75C - PH - THE BOWERY - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR. Overall, the proposed change is consistent with the General Plan's guidance on designation of District Centers, and impacts would not occur. Comment 26: The comment asserts that the proposed project conflicts with the JWA AELUP and that the EIR does not contain substantial evidence that future residents would not be adversely affected by aircraft noise. The comment states that an onsite noise analysis was not conducted and that the EIR relies solely on the fact that the Project is located outside the 60 decibel or higher contour zone, and that the EIR needs to include site -specific facts relating to actual noise levels Response 26: This is a reiteration of a previous comment. Refer to Responses 8 and 15. Comment 27: The comment states that commenters request that the City revise and recirculate the Project's EIR to address the aforementioned concerns. Response 27: As described previous responses, the EIR has evaluated and disclosed potential environmental impacts pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. None of the issues raised by this comment letter would result in a significant new or increased environmental impact not previously disclosed in the EIR, or any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5. Thus, recirculation of the EIR is not warranted. Comment 28: The comment asserts that emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed, and that an updated EIR should be prepared. The comment also states that the air quality analysis is flawed because the input parameters used with CaIEEMod were not consistent with information disclosed in the Draft EIR and that vehicle emissions factors used to estimate the proposed Project's operational emissions were changed from the CaIEEMod default values without proper justification. The comment further contends that as a result, the Project's construction and operational emissions are underestimated and a new EIR should be prepared. Response 28: See Response to Comment 11 above. Comment 29: The comment asserts that the vehicle emission factors used to estimate the proposed Project's operational emissions were changed from the CaIEEMod default values without proper justification. Response 29: See Response to Comment 17. Comment 30: The comment asserts that the pass -by trip percentages utilized in the air quality model are inconsistent with the Traffic Impact Analysis and as a result the model may underestimate the Project's mobile -related operational emissions. Response 30: See Response to Comment 18 above. Comment 31: The comment asserts that the Saturday and Sunday trip rates are incorrect and that the number of vehicle trips is higher than the input parameter figures used in CaIEEMod and thus the trip estimates are incorrect and cannot be relied upon. Response 31: See Response to Comment 19 above. Comment 32: The comment states that the commercial -work trip length was manually increased in CaIEEMod and the Draft EIR fails to provide any justification for this increase. The comment further asserts that the model cannot be relied upon. 75C-203