APPENDIX G. Alternatives Background: Air Quality, GHG and Transportation and Circulation

Transcription

1 APPENDIX G Alternatives Background: Air Quality, GHG and Transportation and Circulation Marin General Hospital Replacement Building Project G-1 ESA / Draft EIR August 2012

2 This page intentionally left blank G-2

3 Memo To: Cc: Ron Peluso, Navigant Crescentia Brown, ESA Date: August 2012 From: Subject: James A. Reyff Marin General Hospital Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis We reviewed the description of project alternatives and the associated traffic that they would generate to qualitatively assess the impacts to air quality. In addition, the potential for the alternatives to produce increased greenhouse gas emissions was also analyzed. The air quality and greenhouse gas impacts are discussed relative to the proposed project and no-project alternatives. Impacts of those alternatives were quantified in the air quality and greenhouse gas report. This assessment assumes that a decrease in project size that reduces emissions would not be offset by changes to another facility that was not evaluated within the scope of our studies (i.e., facilities elsewhere are expanded to accommodate capacity or services no longer offered by the project). The proposed project was found to have significant construction period impacts. These significant impacts could result in significant air pollutant emissions (i.e., NOx emissions from equipment and trucks), generate significant fugitive dust emissions without proper implementation of Best Management Practices, and cause a potentially significant health risk in terms of excess cancer risk caused by diesel particulate matter emissions from construction equipment operation. Mitigation measures were identified to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Operational air quality impacts from the project, as measured by daily emissions of ROG, NOx, PM 10 exhaust, and PM 2.5 exhaust, were predicted to be less than significant. Localized impacts to air quality and odors were found to be less-than significant. The difference between existing and proposed project annual emissions would be greater than 1,100 metric tons and the project would have annual emissions greater than 4.6 metric tons per capita, prior to mitigation measures (GHG-2), which would reduce the impact to less than significant. Per capita emissions were computed by dividing the proposed net change in project emissions by the service population, which is the number of workers utilized by the project. CEQA No Project Alternative 1.2 Construction under this alternative would be substantially less than the proposed project. There would not be construction of a new hospital building or parking structures. Construction of the ambulatory services space would involve renovation of the existing hospital. As a result, this alternative would result in much lower construction period emissions. Air quality impacts during construction would be potentially significant for fugitive dust and require best management practices, as recommended in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and outlined under Mitigation Measure AIR-3. Less than significant construction period impacts with respect to criteria air pollutant emissions and community G-3

