The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6._Alternatives VI. AL TERNA TIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT A. PURPOSE The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to assess a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the significant impacts of the project and to evaluate the comparative merits of each alternative (CEQA Guidelines ~ 15126.6). The Guidelines state that the selection of alternatives should be governed by a "rule of reason." Not every conceivable alternative must be addressed, nor do infeasible alternatives need to be considered. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[a]). When addressing feasibility, Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines states, "among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries...." Based on the CEQA Guidelines, several factors must be considered in determining the range of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR and the level of analytical detail that should be provided for each alternative. These factors include (1) the nature of the significant impacts of the proposed project, (2) ability of alternatives to avoid or lessen the significant impacts associated with the project, (3) the ability of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the project, and (4) the feasibility of the alternatives. CEQA also states that, "[t]he EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project." Generally, significant impacts of an alternative are discussed in this section, but in less detail than the proposed project, and should provide decision makers perspective as well as a reasoned choice regarding each alternative. B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES To develop project alternatives, the EIR preparers considered the project objectives and reviewed the significant impacts in Section IV of this EIR to identify those significant impacts that could be avoided or reduced substantially through an alternative (refer to Table VI-l at the end of this section). The objectives ofthe proposed project are as follows: . Increase FAR at the site from approximately 0.29 to 1.25 FAR . Create a cohesive working campus environment with a clear organization of buildings, structures parking, and network of high-quality pedestrian circulation and open space . Emphasize the pedestrian environment with well-designated and useful landscaping that respond to the climate of the City . Encourage high-quality architecture, landscape architecture, and sustainable design elements . Connect to and foster the use of various modes of transit such as Caltrain, BART, and future Ferry service Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page VI-l City of South San Francisco October 2009 . Allow for the incremental and phased redevelopment of the existing buildings while maintaining a functioning working environment for areas not concurrently being redeveloped C. METHODOLOGY The alternatives analysis is presented as a comparative analysis to the proposed project. A project may have the potential to generate significant impacts, but changes to certain features may also afford the opportunity to avoid or reduce such impacts. The following alternatives analysis compares the potential significant environmental impacts of the three alternatives with those of the proposed project for each of the environmental topics analyzed in detail in Sections IV.A through IV.N (Environmental Impact Analysis) of the EIR. The project would not result in significant impacts to agricultural resources, mineral resources, or recreation. Impacts associated with the following topics would be significant without the implementation of mitigation measures, but would be reduced to a less-than-significant level if the mitigation measures recommended in this EIR are implemented. . Aesthetics . Biological Resources . Cultural Resources . Geology and Soils . Hazards and Hazardous Materials . Hydrology and Water Quality . Land Use and Planning . Population and Housing . Public Services . Utilities and Service Systems Based on the analysis contained in this Draft EIR implementation of the project would result m significant unavoidable impacts to the following: . Air Quality. Project and cumulative impacts related to inconsistency with the BAAQMD's Clean Air Plan and generation of operational emissions of PMIO for the 2020 Master Plan buildout. . Noise. Construction noise impacts to noise sensitive uses (Genentech Child Care Facility). Cumulative traffic noise increases exceeding the threshold of 3 dBA. . Traffic. Impacts to U.S.10l ramps (2015 and 2035), Freeway Mainline Operation (2015 and 2035), and 2035 Vehicle Queuing. Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page VI-2 City of South San Francisco October 2009 The following discussion is provided to meet the requirement of the CEQA Guidelines and provide the public and decision makers with information that will help them understand the adverse impacts and benefits associated with the three potential alternatives to the proposed project. These alternatives were chosen for their ability to reduce or avoid impacts resulting from the project to air quality, noise, and traffic. A discussion of the environmentally superior alternative is also provided. D. SELECTED AL TERNA TIVES Three alternatives to the project were evaluated. All alternatives are located on the project site. Differences between the build alternatives include square footage of development, land uses allowed on the site, total employees, and the number of parking spaces. A more thorough description of each of the alternatives is provided below. The three alternatives to be analyzed in comparison to the proposed project are shown in Table VI.-l and are as follows: Alternative A: No Project/Buildout Under Existing General Plan. Alternative A would allow redevelopment of the project site under the existing General Plan FAR of 1. O. This alternative assumes that development on the site could be phased but that total buildout would occur by 2020. Buildout on the site would be a combination of Office and R&D uses (50 percent each). This alternative would result in the construction of approximately 492,225 sf of office uses and 492,225 sf of R&D uses, for a total of 984,500 sf of development. Buildout under Alternative A would result in approximately 2,406 employees on the project site. Parking would be provided at a ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 sf of development for a total of2,835 spaces. Alternative B: Reduced Project Alternative. Alternative B would allow redevelopment of the project site at an FAR of 1.25, but developed with Research & Development (R&D) uses only resulting in a reduced project due to the reduction of employees on site. This alternative assumes that development on the site could be phased but that total buildout would occur by 2020. Under Alternative B, buildout on the site would result in the construction of approximately 1,230,570 sf of R&D uses. Buildout under Alternative B would result in approximately 2,735 employees on the project site. Parking would be provided at a ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 sf of development for a total of 3,544 spaces. Alternative C: Reduced Parking Alternative. Alternative C would develop the site with Office and R&D uses at an FAR of 1.25. This alternative assumes that development on the site could be phased but that total buildout would occur by 2020. Buildout on the site would be a combination of Office and R&D uses (50 percent each). Alternative C would result in the construction of approximately 1,230,570 sf of development and approximately 3,009 employees on the site. Under Alternative C, parking would be provided at a reduced ratio of 2.3 spaces per 1,000 sf resulting in a total of 2,264 parking spaces on the site. Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page VI-3 City of South San Francisco October 2009 Table VI-l Project Alternative Scenarios . T TUT....T ,TTVl? A AT TI1'UNA'11VE B AT TI1'UNA'11VE C ~ Under Plan) FAR 1.25 1.0 1.25 1.25 Office Uses Building Area 1,230,570 492,228 - 615,285 R & D Uses Building Area - 492,228 1,230,570 615,285 Total Building Area 1,230,570 984,456 1,230,570 1,230,570 Office Employeesl 3,281 1,313 - 1,641 R & D Employees2 - 1,094 2,735 1,368 Total Employees 3,281 2,406 2,735 3,009 Parking Ratio 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.30 Total Parking Spaces 3,100 2,835 3,544 2,264 1 Employees generatedfor Office land uses = 375 square feet per employee 2 Employees generatedfor R & D land uses = 450 square feet per employee Source: Chamberlin Associates, 2008. Alternatives Rejected as Being Infeasible As described above, Section 15126,6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process, and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination, Given the nature of the project (a Master Plan for a specific site), the fact that the project applicant owns this site and does not intend to develop these uses in another place; an off-site alternative was not feasible, E. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Alternative A - No Project/ Buildout Under Existing General Plan Alternative As required by CEQA, this subsection analyzes a "No Project" Alternative (Alternative A), CEQA requires the evaluation of a "No Project No Build" alternative, which means "the existing conditions, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services" (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126,6[e][2]), Further, Section 15126,6(e)(3)(A) of the CEQA Guidelines states that when the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the no project alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan, policy, or operation into the future, Evaluation of this alternative allows the City to compare the impact of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page VI-4 City of South San Francisco October 2009 Alternative A would allow redevelopment of the project site under the existing General Plan FAR of 1.0. This alternative assumes that development on the site could be phased but that total buildout would occur by 2020. Buildout on the site would be a combination of Office and R&D uses (50 percent each). This alternative would result in the construction of approximately 492,225 sf of office uses and 492,225 sf of R&D uses, for a total of 984,500 sf of development. Buildout under Alternative A would result in approximately 2,406 employees on the project site. Parking would be provided at a ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 sf of development for a total of 2,835 spaces. Aesth etics The project site is currently developed as a business park. Under Alternative A, a business park housing Office and R & D uses would be developed on the site. Similar to the project, no public views to scenic vistas would be blocked and impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant. Additionally, similar to the project there would be no impact to state scenic highways. The site is currently developed at an FAR of 0.29. Alternative A would result in development of the site at an FAR of 1.0, a higher density. Similar to the project, this increase in FAR could be accomplished primarily by increasing the height of the buildings on the site, thereby increasing the amount of open space on the site, which would minimize the feeling of density on the site. Therefore, similar to the project, Alternative A would result in improvements to the visual quality of the site by increasing open space and pedestrian-oriented areas and creating a cohesive pedestrian-oriented environment. Lighting and building materials on the site under Alternative A would similar to the project and would be subject to the same City standards as the project. Therefore, impacts to visual character and light and glare under Alternative A would be less than significant and the same as under the project. Overall impacts to visual resources would be the same as under the project. Air Quality Similar to the project, Alternative A would involve the demolition of the existing structures on the site. Under Alternative A, the project site would be developed with approximately 984,500 square feet of Office and R & D uses. Alternative A would be consistent with the City's General Plan FAR of 1.0. Therefore, unlike the project, Alternative A would not create a significant unavoidable impact due to inconsistency with the BAAQMD's Clean Air Plan. Alternative A would implement the same construction mitigation measures as the project and this impact would be less than significant and similar to the project. Alternative A would result in operational emissions primarily from increased vehicular trips to and from the commercial development. Although Alternative A would result in an approximately 20 percent decrease in square footage of development and proposes 50 percent R&D uses (which would generate fewer employees), this decrease would not be enough to reduce the project's significant unavoidable PMIO emissions. Therefore, air quality impacts PMIO emissions