7.0 ALTERNATIVES PURPOSE SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR ANALYSIS

Transcription

1 7.0 ALTERNATIVES PURPOSE This section of the EIR provides a comparative analysis of the merits of alternatives to the proposed project pursuant to Section of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, as amended. The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to explain potentially feasible ways to avoid or minimize significant effects of the project. According to the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR need only examine in detail those alternatives that could feasibly meet most of the basic objectives of the project. When addressing feasibility, the CEQA Guidelines Section states that [a]mong the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the applicant can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). The CEQA Guidelines also specify that the alternatives discussion should not be remote or speculative, and need not be presented in the same level of detail as the assessment of the proposed project. Therefore, based on the CEQA Guidelines, several factors need to be considered in determining the range of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR and the level of analytical detail that should be provided for each alternative. These factors include: (1) the nature of the significant impacts of the proposed project; (2) the ability of alternatives to avoid or lessen the significant impacts associated with the project; (3) the ability of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the project; and (4) the feasibility of the alternatives. These factors are unique for each project. SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR ANALYSIS According to the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of alternatives should focus on alternatives to a project or its location that can feasibly avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the project. The CEQA Guidelines indicate that the range of alternatives included in this discussion should be sufficient to allow decision makers a reasoned choice. The alternative discussion should provide decision makers with an understanding of the merits and disadvantages of these alternatives. Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this EIR concludes that project implementation would result in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. These impacts include short term air quality and noise impacts during project construction, and long term air quality due to emissions and long term noise impacts due to helicopter operations. In addition, as no feasible mitigation exists to reduce long term air quality impacts die to emissions, the project would result in a significant and Impact Sciences, Inc Marian Medical Center Hospital Expansion Project Draft EIR

2 unavoidable cumulative impact on local and regional air quality. In response to these impacts, the City developed and considered several alternatives to the project. These alternatives included the no project alternative; development of the project on the former Valley Hospital site, relocation of the helipad to the roof, development of the project on the project site at a density reduced by 50 percent; and relocation of the helipad to an alternative ground location. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT EVALUATED IN DETAIL Section (c) of the CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed and the reasons for eliminating alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR is the failure of the alternative to meet most of the basic project objectives, infeasibility, and/or the inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. Provided below are the reasons for not providing detailed evaluation of some of the alternatives initially developed by the Lead Agency. Former Valley Hospital Site This alternative would involve the development of the proposed project site on the site of the former Valley Hospital, located at 505 East Plaza Drive in Santa Maria, about one and a half miles southwest of the MMC. The MMC does not own the site, but is presently leasing the space. In June 2001, 35 inpatient beds were reopened in the west wing of the hospital and the facility was renamed Marian West. The facility is licensed but not as a freestanding hospital, but rather as part of the MMC. The 25 bed unit is limited to selective medical patients whose severity of illness does not require on site ancillary services or intensive care capabilities. Future plans for the facility likely include transitioning to a specialty niche such as Long Term Acute Care Hospital, Rehabilitation Hospital or Skilled Nursing Facility. The current Marian West campus property is only 3 acres compared to the existing MMC property which is 16 acres in size. As a result, the Marian West site is too small for an alternative hospital site. Even if the site were large enough to accommodate a 188 bed facility along with parking and access ways, such a facility would require construction of ancillary and support areas, such as surgery suites, radiology, laboratory, cardiology, and materials management areas which already exist on the Marian campus. It is conservatively estimated that the cost of the facility would double to $450,000,000. While this alternative would meet the project objectives, development of the same uses at a different location would result in similar short term and long term air quality impacts and long term noise impacts. Impact Sciences, Inc Marian Medical Center Hospital Expansion Project Draft EIR

