6.0 ALTERNATIVES 6.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT 6.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: BUTTRESS FILL Description Impact Analysis. 6.2.

Transcription

1 6.0 ALTERNATIVES As required by Section of the CEQA Guidelines, this section of the EIR examines a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that could feasibly achieve similar objectives to those of the proposed project while reducing or eliminating the proposed project s environmental effects. Included in this analysis is one alternative that involves a different development scenario for the street and the CEQA-required no project alternative. These alternatives are: Alternative 1: No Project Alternative 2: Buttress Fill Each of these alternatives is described and analyzed below for the issue areas studied in the EIR. This section also discusses alternative sites, alternatives considered but rejected, and the environmentally superior alternative among those studied. 6.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT Description This alternative assumes that the proposed Rambla Pacifico roadway alignment project is not implemented and that no change from current site conditions occurs Impact Analysis The No Project alternative would involve no changes to the physical environment and thus would have no environmental effects, either adverse or beneficial. As such, this alternative would have generally reduced impacts with respect to both biological resources and geology. No mitigation measures would be required for the No Project alternative. Overall impacts would be typically lower than those of the proposed project since no change to environmental conditions would occur. However, the project site would continue to be located on an active landslide area. In addition, it should be noted that the proposed project would improve the factor of safety at some locations, notably in some areas of the off-site residential properties to the west. This alternative would not achieve this benefit and conditions would remain as they presently exist. Additionally, travel distance and emergency access would remain greater (5 miles) with this alternative as opposed to the proposed project s travel distance of 1 mile. It should also be noted that the No Project alternative would not implement any of the project objectives, including those regarding public safety access. 6.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: BUTTRESS FILL Description This alternative would involve the reconstruction of Rambla Pacifico Street as previously proposed. The main difference between this alternative and the proposed project is the use of 6-1

2 buttress fill below Rambla Pacifico at the southern end of the project boundary on the La Costa Tennis Club property (3850 Rambla Pacifico). All other aspects of the road construction are similar to the proposed project. Under this alternative, the buttress fill would extend from the road alignment to approximately 15 feet from the northernmost tennis court on the Tennis Club property. By comparison, the grading activities associated with proposed project would be located about 90 feet from the tennis courts. Figure 6-1 illustrates the location and size of the buttress fill that would occur with this alternative. The purpose of the buttress fill in this alternative is to ensure the stability of the hillside. It should be noted that the board of the Tennis Club has not given permission for the buttress fill to occur on the property Impact Analysis As discussed below, implementation of Alternative 2 would result in incrementally higher impacts to biological resources and incrementally lower impacts to geology as compared to the proposed roadway alignment. This alternative would implement the goals of the proposed project and meet the geotechnical factor of safety requirements of the City. a. Biological Resources. This alternative would result in slightly higher impacts to biological resources due to the increased project footprint associated with the buttress fill in the southern portion of the project. This alternative includes buttress fill that would occur about 15 feet away from the northernmost tennis court, while the proposed project footprint would be located approximately 90 feet away from the existing tennis courts. Due to the use of buttress fill, Alternative 2 would result in increased disturbance of adjacent ESHA and encroachment into the dripline of protected sycamore trees. All of the mitigation measures recommended for the proposed project would apply and would reduce biological resource impacts to a less than significant level. Nevertheless, this alternative s residual impacts would be somewhat higher than those of the proposed project. b. Geology. This alternative would result in increased ground disturbance and would include buttress fill and gradients in the southern portion of the roadway alignment in place of the proposed caisson stabilization system. Alternative 2 would be located in cross section A-A of the GeoKinetics analysis previously prepared for the project, which includes a factor of safety of 1.79 for post-buttress fill. No other factors of safety along the entire roadway alignment would be affected by implementation of Alternative 2. Additionally, all other studied geological impacts associated with implementation of Alternative 2 would be similar to those of the proposed project and all mitigation measures would apply. Based on the factor of safety analysis prepared by GeoKinetics, dated November 10, 2009 (See Appendix C), the proposed project would have a factor of safety above 1.5 at cross section A-A. Alternative 2 would have a higher factor of safety as compared to the proposed project at cross section A-A (1.79 versus 1.5). All other studied cross sections-sections along the alignment would have the same factor of safety as the proposed project. Although cross section A-A for Alternative 2 has an adequate factor of safety, similar to the proposed project, other factors of safety along the roadway alignment do not, and therefore, impacts would remain unavoidably significant. Therefore, all mitigation measures recommended for the proposed project would apply. 6-2

3 N Scale in Feet Drawing Source: J T Engineering, August, Alternative 2: Buttress Fill Figure 6-1

4 6.3 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE SITES The evaluation of alternative sites is subject to special consideration under CEQA. The California Supreme Court, in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990), indicated that a discussion of alternative sites is needed if the project may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner considering the economic, environmental, social, and technological factors involved at another site. As suggested in Goleta, several criteria form the basis of whether alternative sites need to be considered in detail. These criteria take the form of the following questions: 1. Could the size and other characteristics of another site physically accommodate the project? 2. Is another site reasonably available for acquisition? 3. Is the timing of carrying out development on an alternative site reasonable for the applicant? 4. Is the project economically feasible on another site? 5. What are the land use designation(s) of alternative sites? 6. Does the lead agency have jurisdiction over alternative sites? 7. Are there any social, technological, or other factors that may make the consideration of alternative sites infeasible? The proposed roadway alignment involves the demolition, grading, and reconstruction of a portion of Rambla Pacifico Street in an active landslide area. The proposed roadway alignment objective is to connect the northern and southern portions of Rambla Pacifico Street. As such, the proposed alignment was an alternative to the North Route, which was rejected, as discussed below. Therefore, the project objective of reestablishing a former transportation link precludes the alternative for other roadway alignment sites. 6.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED The originally examined six alternatives for the road alignment, including the two alternatives analyzed above. The remaining four alternatives were considered, but rejected as infeasible. These alternatives are introduced and discussed below. The first alternative, called the North Route, which is also known as Poulin Road or Pops Pass route, was originally approved by the Malibu Planning Commission in December The North Route passes over 900 feet of landslide debris and then by way of Poulin Road and Las Flores Canyon Road to Pacific Coast Highway, a total of 1.3 miles. Traffic from residential units traveling to Pacific Coast Highway would have to turn onto Las Flores Creek Road before reaching Pacific Coast Highway, while the proposed alignment would provide a shorter route not requiring trips on Las Flores Creek Road. The north route is not only longer, but technically more elaborate than the proposed alignment. In particular, it would require widening Poulin Road to 20 feet and, along one stretch, a pile-supported retaining wall. 6-5

5 The North Route alignment runs through private property. Through a series of negotiations and meetings between the owner and the applicant, the North Route has been determined to be economically infeasible. The second alternative was to connect Rambla Pacifico to Calle Del Barco. This would be the shortest route, about 400 feet, but would require buying a burned-out lot from the 1993 fire. This alternative was deemed infeasible when the homeowner refused to sell the lot and has rebuilt a home there. Additionally, the road grade would be well over 20 percent, which is the LACFD s requirement for road use. Furthermore, this route would also direct traffic from Rambla Pacifico into the La Costa area, which is already very congested and neighbors have opposed any new accessways into the area. The third alternative was to rebuild Rambla Pacifico within the exact same alignment as before it failed due to the landslide. The alternative was abandoned because engineering determined that it would require the placement of over fifty caissons connected together, almost building a bridge. The cost to construct this alternative was estimated at $10 million dollars. Additionally, this route would be the most obtrusive in terms of ESHA and encroachments into the Las Flores Creek buffer. This route has been determined to be economically infeasible and not the least environmentally damaging alternative. The fourth alternative was to connect the southern portion of Rambla Pacifico to Paseo Hidalgo or Rambla Orienta instead of to the northern portion of Rambla Pacifico. Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would be approximately 1,100 linear feet shorter for the Paseo Hidalgo connection and 1,225 linear feet shorter for the Rambla Orienta connection. However, this alternative was dismissed as it did not achieve the project objectives of providing a direct and safer route for residents and emergency responders to homes located accessible via upper Rambla Pacifico as this alternative would not provide a direct street linkage. 6.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Table 6-1 provides a summary comparison of the proposed project and alternatives. The table indicates both the magnitude of each impact for each alternative (Class I, II, III, or IV) and how the impact for each alternative compares to the proposed project (superior [+], similar [=], or inferior [-]). All impacts other than landslide stability can be mitigated to a less than significant level with all of the alternatives, including the proposed project. All of the studied alternatives would be environmentally superior to the proposed project in certain respects. The No Project alternative would avoid all impacts of the proposed project, but would not meet the basic project objective. 6-6

6 Alternative 2 would result in incrementally higher biological impacts as a result of increased ground and vegetation disturbance and the encroachment into buffer zones of protected trees associated with the buttress fill. However, as identified previously, this alternative would result in a slightly higher factor of safety at the location of the buttress fill than the proposed project and thus lower geologic impacts. All other geology impacts would be similar to the proposed project. Overall impacts would be roughly the same as compared to the proposed project. A determination of whether this alternative is environmentally superior is dependent upon which issue is deemed of greater importance. Issue Table 6-1 Environmental Superior Alternative Comparison Proposed Project Impact Level Alt 1 No Project Alt 2 Buttress Fill Biological Resources ESHA II IV/+ II/- Protected trees II IV/+ II/- Golden eagle habitat III IV/+ III/- Nesting habitat II IV/+ II/- Silvery legless lizard and coastal western whiptail II IV/+ II/- habitat San Diego desert woodrat habitat II IV/+ II/- Monarch butterfly impacts II IV/+ II/= Increased erosion to Las Flores Creek II IV/+ II/- Geology/Soils Groundshaking II IV/+ II/= Seismic Settling II IV/+ II/= Expansive Soils II IV/+ II/= Erosion of Construction II/- II IV/+ * Soil Materials Landslide Stability I III/= II/+ I = Unavoidably significant impact + Superior to the proposed project II = Significant but mitigable impact - Inferior to the proposed project III = Less than significant impact = Similar impact to the proposed project IV = No Impact or Beneficial * The overall impact is rate equal to that of the proposed project because, while the no project alternative would not have the project s unavoidably significant impact, it also would not achieve the improved safety factors that would occur in some locations with the proposed project. 6-7

7 This page intentionally left blank. 6-8