04 ATTACHMENT 17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan assumes the Concurrent Extension and approximately twice as many trips as the Project. The Concurrent Extension, like the Deferred Extension, would generate fewer trips than assumed in the adopted air quality plan and, consequently, would result in growth and local traffic congestion at levels below the baseline assumed by the adopted air quality plan. Revising the Project to include the Concurrent Extension would, therefore, just as with the Deferred Extension, result in a less than significant impact to applicable air quality plans. While the Ice Center Alternative would generate more trips than the Project, the 1989 Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan would still generate more than 1.5 times as many trips. The Tce Center Alternative with the Concurrent Extension would, therefore, still resul[ in a less than significant impact to applicable air quality plans. B. ImpactAQ-2. Short-term air quality emissions. The Draft EIR concludes that, with the Deferred Extension, the Project will result in less than significant short-term air quality impacts after mitigation. (Impact AQ-2, Dra& EIR, page 3.2-12J The construction of two additional lanes of Stoneridge Drive as part of the Project. wide the Concurrent Extension would generate slightly more construction-related emissions than with the Deferred Extension. However, the dust control measures of mitigation measure AQ-2.l would apply to reduce the additional impacts of the Concurrent Extension ro a less than significant level. C. ImpactAQ-3. Regional emissions. "the Draft EIR concludes that, with the Deferred Extension, the Project will result in significant and unavoidable regional emission impacts after mitigation. (Impact AQ-3, Draft EIR, page 3.2-13.) The regional emissions analysis of the Dra& EIR is based on the trip gcncra[ion rates of the project, which will not change with the Concurrent Exrension. Regional emissions impacts therefore will remain significant and unavoidable under the Concurrent Extension, as with the Deferred Extension. D. ImpactAQ-4. Localized carbon monoxide air quality impacts. The Draf~ EIR concludes that, with the Deferred Extension, the Project will result in less than significant localized carbon monoxide air quality impacts. (Impact AQ-4, Draft EIR, page 3.2-16.) The Draft EIR based its analysis of localized carbon monoxide air quality impacts under 2015 conditions that assumed the Concurrent Extension. The Draft EIR therefore has already analyzed the impacts of the Concurrent Extension on localized air quality. E. ImpactAQ-S. Toxic air contaminants. The Draft F.IR concludes that, with the Deferred Extension, the Project will result in less than significant toxic air contaminant impacts after mitigation. (Impact AQ-5. Draf[ EIR, page 3.2-17.) Potential exposure of onsite residents to toxic air contaminants due ro proximity ro I-580 would not change under Concurrent Extension because it would nor alter the distance between the Project's senior housing uses and I-580. The impact of the Concurrent Extension therefore would be dre same as the impact of the Deferred Extension assumed in the Draft EIR. Potential exposure of off-site residents and nearby schools would be the same with the Concurrent Extension because, as stated in the Draft EIR, "the proposed project would not cause area roadways (other than I-580) ssns3~iz°~~ss~s