3 CHW/MMC does not own or control any other alternative site in the City of Santa Maria. The project applicant owns and controls the project site, which is already a hospital site, and that the ability of the applicant to find and purchase an alternative site to develop would not be feasible economically or from a planning perspective, an alternative site is not considered. In addition, the development of another alternative site may not be able to meet many of the project objectives. Lastly, the development of the same uses at a different location would result in similar short term and long term air quality and longterm noise impacts. Thus, the selection of an alternative site would not avoid significant impacts. As indicated in Section (c), among factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are (i) failure to meet most of the project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. As discussed above, the relocation of the proposed project to the Valley Hospital Site would not be feasible for the reasons listed above and locating the proposed project to another alternative site would not be feasible because the possibility of obtaining an alternative site is considered speculative and because development on an alternative site would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative has been eliminated from detailed consideration in this EIR. Relocation of the Helipad to the Roof This alternative would involve relocating the helipad to the roof of the expansion building. Like the proposed project, the helipad would likely consist of a steel structure supporting either a steel and concrete or aluminum landing surface. The steel structure would be supported by extending building columns through the roof. Access to the hospital would be provided by extending the elevator to the roof. Under this alternative there would remain on average two helicopter landings each week. As with the proposed project, the helipad would be designed to accommodate Category 2 aircraft, such as Bell 412, Bell UH 1 Huey (Military) and Bell 212 aircraft. All safety and design considerations would remain the same. Implementation of this alternative would reduce noise and hazard impacts identified in the Draft EIR. However, the relocation of the helipad to the roof under this alternative would not be feasible due to cost. To implement this alternative, it would cost an additional $4 million to extend the elevators up another floor, make the necessary structural changes to the building to support the additional weight of the landing surface, and change the design of mechanical rooftop systems. As a result, this alternative has been eliminated from detailed consideration in this EIR. Impact Sciences, Inc Marian Medical Center Hospital Expansion Project Draft EIR

4 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR EVALUATION The alternatives to the proposed MMC Expansion project ultimately selected for analysis in this EIR were developed with the aim of minimizing environmental impacts while still, where possible, meeting the basic objectives of the project. The City has defined the following objectives for this proposed project: Replace the undersized, 42 year old, semi private patient rooms at the Marian Medical Center with state of the art private patient rooms; reuse the existing building space for consolidated hospital support services, administration, offices, and non mission critical components of primary health care services to the region. Provide much needed additional nursing unit support space including storage, utility, and visitor spaces to meet the requirements of staff, patients, and visitors. Upgrade the essential services of the hospital to meet the requirements of the California Seismic Law, SB Build a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) so that infants requiring specialized care can receive it within the community and not have to travel 70 miles away for such services (to Santa Barbara). Fulfill the community s expectation of the hospital to provide necessary patient care capacity to accommodate the expanding healthcare needs of a growing area. Allow for consolidation of services and maximize the hospital and related health care service investments in a central location that is accessible to the growing populations of northern Santa Barbara County and southern San Luis Obispo County as referenced in the bed need requirements study prepared for the hospital by Cattaneo and Stround (1999, updated 2002). Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this EIR concludes that project implementation would result in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. These include long term air quality impacts due to vehicular trips, and noise impacts due to the relocation of the helipad. Based on the environmental analysis, alternatives were developed which would provide decision makers with a reasonable range of alternatives that would eliminate or reduce the impacts of the project. A list of the alternatives selected for evaluation in this analysis is provided below. Alternative 1 No Project/No Development Alternative 2 50 Percent Reduced Density Alternative Alternative 3 Relocated Helipad Alternative Alternative 1 No Project/No Development Alternative The No Project/No Development Alternative is required to be evaluated by Section 15126(2)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines. As required by the CEQA Guidelines, the analysis must examine the impacts which Impact Sciences, Inc Marian Medical Center Hospital Expansion Project Draft EIR

5 might occur if the site is left in its present condition, as well as what may reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. Impact Analysis Aesthetics Views across the project would remain as they currently are, therefore, the project under this alternative would not affect the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings. In addition, the proposed project would not introduce additional sources of light glare. This alternative would, therefore, result in fewer impacts to the visual character of the project site and surrounding area compared to the proposed hospital expansion and, therefore, is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. Transportation and Circulation Land uses for the project would remain as they currently are; therefore, no additional trips would be added to existing traffic under this alternative. This alternative would result in traffic impacts less than the proposed hospital expansion and, therefore, is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. Air Quality Since no additional vehicle trips would be generated by this alternative, no new air quality impacts would occur based on trips made to the area. In addition, there would be no construction related emissions. This alternative is, therefore, considered environmentally superior to the proposed project with respect to air quality. Noise Since no additional vehicle trips would be added to the local roadway system, and no construction would occur, noise impacts would be absent in the No Project/No Development Alternative. This alternative is, therefore, considered environmentally superior to the proposed project with respect to noise. Impact Sciences, Inc Marian Medical Center Hospital Expansion Project Draft EIR

