94-023 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RESOLUTION 94-023 46Z This alternative would generate 74 fewer a.m. vehicle trips than the proposed project (or 14.% less) and 691 fewer p.m. trips (or 40% less). Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would result in a net decrease of 691.98 pounds of CO; 75.14 pounds of ROC, 64.80 pounds of NO,, 0.17 pounds of SO., and 8.60 pounds of PM~o. Although this alternative would generate a reduction in these emissions, they would still exceed SCAQIVlD threshold limits for CO, ROC, and NOx. This alternative would reduce construction noise impacts and would reduce noise from vehicle trips and deliveries when compared to the proposed project. This alternative would result in consumption of 27% less building energy and 41% less vehicle fuel than the proposed project. Water consumption would be 32% less than the proposed project, wastewater generated would be 32% less, and solid waste generated would be 30% less. Generally, this alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project, but not superior to the Mixed Use Retail/Office Alternative. MIXED USE - RETAIL AND MULTI-SCREEN THEATER ALTERNATIVE The Mixed Use - Retail and Multi-Screen Theater Alternative would include a varied land use consistent with the general character of the area. This alternative would be comprised of a 78,012 square foot superstore, 898 square feet of restaurant, and a 1,500 seat multi-screen movie theater in addition to the existing 7,000 square feet of bank and 8,976 square feet of restaurant space. The proposed project's specialty retail shops would not be included. Although the impacts from this alternative would be similar to the project impacts in the areas of light and glare and geology and hydrology, it would lessen impacts in the areas of traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, and most public services and utilities. However, it would cause a much higher amount of solid waste gefieration due to a much higher generation rate for movie theaters. This alternative would generate a total of 12,698 daily vehicle trips, more than any other alternative. However, compared to the proposed project, this alternative would generate approximately 365 fewer trips during the a.m. peak hours or (68% less) and 828 fewer trips during the p.m. peak hours (or 48% less). Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would represent a net decrease of 589.24 pounds of CO, 63.53 pounds of ROC, 56.26 pounds of NOx, 0.25 pounds of SOu, and 7.44 pounds of PM,o. Although this option would result in a reduction in these enfissions, they would still exceed SCAQMD threshold limits for CO, ROC, and NOx. Construction noise wouM be less than that generated by the proposed project and the reductions in vehicle trips and deliveries would result in fewer noise impacts. This alternative would consume 30% less building energy and 34% less vehicular fuel than -34-