ERRATA TO THE FINAL EIR

Transcription

1 DRAFT EIR ERRATA TO THE FINAL EIR The following paragraphs in Section 6.0, Alternatives, are edited as follows: The following discussion evaluates alternatives to the Proposed Project and examines the potential of each alternative to avoid or substantially lessen its potential environmental impacts. CEQA requires the comparison of environmentally superior alternatives in an EIR. As the only significant and unavoidable impact for this Proposed Project is air quality during construction, it is the one impact comparison discussed for each Alternative. While the Proposed Project is not anticipated to result in significant traffic impacts, a traffic impact analysis is provided for each alternative for informational and decision-making purposes only. Through comparison of these alternatives to the Proposed Project, the relative environmental advantages and disadvantages of each are weighed and analyzed. Based on the CEQA Guidelines, several factors need to be considered in determining the range of alternatives to be analyzed in the 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) the ability of alternatives to avoid or lessen the significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project, (3) the ability of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the Proposed Project, and (4) the feasibility of the alternatives. The analysis in this EIR shows that all impacts of the Proposed Project can either be mitigated to a level of less than significant or are less than significant. The alternatives examined herein represent alternatives that are intended to reduce or avoid certain the significant but mitigable impacts associated with implementation of the Proposed Project. As required by Section of the CEQA Guidelines, this section of the EIR examines a range of reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Project. A Reduced Project alternative to lessen the significant and unavoidable impact on air quality during construction was considered, as discussed below, but rejected as infeasible. In addition, the following paragraphs and subsequent tables in Section 6.0, Alternatives, subsection, 6.2, Alternative 2: Commercial Development in Accordance with Current General Plan Designation, are edited as follows: As shown in Table 6-2, the maximum daily emissions of ROGs during construction for Alternative 2 would be substantially higher than those of the Proposed Project, primarily owing to the application of architectural coatings. According to SCAQMD Rule 1113, architectural coatings used on commercial buildings may emit higher ROGs than those used on residential buildings, which would result in higher ROG emissions for Alternative 2 than the Proposed Project, even though the Proposed Project has a larger building footprint; but, similar to the Proposed Project, maximum daily ROG emissions would exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 75 lbs/day. No other SCAQMD thresholds or Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) would be exceeded. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would apply to reduce ROG emissions by applying lowemission architectural coatings and extending the duration of painting. Overall impacts on air quality during construction would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 1-1 September 2016

2 Table 6-2 Alternative 2 Construction Emissions Alternative 2 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 2017 Maximum Estimated Maximum Emissions (lbs/day) 1 ROG NOX CO PM10 PM Alternative 2 Maximum Daily On-Site Construction Emissions 2017 Maximum On-Site On-Site n/a 193 1, Proposed Project Maximum Daily Construction Emissions for Comparison 2017 Maximum n/a 193 1, Notes: All calculations were made using CalEEMod. See Appendix E (Appendix C) for calculations. Grading, Paving, Building Construction, and Architectural Coating totals include worker trips, soil export hauling trips, construction vehicle emissions, and fugitive dust. Numbers may not add up due to rounding error 1. Grading phases incorporate anticipated emissions reductions from the conditions listed above, which are required by SCAQMD Rule 403 to reduce fugitive dust. The architectural coating phases incorporate anticipated emissions reductions from the conditions listed above, which are required by Rule LSTs are for a acre Project in SRA-6 within a distance of 82 feet from the site boundary. 1-2 September 2016

3 Table 6-3 Alternative 2 Operational Emissions Estimated Maximum Emissions (lbs/day) Emissions Source ROG NOX CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 Vehicles Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption, 16.8 Landscaping, Consumer Products < Subtotal Existing Emissions to be Removed 1 (13.1) (19.4) (89.5) (0.1) (8.4) (2.4) Net Emissions Increase - Alternative SCAQMD Thresholds Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Proposed Project Net Operational Emissions for Comparison SCAQMD Thresholds Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No See Appendix E (Appendix C)for CalEEMod computer model output. Note: Numbers may not add up due to rounding. ( ) indicates subtraction, Numbers may not add due to rounding 1. See Table in Section 4.1, Air Quality Likewise, the following paragraphs and subsequent tables in Section 6.0, Alternatives, subsection, 6.3, Alternative 3: Mixed-Use, are edited as follows: As shown in Table 6-9, maximum daily emissions of ROGs for Alternative 3 would be higher than those of the Proposed Project, primarily owing to emissions from architectural coatings. The discussion above regarding Alternative 2 states that according to SCAQMD Rule 1113, architectural coatings used on commercial buildings may emit higher ROGs than those used on residential buildings. This use would result in higher ROG emissions for Alternative 3 than the Proposed Project, even though the Proposed Project has a larger building footprint. Similar to the Proposed Project, maximum daily ROG emissions for Alternative 3 would exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 75 lbs/day, but no other SCAQMD thresholds or LSTs would be exceeded. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would apply to reduce ROG emissions by applying lowemission architectural coatings and extending the duration of painting. 1-3 September 2016

4 Table 6-9 Alternative 3 Construction Emissions Estimated Maximum Emissions (lbs/day) 1 Alternative 3 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 2017 Maximum ROG NOX CO PM10 PM Alternative 3 Maximum Daily On-Site Construction Emissions 2017 Maximum On-Site On-Site n/a 193 1, Proposed Project Maximum Daily Construction Emissions for Comparison 2017 Maximum n/a 193 1, Notes: All calculations were made using CalEEMod. See Appendix E (Appendix C) for calculations. Grading, Paving, Building Construction, and Architectural Coating totals include worker trips, soil export hauling trips, construction vehicle emissions, and fugitive dust. Numbers may not add up due to rounding error 1. Grading phases incorporate anticipated emissions reductions from the conditions listed above, which are required by SCAQMD Rule 403 to reduce fugitive dust. The architectural coating phases incorporate anticipated emissions reductions from the conditions listed above, which are required by Rule LSTs are for a acre Project in SRA-6 within a distance of 82 feet from the site boundary. 1-4 September 2016

5 Emissions Source Vehicles Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption, Landscaping, Consumer Products Subtotal Table 6-10 Alternative 3 Operational Emissions Estimated Maximum Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOX CO SOx PM10 PM < Existing Emissions to be Removed 1 (13.1) (19.4) (89.5) (0.1) (8.4) (2.4) Net Emissions Increase - Alternative SCAQMD Thresholds Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No See Appendix E (Appendix C) for CalEEMod computer model output. Note: Numbers may not add up due to rounding. ( ) indicates subtraction, Numbers may not add due to rounding 1. See Table in Section 4.1, Air Quality h. Alternative 3 Summary. Most mitigation measures for the Proposed Project would apply to Alternative 3, allowing impacts to be mitigated to less than significant levels except for impacts on air quality from construction activities. Construction air quality and Operational impacts for Alternative 3 would be greater than for the Proposed Project. Alternative 3 would increase trip generation relative to the existing conditions by an estimated 3,865 average daily trips, 120 additional trips during the A.M. peak hours and 273 additional trips during the P.M. peak hours. Traffic impacts would occur at one of the studied intersections during the P.M. peak hours (Topanga Canyon Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard). Further analysis would be required to determine whether additional impacts would occur outside of the current study area. Due to the increase in traffic, this alternative would result in higher CO levels at local intersections. Operational emissions for Alternative 3 in all categories would also increase relative to the Proposed Project. However, neither Alternative 3 nor the Proposed Project would generate emissions exceeding SCAQMD thresholds. 1-5 September 2016

6 This page left intentionally blank 1-6 September 2016