4 August 23, 2012 Memo 2 risk impacts (e.g., excess cancer risk) would occur under this alternative. Operational air quality impacts would be slightly higher than the proposed project, but less than significant. Greenhouse gas emissions would be similar to the proposed project. This alternative is estimated to have emissions above the BAAQMD threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year, and with mitigation measures (GHG-2), below the percent reduction required to align with AB 32 goals. Since the project emissions would be well above the per capita threshold for existing and proposed project, this alternative is anticipated to also have greenhouse gas emissions above this threshold under this alternative. Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would reduce the impact under this alternative to a level of less than significant. CEQA Project Alternative 3 Construction under this alternative would be less than the proposed project, because there would be no ASB constructed and only one parking structure would be constructed. Therefore, lower construction emissions are anticipated. Without mitigation, construction of the hospital replacement building could result in localized significant community risk impacts (i.e., excess cancer risk). This impact is similar to the proposed project and could be mitigated through proper selection of construction equipment, as outlined in Mitigation Measure AIR-2. Construction activity would be at least 15 percent less than the proposed project, so daily construction emissions would be below the significance thresholds. Air quality impacts during construction would be potentially significant for fugitive dust and require best management practices, as recommended in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and outlined under Mitigation Measure AIR-3. Operational air quality impacts would be less than the proposed project, which were less than significant. Greenhouse gas emissions would be higher than existing conditions with this alternative, but the increase would be lower than the proposed project. This alternative is estimated to have emissions above the BAAQMD threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year and, with mitigation measures (GHG-2), below the percent reduction required to align with AB 32 goals. Since the project emissions well above the per capita threshold for existing and proposed project, it is anticipated to have emissions above this threshold under this alternative. Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would reduce the impact under this alternative to a level of less than significant. CEQA Project Alternative 4 Construction under this alternative would be slightly less than the proposed project since there would be a smaller ASB and two structures would be constructed but the Bon Air structure would be reduced in size. Therefore, lower construction emissions are anticipated. Without mitigation, construction of the hospital replacement building and 84,000 square-foot ASB uses could result in localized significant community risk impacts (i.e., excess cancer risk). This impact is similar to the proposed project and could be mitigated through proper selection of construction equipment, as outlined in Mitigation Measure AIR-2. Construction activity could be within 15 percent of the proposed project, so daily construction emissions could be above the significance thresholds. The actual impact would depend on the schedule of construction activities. Air quality impacts during construction would be potentially significant for fugitive dust and require best management practices, as recommended in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. As a result, mitigation measures, similar to the proposed project (i.e., Mitigation Measures AIR-2 and AIR-3), would be necessary to reduce all construction period air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. Operational air quality impacts would be less than or equal to the proposed project, which were less than significant. Greenhouse gas emissions would be less-than or equal to the proposed project. This alternative is estimated to have emissions above the BAAQMD threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year and, with mitigation measures (GHG-2), below the percent reduction required to align with AB 32 goals. Since the project emissions well above the per capita threshold for existing and proposed project, this alternative is anticipated to also have emissions G-4 2

5 August 23, 2012 Memo 3 above this threshold under this alternative. Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would reduce the impact under this alternative to a level of less than significant JR G-5 3

6 MEMORANDUM To: Navigant Date: August 2012 Consulting/Marin Healthcare District Attn: Mr. Ron Peluso Project: MGH Replacement Project From: Peter Galloway Marin County Re: Alternatives to MGH Job No.: Project Trip Generation/Parking Analysis File No.: C1449MEM06.doc CC: George Nickelson, P.E Omni-Means Crescentia Brown, Director ESA James Reyff, Illingworth & Rodkin Ron, The following analysis focuses on the trip generation and parking impacts for the MGH CEQA No Project and Project Alternatives. Trip generation and parking calculations are based on Table 5-1 Summary of Alternatives to the Project. As presented, there are three alternatives that would require additional analysis and these include the following 1 : CEQA No Project Alternative 1.2: Remove all acute care with non-acute care backfill; no parking structures HRB (sf): 0 ASB (sf.): 145,000 CEQA Project Alternative 3: No ASB/Hillside parking structure (412 spaces) HRB (sf): 300,000 ASB (sf): 0 CEQA Project Alternative 3: Reduced ASB/Hillside parking structure (412 spaces)/bon Air Road parking structure (392 spaces) HRB (sf): 300,000 ASB (sf): 84,000 The following trip generation and parking impacts (or not) could be expected for each alternative: CEQA No Project Alternative 1.2: With the removal of all acute care services, there would be a limited number of beds remaining for limited services in the West Wing and Psychiatric Care. Based on our discussions, this would equate to 80 beds in West Wing and 17 beds for Psychiatric Care or a total of 97 beds. (It is noted that beds in the West Wing would be made up of 19 semiprivate rooms [2 beds each or 38 beds] and 42 private rooms for a total of 80 beds). MGH existing facilities traffic was based on the average daily census (ADC) of 126 beds. With removal of all acute care services in the central and east wings, this would represent a decrease of 29 beds. Therefore, the net change in overall project trip generation would represent the decrease of 29 hospital beds and increase in overall ASB space of 145,000 square feet. The alternative s net trip generation would be calculated as follows: 1 Alternative 2 is the same as the proposed project for purposes of trip generation and parking. G-6

