CORRESPONDENCE - 50A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Executive Summ When evaluating the proposed Project compared to Alternative 2, Intensified Institutional Use and Alternative 3, Reduced Intensity and Reduced Density, both would result in less environmental impacts than the proposed Project. A key factor in the reduction of impacts is associated with the number of vehicle trips generated. The vehicle trips not only result in transportation impacts, they are associated with the generation of additional air emissions, incremental noise increases, and GHG Emissions. The greater the number of trips, the greater the level of impacts in these topical areas. Alternative 2 would reduce the overall trip generation by 1,608 ADT but the number of intersections and freeway ramps with direct impacts would be fairly comparable to the proposed Project. Comparatively, Alternative 3 would further reduce the trip generation to a total of 35,179 ADT compared to the proposed Project's 46,746 ADT (a reduction of 11,567 ADT or about a 25 percent reduction in trips generated with Alternative 3 when compared to the proposed Project). In addition to the greater reduction in environmental impacts, Alternative 3 would'better meet the objectives compared to Alternative 2. Therefore, when considering the environmental impacts and the ability to meet the objectives, Alternative 3 is the environmentally superior alternative. 1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOCUS AND EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT In accordance with Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the County prepared an Initial Study/ Environmental Checklist (the IS) for the proposed Project and distributed it, along with the Notice of Preparation (NOP), to responsible and interested agencies, and key interest groups. The IS/NOP was distributed to 40 agencies and individuals for a 30 -day review period beginning on November 7, 2014. In addition, notices regarding the availability of the IS/NOP were distributed to all property owners and occupants of businesses within 500 feet of the Project site. The IS/NOP was also posted on the County website. A scoping meeting was held on November 21, 2014, from 1:00 to 3:00 PM at Building 317 on the Project site. County staff were available to answer any questions about the proposed Project. A hand-out, providing an overview of the proposed Project, the Project alternatives, and Project schedule was distributed. Comment cards were available for attendees to submit at the meeting or mail to County staff. Approximately 20 people attended the scoping meeting (13 people signed the sign -in sheet). In response to the comments received, the County provided additional opportunity for input on the scope of the EIR, and the comment period extended from June 6, 2015 through July 3, 2015. The extension was noticed in the newspaper and approximately 400 notices were sent to the adjacent cities and properties. An additional scoping meeting was held on October 23, 2015, with a comment period that extended from October 9, 2015 through November 7, 2015. A similar noticing process occurred for this meeting. During these additional scoping periods, seven additional comments were received. A summary of the issues raised in the IS/NOP comment letters is provided in Section 2.3 of this EIR. Copies of the IS/NOP, its distribution list, comments received on the IS/NOP, and the hand-outs made available at the Scoping Meetings are included in Appendix B of this EIR. A total of 13 comment letters were received during the 30 -day IS/NOP review period. Two additional comment letters were received after the end of the IS/NOP review period. During the additional scoping periods, seven additional comments were received. 1-8 EL TORO, 100 -ACRE PARCEL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT