Reso PC22-08 0085 PC Reso Recommending CEQA

Browse Search

Findings and Statements Required by the California Environmental Quality Act Harbor View Project PAGE 44 OF 48 ESA / 170951 Final Environmental Impact Report October 2022 ATTY/RESO.0085/PC RESO RECOMMENDING CEQA – EXHIBIT A REV: 11-02-2022 VR the City hereby rejects the “Alternative Site Location” Alternative from further consideration. Findings Relating to the On-site Public Amenities Alternative. This “On-site Public Amenities” Alternative represents development of three office buildings totaling approximately 882,000 square feet on the project site in addition to up to four publically-accessible, adult soccer fields on one to four acres of the Project site. This alternative also introduces ancillary child care within the amenities building to be used by Project employees. The basic access and configuration of development on the site would otherwise be the same as with the proposed Project, and given the reduced development, this alternative includes two three-story parking structures. The soccer fields would be synthetic turf underlain by composite gravel but would not include spectator seating or other support facilities. The fields would include minimal, as-needed pole lighting for nighttime use, in addition to the permanent nighttime and security lighting that would be provided for the entire office campus. This alternative responds to comments received during scoping of this EIR, however, neither the City nor the Project applicant put forth a proposal for development of a sports field facility on the site. Findings. The “On-site Public Amenities” Alternative is described and discussed on pages 5-34 to 5-41 in the DEIR and is summarized relative to the Revised Project in Table 5-2 of the FEIR. It is hereby rejected from further consideration because, while the “On-site Public Amenities” Alternative would likely meet most of the project objectives of the Harbor View Project, it is not expected to reduce or avoid any of the significant effects of the Revised Project, moreover, it is expected to involve new significant but mitigable impacts regarding aesthetics (light/glare), air quality (TAC/dust emissions), and operational noise. Explanation. Under the “On-site Public Amenities” Alternative, most impacts related to the intensity of development would be slightly more than those identified with the Revised Project. The regular Office use floor area with this alternative is slightly more than with the Revised Project (855,829 compared to 765,150 square feet). Therefore, compared to the Revised Project, the “On-site Public Amenities” Alternative would have greater vehicle trip generation (1,134 AM / 995 PM / 10,035 daily compared to 1,010 AM / 826 PM / 8,717 daily), service population (3,423 compared to 3,061 employees), and total greenhouse gas emissions (roughly 21,000 compared to 8,540 MT CO2e). The alternative would also have greater annual greenhouse gas emissions per employee compared to the Revised Project (roughly 3.0 compared to 2.79 MT CO2e/SP). Reduced vehicle trips would also reduce the traffic noise impact, however, operational noise, discussed below, would be increased. The only other difference between this alternative and the Revised Project is the proposed amenities building, which would be 26,000 square feet under the alternative and 35,000 square feet with the Project, however this difference does not affect the floor area that drives trip generation.