from under Alternative A (both project and cumulative) would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the project. Local CO concentrations would be reduced incrementally, however, impacts would remain less than significant and the same as under the project. Assuming that Alternative A would be constructed in a phased manner and therefore the childcare facility could remain on site during some phases of the project, Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page VI-5 City of South San Francisco October 2009 the impacts from TACs would remain the same as under the project and less than significant. Similar to the project, there would be less than significant impacts from objectionable odors under Alternative A and it would not conflict with the State goals in AB 32. Overall impacts to air quality under Alternative A, although incrementally less than under the project, would be the same as under the project and remain significant and unavoidable. Biological Resources The project site is currently developed as a business park and the only biological resources on the site are mature landscaping. Alternative A could potentially remove fewer trees on the site during construction of new buildings due to the decrease in FAR on the site. However, under Alternative A, project construction activities could result in the destruction of active bird nests during removal of vegetation or grading or could potentially result in the abandonment of active nests due to noise and increased activity. As with the project, mitigation measures would reduce this impact to less than significant. Similar to the project, Alternative A would have no impact to riparian habitat, wetlands, or to migratory corridors. Regarding the removal of trees, impacts to tree removal and conflict with existing codes or plans protecting biological resources would be less than significant and the same under Alternative A as the project. Cultural Resources The project site has been developed and redeveloped several times in the twentieth century. These processes have almost completely removed potential for, and make the property quite unlikely to contain, significant cultural resources that could be impacted by development that could occur under Alternative A. Similar to the proposed project, the potential for disturbance of subsurface resources, including fossil- bearing soils and rock formations, paleontological resources, and archeological sites and sites of cultural significance to Native Americans, during ground disturbing activities still exists under this alternative. Mitigation measures would be expected to be developed for any future construction at the site, and possible impacts to historical resources would be avoided to the extent feasible. Under Alternative A, impacts to cultural resources would remain less than significant, and similar to the proposed project. Geology and Soils Development of the site under the eXlstmg General Plan FAR of 1.0 would result in slightly less development (984,500 sf opposed to 1,230,570 sf). Similar to the project, there would be no impact due to the lack of an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone on the site. Geologic hazards such as seismic ground shaking would still exist under this alternative. However, impacts would be lessened due to decreased development which would directly result in fewer people exposed to ground shaking at the site. Site specific hazards related to erosion, loss of top soil, subsidence, expansive soils, and landslides would be the same as under the project as this alternative would result in grading and construction over the entire site. Collectively, impacts would be less than significant, and less than the proposed project due to the presence of fewer buildings and people on the site. Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page VI-6 City of South San Francisco October 2009 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Implementation of Alternative A, as with the proposed project, would likely result in development of additional laboratories and other research facilities that would use, store, or require the transport and disposal of hazardous materials. However, fewer of these uses would be constructed under Alternative A. As with the proposed project, compliance with safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations would ensure the risks associated with the routine use of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous wastes remain less than significant. However, impacts would be incrementally less due to the reduced development on the site. Similar to the proposed project, existing buildings at the site would be demolished in order to make room for new development. These buildings potentially contain hazardous materials including waste oil, asbestos, lead paint, halogenated and non-halogenated solvents, organic compounds, and petroleum products. During demolition operations hazardous materials could be released from structures at the site or from the underlying soils. Portions of the project site would still be included on government lists of sites containing hazardous materials, and development at the site could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. However, as projects are reviewed on a site-by-site basis, mitigation measures would be identified to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts associated with the release of hazards and hazardous materials under this alternative would be incrementally less due to the smaller amount of development and remain less than significant. Under this alternative, potential impacts to nearby schools would also remain the same, and it is expected that mitigation measures would be identified to ensure impacts remain less than significant. Hydrology and Water Quality Buildout under Alternative A would result in development of 984,456 sf of Office and R&D uses at the site. Typical industrial non-point source (NPS) pollutants associated with industrial activities would still be present at the site. Development ofthis alternative would contribute to the levels ofNPS pollutants and litter entering downstream waters, including San Francisco Bay. An increase in NPS pollutants could have adverse effects on wildlife, vegetation, and human health. NPS pollutants could also infiltrate into groundwater and degrade the quality of potential groundwater drinking sources. However, mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level and this impact would be the same as under the project. Alternative A could result in a reduction of impervious surfaces. Approximately 70 percent of the project site is currently covered in impervious surfaces. Implementation of the project would decrease impervious surfaces from 70 percent to 61 percent of the project site. Under Alternative A, fewer buildings would be developed and it is likely, although unknown if, Alternative A would result in a greater percentage of pervious surfaces. Mitigation measures would be expected to be developed on a site by site basis, as individual projects are proposed and reviewed. Therefore, it is anticipated that under this alternative, impacts would be less than significant, but not less than the proposed project. Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page VI-7 City of South San Francisco October 2009 Redevelopment at the project site under Alternative A would involve demolition of existing structures and paved areas, as well as grading activities. Construction operations associated with this alternative would present a threat of soil erosion from soil disturbance by subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional forces of runoff during construction. However, mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Collectively, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would, similar to the project, be less than significant under Alternative A. Land Use and Planning Under Alternative A, the project site would be redeveloped with business park uses. These uses would be consistent with existing land uses in the surrounding area which include industrial, warehouse, commercial and research and development activities. Similar to the project, Alternative A would redevelop the project site and there would be no division or displacement and there for no impact to existing residential communities. Under Alternative A, a General Plan Amendment would not be required as the FAR on the site would be consistent with the existing General Plan allowance. However, the Gateway Specific Plan District zoning allowing an FAR of 1.25 was adopted for the intent purpose of developing and redeveloping the entire Gateway Specific Plan District at a higher density. As surrounding properties are redeveloped, it is likely that they may request General Plan Amendments to allow redevelopment at increased densities. Although density under Alternative A would be consistent with the General Plan density for the site, it would not be consistent with the City's vision for development in the area, and this impact would be slightly greater than under the project and be less than significant. There are no natural community plans or applicable habitat conservation plans that apply to the project site and the project site does not contain any critical or sensitive habitat. Therefore, similar to the project, Alternative A would have no impact to conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans. Noise Under Alternative A, the project site would be developed with approximately 984,500 square feet of Office and R & D uses. Heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HV AC) equipment for buildings would likely be located on the roof-tops of the buildings. Similar to the project, mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Similar to the project, buildings on the site under Alternative A could be exposed to a CNEL of up to 67.6 dBA along Gateway Boulevard and 73.4 dBA along Oyster Point Boulevard. However, the City would require that an analysis of noise reduction requirements be conducted and noise insulation features be included, as needed, in the design and this impact would be less than significant and the same as under the project. Alternative A would result in an approximately 20 percent decrease in square footage of development and there would a corollary decrease in employees on the site, and therefore, traffic generated noise due to the decrease in vehicular trips. This would further reduce the less than 1.1 dBA increase in noise attributed to project generated traffic. This impact under the project would be less than significant and would remain the same under Alternative A. However, in the future cumulative traffic will increase the traffic noise levels at the commercial land uses along Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevards by 2.0 to 4.7 dBA. Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page VI-8 City of South San Francisco October 2009 Cumulative traffic will increase the traffic nOIse levels at residential land use along Sister Cities Boulevard by up to 2.5 dBA. These cumulative traffic noise increases exceed the threshold of 3 dBA for a significant increase. Alternative A would further reduce noise impacts from traffic due to the decrease in vehicle trips and similar to the project the contribution to this increase is generally small (1.4 dBA or less). However, since Alternative A would contribute the overall increase in traffic noise, it would contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact the same as the project. Impacts from aircraft noise would be less than significant and the same as under the project. Under Alternative A, impacts from temporary groundbourne vibration and noise would be less than significant with mitigation. However, similar to the project, redevelopment activities would be phased and the Genentech Child Care facility might still be operational. Therefore, construction noise would significantly affect the noise sensitive use of the Genentech Child Care facility resulting in a similar significant and unavoidable impact. Population and Housing Development under Alternative A would result in the employment of 2,406 employees at the project site by 2020. ABAG projects an increase in employment in the City of South San Francisco of 3,110 jobs from 2005 to 2015 and 2,940 jobs from 2015 to 2020. Therefore, this alternative's contribution to the increase in employment in the City would be within ABAG's employment projections for the City for both the years of 2015 and 2020 and would be less than significant. The proposed project is also within ABAG's employment projections. However, Alternative A would result in the generation of fewer employees and therefore, reduce the demand for housing in the City as compared to the demand which would result from the proposed project. This alternative, as well as the proposed project, would promote a greater regional jobs balance, and would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth and this impact would be less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, there would be no impact from the displacement of existing housing, need for construction of replacement housing, nor displacement of substantial numbers of people. Under this alternative, overall impacts to population and housing would be less than significant and incrementally less than the proposed project. Public Services Demand for public services, including police and fire, would be reduced proportionally with the reduction in development under Alternative A. Development of this alternative would result in 2,406 employees at the site, constituting a minor increase (less than 3 percent) in the City's daytime population and would not lead to a change in response times, service ratios, and/or requirement for construction of new police or fire facilities. Current response times and service ratios are adequate and no new police or fire facilities that would result in potential significant impacts would be required. Therefore, the impact to public services would be less than significant, and incrementally less than the proposed project. No mitigation measures would be necessary. Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page VI-9 City of South San Francisco October 2009 Transportation and Circulation Under Alternative A, the project site would be developed with approximately 984,500 square feet of Office and R & D uses. Alternative A would result in an approximately 20 percent decrease in square footage of development and would include R & D uses and a commensurate reduction in the number of employees on the site. This reduction would result in an approximately 26 percent decrease in the number of trips generated under Alternative A as opposed to the project. Alternative A would generate enough trips to exceed the C/CAG trip generation limits by 2015 and 2035, but similar to the project this impact would be reduced to less than significant. Similar to the project, Alternative A would result in less than significant impacts to intersections and vehicle queuing by 2015. Alternative A would result in impacts to U.S. 101 mainline and ramps under 2015. Similar to the project, these impacts would be significant and unavoidable as the reduction in vehicle trips is not enough to reduce the significant unavoidable impacts. Similar to the project, 2035 intersection impacts would be less than significant. Impacts to U.S. 101 mainline and ramps under 2035 would be the same as under the project, significant and unavoidable. Alternative A would provide parking at a 2.83 ratio and would, unlike the project, meet code requirements. Assuming that the parking garages would be located at the back of the site, impacts to pedestrian safety and vehicular circulation would be the less than significant, and the same under Alternative A as the project. Utilities and Service Systems Under Alternative A, the project site would be developed with approximately 984,500 square feet of Office and R & D uses. Similar to the project, surface and stormwater runoff would be collected on-site and would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or result in the need for construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Alternative A would result in fewer square feet of development than the project and would result in incrementally less demand for water supplies for fire flow, domestic, or manufacturing uses. Additionally, Alternative A would result in reduced wastewater and solid waste generation due to the smaller square footage of development. Overall impacts to utilities and service systems under Alternative A would be incrementally less than the project and would be less than significant. Relationship of Alternative A to the Project Objectives Alternative A would be a feasible alternative to allow redevelopment of the project site. Alternative A could potentially meet the project objectives of redeveloping the project site to create a cohesive working campus environment, emphasizing the pedestrian environment, encouraging high quality architecture, connecting to various transit modes, and allowing the incremental and phased redevelopment of the site. However, this redevelopment would occur at the existing General Plan FAR of 1.0 and Alternative A would not meet the project's objective to increase the floor area ratio (FAR) from 0.29 to 1.25. Additionally, the 1.25 FAR proposed by the project is allowed under the Gateway Specific Plan District Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page VI-10 City of South San Francisco October 2009 zoning. This FAR was adopted by the City for the intent purpose of developing and redeveloping the entire Gateway Specific Plan District at a higher density. As surrounding properties are redeveloped, it is likely that they will also be developed at increased densities as well. Therefore, although Alternative A would be feasible it would not meet the project's objective to redevelop the site at an FAR of 1.25 nor meet the City's intent to redevelopment the Gateway Specific Plan District at this FAR. Alternative B: Reduced Project Alternative Alternative B would allow redevelopment of the project site at an FAR of 1.25, but developed with Research & Development (R&D) uses only resulting in a reduced project due to the reduction of employees on site. This alternative assumes that development on the site could be phased but that total buildout would occur by 2020. Under Alternative B, buildout on the site would result in the construction of approximately 1,230,570 sf of R&D uses. Buildout under Alternative B would result in approximately 2,735 employees on the project site. Parking would be provided at a ratio of 2.83 spaces perl,OOO sf of development for a total of 3,544 spaces Aesth etics The project site is currently developed as a business park. Under Alternative B, another business park would be developed on the site housing R & D uses only. Similar to the project, no public views to scenic vistas would be blocked and there would be less than significant impacts to scenic vistas. Additionally, similar to the project there would be no impact to state scenic highways. The site is currently developed at an FAR of 0.29. Alternative B would result in development of the site at an FAR of 1.25, the same density as the project. Similar to the project, this increase in FAR could be accomplished primarily by increasing the height of the buildings on the site, thereby increasing the amount of open space on the site, which would minimize the feeling of density on the site. Therefore, similar to the project, Alternative B would result in improvements to the visual quality of the site by increasing open space and pedestrian-oriented areas and creating a cohesive pedestrian-oriented environment. Therefore, impacts to visual character and light and glare under Alternative B would be less than significant and the same as under the project. Therefore, impacts under Alternative B would be the same as under the project. Air Quality Similar to the project, Alternative B would involve the demolition of the existing structures on the site and construction of office buildings and would implement the same construction mitigation measures as the project. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant and the same under Alternative B as the project. Similar to the project, Alternative B would result in development of the site at an FAR of 1.25 and would result in the same impact regarding consistency with BAAQMD's Clean Air Plan. Although Alternative B would result in the same amount of development on the site, it would result in fewer employees and therefore fewer vehicular trips. However, although Alternative B would result in an approximately 16 percent decrease in employees on the site, this decrease would not be enough to reduce vehicle trips significantly enough to eliminate the project's significant unavoidable PMIO Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page VI-]] City of South San Francisco October 2009 emissions. Therefore, air quality impacts PMIO emissions from under Alternative B (both project and cumulative) would remain, similar to the project, significant and unavoidable. Impacts from local CO concentrations would be incrementally less than under the project and less than significant. Assuming that Alternative B would be constructed in a phased manner and therefore the childcare facility could remain on site during some phases of the project, the impacts from TACs would remain less than significant, the same as under the project. Similar to the project, Alternative B would not create any objectionable odors and would not conflict with the State goals in AB 32. Overall impacts to air quality under Alternative B, although incrementally less, would be the same as under the project. Biological Resources The project site is currently developed as a business park and the only biological resources on the site are mature landscaping. Alternative B has the same potential to remove trees on the site during construction of new buildings as the project. Under Alternative B, project construction activities could result in the destruction of active bird nests during removal of vegetation or grading, or may potentially result in the abandonment of active nests due to noise and increased activity. However, similar to the project, mitigation measures would reduce this impact to less than significant. Similar to the project, Alternative B would have no impact to riparian habitat, wetlands, or to migratory corridors. Regarding the removal of trees, impacts to tree removal and conflict with existing codes or plans protecting biological resources would be the same under Alternative B as the project and less than significant. Cultural Resources The project site has been developed and redeveloped several times in the past century. These processes have almost completely removed potential for, and make the property quite unlikely to contain, significant cultural resources that could be impacted by development. Similar to the proposed project, the potential for disturbance of subsurface resources during ground disturbing activities, including fossil- bearing soils and rock formations, paleontological resources, and archeological sites and sites of cultural significance to Native Americans, still exists under this alternative. Mitigation measures would be developed for any future construction at the site, and possible impacts to historical resources would be avoided to the extent feasible, ensuring impacts remain less than significant. Under Alternative B, impacts to cultural resources would remain the same as under the proposed project. Geology and Soils Development of the site under this alternative would produce the same amount of development (1,230,570 sf) as the proposed project. However, restricting uses to R&D would result in fewer employees at the site. Geologic hazards such as seismic ground shaking would still exist under this alternative. However, impacts would be lessened due to decreased employee generation which would directly result in a lower amount of people that would be exposed to seismic ground shaking and would be less than significant. Site specific hazards related to erosion, loss of top soil, subsidence, expansive soils, and landslides would remain the same under this alternative as the same amount of the site area that Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page VI-i2 City of South San Francisco October 2009 would be built upon (50 percent of the total site), and the size of the development (1,230, 570 sf) would remain the same. Collectively, impacts would be less than significant, and less than the proposed project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Implementation of this alternative could possibly increase impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Development of this alternative would result in the creation of R&D uses only, which would increase the amount of additional laboratories and other research facilities that would use, store, or require the transport and disposal of hazardous materials. As with the proposed project, compliance with safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations would ensure the risks associated with the routine use of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous wastes remain less than significant. However, with this alternative, potential for accidental release or upset could increase with additional chemicals from R&D uses present at the site. Therefore, hazards to the public or the environment may increase, compared to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, existing buildings at the site would be demolished in order to make room for new development. These buildings potentially contain hazardous materials including waste oil, asbestos, lead paint, halogenated and non-halogenated solvents, organic compounds, and petroleum products. During demolition operations hazardous materials could be released from structures at the site or from the underlying soils. Portions of the project site would still be included on government lists of hazardous materials sites, and development at the site could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. However, as projects are reviewed on a site-by-site basis, mitigation measures would be identified to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Under this alternative, potential impacts to nearby schools would also remain the same, and it is expected that mitigation measures would be identified to ensure impacts remain less than significant. Hydrology and Water Quality The reduced project alternative would result in development of 1,230,570 sf of R&D uses at the site, with aFAR of 1.25. Typical industrial non-point source (NPS) pollutants associated with industrial activities would still be present at the site. Development of this alternative would contribute to the levels of NPS pollutants and litter entering downstream waters, including San Francisco Bay. An increase in NPS pollutants could have adverse effects on wildlife, vegetation, and human health. NPS pollutants could also infiltrate into groundwater and degrade the quality of potential groundwater drinking sources. However, mitigation measures would be identified, to reduce possible impacts to a less than significant level. This alternative would result in similar impacts to impervious surfaces, as those identified for the proposed project. Approximately 70 percent of the project site is currently covered in impervious surfaces. This alternative would include a number of strategies designed to decrease the amount of impervious surfaces. Implementation of these strategies would decrease impervious surfaces from 70 percent to 61 percent of the project site. Reducing the amount of impervious surfaces would reduce impacts to groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge. Therefore, it is anticipated that under this alternative, impacts to groundwater would be less than significant, and similar to the proposed project. Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page VI-13 City of South San Francisco October 2009 Redevelopment at the project site under this alternative would involve demolition of existing structures and paved areas, as well as grading activities. Construction operations associated with this alternative would present a threat of soil erosion from soil disturbance by subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional forces of runoff during construction. However, it is expected that mitigation measures would be identified in order to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts would be similar to those identified for proposed project. Like the proposed project, this alternative provides strategies intended to result in a net benefit to hydrology and water quality. Collectively, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant under Alternative B. Land Use and Planning Under Alternative B, the project site would be redeveloped with R & D uses. These uses would be consistent with existing land uses in the surrounding area which include industrial, warehouse, commercial and research and development activities. Similar to the project, under Alternative B no existing residential communities would be displaced or divided and there would be no impact. Under Alternative B, a General Plan Amendment to increase the FAR to 1.25 would be required. Similar to the project, once this General Plan Amendment was approved this FAR of 1.25 (and as allowed under the Gateway Specific Plan District zoning) would be consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, similar to the project, density under Alternative B would be consistent with the City's vision for development in the area and would not be inconsistent or create land use impacts due to the increased density and this impact would be less than significant. There are no natural community plans or applicable habitat conservation plans that apply to the project site and the project site does not contain any critical or sensitive habitat. Therefore, similar to the project, Alternative B would have no impact to conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans. Noise Under Alternative B, the project site would be redeveloped with R & D uses and the heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HV AC) equipment for buildings would likely be located on the roof-tops of the buildings. Similar to the project, mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Similar to the project, buildings constructed on the site under Alternative B could be exposed to a CNEL of up to 67.6 dBA along Gateway Boulevard and 73.4 dBA along Oyster Point Boulevard. However, the City would require that an analysis of noise reduction requirements be conducted and noise insulation features be included, as needed, in the design and this impact would be the same as under the project and less than significant. Alternative B would result in the same square footage of development as the project. However, R&D uses require fewer employees and there would a corollary decrease in traffic generated noise due to the decrease in vehicular trips. This would further reduce the less than 1.1 dBA increase in noise attributed to project generated traffic. This impact under the project would be less than significant and would remain the same under Alternative B. However, in the future cumulative traffic will increase the traffic noise levels at the commercial land uses along Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevards by 2.0 to 4.7 dBA. Cumulative traffic will increase the traffic noise levels at residential land use along Sister Cities Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page VI-14 City of South San Francisco October 2009 Boulevard by up to 2.5 dBA. These cumulative traffic noise increases exceed the threshold of 3 dBA for a significant increase. Alternative B would reduce noise impacts from traffic due to the decrease in vehicle trips and similar to the project the contribution to this increase is generally small (1.4 dBA or less). However, since Alternative B would contribute to this overall increase in traffic noise, it would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact the same as the project. Impacts from aircraft noise would be less than significant, the same as under the project. Under Alternative B, impacts from temporary groundbourne vibration and noise would be less than significant with mitigation. However, similar to the project, redevelopment activities would be phased and the Genentech Child Care facility might still be operational. Therefore, construction noise would significantly affect the noise sensitive use of the Genentech Child Care facility resulting in a similar significant and unavoidable impact. Population and Housing Development under Alternative B would result in the generation of 2,735 employees at the project site by 2020. ABAG projects an increase in employment in the City of 3,110 jobs from 2005 to 2015 and 2,940 jobs from 2015 to 2020. Therefore, this alternative's contribution to the increase in employment in the City would be within ABAG's employment projections for the City for both the years of 2015 and 2020. The proposed project is also within ABAG's employment projections; however, Alternative B would result in the generation of fewer employees and therefore, reduce the demand for housing in the City as compared to the proposed project. This alternative, as well as the proposed project, would promote a greater regional jobs balance, and would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth and this impact would be less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, implementation of this alternative would not displace existing housing, necessitate construction of replacement housing, nor displace substantial numbers of people. Under this alternative, impacts to population and housing would be less than significant and similar to the proposed project. Public Services Demand for public services, including police and fire, would be reduced proportionally with the reduction in development under this alternative. Development of this alternative would result in 2,735 employees at the site. This alternative would constitute a negligible increase (less than 3 percent) in the City's daytime population and would not lead to a change in response times, service ratios, and/or requirement for construction of new police or fire facilities. Current response times and service ratios are adequate and no new police or fire facilities that would result in potential significant impacts would be required. Therefore, the impact to public services would be less than significant, and incrementally less than the proposed project. No mitigation measures would be necessary. Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page VI-i5 City of South San Francisco October 2009 Transportation and Circulation Under Alternative B, the same number of square feet of development would occur as under the project. However this development would be limited to R & D uses only, which requires fewer workers for the same number of square feet of development. Therefore, Alternative B would result in approximately 26 percent less employees on the site and an approximately 26 percent decrease in the number of trips generated under Alternative B as opposed to the project. However, Alternative B would generate enough trips to exceed the C/CAG trip generation limits by 2015 and 2035. Similar to the project this impact would be reduced to less than significant. Alternative B would result in less than significant impacts to intersections and vehicle queuing by 2015. Similar to the project, Alternative B would result in impacts to U.S. 101 mainline and ramps under 2015. Similar to the project, these impacts would be significant and unavoidable as the reduction in vehicle trips is not enough to reduce the significant unavoidable impacts. Similar to the project, 2035 intersection impacts would be less than significant. Impacts to U.S. 101 mainline and ramps under 2035 would be the same as under the project, significant and unavoidable. Alternative B would provide parking at a 2.83 ratio and would, unlike the project, meet code requirements. Assuming that the parking garages would be located at the back of the site, impacts to pedestrian safety and vehicular circulation would be the same under Alternative B as the project and there would be no impact. Utilities and Service Systems Under Alternative B, the same number of square feet of development would occur as under the project. However this development would be limited to R & D uses only, which requires fewer workers for the same number of square feet of development. Similar to the project, surface and stormwater runoff would be collected on-site and would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or result in the need for construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Although Alternative B would result in the same square footage of development, the development of R&D only uses would result in fewer employees on the site than the project and would result in incrementally less demand for water supplies for fire flow, domestic, or manufacturing uses. Additionally, Alternative B would result in reduced wastewater and solid waste generation due to the smaller number of employees on the site. Overall impacts to utilities and service systems under Alternative B would be incrementally less than the project and would be less than significant. Relationship of Alternative B to the Project Objectives Alternative B would be a feasible alternative to allow redevelopment of the project site and would meet all of the project's objectives. This alternative would allow for redevelopment of the project site at an FAR of 1.25, however, the use would be restricted to Research and Development only. Alternative B would be a feasible alternative to allow redevelopment of the project site and could potentially meet the project objectives of redeveloping the project site to create a cohesive working campus environment, Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page VI-i6 City of South San Francisco October 2009 emphasizing the pedestrian environment, encouraging high quality architecture, connecting to various transit modes, and allowing the incremental and phased redevelopment of the site. However, Alternative B would restrict the uses developed on the site and would not allow for varied redevelopment that the project would provide. Alternative C: Reduced Parking Alternative. Alternative C would develop the site with Office and R&D uses at an FAR of 1.25. This alternative assumes that development on the site could be phased but that total buildout would occur by 2020. Alternative C would result in the construction of approximately 984,500 sf of development and approximately 3,009 employees on the site. Under Alternative C, parking would be provided at a reduced ratio of2.3 spaces perl,OOO sf resulting in a total of2,264 parking spaces on the site. Aesth etics The project site is currently developed as a business park. Under Alternative C, a business park would be developed on the site housing