6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials With the implementation of this alternative, the site would retain its current level of development. Since no additional development would occur, the potential to exposing construction workers and nearby residents to asbestos would be absent. In addition, hazards associated with medical evacuation flights would remain the same. The No Project/No Development alternative is, therefore, considered environmentally superior to the proposed project from a hazards and hazardous materials perspective. Relationship of Alternative to Project Objectives This alternative would directly result in the following objectives for the project not being attained. Replace the undersized, 42 year old, semi private patient rooms at the Marian Medical Center with state of the art private patient rooms; reuse the existing building space for consolidated hospital support services, administration, offices, and non mission critical components of primary health care services to the region. Provide much needed additional nursing unit support space including storage, utility, and visitor spaces to meet the requirements of staff, patients, and visitors. Upgrade the essential services of the hospital to meet the requirements of the California Seismic Law, SB Build a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) so that infants requiring specialized care can receive it within the community and not have to travel 70 miles away for such services (Santa Barbara, CA). Fulfill the community s expectation of the hospital to provide necessary patient care capacity to accommodate the expanding healthcare needs of a growing area. Allow for consolidation of services and maximize the hospital and related health care service investments in a central location that is accessible to the growing populations of northern Santa Barbara County and southern San Luis Obispo County as referenced in the bed need requirements study prepared for the hospital by Cattaneo and Stround (1999, updated 2002). Alternative 2 50 Percent Reduced Density Facility This alternative would include the development of a reduced hospital facility on the project site and was developed to reduce long term vehicular air quality impacts. Under this alternative, the proposed project would involve a two story, 108,000 square foot building expansion south of the existing four story, 177,000 square foot hospital. Like the proposed project, the expansion would house beds and essential services provided by the hospital, which would be transferred from the existing facility. The expansion under this alternative would result in a decrease in the number of beds proposed under the project. In addition, while the project under this alternative would also involve the relocation of the Emergency Impact Sciences, Inc Marian Medical Center Hospital Expansion Project Draft EIR

7 Department, Pharmacy, and Dietary Services to the new facility, much less area would be provided, which would hamper the operations of these services. Finally, like the proposed project, the proposed expansion under this alternative would provide an expanded entry and lobby and a new chapel. Under this alternative, the expanded hospital facility would employ approximately 851 workers (approximately 47 percent less than the project, or half of the project increase). Alternative 2 would also include relocating the helipad to the parking lot on parcel 2, which is located to the east across Palisade Drive. Under this alternative there would remain on average two helicopter landings each week. As with the proposed project, the helipad would be designed to accommodate Category 2 aircraft, such as Bell 412, Bell UH 1 Huey (Military) and Bell 212 aircraft. All safety and design considerations would remain the same. Impact Analysis Aesthetics Under Alternative 2 the proposed structure would still be designed in the Mission Style, similar to a number of historic buildings in the community. The proposed two story structure would be lower than the proposed structure, reaching an overall height of 38 feet with the tower elements reaching a height of approximately 48 feet. The mass of the proposed expansion would be similar to the existing hospital structure and all other architectural features, including the bell towers and colonnade, would remain the same, thus adding to the architectural diversity of the surrounding area. Similar to the proposed project, the height and the mass of the proposed structure under Alternative 2 would affect views north across the project site from the residential neighborhood to the south, but to a lesser degree. In addition, as with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would implement a 30 foot landscape buffer along the southern portion of the project site to screen views of the hospital. Therefore, Alternative 2 would be environmentally superior to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would include the construction of new buildings, parking lots, and other facilities that would be equipped with lighting. Lighting would be used to highlight architectural elements and building signage. In addition, security and safety lighting would be provided, as necessary, and would be limited to building walkway and parking areas. The combination of interior building lighting, parking lot lighting and other sources on site during the nighttime hours could cause a glow that would be visible to off site sensitive receptors, but to a lesser degree. As a result, Alternative 2 would be environmentally superior to the proposed project. Impact Sciences, Inc Marian Medical Center Hospital Expansion Project Draft EIR

