Laserfiche WebLink
EXHIBIT "A" <br />traffic control, Table 5 -1 still would identify Alternative Site No. 8 as having more severe <br />impacts to transportation/traffic as compared to the proposed project. This is because this <br />alternative would result in the introduction of a new significant unavoidable impact to <br />parking, and because this alternative would fail to completely eliminate significant <br />unavoidable impacts due to other forms of required traffic control. Therefore, there are no <br />changes required in Table 5 -1. <br />Section V.C.6 (Alternative Site 12) <br />Although the precise duration of construction activities cannot be determined without <br />final engineering details that go beyond CEQA's requirement for alternatives analyses, <br />the Draft FEIR has nonetheless been revised to indicate a slight reduction in impacts to <br />air quality /greenhouse gas emissions due to a slight reduction in the construction <br />schedule since this alternative would not require the construction of a sewer bypass. <br />Table 5 -1 also has been updated to show reduced impacts to both air quality /greenhouse <br />gas emissions and hydrology /water quality. As a result, the Draft FEIR now concludes <br />that this alternative would be environmentally equal to the proposed Project. <br />Note that the overlap of construction phases that these comments suggest would be <br />possible, would actually increase daily emissions due to the intensification of <br />construction activities since the SCAQMD measures air quality impacts based on daily <br />emissions. The EIR conservatively assumes that such overlap of construction activities <br />would not occur so as to minimize air quality impacts associated with this alternative. <br />Please refer to the response provided above in Sections V.13 and V.C.3 for responses to <br />the comments on parking impacts. <br />Furthermore, and as with Alternative Site No. 7, even if the Draft FEIR were to identify <br />reduced impacts to transportation/traffic due to the elimination of some of the proposed <br />project's less than significant impacts caused by traffic control, Table 5 -1 still would <br />identify Alternative Site No. 12 as having more severe impacts to transportation/traffic as <br />compared to the proposed project. This is because this alternative would result in the <br />introduction of a new significant unavoidable impact to parking, and because this <br />alternative would fail to completely eliminate significant unavoidable impacts due to <br />other forms of required traffic control. Therefore, there are no changes required in Table <br />5 -1. <br />In fact, this alternative's reduction in the duration of significant unavoidable impacts due <br />to traffic control would only comprise three (3) days (Draft FEIR Page 5 -75). This level <br />of reduction does not comprise a "substantial lessening" of the proposed project's <br />significant unavoidable impact to traffic. This alternative would therefore fail to meet <br />CEQA's stated purpose for consideration of alternative site locations [CEQA Guidelines <br />Section 15126.6(f)(2)]. <br />The commenter is correct that Table 5 -1 erroneously indicates that impacts to <br />hydrology /water quality would increase under this alternative. With the revision for both <br />air quality /greenhouse gases and hydrology /water quality, the corrected score in Table 5- <br />55A -128 <br />