to generate particulate concentrations in excess of State or federal standards. Without mitigation, this would be a significant impact of construction activities, potentially causing short-term violations of the State or federal PM~o standards. Mitigation Measure AIR-D3: a. The City shall require construction specifications to incorporate dust abatement practices, such as frequent watering, the use of soil binders or palliatives, and sweeping mud and debris from local streets. b. The City shall require that construction contractors cover all stockpiles of loose soil, sand and other small particulate materials, and cover all such materials being hauled to and from individual construction sites. c. The speed of all construction vehicles shall be limited while on-site. d. Projects shall not disturb over 2.5 acres a day. If a project is expected to disturb more than 2.5 acres, it shall be reviewed individually to determine the impact of construction activities on air quality. Fugitive dust from construction roads can be reduced by 45 percent by watering 3 times per day and by 7 percent from covering trucks. In addition, emissions can be controlled by speed reductions, construction practices and the covering of stockpiles. The final emission reductions from the above discussed mitigation measure equals 49.8 percent. With these mitigation measures it is expected that construction projects will fall under the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) threshold levels for particulate matter. In accordance with this mitigation measure, the City of South San Francisco will analyze and evaluate each development project for potential air quality impacts related to construction, and will determine their significance and apply required mitigation measures for the project. This review will occur when an application for a Grading and/or Building Permit is made. 8 Impact CU-DI: Construction and disturbance allowed by the Directed Growth Alternative could disrupt undiscovered cultural resource sites in the East of 101 Area. Mitigation Measure CU-DI: a. If cultural resources are encountered during development in the East of 101 Area, development shall cease immediately until a cultural resource consultant is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations. b. If any Native American resources are to be disturbed through East of 101 Area development, representatives of local Native American groups shall be involved in mitigation planning. The fact that the area is along the bayshore means that Native American use of the area could have occurred. The City will apply the above mitigation measures to any new development, proposals in the East of 101 Area. These measures will seek to ensure the protection of any encountered cultural resources. Impact CU-D2. Demolition of historic buildings in the East of 101 Area would constitute a significant loss of historic resources, if these buildings are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Mitigation Measure CU-D2: a. Before demolition of any buildings over 50 years old takes place, the building shall be evaluated by a qualified architectural historian to determine if it is eligible for the National Register. b. The owner shall complete a Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level I or Level II documentation of the buildings prior to their demolition. The required level of documentation will be determined in consultation with the National Park Service, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the City of South San Francisco. c. Archives related to historic operations at the buildings to be demolished shall be made available for research by scholars on industrial history. d. Elements of the buildings to be demolished shall be preserved in museums or other locations. No historic resources are known to exist in the East of 101 Area. However, unknown historic resources could exist, and they could be demolished to accommodate new East of 101 Area development. These measure will seek to 9 ensure that historic resources are adequately protected and planned for if and when they are discovered. In accordance with this mitigation measure, the City of South San Francisco will analyze and evaluate each development project for potential historic significance, and will determine the potential associated impacts and appropriate mitigation for the project. This review will occur through the Discretionary Permit review period. If a Discretionary Permit is not required, this review will take place during Building Permit review. 2. Unavoidable Significant Impacts The following impacts have specific economic, social, or other considerations which make potential mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible. Mitigation measures are identified for several of these impacts; however their implementation would not bring the identified impact down to a less-than- significant level. Findings regarding the Overriding Considerations for adoption of the Project are listed in the Resolution Adopting Overriding Considerations for the Unavoidable Significant Impacts of the East of 101 Area Plan, which is being adopted separately by the City. Impact CIR-D3: The northbound segment of Highway 101 between Oyster Point Boulevard and Grand Avenue and the three southbound segments from Sierra Point to South Airport Boulevard are expected to exceed an acceptable level of service under intermediate development of the Directed Growth Alternative. This impact has specific economic, social, or other considerations which make potential mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible. In addition, changes or alterations that would limit this impact are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. The results for the intermediate development levels of the East of 10! Area Plan indicate that four of the eight segments of Highway 101 would operate below the minimum standard of LOS E, one during the AM peak hour and three during the PM peak hour. To mitigate this impact, widening of Highway 101 by one lane in both directions would be required, and such widening does not appear to be feasible at this time. Widening would require the redesign and relocation of the existing on- and off-ramps, the construction of new retaining walls, the redesign of the adjacent local roadway network, and extensive right-of-way acquisition, as described on pages 200-201 of the Draft EIR. Because of these 10 implications, widening of Highway 101 is considered infeasible. Area Plan Policies CIR-7 through CIR-15, which support transit, bicycling, walking and TDM/TSM programs will help to limit this impact as much as possible. Still, the unacceptable level of service of Highway 101 resulting from the Area Plan would be an unmitigable impact of the project. Impact AIR-DI: The Directed Growth Alternative would not be consistent with all of the planning guidelines presented in the 1991 Clean Air Plan or BAAQMD Guidelines. Mitigation Measure AIR-DI: Measure AIR-D4 shall be implemented to address plan consistency as much as is feasible in the area. The East of 101 Area Plan would result in substantial air quality impacts, primarily because it would consist of land uses which would attract vehicle trips to the Plan area, and would not include planning for high-density, mixed- use community-oriented development patterns. Emissions associated with the Area Plan are summarized in Table 84 of the East of 101 Area Plan EIR. The 1991 Clean Air Plan outlines both stationary and mobile source control measures designed to bring the San Francisco Bay Area into attainment of State air quality standards. The 1991 Clean Air Plan and the BAAQMD encourages employer-based trip reduction requirements, implementation of an indirect source control program, zoning for high density development near transit stations, improved access to rail and ferries, and improved bicycle access/facilities. The.East of 101 Area Plan would not be consistent with these guidelines because it does not encourage high-density, mixed-use community-oriented development patterns. Mitigation Measure AIR-D1 will not bring the stated impact down to a level of insignificance, but it seeks to lessen the impact as much as feasible in the East of 101 Area. This impact has specific economic, social, or other considerations which make potential mitigation measures that would mitigate the impact to a less-than-significant level, or project alternatives infeasible. The development of land uses which would incorporate high-density, mixed- use community-oriented development patterns, while favorable from an air quality perspective, could cause impacts with respect to other environmental disciplines. Residential development is not suitable in the Plan area due to noise, land use compatibility and municipal service concerns. Residential development may create perceived conflicts with uses allowed under the Planned Industrial category. The existing biotech industries have identified a desire to keep residential development from the East of 101 Area due to this 11 perceived conflict. In addition, noise levels areas proposed for residential development in the East of 101 Area generally exceed a CNEL of 65. While it would be possible through site planning to provide project mitigation to lessen this impact, these conditions would be less-than-desirable for residential development. Residential development would also create impacts to the public school system. The existing educational facilities and transportation systems are not adequate to serve the influx of students caused by residential in the East of 101 Area. These issues are described in more detail in the East of 101 Area Plan EIR. Impact AIR-D2: The Directed Growth Alternative would result in exceedances of BAAQMD significance criteria for Significance Tests 2 and 3. Mitigation Measure AIR-D2: Measures AIR-D3a, -D3b, -D3c and -D4 shall be implemented to address construction and vehicular-related impacts on PMa0 concentrations and vehicle emissions. BAAQMD Significance Test 2 relates to regional emissions and BAAQMD Significance Test 3 states that a project would create a significant impact if it would generate more than one percent of a county's air pollutants for a given pollutant. The East of 101 Area Plan would create regional emissions from traffic and point sources that would be in excess of the 150 lb/day standard of the BAAQMD. In addition, the project would create more than one percent of the County-wide emissions for carbon monoxide and PM~0. Though the above mitigation measure will improve the effects of the project on air quality, it would not bring the above described impact down to a less-than-significant level. This impact has specific economic, social, or other considerations which make potential mitigation measures that would mitigate the impact to a less-than- significant level, or project alternatives infeasible. These considerations are discussed above under Impact and Mitigation Measure AIR-D1. The development of land uses which would incorporate high-density, mixed- use community-oriented development patterns, while favorable from an air quality perspective, could cause impacts with respect to other environmental disciplines. Residential development is not suitable in the Plan area due to noise, land use compatibility and municipal service concerns. Residential development may create perceived conflicts with uses allowed under the Planned Industrial category. The existing biotech industries have identified a desire to keep residential development from the East of 101 Area due to this perceived