8 Similar to the proposed project, development of the project under Alternative 2 could potentially create glare, particularly during early morning and later afternoon periods, but to a lesser degree. However, the proposed project under this alternative would not include exterior materials that would create glare impacts. Therefore, Alternative 2 would be environmentally superior to the proposed project. Transportation and Circulation Construction activities under Alternative2 would be similar to those of the project on a daily basis but may occur over a shorter period of time due to Alternative 2 being a smaller development. Since construction worker and truck trips would occur along major roadways with the number of trips during the AM and PM peak hours being relatively limited. However, there is the potential for conflicts between construction activities and through traffic under both development scenarios and as such impacts are considered to be significant. However, these impacts would be reduced to less thansignificant level under either Alternative 2 or the proposed project with the implementation of a Construction Traffic Control Plan. In terms of severity, Alternative 2 would be environmentally superior to the proposed project due to the shorter length of construction. Traffic volumes expected to be generated by Alternative 2 were estimated using rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, Alternative 2 is expected to generate 1,135 net new daily weekday trip ends. Alternative 2, given the reduction in trips over the project, and considering the project did not result in any significant impact would also result in less than significant impacts. However, since the number of trips would be reduced under Alternative 2, it would be considered environmentally superior. Concerning trips traveling south through the Hancock Park residential neighborhood, implementation of Alternative 2 is expected to generate 16 additional trips. Less than 120 trips currently travel through the neighborhood. Therefore, existing plus project volumes under Alternative 2 conditions would be less than 150 vehicles per lane per hour, which is well within the carrying capacity of Palisade Drive, which traverses through the neighborhood. This number of trips equate to LOS A. As a result, trips travel through the Hancock Park neighborhood generated by Alternative 2, like the proposed project, would result in a less than significant impact. In terms of severity, Alternative 2 would be environmentally superior to the proposed project since the number of trips through the neighborhood would be reduced. Air Quality As with the proposed project, development under Alternative 2 would neither conflict with nor obstruct implementation with the 2004 Clean Air Plan for Santa Barbara County. This is because neither the project nor Alternative 2 provides for population, housing, or employment growth that exceeds Santa Impact Sciences, Inc Marian Medical Center Hospital Expansion Project Draft EIR

9 Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) forecasts. In addition, neither the project nor Alternative 2 would substantially increase trip lengths nor increase vehicle miles traveled in the project vicinity. Finally, the project under both development scenarios would implement transportation control measures. However, Alternative 2 would be environmentally superior to the proposed project due to its reduced size. Construction related emissions would be reduced with the implementation of Alternative 2. This is due to the smaller scale of the proposed structure. However, during the finishing stages of development under this alternative, emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) that would be generated through the use of architectural coatings and building materials (i.e., paints, solvents, roofing materials, etc.) would still exceed the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) threshold, but to a lesser degree. Nonetheless, Alternative 2 would be environmentally superior to the proposed project. Implementation of Alternative 2 would also result in fewer vehicle trips than the proposed project, resulting in less traffic related emissions. The net increase in daily operational emissions associated with Alternative 2 is presented in Table 7.0 1, Alternative 2 Operational Emissions, along with the thresholds of significance recommended by the Santa Barbara County APCD. Alternative 2 would not generate daily operational emissions of ROG, NOX, SOX, and PM10 that would exceed the thresholds of significance recommended by the APCD and contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. In addition, under Alternative 2, the proposed project would not exceed the new vehicular trips threshold of 25 pounds per day for NOX. As a result, Alternative 2 would be environmentally superior to the proposed project. Impact Sciences, Inc Marian Medical Center Hospital Expansion Project Draft EIR