7 AM Peak Hour: -29 hospital beds x 1.14 trips/bed = -33 trips (23 in, 10 out) 145,000 sq. ft. ASB x 2.30 trips/1,000 sq. ft. = 334 trips (264 in, 70 out) Net AM peak hour trip increase: = 301 trips (241 in, 60 out) Mid-Day Peak Hour -29 hospital beds x 1.21 trips/bed = -35 trips (17 in, 18 out) 145,000 sq. ft. ASB x 2.48 trips/1,000 sq. ft. = 360 trips (176 in, 184 out) Net M-D peak hour trip increase: = 325 trips (159 in, 166 out) PM Peak Hour: -29 hospital beds x 1.31 trips/bed = -38 trips (14 in, 24 out) 145,000 sq. ft. ASB x trips/1,000 sq. ft. = 391 trips (106 in, 261 out) Net PM peak hour trip increase: = 353 trips (92 in, 60 out) Daily: -29 hospital beds x trips/bed = -343 trips 145,000 sq. ft. ASB x trips/1,000 sq. ft. = 5,714 trips Net Daily trip increase: = 5,371 trips As shown above, the CEQA No Project Alternative would generate 301 AM peak hour trips, 325 mid-day peak hour trips, 353 PM peak hour trips, and 5,371 daily trips. With respect to peak hour trip generation, this alternative would be less than Year 2018 proposed project totals for the AM, mid-day, and PM peak hour time periods. Therefore, overall traffic impacts would be less than or equal to those projected for the same scenario for the proposed MGH Replacement project for Year Daily trip generation for proposed alternative uses would be greater than the proposed project total of 5,032 for Year The Alternative s parking demand has been based on previous demand calculations using existing employee full-time equivalents (FTE s), existing on-site uses (non-mgh related), and proposed project (alternative) uses. With an overall decrease in hospital beds from 126 to 97, there would be proportional decrease in the number of existing FTE s. Based on this 23% decrease in FTE s, the existing 1,126 FTE s would be reduced to 867. Assuming 18,417 square feet of existing H/H Services and 145,000 square feet of ASB uses, the Alternative s parking demand has been calculated as follows: 867 FTE 0.55 spaces/employee = 477 MGH spaces 18,417 square feet Health/Human 4.15 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. = 76 H/HS spaces 145,000 square feet of ASB 4.0 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. = 580 ASB spaces Total Peak Parking Demand = 1,133 spaces As shown above the calculated parking demand would 1,133 spaces. The Alternative project description indicates that there would be no new Hillside or Bon Air Road parking structures. Based on an existing parking supply of 605 on-site parking spaces (or 768 spaces including satellite lots and adjacent on-street parking), there would be a 365 space parking deficit. G-7

8 CEQA Project Alternative 3: Under CEQA Project Alternative 3 there would be full MGH hospital buildout (acute care) but no ASB uses. This would represent 300,000 square feet of hospital replacement building (HRB) uses or an increase of 87 new beds. Consistent with previous calculations, 11 beds were added to the overall total to account for the bed count being below the average daily census during data collection for the MGH campus. The alternative s net trip generation would be calculated as follows: AM Peak Hour: 98 hospital beds x 1.14 trips/bed = 112 trips (80 in, 32 out) Mid-Day Peak Hour 98 hospital beds x 1.20 trips/bed = 118 trips (59 in, 59 out) PM Peak Hour: 98 hospital beds x 1.31 trips/bed = 128 trips (46 in, 82 out) Daily: 98 hospital beds x trips/bed = 1,158 trips As calculated above, CEQA Project Alternative 3 peak hour and daily trip generation would be significantly below proposed project scenarios for both Year 2018 plus project and Year 2035 plus project. Consequently, it is likely that all project study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels (LOS D or better) where identified based on overall trip assignment. However, consistent with the County s standards of significance 2, while peak hour trip generation with Alternative 3 would be less than those generated by the proposed project for both scenarios, the alternative would result in similar significant and unavoidable LOS and queuing impacts identified with the project. The Alternative s parking demand has been based on previous demand calculations using existing employee full-time equivalents (FTE s), existing on-site uses (non-mgh related), and proposed project (alternative) uses. With an overall increase in hospital beds from 126 to 235, there would be proportional increase in the number of FTE s. Based on a projected FTE employee increase of 140, the existing 1,126 FTE s would increase to 1,266 FTE s. The Alternative s parking demand has been calculated as follows: 1,266 FTE 0.55 spaces/employee = 696 MGH spaces 18,417 square feet Health/Human 4.15 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. = 76 H/HS spaces Total Peak Parking Demand = 772 spaces As shown above the calculated parking demand would 772 spaces. 2 For intersections that already have an unacceptable LOS, any increase in delay at the intersection is considered a significant impact. G-8