conflict. In addition, noise levels areas proposed for residential 12 development in the East of 101 Area generally exceed a CNEL of 65. While it would be possible through site planning to provide project mitigation to lessen this impact, these conditions would be less-than-desirable for residential development. Residential development would also create impacts to the public school system. The existing educational facilities and transportation systems are not adequate to serve the influx of students caused by residential in the East of 101 Area. These issues are described in more detail in the East of 101 Area Plan EIR. Impact AIR-D4: The Directed Growth Alternative would have the potential of increasing emissions and would significantly contribute to regional pollutants such as NOx and VOC, which would exceed BAAQMD standards of significance. Mitigation Measure AIR-D4: The City shall attempt to encourage development which will facilitate walking, bicycling and use of public transit. Within the bounds of the proposed Plan, such development practices could include: · Encouraging mixed commercial-office and a variety of commercial-retail land uses. This will enable Plan area employees to lunch, shop, or seek other commercial services without relying on vehicle travel. For this development to work, commercial-office development shall be no more than a five-minute walk from commercial-retail services, and the commercial-retail area shall provide diverse services in a pedestrian-oriented atmosphere. · Requiring developers to locate parking lots behind office structures, to encourage non-vehicular accessibility. · Either improving access to the existing CalTrain depot, or moving the CalTrain depot to the Shearwater area. In either case, the depot shall provide fully enclosed shelters, ticket agents, and well-maintained convenience/retail facilities adjacent to the depot. · Coordinating shuttle services in the Plan area. Currently, major employment centers, such as Genentech, the Tomoe- Oyster Point Marina Business Park, and Imatron, provide shuttle services to BART stations, the CalTrain depot, and downtown South San Francisco. The City shall encourage development of a consolidated shuttle system that will serve large and small employment centers, and will operate with reasonable frequency (every 15 or 20 minutes along main travel routes) during commute as well as non-commute hours. 13 Providing a center for exchange of ridesharing information. Employees in the Plan area could reach a wider pool for potential ridesharing with this alternative. Means of reducing indirect emissions include creating mixed residential and commercial land uses, locating high density residential or commercial development near transit stations or in areas well served by other public transit, and designing neighborhoods that encourage pedestrian as opposed to vehicular traffic. High density commercial or residential development near transit stations would encourage use of public transit, particularly if parking in the employment center is limited or is expensive. Finally, close attention to neighborhood design and characteristics, with respect to building setbacks, variety of commercial land uses, landscaping, sidewalks, and crosswalks, can encourage pedestrian or bicycle travel. However, many of these measures are not practical in the East of 10! Area due to market constraints and the existing land use pattern, which is already set. Thus, increases in localized emissions represent a significant unavoidable impact of the Plan. Inclusion of the above mitigation measures will help to mitigate the regional air quality impacts, but will not bring the stated impact down to a less-than-significant level. These considerations are discussed above under Impact and Mitigation Measure AIR-D1. The City Council finds that mixed use projects with residences are particularly infeasible due to perceived noise constraints and land use compatibility issues. Though these impacts could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level for CEQA purposes, the presence of relatively high noise levels is not desirable for residential development. Residential development would also create impacts to the public school system. The existing educational facilities and transportation systems are not adequate to serve the influx of students caused by residential in the East of 101 Area. These issues are described in more detail in the East of 101 Area Plan EIR. 3. Project Alternatives The City of South San Francisco hereby finds that there are no potential alternatives to avoiding the adverse impacts of the East of 101 Area Plan. The EIR analyzes three alternatives to the Area Plan which include the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative, the Market Oriented Alternative, and the No Project Alternative. The East of 101 Area Plan EIR found the following: · Planned Commercial Emphasis Altetnative. This alternative would make the East of 101 Area a high end retail, office and commercial 14 area, with the goal of increasing employment and revenues for the City and making the area more visible and attractive on a regional basis. This alternative was not selected as the preferred alternative because it would designate more land for high end uses than the market could support, and because it would include a residential component, which would be difficult to serve with municipal services and would conflict with the area's noise environment and other uses. Though noise and land use impacts of the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the noise and land use environment is considered less-than-desirable for residential development. Market Oriented Alternative. This alternative would be dictated primarily by market forces, and would leave landowners and