10 Table Alternative 2 Operational Emissions Emissions in Pounds per Day Emissions Source ROG NOX SOX PM10 Summertime Emissions Operational (Mobile) Sources Area/Stationary Sources Summertime Emissions Total SBCAPCD Threshold Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO Wintertime Emissions 2 Operational (Mobile) Sources Area/Stationary Sources Wintertime Emissions Total SBCAPCD Threshold Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Emissions calculations are provided in Appendix 4.3. Totals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding in the computer model calculations. Values in parentheses indicate that the emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than those associated with current sources/development. Emissions of VOC and NOX apply to motor vehicle emissions only. 1 Summertime Emissions are representative of the conditions that may occur during the ozone season (May 1 to October 31). 2 Wintertime Emissions are representative of the conditions that may occur during the balance of the year (November 1 to April 30). 3 Significance thresholds for ROG and NOX apply to motor vehicle trips only. Noise Development activities associated with the project and Alternative 2 such as demolition, earthmoving, and construction of on site and off site infrastructure would involve the use of heavy equipment, such as scrapers, tractors, loaders, concrete mixers, and cranes. Under either the project or Alternative 2, these construction equipment sources would cause vibration and noise impacts. These impacts could be reduced to less than significant under either development scenario by the implementation of project mitigation measures. Because it is likely that less building development would result in a shorter construction period, the duration of construction vibration and construction noise under Alternative 2 would be less, and for this reason this alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. This alternative would generate a reduced number of average daily trips from the project site, thus roadway noise impacts would be slightly reduced when compared to those identified for the proposed project. However, neither this alternative nor the proposed project would result in significant roadway Impact Sciences, Inc Marian Medical Center Hospital Expansion Project Draft EIR

11 noise level increases. Nonetheless, because of the reduction in noise levels this alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. Like the proposed project, noise generated by emergency vehicle sirens could expose sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the hospital to noise levels in excess of City of Santa Maria s Noise Ordinance thresholds under Alternative 2. However, the hospital currently requires that ambulances enter off of Main Street and Palisade Drive. Typically, when approaching the hospital, emergency vehicle drivers turn off their sirens at this location, while on site, and on residential streets surrounding the project site. Therefore, siren noise under this alternative or the proposed project would be the same and is considered less than significant. Implementation of Alternative 2, like the proposed project, would add new stationary noise sources to the site. These would include rooftop mounted equipment, and loading docks. Like the proposed project, these sources would result in less than significant impact under this alternative. Implementation of Alternative 2, like the proposed project, expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels in excess of City of Santa Maria s Noise Ordinance thresholds during flight operations associated with the proposed helipad. During helicopter approaches, surrounding land uses would be exposed to maximum sound levels of over 80 db(a) for a period of less than two minutes. During helicopter departures, surrounding land uses would be exposed to maximum sound levels of over 80 db(a) for a period of less than one minute. As a result, impacts under Alternative 2 and the proposed project would be the same and would result in significant impacts to nearby sensitive receptors during flight operations. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Under Alternative 2, structures that may contain asbestos containing building materials (ACBM) and lead based paint would be demolished as part of the project. If these materials are not removed prior to demolition, the presence of these materials could create a significant hazard to construction workers, hospital employees, patients, and nearby residents. However, with the incorporation of mitigation measures recommended for the project, Alternative 2 impacts would be similar to those of the project. Implementation of Alternative 2, like the proposed project, is expected to generate medical (biohazardous) waste, radiological waste, and chemical waste. Alternative 2 is expected to generate 0.17 tons of hazardous and biohazardous waste per day. Like the proposed project, staff would be dedicated under this alternative to the management of hazardous wastes and comply with federal, state, and local statues and policies. As a result, both Alternative 2 and the proposed project would result in less than Impact Sciences, Inc Marian Medical Center Hospital Expansion Project Draft EIR

