Reso PC22-08 0085 PC Reso Recommending CEQA

Browse Search

Findings and Statements Required by the California Environmental Quality Act Harbor View Project PAGE 42 OF 48 ESA / 170951 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2022 ATTY/RESO.0085/PC RESO RECOMMENDING CEQA – EXHIBIT A REV: 11-02-2022 VR Alternative results in greater impacts regarding traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, service population, and demand for public services and utilities. As shown in Table 5-2 of the FEIR, this alternative involves more total floor area (1.18 msf compared to 800,150 square feet) and generates more vehicle trips (1,408 AM / 1,217 PM / 11,604 daily compared to 1,010 AM / 826 PM / 8,717 daily). This change under the “70/30 Office + Ancillary R&D Lab” Alternative would drive the increases in air quality and total greenhouse gas emissions, operational noise, in addition to total employment, the latter of which thereby increase demands for public services and utilities compared to the Revised Project. Compared to the Revised Project, this alternative generates greater total greenhouse gas emissions (roughly 21,000 compared to 8,540 MT CO2e) and greater service population with this alternative (4,053 compared to 3,061 employees), resulting in greater annual greenhouse gas emissions per employee (roughly 4.0 compared to 2.79 MT CO2e/SP). 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) would continue to occur with the “70/30 Office + Ancillary R&D Lab” Alternative since the Office land use program is the same for both scenarios. This alternative would construct six structures rather than four proposed with the Revised Project. Moreover, each of the buildings under the “70/30 Office + Ancillary R&D Lab” Alternative would be taller than with the Revised Project. This would therefore increase the severity of impacts regarding construction air quality, GHG emissions and noise (since more development would occur and presumably for a longer period of time), and the severity of impacts regarding aesthetics shadow and light/glare (since more and taller structures would be development) Although the 70/30 Office + Ancillary R&D Lab” Alternative would involve more development and intensity than the Revised Project, it would continue to meet the objectives of the Revised Project. The primary land use remains regular Office in addition to an amenities building. The internal site orientation and clustered development, as well as the provision of recreation or open space amenities, bicycle/pedestrian connections onsite and to Downtown also would continue to be maintained. Overall, because the “70/30 Office + Ancillary R&D Lab” Alternative would notably increase most environmental impacts, the City hereby rejects the “70/30 Office + Ancillary R&D Lab” Alternative from further consideration. Findings Relating to the Alternative Site Location Alternative. Findings. The “Alternative Site Location” Alternative is described and discussed on pages 5-27 to 5-33 in the DEIR and is summarized relative to the Revised Project in Table 5-2 of the FEIR. The development program of this alternative would be the same as the Revised Project. Therefore, the alternative would not necessarily reduce or avoid any of the significant effects of the Revised Project. As discussed starting on page 5-29 of the DEIR, the “Alternative Site Location” Alternative represents development at a location within