developers the maximum possible freedom to develop their land as they pleased, with relatively few land use controls. This alternative is not the preferred alternative because it would not upgrade the image of the area or encourage development of higher-end uses such as biotechnology. It would include a residential component, which would be difficult to serve with municipal services and would conflict with other uses in the area and the existing noise environment. Though noise and land use impacts of the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the noise and land use environment is considered less-than-desirable for residential development. No Project Alternative. The No Project alternative assumes that existing City of South San Francisco policies and regulations governing the area would continue to control development. The existing General Plan would continue to guide the development area. Land use categories would be far more general and development would include office, research and development, and industrial uses similar to those already in the area. In addition, the existing specific plans in the areas would continue to apply. This alternative is not the preferred alternative because it would not upgrade the image of the area or encourage development of higher-end uses such as biotechnology. In addition, the positive policies of the East of 101 Area Plan, including the provision of recreational uses, public access to open space, a minimization of traffic impacts, and policies which encourage alternative modes of transportation, would not be implemented. Residential development could occur under the No Project Alternative, which would be difficult to serve with municipal services and could conflict with other uses in the area and the existing noise environment. The No Project Alternative does not accomplish the project goals identified in the East of 101 Area Plan, generally because it does not 15 establish a clear direction and policies for developing the East of 101 Area. a. Freeway Impacts. The Planned Commercial Emphasis, Market Oriented, and No Project alternatives would generally create the same or more significant freeway impacts as follows. · Under the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative, three of the eight freeway segments would operate below the minimum standard of LOS E. · Under the Market Oriented Alternative, all of the freeway segments are projected to operate at LOS F during at least one of the peak hours. On some segments the volume is projected to exceed the capacity by 20 to 30 percent. · The No Project Alternative would ultimately allow more development in the East of 101 Area than the East of 101 Area Plan. Thus, the potential impacts on the freeway system would be greater under the No Project Altern/iti~ than under the East of 101 Area Plan. Development in the area would likely occur slowly and on a project- by-project basis due to current market conditions. However, long-term impacts are likely to include severe traffic congestion impacts. Moreover, there would be no adopted program of traffic improvements and monitoring to mitigate these impacts. These alternatives would not significantly lessen thc congestion impacts to Highway 101. b. Air Quality Impacts. Development of land uses which would incorporate high-density, mixed-use community-oriented development patterns, while favorable from an air quality perspective, could cause impacts with respect to other environmental disciplines. Residential development is not suitable in the Plan area due to noise, land use compatibility and municipal service concerns, as described in more detail in the East of 101 Area Plan EIR. The Planned Commercial Emphasis, Market Oriented, and No Project alternatives would generally create the same air quality impacts as discussed below: Even with its residential component, the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would not emphasize mixed land uses located closely enough that private motorized transit between them would not be necessary. In addition, it would not provide high workplace densities and would not preclude motor-vehicle oriented design, such 16 as large parking lots and service locations out of walking distance from work sites. The emissions and impacts associated with the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative would be similar to the East of 101 Area Plan. These emissions are summarized in Table 85 of the East of 101 Area Plan EIR. As with the Planned Commercial Emphasis Alternative, the Market Oriented Alternative does not emphasize mixed land uses and does not preclude motor-vehicle oriented design. The emissions associated with the Market Oriented Alternative are generally greater than those associated with the East of 101 Area Plan, as summarized in Table 86 of the Area Plan EIR. The impacts associated with the Market Oriented Alternative would be similar to the East of 101 Area Plan. The impacts associated with the No Project Alternative could potentially be greater than the East of 101 Area Plan in the extended future due to higher allowed densities and traffic generation, and since no new traffic improvement measures would be put in place. These alternatives would not significantly lessen air quality impacts in the East of 101 Area, or the region as a whole. c. Market Demand. Additionally, there is a projected demand for approximately 2.3 million square feet of office and industrial space between 1993 and 2010 in the 'East of 101 Area, as discussed in the Market Study Report. This market has been identified as the strongest short-term demand for land in the study area. Future short-term demand for residential and retail uses are expected to be somewhat limited. These conclusions are summarized in Table 42 of the Market Study Report. 17