12 significant impacts with regards to medical waste. However, Alternative 2 would be environmentally superior to the proposed project as it would generate less medical waste. Implementation of Alternative 2, like the proposed project, would require relocating the existing helipad to another location on the project site. The proposed location of the helipad and arrival and departure flight paths under this alternative would be the same as the proposed project. The helipad would be located in Parking Lot C; incoming flights would generally approach from the east and departing flights would generally leave the helipad heading northwest. Under both Alternative 2 and the proposed project, the proposed helipad would be a fully permitted facility that meets recognized obstruction clearance and other safety related standards of the FAA. Flight paths would be designed to avoid obstacles, such as tall buildings, trees, and utility lines, and to consider predominant wind direction. As a result, Alternative 2 s impact would be similar to those of the proposed project. Relationship of Alternative to Project Objectives This alternative would directly result in the following objectives for the project not being attained. Fulfill the community s expectation of the hospital to provide necessary patient care capacity to accommodate the expanding healthcare needs of a growing area. Allow for consolidation of services and maximize the hospital and related health care service investments in a central location that is accessible to the growing populations of northern Santa Barbara County and southern San Luis Obispo County as referenced in the bed need requirements study prepared for the hospital by Cattaneo and Stround (1999, updated 2002). Alternative 3 Relocate Helipad This alternative would include the development of an expanded hospital facility on the project site, similar to the project, but would include the relocation of the helipad to reduce noise impacts. Under this alternative, the proposed project would involve a four story, 216,000 square foot building expansion south of the existing four story, 177,000 square foot hospital. Like the proposed project, the expansion after completion would house a majority of the beds and essential services provided by the hospital, which would be transferred from the existing facility. The expansion would increase the number of beds currently provided from 132 beds to 188 beds, including 108 medical surgical beds, a 14 bed neonatal unit, a 32 bed obstetric unit, 14 labor delivery rooms, and 10 additional critical care beds. Like the proposed project, the project under this alternative would also involve the expansion and relocation of the Emergency Department, Pharmacy, and Dietary Services to the new facility. Finally, like the proposed project, the proposed expansion under this alternative would provide an expanded entry and lobby and a new chapel. Impact Sciences, Inc Marian Medical Center Hospital Expansion Project Draft EIR

13 Alternative 3 would include relocating the helipad from the parking lot on Parcel 2, which is located to the east across Palisade Drive to another location not near sensitive land uses. No precise location has been proposed, but given the land uses surrounding the project site, the location would need to be to the north, near Main Street. Under this alternative there would remain on average two helicopter landings each week. As with the proposed project, the helipad would be designed to accommodate Category 2 aircraft, such as Bell 412, Bell UH 1 Huey (Military) and Bell 212 aircraft. All safety and design considerations would remain the same. Impact Analysis Aesthetics Under Alternative 3 the proposed structure would still be designed in the Mission Style, similar to a number of historic buildings in the community. The proposed four story structure would reach a height of approximately 48 feet. The mass of the proposed expansion would be similar to the existing hospital structure and all other architectural features, including the bell towers and colonnade, would remain the same, thus adding to the architectural diversity of the surrounding area. Similar to the proposed project, the height and the mass of the proposed structure under Alternative 3 would affect views north across the project site from the residential neighborhood to the south. In addition, as with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would implement a 30 foot landscape buffer along the southern portion of the project site to screen views of the hospital. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would include the construction of new buildings, parking lots, and other facilities that would be equipped with lighting. Lighting would be used to highlight architectural elements and building signage. In addition, security and safety lighting would be provided, as necessary, and would be limited to building walkway and parking areas. The combination of interior building lighting, parking lot lighting, and other sources on site during the nighttime hours could cause a glow that would be visible to off site sensitive receptors. Similar to the proposed project, development of the project under Alternative 3 could potentially create glare, particularly during early morning and later afternoon periods, but to a lesser degree. However, the proposed project under this alternative would not include exterior materials that would create glare impacts. Transportation and Circulation Construction activities under Alternative 3 would be similar to those of the project on a daily basis. Since construction worker and truck trips would occur along major roadways with the number of trips during Impact Sciences, Inc Marian Medical Center Hospital Expansion Project Draft EIR