9 CEQA Project Alternative 4: Under CEQA Project Alternative 3 there would be full MGH hospital buildout (acute care) with 84,000 square feet of ASB uses. This would represent 300,000 square feet of hospital replacement building (HRB) uses or an increase of 87 new beds. Consistent with previous calculations, 11 beds were added to the overall total to account for the bed count being below the average daily census during data collection for the MGH campus. The alternative s net trip generation would be calculated as follows: AM Peak Hour: 98 hospital beds x 1.14 trips/bed = 112 trips (80 in, 32 out) 84,000 sq.ft ASB x 2.30 trips/1,000 sq. ft. = 193 trips (153 in, 40 out) Net AM Peak Hour Trip Increase: = 305 trips (233 in, 72 out) Mid-Day Peak Hour 98 hospital beds x 1.20 trips/bed = 118 trips (59 in, 59 out) 84,000 sq. ft. ASB x 2,65 trips/1,000 sq. ft. = 223 trips (109 in, 114 out) Net Mid-Day Peak Hour Trip Increase: = 341 trips (168 in, 173 out) PM Peak Hour: 98 hospital beds x 1.31 trips/bed = 128 trips (46 in, 82 out) 84,000 sq. ft. ASB x 2.88 trips/1,000 sq. ft. = 242 trips (65 in, 177 out) Net PM Peak Hour Trip Increase: = 370 trips (111 in, 259 out) Daily: 98 hospital beds x trips/bed = 1,158 trips 84,000 sq. ft. ASB x trips/1,000 = 3,220 trips Net Daily Trip Increase: = 4,378 trips As calculated above, CEQA Project Alternative 4 peak hour and daily trip generation would be less than or equal to the proposed project scenario for Year 2018 plus project and Year 2035 plus project. Consequently, it is likely that all project study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels (LOS D or better) where identified based on overall trip assignment based on Year 2018 plus project and Year 2035 plus project findings. However, as discussed above for Alternative 3, consistent with the County s standards of significance 3, while peak hour trip generation with Alternative 4 would be less than those generated by the proposed project for both scenarios, the alternative would result in similar significant and unavoidable LOS and queuing impacts identified with the project. The Alternative s parking demand has been based on previous demand calculations using existing employee full-time equivalents (FTE s), existing on-site uses (non-mgh related), and proposed project (alternative) uses. With an overall increase in hospital beds from 126 to 235, there would be proportional increase in the number of FTE s. Based on a projected FTE employee increase of 140, the existing 1,126 FTE s would increase to 1,266 FTE s. Assuming 18,417 square feet of existing H/H Services and 84,000 square feet of ASB uses, the Alternative s parking demand has been calculated as follows: 1,266 FTE 0.55 spaces/employee = 696 MGH spaces 18,417 square feet Health/Human 4.15 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. = 76 H/HS spaces 84,000 square feet ASB uses x 4.0 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. = 336 ASB spaces Total Peak Parking Demand = 1,108 spaces As shown above the calculated parking demand would 1,108 spaces.. 3 For intersections that already have an unacceptable LOS, any increase in delay at the intersection is considered a significant impact. G-9