Academy Museum EIR Errata (6-11-15) Errata ¢â‚¬â€œ Academy...
Embed Size (px)
Transcript of Academy Museum EIR Errata (6-11-15) Errata ¢â‚¬â€œ Academy...
ERRATA TO THE FINAL EIR ACADEMY MUSEUM OF MOTION PICTURES PROJECT
CASE NUMBER: ENV‐2013‐1531‐EIR
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2013051086
PCR Services Corporation June 2015
City of Los Angeles Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Project SCH #2013051086 i
Table of Contents Page
ERRATA – ACADEMY MUSEUM OF MOTION PICTURES PROJECT FINAL EIR A. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 B. Errata ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2
Attachments Attachment A Environmental Strategies Diagram Attachment B Supplemental Noise Analysis Memorandum – View Deck (June 1, 2015) Attachment C Supplemental Traffic and Parking Analysis Memorandum (June 11, 2015) Attachment D Correspondence from City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation (April 8, 2015) Attachment E Supplemental Sewer Capacity Memorandum (May 11, 2015)
City of Los Angeles Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Project SCH #2013051086 1
ERRATA – ACADEMY MUSEUM OF MOTION PICTURES PROJECT FINAL EIR
A. INTRODUCTION PCR Services Corporation (“PCR”) has prepared this Errata to address minor design changes and refinements to the proposed Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Project (“Museum” or “Project”) and to clarify and supplement relevant information and analysis provided in the Final Environmental Impact Report,1 (“Final EIR”) for the Project. The information provided herein does not represent significant new information that would affect the analysis or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR. CEQA requires recirculation of a Draft EIR only when “significant new information” is added to a Draft EIR after public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR has occurred (refer to California Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5), but before the EIR is certified. Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines specifically states: “New information added to an EIR is not ‘significant’ unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. ‘Significant new information’ requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.”
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 also provides that “[r]ecirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR... A decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.”
This information added to the Final EIR in this Errata does not contain significant new information that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse effect environmental effect of the Project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the Applicant has declined to adopt. Additionally, information provided in this Errata does not present a feasible Project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed in the Draft EIR. All of the information added to the Final EIR pursuant to this Errata merely clarifies, corrects, adds to, or makes 1 Case Number: ENV‐2013‐1531‐EIR, State Clearinghouse Number: 2013051086.
Errata – Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Project Final EIR June 2015
City of Los Angeles Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Project SCH #2013051086 2
insignificant modifications to information in the Draft EIR. The City has reviewed the information in this Errata and has determined that it does not change any of the basic findings or conclusions of the Final EIR, does not constitute “significant new information” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, and does not require recirculation of the Draft EIR.
This Errata, combined with the Draft EIR and Final EIR, including technical appendices and reports thereof, comprise the Final EIR.
B. ERRATA The following additional information comprises this Errata and includes minor design and operational changes and refinements to the Project that have been proposed since circulation of the Draft EIR and publishing of the Final EIR, as well as correspondence received from the City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation, Wastewater Engineering Services Division.
1. Sphere and View Deck As part of design refinements to the Project, more specificity has been provided regarding openings that would be provided in the Sphere and associated View Deck area for access, ventilation, and terrace areas. The View Deck’s design was generally characterized on page 2‐2 of the Draft EIR as an enclosed space. The size of the View Deck, approximately 10,300 square feet, has not been increased.
Although the majority of the View Deck area would be covered, the sustainable design of the Sphere and View Deck would provide openings and small outdoor terrace spaces on the north, south and at the crown of the Sphere to allow for wind induced cross ventilation. The combination of cross ventilation with an internal shade system with a low‐e coating would limit temperature extremes on the View Deck and reduce energy consumption. In summer, the View Deck environment would be comparable to the experience below a shade structure with a breeze. In winter, the temperatures on the View Deck would stay above the ambient by calibrating the solar gains with the thermal mass of the View Deck floor. A radiant floor system is being considered to fine tune the temperatures at floor level. The cross ventilation and solar radiation of the Sphere and View Deck during summer and winter are illustrated in the Environmental Strategies Diagram, included in Attachment A of this Errata.
The openings in the Sphere as now conceived have been assessed to address the potential for noise impacts to off‐site receptors. The specifics of the noise evaluation are provided in a Supplemental Noise Analysis Memorandum, included as Appendix B of this Errata. As described therein, transparent acoustical absorbers below the glass and along the rear wall of the Sphere would improve the space acoustics and reduce the noise transfer to the outside from the View Deck, and, with the following Project Design Feature PDF‐NOISE‐ 5, Sphere and View Deck Outdoor Sound Amplification Limits, noise levels would be less than significant and less than the noise levels that had been predicted for outdoor events on the Piazza, which are also less than significant:
PDF‐NOISE‐5, Sphere and View Deck Outdoor Sound Amplification Limits: The final design and/or operation of the Sphere and View Deck space sound levels shall not exceed a performance standard of 74 dBA and 77 dBC at the outside edge of any openings to the structure covering the View Deck. Amplified sound and speakers shall be prohibited on
June 2015 Errata – Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Project Final EIR
City of Los Angeles Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Project SCH #2013051086 3
any terrace area of the Sphere should one be added in the final design, and occupancy of this area after 10 P.M. shall be prohibited.
2. Small Basement Theater The design for the small theater located in the basement, as described on pages 2‐12 and 2‐13 of the Draft EIR, has been refined to accommodate stadium like “raked” seating and additional basement storage area beneath the theater. Although these changes would not alter floor area or the number of seats (275), which does not include basement storage area, there would be an increase in total excavation quantities, from 5,862 cubic yards of soil, as stated on page 4.D‐15 of the Draft EIR to 12,837 cubic yards, as well as an increase in the depth