14 the AM and PM peak hours being relatively limited. However, there is the potential for conflicts between construction activities and through traffic under both development scenarios and as such impacts are considered to be significant. However, these impacts would be reduced to less thansignificant level under either Alternative 3 or the proposed project with the implementation of a Construction Traffic Control Plan. Traffic and circulation impacts generated by this alternative would be similar to the proposed project. This alternative would generate the same number of trips as the proposed project on a daily basis. Thus, traffic impacts attributable to this alternative under Future 2011 traffic conditions would be similar to those identified for the proposed project. Overall, neither this alternative nor the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable transportation and circulation impacts. For this reason, neither the proposed project nor this alternative is considered environmentally superior to the other. Concerning trips traveling south through the Hancock Park residential neighborhood, implementation of Alternative 3 is expected to generate the same number of trips as the proposed project which is 31 additional trips. Less than 120 trips currently travel through the neighborhood. Therefore, existing plus project volumes under Alternative 3 conditions would be less than 150 vehicles per lane per hour, which is well within the carrying capacity of Palisade Drive, which traverses through the neighborhood. This number of trips equate to LOS A. As a result, trips travel through the Hancock Park neighborhood generated by Alternative 2, like the proposed project, would result in a less than significant impact. Air Quality As with the proposed project, development under Alternative 3 would neither conflict with nor obstruct implementation with the 2004 Clean Air Plan for Santa Barbara County. This is because neither the project nor Alternative 3 provides for population, housing, or employment growth that exceeds SBCAG forecasts. In addition, neither the project nor Alternative 3 would substantially increase trip lengths nor increase vehicle miles traveled in the project vicinity. Finally, the project under both development scenarios would implement transportation control measures. Construction related emissions would be similar to the proposed project with the implementation of Alternative 3. This is due to the similar scale of the proposed structure. During the finishing stages of development under this alternative, emissions of ROG that would be generated through the use of architectural coatings and building materials (i.e., paints, solvents, roofing materials, etc.) would still exceed the APCD threshold, but to a lesser degree. Neither the proposed nor this alternative would be environmentally superior to each other. Impact Sciences, Inc Marian Medical Center Hospital Expansion Project Draft EIR

15 Implementation of Alternative 3 would also result in similar number of vehicle trips as the proposed project, resulting in similar traffic related emissions. Like the proposed project, Alternative 3 would not generate daily operational emissions of ROG, NOX, SOX, and PM10 that would exceed the thresholds of significance recommended by the APCD and contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. In addition, like the proposed project, Alternative 3 would exceed the new vehicular trips threshold of 25 pounds per day for NOX. Neither the proposed project nor this alternative would be considered environmentally superior to the other. Noise Noise and vibration impacts generated by the construction of the hospital facility under this alternative would be similar to construction noise and vibration impacts identified for the proposed project. Construction noise and vibration levels would be generated by construction equipment at similar distances to the existing residences to the west of the site. Neither the proposed project nor this alternative would be considered environmentally superior to the other. Operational noise impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to the impacts identified for the proposed project. This alternative would generate a comparable number of average daily trips to the proposed project, thus roadway noise impacts would be similar to those identified for the proposed project. Like the proposed project, noise generated by emergency vehicle sirens could expose sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the hospital to noise levels in excess of City of Santa Maria s Noise Ordinance thresholds under Alternative 3. However, the hospital currently requires that ambulances enter off of Main Street and Palisade Drive. Typically, when approaching the hospital, emergency vehicle drivers turn off their sirens at this location, while on site, and on residential streets surrounding the project site. Therefore, siren noise under this alternative or the proposed project would be the same and is considered less than significant. Mechanical and loading dock noise impacts would also be the same as the proposed project under this alternative. Implementation of Alternative 3, like the proposed project, expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels in excess of City of Santa Maria s Noise Ordinance thresholds during flight operations associated with the proposed helipad. During helicopter approaches, surrounding land uses would be exposed to maximum sound levels of over 80 db(a) for a period of less than two minutes. During helicopter departures, surrounding land uses would be exposed to maximum sound levels of over 80 db(a) for a period of less than one minute. Impact Sciences, Inc Marian Medical Center Hospital Expansion Project Draft EIR

