Laserfiche WebLink
homes to the east of the property. These buildings were located between Shoreline Drive <br />and the residential properties. The Project roaster plan, .in contrast does not include any <br />buildings immediately adjacent to the homes; instead, a land scaped buffer zone is placed <br />immediately adjacent to the homes, while office buildin s .are located more in the center o <br />g f <br />the s1.te.,. <br />Comparison of the Alternative to the Project: The Pro ject approvals would <br />permit the development of one million square feet of office space, or approximately <br />q P � <br />115,000 square feet of office space more than 8 5,0.00 square: feet contemplated under the <br />existing development agreement, the assignment from RSP to: the Pro' ect applicant, and <br />J PP s <br />the existing zoning. This slightly lower level of development would not, however, <br />translate into a signif cant reduction in impacts on traffic, as established by the Prd' ect <br />J <br />Traffic Study. The Pro j ect s impacts on air and water quality ° are cumulative, and do .not <br />constitute a large portion of the Bay - area -wide impacts identified in the EIR. Reducin <br />g <br />Project square footage slightly would not si gnif cantly reduce these cumula impacts. <br />Therefore, this alternative :does not reduce the significant irr�pacts of the Project. <br />This alternative would result in increased impacts on adjacent properties. As <br />shown by the co zparative . shadow analysis contained in the Master Plan, the .Project <br />would Virtually eliminate the shadows that would be created if the Project site were <br />developed under the existing Development . Agreement .and zoning. Compared to the <br />previously-approved master plan, the Project will result in . a 30% reduction in the earl <br />Y Y <br />time period during which any home would be affected by . shadows and an 80% reduction <br />I the daily time period during which any home would be aff by s Project <br />buildings will not cast any shadows on the adjacent homes during the calendar t <br />periods and daily time periods when homeowners typically enj oy their late outdoor <br />environments -- late afternoon and early evening during the spring, summer and fall time <br />periods. The only time that the Project will cast any shadows on the nei hborin homes <br />g g <br />is for a short time period maximum of 20 min utes per day) during the winter months, and <br />before the occupant would amve at home after a typical 'wo day. Furthermore almost <br />all of the homes that would be affected by shadows from the Project are . already affected <br />by shadows cast by existing adjacent harries. <br />The City hereby finds that the No Project (Develop Pursuant to Existing <br />Approvals) alternative is .not environmentally superior to the Pr oject because -it would <br />not . substantially reduce significant impacts but would result in increased impacts on <br />adj scent properties.. Although this alternative is feasible, it w ould not meet ' ect <br />r� <br />P J <br />objectives. <br />4,33 Confine D to Im roved Parcels <br />Description of the Alternative: The Redwood Peninsula EIR includes an <br />alternative that would retain portions of the Redwood .Peninsula in open ace. The areas <br />-31- <br />F DNGP 1 .DOC <br />5/301% 14 :51 AM <br />