Reso PC22-08 0085 PC Reso Recommending CEQA

Browse Search

Findings and Statements Required by the California Environmental Quality Act Harbor View Project PAGE 39 OF 48 ESA / 170951 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2022 ATTY/RESO.0085/PC RESO RECOMMENDING CEQA – EXHIBIT A REV: 11-02-2022 VR Findings Relating to the No Project – Existing Zoning (70/30 Research & Development [R&D] Lab + Ancillary R&D Office). Findings. The “No Project – Existing Zoning” Alternative is described and discussed on pages 5-14 to 5-19 of the DEIR and is summarized relative to the Revised Project in Table 5-2 of the FEIR. The “No Project – Existing Zoning” Alternative is hereby rejected from further consideration because, even though it could avoid the significant cumulative air quality impact (as discussed below), it would not fully meet the fundamental objectives of the Harbor View Project, and it is a no project scenario. Explanation. Under the “No Project – Existing Zoning” Alternative, impacts related to the newly introduced R&D Lab use, decreased service population, slightly increased floor area although in fewer structures, would generally be reduced in intensity, compared to those of the proposed Revised Project, including traffic, air quality, total greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and resulting demand for public services and utilities. While this alternative’s total greenhouse gas emissions would be less than Revised Project’s, its GHG emissions per service population could reasonably be higher due to the lower service population associated with this R&D Lab + Ancillary R&D Office use (FEIR Table 5-2). Since this alternative would not require a General Plan Amendment to accommodate its buildout, it would avoid the conservatively significant cumulative air quality impact identified for the Revised Project (Impact AIR-1.CU) (exceeding growth assumptions of the 2017 Clean Air Plan). However, even though this alternative would have fewer vehicle trips than the Project, as stated in the overarching alternatives assumptions in the DEIR (DEIR p. 5-8), no reduced scenario would likely avoid the significant impacts under the City’s current congested peak hour roadway conditions. The “No Project – Existing Zoning” Alternative would not fully meet the most fundamental objectives of the Revised Project, in that it would not: Develop a lively working environment with office uses within the Inner Harbor to promote innovation and creativity. Conservatively, no assumptions are made for this alternative regarding its provision of recreation or open space, amenities, and bicycle/pedestrian connections onsite. Since these three structures are proposed with this alternative, it is possible that the Revised Project objectives regarding the internal orientation and clustering of buildings could be achieved to some extent. Findings Relating to the No Project – Existing Zoning (50/50 R&D Lab + Ancillary R&D Office). Findings. The “50/50 No Project/Existing Zoning” Alternative is described and discussed in Chapter 3 of the FEIR and is summarized relative to the Revised Project in Table 5-2 of the FEIR. Except for variation in the mix of R&D/Lab uses and ancillary R&D Office uses, this alternative has the same development characteristics as the “No Project – Existing Zoning Alternative” discussed above. The “50/50 No Project – Existing Zoning” Alternative is hereby rejected from further consideration for the same reasons as the “No Project – Existing Zoning Alternative”: even though it could avoid the significant