04 ATTACHMENT 17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Attachment 17 EXHIBIT "A" Analysis of Lack of Significant New Information From the Concurrent Extension The following analysis demonstrates, for each category of environmental analysis in Chapter 3 of the EIR, that revising the Project to include the Concurrent Extension would nor require recirculation. As discussed below, the impacts of the Project are generally the same under either the Concurrent Extension or the Deferred Extension because constructing Stoneridge Drive as part of the initial phase of the project instead of in 2030 does not change the proposed uses of the project. There are, however, four instances where it appears that constructing Stoneridge Drive under the Concurrent Extension rather than the Deferred Extension may result in transportation impacts that are different from chose identified in the EIR's Project-level transportation analysis. We have defined these impacts as "Concurrent Extension Impacts." The Concurrent Extension Impacts do not require recirculation because the Draft EIR discloses each of these impacts either as a cumulative impact of the Project or as a project-level impact of the Existing Specific Plan Alternative. The Foregoing analysis applies equally to the impacts of the Concurrent Extension with the lee Center Alternative, should it be adopted instead of the Project. As a consequence, the analysis below separately discusses the impacts of the Ice Center Alternative only to the extent they are likely to differ from the impacts of the Project with the Concurrent Extension. 3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Quality While the Concurrent Extension would widen segments of Stoneridge Drive at an earlier date than the Deferred Extension, the Concurrent Extension would not add new construction or roadways elsewhere on the project site chat would result in new impacts to scenic resources, visual character, or light and glare. Accordingly, revising the Project to include the Concurrent Extension wuuld not result in new significant aesthetics and visual quality impacts, or subs[antial increases in previously idemified aesthetics and visual quality impacts. 3.2 Air uali Revising the Project to include the Concurrent Extension would not result in new significant air quality impacts, or sthstanrial increases in previously identified air quality impacts. A. ImpactAQ-I. Conflicts with an applicable air quality plan. The Draft EIR concludes that, with the Deferred Extension, the Project will not conflict with an applicable air quality plan, resulting in a less than significant impact (Impact AQ- l, Draft EIR, page 3.2-11.) As with the Deferred Extension, construction of the Concurrent Exrension would nor result in conflicts with an applicable air quality plan. ~Phe Draft EIR indicates thaz the applicable air quality plan is based on the 1989 Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan. The 1989 ~AS~1'~I1:'15 ivy