Office and R & D uses. Similar to the project, no public views to scenic vistas would be blocked and there would be less than significant impacts to scenic vistas. Additionally, similar to the project there would be no impact to state scenic highways. The site is currently developed at an FAR of 0.29. Alternative C would result in development of the site at an FAR of 1.25, the same density as the project. Similar to the project, this increase in FAR could be accomplished primarily by increasing the height of the buildings on the site, thereby increasing the amount of open space on the site, which would minimize the feeling of density on the site. However, due to the reduced number of parking spaces on the site, parking structures under Alternative C could potentially be smaller in size and there could be more open space areas provided on the site. However, this increase in open space would be incremental compared to the project and would only increase the benefits to visual quality already provided by the project. Lighting and building materials on the site under Alternative C would similar to the project, be less than significant, and would be subject to the same City standards as the project. Therefore, impacts under Alternative C would be the same as under the project. Air Quality Similar to the project, Alternative C would involve the demolition of the existing structures on the site and construction of office buildings. Similar to the project, Alternative C would result in development of the site at an FAR of 1.25 and would result in the same impact regarding consistency with BAAQMD's Clean Air Plan. Alternative C would implement the same construction mitigation measures as the project and construction impacts would be less than significant and the same under Alternative C as the project. Alternative C would result in the same amount of development on the site, but would provide less parking on the site, resulting in fewer employees driving to the site and therefore fewer vehicular trips. However, although Alternative C would result in a decrease in employees driving to the site, this decrease would not be enough to reduce vehicle trips significantly enough to eliminate the project's significant unavoidable Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page VI-17 City of South San Francisco October 2009 PMIO emissions. Therefore, air quality impacts PMIO emissions from under Alternative C (both project and cumulative) would remain, similar to the project, significant and unavoidable. Impacts from local CO concentrations would remain the same as under the project and less than significant. Assuming that Alternative C would be constructed in a phased manner and therefore the childcare facility could remain on site during some phases of the project, the impacts from TACs would remain less than significant, the same as under the project. Similar to the project, Alternative C there would be no impact from objectionable odors and it would not conflict with the State goals in AB 32. Overall impacts to air quality under Alternative C, although incrementally less, would be the same as under the project. Biological Resources The project site is currently developed as a business park and the only biological resources on the site are mature landscaping. Alternative C has the same potential to remove trees on the site as the project as it is likely that reduced parking would result only in smaller parking structures and would not increase the preservation of existing landscaping. Under Alternative C, project construction activities could result in the same less than significant impacts due to destruction of active bird nests during removal of vegetation or grading, or may potentially result in the abandonment of active nests due to noise and increased activity. However, similar to the project, mitigation measures would reduce this impact to less than significant. Similar to the project, Alternative C would have no impact to riparian habitat, wetlands, or to migratory corridors. Regarding the removal of trees, impacts to tree removal and conflict with existing codes or plans protecting biological resources would be the same under Alternative C as the project and less than significant. Cultural Resources The project site has been developed and redeveloped several times in the twentieth century. These processes have almost completely removed potential for, and make the property quite unlikely to contain, significant cultural resources that could be impacted by development. Similar to the proposed project, the potential for disturbance of subsurface resources during ground disturbing activities, including fossil- bearing soils and rock formations, paleontological resources, and archeological sites and sites of cultural significance to Native Americans, still exists under this alternative. Mitigation measures would be expected to be developed for any future construction at the site, and possible impacts to historical resources would be avoided to the extent feasible, ensuring impacts remain less than significant. Under Alternative C, impacts to cultural resources would remain the same as under the proposed project. Geology and Soils Implementation of this alternative would result in the same amount of development (1,230,570 sf) and employees as the proposed project. Geologic hazards such as seismic ground shaking would still exist under this alternative, and impacts would remain less than significant. Site specific hazards related to erosion, loss of top soil, subsidence, expansive soils, and landslides would also remain the same under this alternative since the amount of the site area that would be built upon (50 percent of the total site), and Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page VI-i8 City of South San Francisco October 2009 the size of the development (1,230, 570 sf) would remain. Collectively, impacts would be less than significant, but not less than the proposed project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Development of this alternative would result in the construction 615,285 sf of R&D uses, resulting in laboratories and other research facilities that would use, store, or require the transport and disposal of hazardous materials. As with the proposed project, compliance with safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations would ensure the risks associated with the routine use of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous wastes remain less than significant. Impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would remain the same as the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, existing buildings at the site would be demolished in order to make room for new development. These buildings potentially contain hazardous materials including waste oil, asbestos, lead paint, halogenated and non-halogenated solvents, organic compounds, and petroleum products. During demolition operations hazardous materials could be released from structures at the site or from the underlying soils. Portions of the project site would still be included on government lists of hazardous materials sites, and development at the site could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. However, as projects are reviewed on a site-by-site basis, mitigation measures would be identified to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Under this alternative, potential impacts to nearby schools would also remain the same as under the proposed project, and it is expected that mitigation measures would be identified to ensure impacts remain less than significant. Hydrology and Water Quality The reduced parking alternative would result in development of 1,230,570 sf of R&D and Office uses, a FAR of 1.25, and 2,264 parking spaces. Typical industrial non-point source (NPS) pollutants associated with industrial activities would still be present at the site and would be the same as the project and less than significant. Development of this alternative would contribute to the levels of NPS pollutants and litter entering downstream waters, including San Francisco Bay. However, it is expected that mitigation measures would be identified to reduce possible impacts to a less than significant level. This alternative could result in a reduction to impacts associated with impervious surfaces. More than 70 percent of the project site is currently covered in impervious surfaces. This alternative includes a number of strategies designed to decrease the amount of impervious surfaces at the site. Implementation of these strategies would decrease impervious surfaces from 70 percent to 61 percent of the project site. This alternative also includes less site development, and less parking, which could result in a greater reduction of impervious surfaces. Development of Alternative C would reduce impacts to groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge at the project site. Mitigation measures would be expected to be developed on a site by site basis, as individual projects are proposed and reviewed. Therefore, it is anticipated that under this alternative, impacts to groundwater would be less than significant, and similar to the proposed project. Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page VI-i9 City of South San Francisco October 2009 Redevelopment at the project site under this alternative would involve demolition of existing structures and paved areas, as well as grading activities. Construction operations associated with this alternative would present a threat of soil erosion from soil disturbance by subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional forces of runoff during construction. However, it is expected that mitigation measures would be identified in order to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts would be similar to those identified for proposed project. Development of this alternative includes strategies intended to result in a net benefit to these resources. Collectively, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant under Alternative C, and similar to the proposed project. Land Use and Planning Under Alternative C, the project site would be redeveloped with Office and R & D land uses. These uses would be consistent with existing land uses in the surrounding area which include industrial, warehouse, commercial and research and development activities. Similar to the project, Alternative C would redevelop the project site with Office and R & D uses and there would be no impact to existing residential communities. Under Alternative C, a General Plan Amendment to increase the FAR to 1.25 would be required. The Gateway Specific Plan District zoning allowing an FAR of 1.25 was adopted for the intent purpose of developing and redeveloping the entire Gateway Specific Plan District at a higher density. As surrounding properties are redeveloped, it is likely that they may request General Plan Amendments to allow redevelopment at increased densities. Therefore, similar to the project, density under Alternative C would be consistent with the City's vision for development in the area. Density would not be inconsistent or create land use impacts due to the increased density and this impact would be less than significant and similar to the project. Under Alternative C, the anticipated range of total parking provided at ultimate buildout would be 2,264 spaces. Parking would be provided at a ratio that would not meet code requirements for this development level of 2.3 spaces per 1,000 sf. Although the City typically allows 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet for office/research and development uses, the City may accept revised parking standards as long as the amount of parking generated by the standards is supportive of the recommendations and requirements of the Transportation Demand Management plan prepared for the project. Therefore, impacts to Gateway Specific Plan District Zoning parking requirements would be the less than significant and the same as under the project. There are no natural community plans or applicable habitat conservation plans that apply to the project site and the project site does not contain any critical or sensitive habitat. Therefore, similar to the project, Alternative C would have no impact to conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans. Noise Under Alternative C, the project site would be redeveloped with Office and R & D uses at the same density and square footage as the project, and would employ the same number of employees on the site. Heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HV AC) equipment for buildings would likely be located on the roof-tops of the buildings. As under the project, mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page VI-20 City of South San Francisco October 2009 than significant level. Similar to the project, buildings constructed on the site under Alternative C could be exposed to a CNEL of up to 67.6 dBA along Gateway Boulevard and 73.4 dBA along Oyster Point Boulevard. However, the City would require that an analysis of noise