16 Alternative 3 would include relocating the existing helipad from the parking lot on Parcel 2, which is located to the east across Palisade Drive, to another location not near sensitive land uses. No precise location has been proposed, but, given the land uses surrounding the project site, the location would need to be to the north near Main Street. Under this alternative there would remain on average two helicopter landings each week. As with the proposed project, the helipad would be designed to accommodate Category 2 aircraft, such as Bell 412, Bell UH 1 Huey (Military) and Bell 212 aircraft. Due to moving these operations away from sensitive uses, impacts would be reduced to less than significant to residences to the south of the proposed project. However, the relocation of these operations could potentially affect other uses due to the possibility of exceeding City of Santa Maria Noise Ordinance thresholds. Although the affected land uses may be considered less sensitive than residential uses, such exceedances would still result in significant impacts. However, Alternative 3 would be environmentally superior to the proposed project as it would be located further from sensitive uses located to the south. The nuisance effect of the helipad depends on the time of day/night, frequency, and condition of the receptors when the events occur. However, the existing conditions have not generated noise complaints from existing residents; it is possible that the life safety function of the helicopter flights override the minor inconveniences of the occasional noise impacts. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Under Alternative 3, structures that may contain ACBM and lead based paint would be demolished as part of the project. If these materials are not removed prior to demolition, the presence of these materials could create a significant hazard to construction workers, hospital employees, patients, and nearby residents. However, with the incorporation of mitigation measures recommended for the project, Alternative 3 impacts would be similar to those of the project. Implementation of Alternative 2, like the proposed project, is expected to generate medical (biohazardous) waste, radiological waste, and chemical waste. Alternative 2 is expected to generate the same amount of hazardous and biohazardous waste per day as the proposed project, which is 0.33 tons per day. Like the proposed project, staff would be dedicated under this alternative to the management of hazardous wastes and comply with federal, state, and local statues and policies. As a result, both Alternative 3 and the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with regards to medical waste. Implementation of Alternative 3, like the proposed project, would require relocating the existing helipad to another location on the project site. If relocated from the proposed location, the helipad arrival and departure flight paths under this alternative would be different than the proposed project. Under both the Alternative 3 and the proposed project, the proposed helipad would be a fully permitted facility that Impact Sciences, Inc Marian Medical Center Hospital Expansion Project Draft EIR

17 meets recognized obstruction clearance and other safety related standards of the FAA. Flight paths would be designed to avoid obstacles, such as tall buildings, trees and utility lines, and to consider predominant wind direction. As a result, Alternative 3 impact would be similar to those of the proposed project. Relationship of Alternative to Project Objectives This alternative would directly result in all the following objectives for the project being attained. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Section (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to identify an environmentally superior alternative. The No Project/No Development Alternative is environmentally superior to the other alternatives and the project as proposed, because significant and unavoidable short term air quality and noise impacts during project construction would be avoided. However, none of the project objectives would be met under this alternative. According to CEQA, if the No Project/No Development Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Considering this, Alternative 2 would be environmentally superior to the project as the alternative would reduce significant and unavoidable project and cumulative air quality impacts to less than significant. However, significant and unavoidable noise impacts associated with the proposed helipad would remain under Alternative 2. In addition, this project would not meet all the project objectives, as reducing the size of the project would not accommodate the expanding healthcare needs of a growing area and would not allow the MMC to maintain the economies of scale necessary to maximize hospital and related health care service investments in a central location the would be accessible to the growing populations of northern Santa Barbara County and southern San Luis Obispo County. Concerning Alternative 3, all significant and unavoidable impacts would remain as the alternative involves moving the helipad north away from sensitive uses located to the south of the project site. As discussed above, the relocation of the helipad could still result in significant and unavoidable impacts as a new location could potentially affect other uses. Therefore, Alternative 3 is considered environmentally inferior to the proposed project. However, all of the project objectives would be met under this alternative. Impact Sciences, Inc Marian Medical Center Hospital Expansion Project Draft EIR