reduction requirements be conducted and noise insulation features be included, as needed, in the design and this impact would be the same as under the project. Alternative C would result in the same square footage of development as the project and employees as the project. The number of vehicle trips and, therefore, traffic generated noise would be the same as under the project. This impact under the project would be less than significant and would remain the same under Alternative C. In the future, cumulative traffic would increase the traffic noise levels at the commercial land uses along Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevards by 2.0 to 4.7 dBA. Cumulative traffic would increase the traffic noise levels at residential land use along Sister Cities Boulevard by up to 2.5 dBA. These cumulative traffic noise increases exceed the threshold of 3 dBA for a significant increase. Similar to the project, Alternative C would result in the contribution to this increase and would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to noise the same as the project. Impacts from aircraft noise would be the same as under the project. Under Alternative C, impacts from temporary groundbourne vibration and noise would be less than significant with mitigation. However, similar to the project, redevelopment activities would be phased and the Genentech Child Care facility might still be operational. Therefore, construction noise would significantly affect the noise sensitive use of the Genentech Child Care facility resulting in a similar significant and unavoidable impact. Population and Housing Development under Alternative C would result in the generation of 3,009 employees at the project site. ABAG projects an increase in employment in the City of 3,110 jobs from 2005 to 2015 and 2,940 jobs from 2015 to 2020. Therefore, this alternative's contribution to the increase in employment in the City would be within ABAG's employment projections for the City for both the years of 2015 and 2020. The proposed project is also within ABAG's employment projections; however, Alternative C would result in the generation of fewer employees and therefore, reduce the demand for housing in the City as compared to the proposed project. . This alternative, as well as the proposed project, would promote a greater regional jobs balance, and would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth and this impact would be less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, implementation of this alternative would not displace existing housing, necessitate construction of replacement housing, nor displace substantial numbers of people. Under this alternative, impacts to population and housing would be less than significant and slightly less than the proposed project. Public Services Demand for public services, including police and fire, would be reduced proportionally with the reduction in development under this alternative. Development of this alternative would result in 3,00gemployees at the site constituting a minor increase (less than 3 percent) in the City's daytime population and would not Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page VI-21 City of South San Francisco October 2009 lead to a change in response times, service ratios, and/or requirement for construction of new police or fire facilities. Current response times and service ratios are adequate and no new police or fire facilities that would result in potential significant impacts would be required. Therefore, the impact to public services would be less than significant, and less than the proposed project. No mitigation measures would be necessary. Transportation and Circulation Under Alternative C, the same number of square feet of development of Office and R & D uses would occur on the site as under the project. Therefore, Alternative C would result in the same number of employees on the site. However, under Alternative C, fewer parking spaces would be provided, which would act as a disincentive for employees to drive. This would theoretically result in an approximate 27 percent of decrease in the number of trips generated under Alternative C as opposed to the project. However, Alternative C would generate enough trips to exceed the C/CAG trip generation limits by 2015 and 2035. Similar to the project this impact would be reduced to less than significant. Alternative C would result in less than significant impacts to intersections and vehicle queuing by 2015. Similar to the project, Alternative C would result in impacts to U.S. 101 mainline and ramps under 2015. Similar to the project, these impacts would be significant and unavoidable as the reduction in vehicle trips is not enough to reduce the significant unavoidable impacts. Similar to the project, 2035 intersection impacts would be less than significant. Impacts to U.S. 101 mainline and ramps under 2035 would be the same as under the project, significant and unavoidable. Alternative C would provide parking at a 2.3 ratio and would, similar to the project, not meet code requirements and this impact would be the same. Assuming that the parking garages would be located at the back of the site, impacts to pedestrian safety and vehicular circulation would be less than significant and the same under Alternative C as the project. Utilities and Service Systems Under Alternative C, the same number of square feet of development would occur on the site as under the project. Similar to the project, surface and stormwater runoff would be collected on-site and would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or result in the need for construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Although Alternative C would result in the same square footage of development, the development of R & D uses would consume more water and so would result in an increase in water usage on the site. Therefore, demand for water supplies for fire flow, domestic, or manufacturing uses would be incrementally increased. Additionally, Alternative C would result in slightly reduced amount of wastewater and solid waste generation due to the increase in employees. However, overall impacts to utilities and service systems under Alternative C would be the same as under the project and would be less than significant. Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page VI-22 City of South San Francisco October 2009 Relationship of Alternative C to the Project Objectives Alternative C would be a feasible alternative to allow redevelopment of the project site and would meet all of the project's objectives. This alternative would allow for redevelopment of the project site at an FAR of 1.25, however, with fewer parking spaces provided on the site. Alternative C would be a feasible alternative to allow redevelopment of the project site and could potentially meet the project objectives of redeveloping the project site to create a cohesive working campus environment, emphasizing the pedestrian environment, encouraging high quality architecture, connecting to various transit modes, and allowing the incremental and phased redevelopment of the site. F. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the proposed project and the alternatives, Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an "environmentally superior" alternative be selected and the reasons for such a selection disclosed. In general, the environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that would be expected to generate the least amount of significant impacts. Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative selected may not be the alternative that best meets the goals or needs of the City. Table IV -2 summarizes the comparative impacts of each of the alternatives when compared to the project. The table lists the level of significance of the impacts of the project to each environmental topic analyzed in Chapter IV and shows whether the impacts anticipated under each proposed alternative would be lesser, similar, or greater than the proposed project. The table provides a comparison of the ability of each alternative to avoid or substantially reduce the significant impacts ofthe project. Alternative A, the No Project/Buildout Under Existing General Plan Alternative, proposes a reduced amount of development that would result in the fewest employees on the site and therefore, potentially the least amount of vehicle trips. This smaller amount of trips would provide the biggest decrease in operational emissions, vehicular-related noise increases, and traffic impacts and would therefore be the environmentally superior alternative. However, CEQA requires that if the environmentally superior alternative is the "no project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[e][2]). Based on the analysis provided above, it has been determined that Alternative C would be the environmentally superior alternative, because this alternative would result in the next greatest reduction in significant project impacts to air quality, noise, and traffic. The alternatives to the project considered in this analysis propose either a reduced amount of development on the site, land uses requiring fewer employees, or fewer parking spaces on the site (thereby limited project-generated trips to the site). However, although all these alternatives would result in some reduction of employees or vehicle trips to the project site, none of the feasible alternatives would reduce impacts to a level that would reduce the significant unavoidable impacts to air quality, noise, and traffic. Therefore, no feasible alternative is superior in this regard and, similar to the project, all feasible alternatives would result in the significant and unavoidable impacts. Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Page VI-23 ~ a '""l ... 'lJ -Q ~ <..l () o <..l v, '(3 ::: C:l ~ ::: r55 is ;" ~ ~ Q o ..... c.J Q) '-' o ... ~ "0 Q) '" o Q.. o ... ~ Q) -= N..... I 0 ..... ..... > '" Q) Q) :0 ,,5 ~ ~ E-- E Q) ..... < '- o = o '" 'C ~ Q.. e o U f.;ol > .... E-< < Zu ~ f.;ol E-< ~ < Q) "Cl OJ:.~ ~.S ~ .s~e Q) ~ Q) ~~.= < f.;ol > .... E-< < Zi:I:l ~ f.;ol ~ < ..... c.J .~ ~ e.~ ~~ "Cl = Q) ... c.J Q) =.= "Cl< ~ < f.;ol > .... E-< < Z ~ f.;ol E-< ~ < :; OJJ", 0== "Cl'" ~ ~~~ .- ... ~ o~~~ Z........... c.J Q) Q) .~"Cl 5 e=~ ~~ E- Z f.;ol "-. ~ v, .;;: <..l .;:: 'lJ <..l V, C:l ::: o "- <..l ~ ~ 'lJ ~ 'lJ ~ C:l -- ~ ::: ~ v, -Q ;" V, C:l 'lJ ;::. C:l ..:::: "- <..l 'lJ [/). '0' u ... .... ~ E-< 'lJ f.;ol is ~ ~ [/). ;" ~ ~ [/). E-< ~ z ~ ~ C"-. .~ ~ ~ ;:: "-..:::: ~~ ~ .S2 -Q ::: oI.i~ ::: v, ~ 'lJ ~~ ~ v, ._ C:l v,' .!S ~iS ... .- ;" ;:: o v, i;j Olj ... ::: .~ ~ 1;3 'S; <..l-Q V, <..l 'lJ .- ~~ 1:: .::::: ~:; :2~ ~ ~ ]'~ ;" i2 ~~ <..l ;" 'lJ 0 0' ...'t3 ~o 'lJ ... is v,' ~ %l ;,,~ ~ ' ;::;:~ [/). E-< ~ ~ :S> -- C:l ;" ~ ... o ... ~ <..l C:l ... C:l ..:::: <..l -- C:l ;" v, .;;: .~ "- v, 'R 'lJ 'lJ is ~ C:l ... ~ ~ ..Q -- "-. C:l v, :;:: Olj ::: ::: ~~ v, ::: -Q ;" 1;i i2 "- ... <..l ;" 'lJ V, . 0' tJ ... .- ~~ 'lJ ::: is C:l ~~ -- .- ;" v, ~ 'lJ ;::;:is rfJ Eo-< ~ ~ ;" o ;:: ~ :.;:: ;:: 'lJ ... C:l ~ ... o "- ..:::: .:?fJ -- -- C:l "-. :;: ~ ::: 'lJ C:l ... to C:l -Q 'lJ 1;iiS ~.!S ~ ~ ... 'lJ 5 .;;: v, 'lJ ;:: .~ 'lJ1::: :::..:::: C:l Olj ~ os:: C:l ... 'lJ 0 ... <..l ~ 0~ .~ t) ~ o ~ E-< ~ 'Bi ::s ~..Q< '-" 'lJ :;;l ~ ~ 0' ;" 'lJ ~ ~i < ~ rfJ ... '(3 'lJ -- -Q C:l .~ ~ C:l 'lJ is ~ ::: .S:; "- ~ ::: 'lJ 1:: 'lJ I "- <..l ;" ~ V, -Q o ... o is .~ "- <..l ~ o <..l "- <..l 'lJ '0' ... "-. ~::: 'lJ..Sl is ~ ~Q -- .- ;,,-- ~ ~ :;;l [/). ~ ~ ..Q -- ~ ::: ~ v, -Q ;" V, ~ ;" -Q ~ ::: o <..l ... o ~ ... ~ ::: ~ v, "-. Q~ ':':::::.t:: C:l C:l ;,,-- ~.S:; ... ;::. '(3 Q ~~ C:l ;" 'lJ ~ ~ .~ Ci C:l .- ~ ;::. 'lJ t)'t) 'lJ .~ 0'0 ... ... ~~ 'lJ ... ..:::: 0 '-" Olj ~ .!S ;" "- o .::::: ~ ~ II II II II II II "-"I- <..l'""l .'lJ I ~~ c..., 'lJ ~ ~ i;lc..., o ~ c:: 'lJ is ~ V, 'lJ .2: "- C:l l:: ~ ~ t:-; ~ II II II II [/). [/). [/). [/). E-< E-< E-< E-< ~ ~ ~ ~ "-. tJ ::: ~ ;" -- -- o ~ -- ~ ::: ~ v, -Q ;" V, ~ ~ ~ ~ <..l 'lJ ... 'lJ .2: "- 'SO ::: 'lJ v, 'lJ V, o ~ 'lJ "- <..l 'lJ '0' ... ~ 'lJ is ~ -- ;" ~ "-. ~ ~ o ~ -Q C:l ::: .S:; "- <..l 'lJ ~ o ~ C:l 'lJ ... <..l "- <..l 'lJ '0' ... ~ 'lJ is ~ ;" ~ v, ~ ~ v, .S! tb~ ::: ;" .- ... o <..l ~ ... 'lJ .~ is ~~ ... ...u o 0 'lJ ..Q 'lJ' is "- 0:E; ;:...~ ~ 'SO ~.~ ~ 1;3 0 c ... v, v,',~ 'lJ '::: ~~ iS~o& "- ~ :.t::.~ 'lJ~ C:l~ tf~ ~:-;:::: ~ ~ ~~ ~<..l ...~ 'lJ V, ... ::: v, C:l 0 C:l ~ ~ i;j' ii ~ 'S '(3 ti; ..::~~V) .S! ~ ~::::i 'Ioo...:i"_ ., ~ i;j ~ ~ ~ "t) ~ ~ [/). -Q 'lJ ~ 1:: ~f.;ol 1;i~~c3 o ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ .~ :;;l ~~- o El v,' ~ ~ ;~ [/). ..:::: ~ .....:::: ......, f.;ol ,,-._ ... v, i3 ~ ~ t~ti; Cj ~ '0' <S S ~ 'lJ< ~~O"- v,u """0--::: ;" .... 'lJ 1:: ::: 'lJ ~ \.l) is "- .;;; s ::: 0 ~ ~.~ ... 'lJ ~;:; <..l C:l 'lJ0 0;Z'lJ~ c!5 5$ ~ ~ ~Q ::: "- ..Sl ~ c..., ~ ~~ V, "- ~ g ~ ~ C:l::: c...,~ ::::s ::: 'lJ 'lJ ::: 1:: 'SO ~ ~ .:; ;::. ~~ ;::~ ~ ~ C:l ... CjQ ~ a '""l ... 'lJ ..Q ~ <..l () Cl <..l '" '(3 ::: C:l ~ ::: r55 is ;" ~ ~ Q o ..... c.J Q) '-' o ... ~ "0 Q) '" o Q.. o ... ~ Q) -= N..... I 0 ..... ..... > '" Q) Q) :0 ,.5 ~ ~ E-- E Q) ..... < '- o = o '" 'C ~ Q.. e o U f.;ol > .... E-< < Zu ~ f.;ol E-< ~ < Q) "Cl OJ:.~ ~.S ~ .s~e Q) ~ Q) ~~.= < f.;ol > .... E-< < Zi:I:l ~ f.;ol ~ < ..... c.J .~ ~ e'.~ ~~ "Cl = ~ a:s =.= "Cl< ~ < f.;ol > .... E-< < Z ~ f.;ol E-< ~ < :; OJJ", 0== "Cl'" ~ ~~~ .-.- ~ o~~~ Z........... c.J Q) Q) .~"Cl 5 e=~ ~~ E- Z f.;ol z ... ~ 'lJ ::: is C:l ~ ~ ii ~~ti; C:l ,V) ;Z .~ ::::i ~;g~ ::: Cl '-" .S! ~ ~ ~ ~ ' C:l 'lJ .~__ 1:: ... ~ C:l ;:... -- Cj ::: C:l~ C:l ~ ::: ::: .- C:l Cl ~..:::: t) ~ .~ ~"'k; ~~~ 'lJ C:l ~ '" <..l ::: ~..S; 'lJ ~ .!S ~ C:l~ ... 'lJ C:l ~~ ~ ~ FQ ~ ~ .S! ~.- l:: 1;5:S>~ C:l :::~ ~ ~ a C:l 1:: 'lJ ::8iS <..l __ ;:... "-. .'lJ C:l..Q 'lJ 0'''' ... .~ ... ~ Cl ;::. ~ C:l '" ... 'lJ::: :::~ iS~,g& ~:;:: C:l'~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ z ~ ::: C:l ~ -2"'~ ;:: ~.~ ~~~ tl .~ Ci ~;.::::{s i2Ci~ ~::: , ..Q~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~' :::..21 ;::. Cl <..l Cl "- .!S 1:: <..l='lJ ~ "- ... ~ <..l "- ~~ ~ 'lJ ... ... ~~~ 'lJ~..:::: ~;::;: 0I.i C:l ::: ;" __ C:l Cl .S! ~ ~ ~U'-" ~'lJ"j ~ is ~ "-. ;" ~-- '" '" C:l ~ C:l2:!;t:i'lJ ~ "I- 2 1:: C:l ::: <..l ~ :: ~ 0"' ~ <..l <..l Cl Cl .'lJ,~ ~... 0' ~~ __ Cl ~.2 ~ :::' 'lJ ~ ~.s:; iS~;::.~ ~ 'S..::::' ;" ~~~~ ~ '" C:l ~ ;::;: C:l 1:: ._ z ~ ~ ~ ~~ 'SO C:l 'lJ ... ... .:?fJ 'lJ 1:: :E ~ C:l Cl s::: '100..:. C".... ;:... ::: '" ::: ~ ~ C:l .- 'SO ~ i;j -.,. ... ~ ~ ~ i;l ~ :;:: ~ 'lJ ~ ::: ;::.~ 'lJ ~ 'lJ ~ 'lJii~ is i .~ is ~ 'lJ .- '" ;::. ;:: 'lJ :;:: ..Q is ~ -- .- ~ .S! ;:: Cl "- ... 'lJ ~ Cl '" "- '" ;" ~.~ 'lJ ;" <..l is '" 'lJ 'lJ 'lJ ~~ ... 'lJ 'lJ ~~~ ~ ~.- ::: .- ... -,:: ;:: Cl <..l ... ~ .'lJ Cl Cl ~ii ~ ~~t ~s:.8 '-" Cl 'lJ ~t~ ;" ...~ ~ Olj-- ~ .~ .~ [/). E-< ~ -- C:l <..l ~ Cl ;.z .~ "- <..l ~ Cl ... ~ '" "-. 'lJ 'lJ <..l <..l ~ ~ ::: ::: ~~ Cl ~ ... ... Cl Cl i;j G- .t) ;.::: ~ 2, ~::: ~ .S:; <..l "- ..S; ~ ... is i;l .~ ~ t) ~ ._ 'lJ ~~ 8 C:l t) ~ .~..:::: Cl <..l ... ;" ~'" 'lJ ",' is ~ ~ ... -- ;" ;" Cl ~ ~ 'lJ ~ C:l "-. "::::Irj ~~ ~a 'lJ1rj ~-, C:l -- .S! "- ::: ~ '" ..Q ;" [/). '" f.;ol C:l U 'lJ ~ ;;! :;;l C:l o <..l [/). t) f.;ol 'lJ ~ '0' ~ ... < ~ ~ is :;;l E-< ~ ~ ;" B ~ [/). E-< ~ C:l ~ 'lJ <..l ::: C:l <..l 'S ~ 'SO 'lJ is .!S [/). E-< ~ ::: ~ <..l ~ .!S ~ 'lJ ::: 'S ~ '" C:l 'lJ <..l ... ;" Cl '" 'lJ ... -- C:l <..l .;:: ~ '" :.;:: ::: C:l ~ 'lJ <..l ::: C:l <..l 'S ::: .:?fJ '" 'lJ is .!S ~"-. :::": C:l"l- "::::'0 <..la 'lJ1rj "'-, ~ ::: ~,g C:l <..l -- ,~ .S! ~~ ~-2 ~"- '" ::: ..Q ~ 1;5 ~ C:l ;" 'lJ ~ '" 'lJ ;" <..l C:l ... <..l 5 t) i;j .~ ... Cl__ ... C:l ~.~ 'lJ Olj is..S; ~ ~ ;"..:::: ~ ~ [/). E-< ~ ... Cl 'lJ <..l ... ;" Cl '" 'lJ ... -- C:l <..l .~ -- ~ ::: Cl 'lJ -- C:l ~ 'lJ ;" ~ .;:: ;" C:l S ~ '" ~ ..Q "- <..l 'lJ ... ~ .!S ~ ~ i! ~~ <..l <..l .~ .~ ~..S; t) ~ 'lJ Olj ~'lJ'~~ 'lJ .- is ~ ~ ... -- Cl ;" 'lJ ~tl [/). E-< ~ ~ ~ B ;" Cl ~ 'lJ ... ... ~ .!S 'lJ '" Cl is ~ ~ ..21 <..l .!S ",' ::: '(3 1:: 'lJ ... ::: C:l 1:: ;" ..:::: ~ C:l ..Q ... [/). ~ ~ '" 0 ~"-. [/). t) i;j Cl .~.;:: Z i2 ~ < ~ 1:: >- 'lJ 'lJ ,. is <..l ;:; ~ ~ ~ ;" 1:: 0 ~ ... f.;ol ;::;:~~ "-Irj <..l'""l 'lJ I ~~ c..., 'lJ ~ ~ i;lc..., Cl ~ c:: 'lJ is ~ '" 'lJ .2: "- C:l l:: ~ ~ t:-; ~ ::: "- ..Sl ~ c..., ~ ~~ '" "- ~ g ~ ~ C:l::: c...,~ ::::s ::: 'lJ 'lJ ::: 1:: 'SO ~ ~ .:; ;::. ~~ ;::~ ~ ~ C:l ... CjQ ~ a '""l ... 'lJ ..Q ~ <..l () Cl <..l '" '(3 ::: C:l ~ ::: r55 is ;" ~ ~ Q o ..... c.J Q) '-' o ... ~ "0 Q) '" o Q.. o ... ~ Q) -= N..... I 0 ..... ..... > '" Q) Q) :0 ,.5 ~ ~ E-- E Q) ..... < '- o = o '" 'C ~ Q.. e o U f.;ol > .... E-< < Zu ~ f.;ol E-< ~ < Q) "Cl OJ:.~ ~.S ~ .s~e Q) ~ Q) ~~.= < f.;ol > .... E-< < Zi:I:l ~ f.;ol ~ < ..... c.J .~ ~ e'.~ ~~ "Cl = ~ a:s =.= "Cl< ~ < f.;ol > .... E-< < Z ~ f.;ol E-< ~ < :; OJJ", 0== "Cl'" ~ ~~~ .-.- ~ o~~~ Z........... c.J Q) Q) .~"Cl 5 e=~ ~~ E- Z f.;ol z ... 'lJ is 'lJ::: Cl ~ ;:: .~ 'lJ Cl ~ ::: ;::. ::: ;" Cl ~"'" ~~ ::C:liSi;l .S! ~ 8 ~ l::'lJk1... C:l ... Cl Cl to~Ci C:l -S ~.;:: ~ 1;0 ... c..., C:l -.. bJ) ~ ~ :.2 .!S .::::: is :::..2: ;" ... ~ Cl ..Sl'~ Cl ;::. ~ .;:> ~.!S "- '" ::: .- ~iS'lJ~ '" C:l <..l__ 'lJ ~ ~ Cl :s.... '-J '100..:. ~ ~ ... '" Cj <..l Cl Cl ;" ?, 1:: ~ t;Sl'lJ~';::; :s.... .? ~ V) ~ Cl .- ::: ~ <SS 'lJ ",' Cl '-" " ~6~.2~ Cl--~~Cl ~~~ 'lJ.Q 'lJ "'" ::: ;" ~ ~.:.:::: ~ ~ Cl .- 'lJ .- ':::-., f:l.,"'~ 9.,Cl ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ,,-'-"C:l~::: ~ ~;t::' Olj ~ '0' ~ ~ .!S .;;: ~21 ~ ~ ~ 'lJ <..l ~ N C:l ..:::: .!S C:l Olj:;:: ~ ,;" ::: ::: '-J-ta~:;:~ ~~iS~t; ~ ~ 8 r? ~ ;::;: 'lJ 'lJ -., '" [/). E-< ~ ~ ~ 'lJ Cl ~~ C:l '" --~ .S! 'lJ "- ... ~ 1;5 '" Cl ..Q ~ 1;5 'lJ ] ~ ~~ ~ Cl Cl ;::. ~ .!S ~iS '" C:l ~~ ~ ... <..l Cl i:: s:. to .;" ~ .~ ~ ~., ~-8 ~~ i;l~"-. Cl .- Olj ~ ~ .!S 'lJ"::::~ U ~~ .~.::: ~ Cl' 'B ::: ~21 5 'lJ <..l ... ..:::: .!S Olj ~ ~.,.S2 ~ tj ~ Cl ~._ ~~i;l [/). E-< ~ ~ ::: ;" Cl 'lJ ~ ~ <..l ~.~ "-. ~.~ ~ .~:: ~ "- .S! ~ ~l::1::: '" ~ i;l ..QCl__ 1;5 ~ C:l -.. bJ):;: .S! .!S 1;3 l:: ;::. ... ~a~ Cl ;::. ~ ~.!S ~ ~iS] '" C:l C:l ~ ~ :::' ~ ....s:; <..l Cl "- i:: s:. S to .;" 'S- ~ .~ ~ 'lJ ",' ~ -- '" ~ Cl :::' 'lJ ::;'.Cl ~Cl~ i;l~~ ~.;:: ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~~ '- ::: .- Cl'~ ~ ~21 21 'lJ <..l <..l is .!S .!S ~ tJ' ~' ;" <..l ;" ~~~ II II [/). [/). E-< E-< ~ ~ .::::: "- 'lJ' C:l '''is 21__ ~.~ ~ ... ::: Cl ;" "- i2 .;:: Olj;" ~ .~ ~ ~ ..Sl-- 'lJ Cl ... 'lJ o Olj .- C:l ~ ::: ._ Cl i;l~ Cl ~ "'" C:l '" <..l 'lJ Cl ...-- ~ 'lJ <..l..Q ;"... "-. ~ Cl ::: '" '" Cl ...~ 'so Cl ._ "-. ~ ~ -.. ~ - --~~~ ~ ::: -- '0 'lJ C:l~ '" ~::;:: ::: .S "- '-' C:l- <..l :::__ 'lJ C:l ~::: ~ ;" Cl "- '" ._ <..l "- t) .~ <..l C:l..Q .~~;" Cl ;" '" ... ~~ ~~ ::: 'lJ Olj C:l is ::: 'lJ ~~:;:; ~;,,~ ~ -- '" ~ .s Sl "- -- ;" '" 'lJ ... "- <..l 'lJ '0' ... ~ 'lJ is ~ ;" ~ [/). E-< ~ z "-. ..::::.: '0 '" 'lJ ;::. 'so ::: C:l ~ 'lJ ::: Cl ~ ~ C:l <..l Cl -- 'lJ ..Q "- <..l 'lJ '0' ... ~ 'lJ is ~ ;" ~ 'lJ ... ..Q~ ~ ;:: C:l '" ~1:: ~~ C:l '" ':::-.,~ Cl__ ~ Sl ..Q Cl C:l ~ &~ ~ ... .- ~ C"-. 'lJ C:l ... 8 ;:: ~ ..::::.: ~ ~ '0 i3 ~ ~ ;:: i3 ~ ~ ;:: [/). ~C:l<;~ ~l::~:$ C:l ~ C:l ~ ~ C:l ~ ~ C:l ~ ~ < ~ ~ ~ ~ ::: ::: 'lJ [/). .- C:l is :;;l ~ ~ ... 0 ~:;::<.2.~ <..l ~ 'lJ ~ -8",:;:;~ ~ ~::2 < t) i;l ~ == .'lJ ;" C:l ~ Cl''lJ''-Z "'is~< ~0lj'lJ[/). 'lJ ::: ... ~ is :;:: C:l ~ ~ ~ ~ < ;" 9., 'lJ N ~ ~ ~ < ;::;: '" '" == - "-'0 <..l'""l 'lJ I ~~ c..., 'lJ ~ ~ i;lc..., Cl ~ c:: 'lJ is ~ '" 'lJ .2: "- C:l l:: ~ ~ t:-; ~ + - - [/). E-< ~ - "- ::: 'lJ 1:: ::: i2 "-. .S: ~ ::: C:l 'lJ .;:: 'lJ ~ is C:l ... 1:: Cl '" .~ 5 :;:;1: ~~ 'lJ C:l is~ Cl Cl "- -- C:l '" Cl ~ ~ ... Cl ~ ... C:l ~ ..:::: "- ::: C:l <..l 'lJ' 'S'" ::: ;" Olj "- ' 'so ~ ~ ~ "- ::: C:l C:l ~ ~ <..l 'lJ t) .!S 'lJ "- 0'5 ... ... ~'lJ 'lJis is..:::: ~ ~ ;" Cl ~ ... ;::;:is ::: "- ..Sl ~ c..., ~ ~~ '" "- ~ g ~ ~ C:l::: c...,~ ::::s ::: 'lJ 'lJ ::: 1:: 'so ~ ~ .:; ;::. ~~ ;::~ ~ ~ C:l ... CjQ ~ a '""l ... 'lJ ..Q ~ <..l () Cl <..l '" '(3 ::: C:l ~ ::: r55 is ;" ~ ~ Q o ..... c.J Q) '-' o ... ~ "0 Q) '" o Q.. o ... ~ Q) -= N..... I 0 ..... ..... > '" Q) Q) :0 ,.5 ~ ~ E-- E Q) ..... < '- o = o '" 'C ~ Q.. e o U f.;ol > .... E-< < Zu ~ f.;ol E-< ~ < Q) "Cl OJ:.~ ~.S ~ .s~e Q) ~ Q) ~~.= -< f.;ol > .... E-< < Zi:I:l ~ f.;ol ~ < ..... c.J .~ ~ e'.~ ~~ "Cl = ~ a:s =.= "Cl-< ~ < f.;ol > .... E-< < Z ~ f.;ol E-< ~ < :; OJJ", 0== "Cl'" ~ ~~~ .-.- ~ o~~~ Z........... c.J Q) Q) .~"Cl 5 e=~ ~~ E- Z f.;ol + [/). E-< ~ 'lJ '" C:l 'lJ -- "- 'lJ ::: ... 'lJ 'lJ 1:: is ::: i2 ~ .;;:~ 1;3 Cl 'lJ ~ ..:::: .- '-" '" ~ ~ \..:J:.t:: ~~ ..Q ::: ~8 'lJ,,- is ::: Cl~ ~ '(3,,-. ... <..l "- C:l C:l ::: ~] ~ ..:::: C:l ::: "- "- Cl ~ i;l .:: ~ ~ ~ .~ 'lJ :::~ 'lJ .:?fJ~ is '" 'lJ Cl C:l 'lJ "'" 'lJ i;j .!S ~~~ ~ ~.S! <..l..Q'" "-...Q~ ~ C:l C:l '::::-,::: 1:: i2 Cl '" ~ ij ;" 'lJ ~ ~ is..::::''' ~ Olj C:l -- ;" ~ ;" Cl ..:::: ~,s~ [/). E-< ~ [/). E-< ~ ... Cl .~ '-" .0.::::: ~ ~ ;" ::: g C:l ...~ Cl ~~ ~ 1:: ~ ~ ~ ... ..:::: ~ ~ Y' ~ 'lJ ~ ~ ..:::: ::: ... .- CliS ~ .~ Cl ~ .~ ij .~ ;:: 'lJ ... '" Cl ;" '" ~ ~ ... ::: C:l ~ ~ '" ..::::..Q "- 1;5 .~ ~ ~., "- .S <..l ... .~~ Cl C:l ~1:: 'lJ '" is 5 ~~ ;" C:l ~~ C:l '" '" C:l 5~' "-. ~:::"- ... C:l 1;3 ~ Irj 1:: ~~~ ~~ .~ "- '0 ::: .::::: ::: 'lJ -- Cl 'lJ ~:.t::-;:S ::: <..l ... Cl~Cl ~ <..l ~~~ ~a~ ~"-~ ._ ::: 'lJ '" 'lJ is .- 1:: ..:::::::~ .~ ... ~ ..:::: 'lJ ... ;:: 5 C:l ~ Cj ~ 'SO ~ :: C:l "- ::: ::: ~ S Cl ;" S ~ "'.- 'lJ ~ 6b t ~'SO g ~ C:l ----'lJ ~ .~~ :::; ~ 8 G 2 '0' '" :::: ..:::: ... ~ ~ <..l ~._-- '" 'lJ ~ 5 ~iS~;:: '" ~.- ~ ~ ~~., i2 ~ C:l '" ~;::;: 1:: ~ Q ~ C:l '" C:l .!S "- -- ;" '" 'lJ ... :::: ~ -- ;" Cl ;:: C:l' "-. 'lJ C:l ... 'lJ C:l ... C:l ::: "- C:l <..l -- 'lJ ~'::::-, 'lJ Cl '" ... ;" ~ ~ 'lJ :::is ..Sl .!S "- ... Olj ~ .!S ..."", .- ... C:l Cl ::: ;:: C:l ... ::: Cl .- Olj is ::: .~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ C:l 'lJ <..l-- -8 ~ "- 'lJ ~ ~ '::::-, ... i2~ ~~ 'lJ ... is ~ ~~ [/). E-< ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C:l ::: C:l is .~ 'lJ ... ~ ~ .!S :2C;;: S..Sl .- ~ ~::: ~~ ~ ~ ~g ;::. ::: 'lJ ~ G- ~ ::: ::: 'lJ 'lJ ~ 1:: 'lJ ~ ~ .[ ~ .:: ::: C:l..Sl ~~ .- '" "- ::: ~ Cl '0' ~ ... 'lJ ~... 'lJ G- is ::: ~ 'lJ -- ~ ;" 'lJ ~ ~ z z ~ ... ~ Cl .- s:.~ ;"..Q .? ~ .~ -8 '" "- Cl ::: -- 'lJ ~g ""'~ .::::: C:l ... 'lJ "- ... ~ C:l <..l -i3 "-. 'S:::-i3 ::: C:l ::: .:?fJ~..Sl "'7:::~ C:l ;:: 7::: ~ 'lJ ;:: '" ~ is 'lJ ..:::: ._ ~ ;:: ;:: t) Olj ~ ;" ::: ~ ~ ~.- '" ;" 1:: ~ U ~ 'lJ .!S l:: -- .- ~ i;j' ~ ~~C:l 'lJ~ i;j 6 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ':";:::: ~ t) ;:: ~ .~ Olj 'lJ i2 .!S ~ ~..2: ..:::: 'lJ Cl ;:: is ~ ... ~~~ ;" C:l C:l ~~~ f--- "- t'... <..l'""l 'lJ I ~~ c..., 'lJ ~ ~ i;lc..., Cl ~ c:: 'lJ is ~ '" 'lJ .2: "- C:l l:: ~ ~ t:-; ~ f--- f--- [/). E-< ~ f--- >- E-< .... ~ < :;;l 0' ~ f.;ol E-< < ~ ~ Z < >- ~ o ~ o ~ ~ >- ::t: "-. tJ ::: 'lJ 1:: 'lJ ... 'S; ~ 'lJ ... 'lJ ~ C:l ~ '" ~ ~ '" C:l ;:: ... Cl -i3 ... ~ ::: ~ '" :S> -- C:l ;" ~ ... ~ C:l ;:: ~ C:l -- Cl .;;: "- <..l 'lJ '0' ... ~ 'lJ is ~ ;" ~ ::: "- ..Sl ~ c..., ~ ~~ '" "- ~ g ~ ~ C:l::: c...,~ ::::s ::: 'lJ 'lJ ::: 1:: 'SO ~ ~ .:: ;::. ~~ ;::~ ~ ~ C:l ... CjQ ~ a '""l ... 'lJ ..Q ~ <..l () Cl <..l '" '(3 ::: C:l ~ ::: r55 is ;" ~ ~ Q o ..... c.J Q) '-' o ... ~ "0 Q) '" o Q.. o ... ~ Q) -= N..... I 0 ..... ..... > '" Q) Q) :0 ,.5 ~ ~ E-- E Q) ..... < '- o = o '" 'i: ~ Q.. e o U f.;ol > .... E-< < Zu ~ f.;ol E-< ~ < Q) "Cl OJ:.~ ~.S ~ .s~e Q) ~ Q) ~~.= -< f.;ol > .... E-< < Zi:I:l ~ f.;ol ~ < ..... c.J .~ ~ e'.~ ~~ "Cl = ~ a:s =.= "Cl-< ~ < f.;ol > .... E-< < Z ~ f.;ol E-< ~ < :; OJJ", 0== "Cl'" ~ ~~~ .-.- ~ o~~~ Z........... c.J Q) Q) .~"Cl 5 e=~ ~~ E- Z f.;ol z "- Cl "-. .!S ::: ~ :t:: ~~ <..l ;,,::: ~ 'lJ ~ C:l 'lJ~iS ~ "',,- ..:::: ~ 'lJ 0 <..l ::: "':::0fJ:';::%l ~C:l~;::..Q .S ~ -.. -.. ~ ..Q 'lJ 'lJ 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ i;j~~~~ ._ a -.. . 9.,;::..Q~~ ~~~~~ ~,s~{s'; ~,,-"""\:)\..) C:lC:l..s~:';:: ;::is:::Cl;:: ~..::::;,,;:: ... ~ <..l Cl '" ~ Cl ;" ~-- " :s....~'-N.,)-..~ Olj 'lJ ~ 'lJ 'lJ 'lJ ~ <..l ;:: ~ '"'"C:lCl..2~ ~~~:s....~ ~~iS~~ ':::--,:::..Sl :2~ClOlj~ .S! C:l ~:2 ~ ~ ..s .;:: .::::: '" ~C:l _ 'lJ " 'lJ _ .... ;:: 'lJ '" '" ;" Cl ~ ;" ~i2--"'~ "'0ljC:l~~ t) is ~ Cl-- 'lJ ._ ,,'" '0';:: ~ ~ ~ ... "';:: t:; ~:2..21 .- 'lJ C:l Cl ~ ~ ';:'S:.t::~:.t:: ::: ... <..l "- ~ ~ ~;" ~ 5 ~ 'S;"'g ~ ~ 1;5 @' ~ 1;5 [/). E-< ~ ~ ~;" ._ Cl 11 ;:: "Zi~ .!S :.;:: C:l' ;:: 'lJ .... ... 'lJ C:l ::: ~ ~ ~ 1:: 'SO C:l 'lJ .!S is ~~. "-. ::: .2: ~ ... ... 'SO 'lJ ...~ ~ Cl ~ ~ 1:: ... 'lJ C:l Cl ~~ ~ ::: '" Cl '(3 C:l ::: {s ~~ Olji;l~ .::: ... .- ~ ~ ~ 'R 8 ~ 'lJ 'lJ ::: 'lJ is Cl is ':::--, 'SO ... Cl Cl ~ ::: ~ ~~-.. u E=: ~ .'lJ ~ ~ ~~ t; ~'lJ~ 'lJ is '" is..::::::: ~ ~:;; ;" Cl ;" ~ ... '" ;::;:iS~ [/). E-< ~ C:l' ~..Q C:l-- ... :.2l .!S Cl ::: .:t::: ~ ~ 1;5 'SO '" ~ ,s~~ ~ ~ 5 ::: .... ;:: ... 'lJ ..:::: ~ .2: .~ "-.....:::: 2, ~ ;:: 'lJ .... ~ 1:: 'lJ ::: ~ ~ '(3 ~ C:l {s ~ 1:: C:l ~~::: t:;'lJi;, 'R ~ Qi 'lJ ;" ::: 'lJ 8 i:: is 'lJ 'lJ ~iSg .:t:::~~ C:l ;" ;::.,.::: '" :::::.s:;~ C:l"- :.t:: E=: ~ ::: ~ ;" ~--Cl '" C:l 1:: ..Q 'lJ C:l 1;5 is ... "-,,:::: Cl <..l 0<1 'lJ 'lJ ;" "- '0' Cl C:l ... ... ... ~iS ~ 'lJ Olj '-" is .!S i;l ~~C:l ;" ;" 'lJ Cl"Zi ti ~ .!S .!S z "-. ~ 'SO ~ ~ ... Cl I ::: Cl ~ ~ Cl Cl ~ ::: Cl ~ 'lJ~ ~Cl C:l~ 1:: ... '" 'lJ C:lis C:l Cl 'lJ ... 8 Cl ~ & ~~ C:l 'lJ ..::::"- ~ C:l ClC::: Cl 'lJ ~<..l ... ::: C:l C:l 'lJ ~ 7>'" aJ:; a~ ....., Cl C:l Cl .!S ~ is ... ._ Cl ;:: ?, Olj'" .!S ~ '" ::: ;" ;" Cl Cl "::::i::q,,- ~ 1:g ..Sl ~ 1:: ~ C:l ::: t) ::r::: .s:; .~~ t Cl Cl 'lJ ... Cl ::: ~~ .- 'lJ-'-- is~~ ~...~ ~~8 Cl~'" ~C:l~ z ~ ;" Cl ;:: ~ :.;:: ;:: '" 'lJ ... ~ <..l ;" ~ '" C:l 'lJ ... C:l ~ ... C:l ~ ..:::: ~ Cl Cl ~ ... C:l 'lJ 7> a a ....., C:l :::~ ~ 6 ;::~ 'lJ~ <..l Cl C:l Cl --~ ~"- u ~ .'lJ ... Cl'~ ~~ 'lJ ... is Cl ~~ ~ 'lJ ~ .[ II II z z ... Cl ... s:.Cl ;" %l .~ :S' ;::. C:l - ~ ::: ",' C:l AI -8 ~ 'lJ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ .;::~ .~ ~ 'lJ ~ C:l is ::: <S ~ .s:; ::: "- ] Olj-- '-' 'SO 1;5 ~ C:l ~ .!S ~ ~ ~ i;j C:l i;j ... Olj ... ~.s ~ <..l~ <..l 1:2 1: "'~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~~ 'lJ ~..21 ~ 'lJ <..l 'lJ ~.!S ~ i;l oI.i i;l Cl::: Cl ~~ ~ 'lJ Cl 'lJ t)~ t) .~ Olj .'lJ i2 .!S 0' ~..2: ~ 'lJ Cl 'lJ is~ is ~.- "-. ~ ~ ~ 1:: 5 ~~~~ ... Cl ~ Z Z Z j ~ ~ Z < f.;ol "-. [/). ;:: :;;l ~~ ~ j "-00 <..l'""l 'lJ I ~~ c..., 'lJ ~ ~ i;lc..., Cl ~ c:: 'lJ is ~ '" 'lJ .2: "- C:l l:: ~ ~ t:-; ~ ::: "- ..Sl ~ c..., ~ ~C::: '" "- ~ g ~ ~ C:l::: c...,~ ::::s ::: 'lJ 'lJ ::: 1:: 'SO ~ ~ .:; ;::. ~~ ;::~ ~ ~ C:l ... CjQ ~ a '""l ... 'lJ -Q ~ <..l () Cl <..l '" '(3 ::: C:l ~ ::: r55 is ;" ~ ~ Q o ..... c.J Q) '-' o ... ~ "0 Q) '" o Q.. o ... ~ Q) -= N..... I 0 ..... ..... > '" Q) Q) :0 ,.5 ~ ~ E-- E Q) ..... < '- o = o '" 'i: ~ Q.. e o U f.;ol > .... E-< < Zu ~ f.;ol E-< ~ < Q) "Cl OJ:.~ ~.S ~ .s~e Q) ~ Q) ~~.= -< f.;ol > .... E-< < Zi:I:l ~ f.;ol ~ < ..... c.J .~ ~ e'.~ ~~ "Cl = ~ a:s =.= "Cl-< ~ < f.;ol > .... E-< < Z ~ f.;ol E-< ~ < :; OJJ", 0== "Cl'" ~ ~~~ .-.- ~ o~~~ Z........... c.J Q) Q) .~"Cl 5 e=~ ~~ E- Z f.;ol z [/). E-< ~ "-. Q .;:: ;" 1:: 1:: Cl <..l ~ 'lJ ~ -- -Q ~ '" 'lJ ::: C:l ~ .;;: ~ .0 -- C:l <..l 'SO ~ ~ "- <..l 'lJ '0' ... ~ 'lJ is ~ ;" ~ ~~ ~ ~ 'lJ :.t::S::':iS C:l 'lJ -- Olj is ;" 'lJ .- ~ is ;:: ~~~ Cl ~ "- , 'lJ ~ G-::::~ ~ 1:: C:l a.:..::: ~ ~"- ~ , Cl ::: ~ ::: C:l "-. -..'Ioo..:.S::'Ioo..:. ~.E ~ ~ i;l Olj~~ ;" ::: ", ~ ~ ~ ~-- ::: ;" .- ~ ..Sl"Zi~1;3 ::: '" ::- ~ ~... ~ ~ t) Cl, i2 <..l 'lJ 1:: .- ~ '0' C:l ~ ~... ... 'lJ C:l ~ ~::: ;:... 'lJ ... C:l ::: is ~ Olj C:l ... -- ::: ..;:~-.S:.t:: :::: 5 i3 C:l ;:::::Cl:Ef '100..:. a \..) .- ~:;:: ~ 1:: ,?~ <..l ... Cl~..s; Cl <..l .::::: Olj "- ~ :::'.!S ~ '-'..Sl ~ '0' is ~ Cl ... .- <..l ;::. ~;::sC:l 'lJ ?-.'(3 ~ is ~ 'lJ 'lJ ~ 'lJ ~ '" __ 0<1 ' Cl ;" C:l ::: ~ ~ :::..Sl ;" ;::;:C:l~~ z -- C:l ... ~ C:l ::: ... Cl ~ ~ ::: .S:; "- C:l C 'lJ '" ::: Cl <..l "- ~ ;.z C:l ..:::: ~ -Q C:l .~ ~ C:l ~ C:l ':is C"-. .~ ] t) ~ .- ::: ?s:; 8 t "- C <..l 'lJ .~ ~ i2 8 ~Q is .;:: ~;" f.;ol -- 1:: [/). ~ 1:: 0.... ~ 8 Z [/). E-< ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::::s C:l ,'" 'lJ ~ ~ '" <..l ~ <..l '--' ~.~ to .!S ~ is ~ i;l & i3 ~ '0 .....:::: .- SCl,~~ ~~:~ .~ ~ ~ ~ "- ::: '" '" C:l ~ 'lJ-i3 ~ ... is ... :::Cl,,-C:l 'lJ 'lJ C:l~ Olj.::::: 'lJ ::: ~ ;::; .::::: ~ .... Cl '" ~~.:~ '" ::: C:l :;:: ::: C:l ::: C:l Cl--Cl'" ~ ~:;:: 'lJ 'lJ -- C:l ::: ~ C:l ... 'lJ '::::-,"''lJ0lj Cl ~ ~ i;l ~ ~ ~ '0 ;:::::s -.. -.. s:: C5 S 5 'lJ ~..s;~iS 'lJ 'lJ 00 ~ :::is'lJ%l -,:: '(3 <..l ~ .!S 1;3 ~ '" ~ 0<1 ,,-' ~ ~ C:l ::: t) .::::: ~ ~ "-. 'lJ ::;:; is ~~ ~ ~ Cl ';:1 Cl ~ i;j ~ ~\.J 'lJ__ ~-i3-i3\.JC:l '-" ... ... ~ .::;., ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ;" ::: :::::r:; ::: ~~~z~ [/). E-< ~ ~ -- ::::s C:l ~ ~ ~'(3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~..Sl 1:: .!S -- 'lJ 1:: 'lJ ~.,. Cl '" C:l <..l <..l '0 ... ~ ... :::ClC:l~ ~ 'lJ' ~..!:::l <..l Cl 'lJ ::: ::: "- ;::. :2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .::::: ~ Cl ... Cl 'lJ 'lJ ~::: Olj.::::: 'lJ s:. ~~C5~ ~ ~ ~ g ~'lJ ~ '" ::: - .- ~..Sl ~ t ~ ~ 'Cl'~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~.~ s:: "-i ._ 'lJ ;;>,,,-__ ~ '"J~ ... "'~;" 'lJ Cl <..l ~ ~ ~..s;;::;: ;" 'lJ 'lJ 00 'lJ .:;: ':is .~ ':is C"-. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ C:l ... ~ t) .~ ~ ~ ~ 'lJ::;:;~C:lf;t.) Cl'C:l'-" ~< ... "- ~ Olj \.J ~ i;j Cl ..!:::l '::::-, ~-i3-i3~~ ~~~~~ ~~~'lJ;" ~ ~ ~ .~ ] ;::;: '" "':::~ "-0\ <..l'""l 'lJ I ~~ c..., 'lJ ~ ~ i;lc..., Cl ~ c:: 'lJ is ~ '" 'lJ .2: "- C:l l:: ~ ~ t:-; ~ :;;l [/). :;;l [/). "- <..l 'lJ '0' ~ 'lJ is .!S ..!:::l 'lJ ;::. 'lJ -- 'lJ '" '0 ::: "- ::: 'lJ ;.z 1:: C:l .!S ';::; 'lJ ~ i3 . 0' 'lJ ... ti ~ .!S 'lJ __is .S '100..:. "- ;" ::: Cl ~iS ~ .~ 1;5 .~ C:l "- 'lJ '" ~ .~ S..!:::l t) ~ 'lJ~ Cl''lJ ~5 'lJ-Q ..:::: C:l ~Q ~ :~ ~ .~ "- ::: 'lJ ;.z 1:: C:l .!S 'lJ '" C:l 'lJ ti .!S <..l ~ Cl .;;:: 'lJ ~ ... Cl s:. C:l ... Cl ~ ~ -- ~ ::: "-. ~Q ~ .;:: ;" '(3 '" .;;: .S '100..:. "- <..l -- 'lJ ;" '0' '" ... ~ ~ t) 'lJ .'lJ is ~ .!S ~..!:::l 'lJ 'lJ is ~ ~-- -- 'lJ ;" '" ~ .~ ::: "- ..Sl ~ c..., ~ ~~ '" "- ~ g ~ ~ C:l::: c...,~ ::::s ::: 'lJ 'lJ ::: 1:: 'SO ~ ~ .:; ;::. ~~ ;::~ ~ ~ C:l ... CjQ ~ a '""l ... 'lJ -Q ~ <..l () Cl <..l '" '(3 ::: C:l ~ ::: r55 is ;" ~ ~ Q o ..... c.J Q) '-' o ... ~ "0 Q) '" o Q.. o ... ~ Q) -= N..... I 0 ..... ..... > '" Q) Q) :0 ,.5 ~ ~ E-- E Q) ..... < '- o = o '" 'i: ~ Q.. e o U f.;ol > .... E-< < Zu ~ f.;ol E-< ~ < Q) "Cl OJ:.~ ~.S ~ .s~e Q) ~ Q) ~~.= < f.;ol > .... E-< < Zi:I:l ~ f.;ol ~ < ..... c.J .~ ~ e'.~ ~~ "Cl = ~ a:s =.= "Cl< ~ < f.;ol > .... E-< < Z ~ f.;ol E-< ~ < :; OJJ", 0== "Cl'" ~ ~~~ .-.- ~ o~~~ Z........... c.J Q) Q) .~"Cl 5 e=~ ~~ E- Z f.;ol [/). E-< ~ [/). E-< ~ 'lJ ;::. .~ 'lJ <..l ~ ~ ::: ~ C:l ... 'lJ ::: 'lJ Olj ... "-. Cl '" -- ~ ~ ~~ Cl 'lJ '" .::::: ... Cl ~::: ~~ ~ ~ 1;5~ Cl ::: ~5 'lJ ~ .!S ... "- Cl -- ;" ::: '" .S:; 'lJ,,- ... C:l t) ... .'lJ~ 0';::' ... 'lJ ~l:: 'lJ Cl is..Q ~] ;" ;" ~ ~ ~ 'SO .... i;l t) Cl ;" .~::: .~ Cl C:l__ ~~~ 'lJ i;l ~ is ;" Cl ~ 11.~ 0ljC:l-- :::---Q :E;1:::~ ... Cl C:l Cl ~"- ;:: .- 0' ... C:l '" Cl ::: 'lJ 0ljC:l7::: ::: ::: 1:: ~:';::Cl 'so:::: ~ 'lJ ;:: ~ ~ .!S -..~...s:::: 9..C:l:::: ~ g ;:: ~ -- ~. ~t)~ 'lJ .~ 9.. ... Cl ~ 1;5 ~ C:l Cl C:l ::: ~ 'lJ 'lJ 1:: 'lJ Cl-Q .!S ~ Ci ~~s:: ;" 'lJ '" '" ;::. C:l ~~..:::: "- 'lJ ::: ~ "~~ '::::-, Cl ~ i2 ::: C:l ~'lJ 'lJ .2: ~ is i::i 1;5 ~ 'lJ -- ~ ~ 5 'lJ ~ ~ ~ ;:: z "-. "- ... Cl ~ .~ ~ 'SO "- <..l 'lJ '0' ... ~ 'lJ is "- C:l ~ :E;1 ... Cl ;:: ... Cl ~ ~ 'SO 'lJ "-. ~ .~ ~~ ~ .~ ~C:l ~~ 'lJ C:l ~.~ ~ '" ~ Z ~ C:l i;i ~ 1:: ~ .!S ~ 0 .:t::: '" == ;,,~ ~ i;j ~ Z ~ -- < ~.~ Z '::::-, Cl 0 i2 ::: """ ~ 'lJ Eo-< 'lJ.2: < is i::i ~ ~ 'lJ '"' -- ~ .... 5 'lJ ~ ~ ~ ~ [/). E-< ~ "-. "- -- ::: ~ ~ ~ s ~} 1;5 'lJ 'lJ~ <..l 'lJ ~ i3 .!S ~ ;::.,~ ~ "- <..l ... ~ Cl .- Olj 11 .!S .- '" ... ;" Cl Cl ..:::: ~Olj <..l ::: 'lJ .- .:; 6 ~ 9.. t) i2 .~ ~ i2.2 ~C:l 'lJ 'lJ is 8 ~'lJ :::is ~ .!S ~iS ::: ;:: 'lJ Cl 1:: ... 'lJ Olj }.~ .- "- ~..Sl ;" ;" ~ ~ z z 'lJ is ~ ~ .~ 'lJ <..l 'lJ ::: ~ ::: C:l ~ 'SO ;" Cl ..:::: .~ "- '" 'R "-. 'lJ 'lJ ~ ~ ..Sl~ ~i;l ~~ ~ .~ ~~ ~Cl 'lJ":::: iS~ ~~ ::: 'lJ .s:; g "- -- ~ ~ ::: ... ~~ ~ ~ ~.- .~ t) ~1: ;" '" ~ 8 ~ ::: C:l 'lJ' ~ 'lJ ~ Cl ~ 'lJ "-. -Q 'lJ 1:: ... ;" 'lJ :::..:::: -- ;:: .S! 'lJ "-..::::.; ::: 'lJ ~ Olj '" ::: -Q 'SO ;" ;" '" Cl ~..:::: ..Sl~ .~ ~ ~ 'lJ t) ~ 'lJ-- '0' ~ ... ... ~~ 'lJ is ~ ~:;:: <..l ::: ;" ~ t; [/). ~ ::: f.;ol ::: Cl U 'lJ <..l .... 1:: 'lJ ~ 'lJ is ... ~~ f.;ol .~ ~ ~ ~"~ ~ ;" 'lJ i:I:l ~ ~ i [/). E-< ~ 'lJ is is 'lJ ",' .~ ... ~ ~ ] ~ ~ ~ .~. C:l :::;;; .~ C '(3 ... Cl C 'lJ Cl ~ <..l 'lJ '" i::i~~~;g t:s >,JJ "_ -.. ....c '" 'lJ..:::: -Q ;" tj ::: ;:: ~ ~ C:l i;j'~ ~ 'lJ ~ .- <..l is ._ ~ ~ <..l ':::-., __ ._ ._ C:l Cl C:l <..l "- ::: ;:... .~ ~ ~.- ::: '" __ ~ ~ C:l ~ ~ '" .!S ... ~1;3~C:l~ 'lJ 1:: <..l 1:: '" ~ ::: 'lJ ~ ~ ~~iS...B "'g 5 ",' ~ .~ --Oljil~~ ~~~:::'lJ ::: ... <..l .- <..l ~ ~ ~ tJ' ~ '" C:l -- <..l 1:: ~ ;:...~ C:l ... "'::::: 1;3 ~'R,,-. .!S S 1::::: ~ ::: ~ "~ E: ,s ~ ~ 1;5 ~ 'lJ ::: ~ <..l 'lJ~5~iS~ ...~Olj~Cli::: t) ~Cl"'~ 'lJ ;:: ~ .:; Cl 'lJ '0' 'lJ 'lJ ;::. '" .~ ~S::~S::~-.. ~~C:l~!12, 'lJ:::..Q::: Olj is Cl--C:l 'lJ::: ~ 'SO S ~ ~;.;:;: -- .- .- S Cl '-' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ;::;: ~ ~'SO ~ .!S [/). E-< ~ "-. ::: .s:; "- <..l ~ Cl ... ~ 'lJ ... ti; "-a <..l0f) 'lJ I ~~ c..., 'lJ ~ ~ i;lc..., Cl ~ c:: 'lJ is ~ '" 'lJ .2: "- C:l l:: ~ ~ t:-; ~ ::: "- ..Sl ~ c..., ~ ~~ '" "- ~ g ~ ~ C:l::: c...,~ i::i ::: 'lJ 'lJ ::: 1:: 'SO ~ ~ .:; ;::. ~~ ;::~ ~ ~ C:l ... CjQ ~ a '""l ... 'lJ -Q ~ <..l () Cl <..l '" '(3 ::: C:l ~ ::: r55 is ;" ~ ~ Q o ..... c.J Q) '-' o ... ~ "0 Q) '" o Q.. o ... ~ Q) -= N..... I 0 ..... ..... > '" Q) Q) :0 ,.5 ~ ~ E-- E Q) ..... < '- o = o '" 'i: ~ Q.. e o U f.;ol > .... E-< < Zu ~ f.;ol E-< ~ < Q) "Cl OJ:.~ ~.S ~ .s~e Q) ~ Q) ~~.= < f.;ol > .... E-< < Zi:I:l ~ f.;ol ~ < ..... c.J .~ ~ e'.~ ~~ "Cl = ~ a:s =.= "Cl< ~ < f.;ol > .... E-< < Z ~ f.;ol E-< ~ < :; OJJ", 0== "Cl'" ~ ~~~ .-.- ~ o~~~ Z........... c.J Q) Q) .~"Cl 5 e=~ ~~ E- Z f.;ol :;;l [/). Z o .... E-< < ~ :;;l U ~ U Q Z < Z o .... E-< < E-< ~ o ~ [/). Z ~ E-< 'lJ is ~ ::: ~ C:l -- 'lJ ... .!S -- ~ ::: ~ '" -Q ;" '" .~ C"-. ..:::: 1:: <..l ~ :.;:: '" ;:: ~ <..l "- ~'lJ ~~ ~to .!S ~ i;l~ C:l 'lJQ ti '(3 .!S C:l ::: & C:l <..l 'lJ~ '" ::: ~ C:l <..l~ t) C:l 'lJ..S; '0' <..l ...~ ~'Bi 'lJ ~ is ~ ~ -- .- 5 ~ ~ ~ :;;l [/). ~ ~ 'lJ C:l .~ ::: C .:?fJ 'lJ '" "'~ ~... ~~ ~ G- -- ::: C:l 'lJ ,~ .0 'lJ "- .2: 1;3 t 1:: -- 'lJ ~ ~ e ~ ... 1:: Cl ::: ..Q.S:; t3~ ~ ~ :2: ~ ~ <..l .!S Q ... ::: 'lJ ;" ~ 8 'lJ 'lJ ~'iS %l.2 ~~ ~ ~::".... t)ii~ 'lJ .- C:l 'Cl':C; ;:: ...C:l~ ~ to .~ 'lJ 'lJ..:::: iS1:~ ~~'" 5 ::: ~ ~ ~ i2 [/). E-< ~ Q :::& C:l ~ ... '" 'lJ__ ~:2 'lJ ::: Olj~ ::: '" ~~ ..2! '" ~ .!S .~ ta "'-- l:: 1;5 ~ ~ tt ~..:::: <..l '-" ~::: 'BiCl ~ :.t:: '-" C:l ... <..l '(3 ..S; ::: ::: .- .- 'lJ 'lJ ~~ C:l C:l ~~ C:l C:l .!S ~ .:::::~ ;" 'lJ '" ;::. ~~ "- <..l ~~ . 0' 'Bi ... ~ ~::: 'lJ ._ is i;l ~ %l ;" ~ ~ ~ ;::;: .!S II II [/). [/). E-< E-< ~ ~ ... Cl 'lJ ... ~ C:l ~ ::: .:?fJ '" ~ C:l ~ 'lJ ~ ~ ... C:l ~ ..:::: 'lJ '" C:l 'lJ ... <..l .!S .0 -- ~ ::: ~ '" -Q ;" '" "-. 13 ~ 'lJ '" '0' ;" ... 'lJ ~-- 'lJ~ iSt "-. ~ ~ ;t:: l:!;"Cl1;5 .~ ~.s ~ "-. r::s 'lJ <..l <..l C:l G- ::: 'lJ ~ 'lJ 1:: 'lJ ~ C:l ;" ~ ~ C:l .!S .!S [/). E-< ~ [/). E-< ~ "-. Q '(3 C:l & <..l ~ ~ C:l ~ ~ C:l ;" ~ ~ C:l .!S .!S ;t:: ;" '" 'lJ c::: .~ "- ... Cl ~ ;" '" '" 1:: C:l ~ ... ~ ... Cl ",' ::: ..Sl ~ ",' 'lJ :~ -- Cl ~ ~ ~ [/). ~ ~ ~ f.;ol C:l !i; is ~ .~ "- f.;ol t) ::: u ~~ ~ 8 t: f.;ol "- Cl [/). <..l ~ Q .~::: Z i2 E < ~ 'lJ [/). ~.2: e:J ~ t !:: -- l:: ~ ;" 'lJ .... ~~ ~ [/). E-< ~ Q '(3 C:l & <..l 'lJ is~ ~:;:: 'lJ ::: ~~ " '" 'lJ-Q ~ ;" -- '" 5~ ;:: .;;: ..:::: Cl <..l ... .- ~ ..:::: ... ;:: Cl ... '" ~ 1:: C:l~ ;:: '" ~~ Cl 'lJ ~ ~ ... ::: ~.e ~. 1;~~ ~ ~ ~ ::: '" ... Cl C:l ~ <..l ;:: 'lJ ... 1:: "- Cl ... ..2! ~-8a %l ~ ~ ti ~ Cl "- ::: '" ~..Sl ~ '::::-, ~... Cl ... ;" ~ Cl ~ 'lJ Olj-- is .!S ~ ~~~ ;" " .- ~ 'lJ ~ ~':::-,~ ;::;: Cl C:l "--, <..l0f) 'lJ I ~~ c..., 'lJ ~ ~ i;lc..., Cl ~ c:: 'lJ is ~ '" 'lJ .2: "- C:l l:: ~ ~ t:-; ~ [/). E-< ~ ,,-' ::: 'lJ ~,s ~ ",' ~ C"-. ~ ;.::::: ta t'(3 ~ ;::~'S: ;:: 'lJ 'lJ ~-- ::: .- ~ "- to ::: 0"- 'lJ ::: ~ 1:: .S:; ~ ~ 13 S::.::: 1: .S:; ~ '" '" 'lJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ is ~ .;:: .!S '" .~ "- 'lJ '" -.. :.t:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~<..l Cl 'lJ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'S; C:l 8 ~ ~..:::: 'lJ ;::. <..l ~~:.;:: ~<..l~ '0' ~ Cl ... ~ :::' ~ ~ .8 :.t:: is~~ ~~~ ;" ti ~ ~~8 ::: "- ..Sl ~ c..., ~ ~c::: '" "- ~ g ~ ~ C:l::: c...,~ r::s ::: 'lJ 'lJ ::: 1:: 'SO ~ ~ .:; ;::. ~~ ;::~ ~ ~ C:l ... CjQ ~ a '""l ... 'lJ ..Q ~ <..l () Cl <..l '" '(3 ::: C:l ~ ::: r55 ':S ;" ~ ~ Q o ..... c.J Q) '-' o ... ~ "0 Q) '" o Q.. o ... ~ Q) -= N..... I 0 ..... ..... > '" Q) Q) :0 ,.5 ~ ~ E-- E Q) ..... < '- o = o '" 'i: ~ Q.. e o U f.;ol > .... E-< < Zu ~ f.;ol E-< ~ < Q) "Cl OJ:.~ ~.S ~ .s~e Q) ~ Q) ~~.= < f.;ol > .... E-< < Zi:I:l ~ f.;ol ~ < ..... c.J .~ ~ e'.~ ~~ "Cl = ~ a:s =.= "Cl< ~ < f.;ol > .... E-< < Z ~ f.;ol E-< ~ < :; OJJ", 0== "Cl'" ~ ~~~ .-.- ~ o~~~ Z........... c.J Q) Q) .~"Cl 5 e=~ ~~ E- Z f.;ol II I [/). [/). E-< E-< ~ ~ 'lJ 1:: ~'lJ ~"-. .!S ~ "- ~ C:l C:l .~ ~ {s<..l Cl''lJ ...~ ... 'lJ ~;" ~::: C:l Cl 'lJ tJ ;:: <..l ':S 1;3 1:: ~ ~_~ ~..:::: 'lJ ~ "'";:: '" :;:: ~~ ~1;3 ~~ ~~ ~tl fJ~ :::;" ~ ~ .S:; B ;::. ~ "- -, C:l 'lJ <..l ~ i;j... 1: <..l .- Cl '" 'lJ ~;:: ~ ':S ;;t 'lJ <..l ",' ",::: 'lJ 'lJ ... 'lJ ~:s ~~ s:::: ':";:::: ~ ~ ._ <..l ;:: Cl .:t::~ "-'" ;" Olj "-. 1;3 ~ i;j .!S t '(3 ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ 'lJ .s ~ .:: ~ ] ~ ;" ::: ::: 'lJ ::: ~Cl'lJElC:l ~ .- 1:: ..:::: tJ ,,-~:::,,-::: <..l C:l Cl <..l 'lJ 'lJ f::i.,':: 'lJ 1:: '0'" ;::. ~ ~ ... 'lJ ::: _ _ ~... 'lJ ~:;:: 'lJ Cl ~ ~ 1;3 ':S i;j S '-" Olj ~:;::~~::: ~ :-S os::; ~ ~ ~ <..l.~ ~'R ;::;:~"';::;:'lJ [/). E-< ~ [/). E-< ~ z ... ~ 'lJ "-. ~ os: ~ ta Cl 'lJ 1;3 Q ~ C S '(3 "- ~"- ~ ::: '" 1:: ~ 'lJ Cl 1:: <..l S~Cl~ C:l '--' <..l 'lJ ~ "t) ~. :t:: ~ C:l :::- .- ... 9.,:;:: ~ ~ ~"~ ~ C:l <..l " ~ ;:: 'lJ 'lJ "- ~ t ,'" 1;3 "- '" ;" ... .- 0.; C:l ~ 'lJ <..l ~ ;::~~ ~'lJ 'lJ C:l ;::. ;" ~ "- ..:::: ::: Cl '" '-' '-" .- ~ .!S ~ ~ ..si3'lJ':SCi ::: :: ':S .~ ~ ~' ~:::-2:::~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .- .-::: '" 1:: t):::: C:l C:l ... 'lJ ~ -- ;:: ~ '0' ~ C:l ~ ~ ~ ::: ..sa C:l 'lJ'- ~ '" ::: ..:::: ~ 'lJ ,'" .- '-" ::: ;::. "- .:t:: 'lJ C:l ... <..l ;" C 1:: i;l.~ i;j 'lJ ~ 'lJ i2 ...",~..Q~ t)~~t)'lJ 'lJ1::~~':S .~ ~ .~ i2 ~ ~ '" ~ ~~ 'lJ 'lJ '" 'lJ Cl ':Sc~':S1:: ~i;l<..l~1:: ;" "- .~ ;" 8 ~ C:l ... ~ <..l ;::;:':S~;::;:C:l ::E .. 00 00 ~ Eo-< Eo-< I ~ oo....:i...:i + II '" ::: ~ C:l -- ;" ~ ... ~ ::: C:l '" ~ ~ ~ '" -- C:l <..l ..S; --' C:l ... ~ ~ ':S .~ .0 ~"-. Cl ~ <..l '" "- C:l ~ ;:: '::::-,~ Cl ._ ...-- ~~ ~~ ~~ --~ ;" C:l ~"E 'S'S " " ... u u Uti=: ti=: ii's 'S ]3f3f 'S I I " 8 8 ~~-B "_ I I ::: 00 00 bJl 00 00 iZljj II II II "-'""l <..l0f) 'lJ I ~~ c..., 'lJ ~ ~ i;lc..., Cl ~ c:: 'lJ ':S ~ '" 'lJ .2: "- C:l l:: ~ ~ t:-; ~ ::: o ",g "~ :;s -;S ~ b "~ ~ +-" d: "c; ~ 1) d: "~ -B 1) P-; 8 ~ ~ ~ B ~ 13 ~ :3 's i2 50 .;;; .2l ... ... ... U U U " " " ]]] ... ... U U " " ]] ::: "- ..Sl ~ c..., ~ ~~ '" "- ~ g ~ ~ C:l::: c...,~ ::::s ::: 'lJ 'lJ ::: 1:: 'SO ~ ~ .:: ;::. ~~ ;::~ ~ ~ C:l ... CjQ