First and foremost, alternatives in an EIR must be potentially feasible. In the context of CEQA, feasible is defined as:

Transcription

1 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT CEQA REQUIREMENTS CEQA requires that an EIR analyze a reasonable range of feasible alternatives that meet most or all project objectives while reducing or avoiding one or more significant environmental effects of the project. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a rule of reason that requires an EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice (CEQA Guidelines Section [f]). Where a potential alternative was examined but not chosen as one of the range of alternatives, the CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR briefly discuss the reasons the alternative was dismissed. Alternatives that are evaluated in the EIR must be potentially feasible alternatives. However, not all possible alternatives need to be analyzed. An EIR must set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. (CEQA Guidelines, Section (f).) The CEQA Guidelines provide a definition for a range of reasonable alternatives and, thus limit the number and type of alternatives that need to be evaluated in an EIR. First and foremost, alternatives in an EIR must be potentially feasible. In the context of CEQA, feasible is defined as: capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors. (CEQA Guidelines 15364) The inclusion of an alternative in an EIR is not evidence that it is feasible as a matter of law, but rather reflects the judgment of lead agency staff that the alternative is potentially feasible. The final determination of feasibility will be made by the lead agency decision-making body through the adoption of CEQA Findings at the time of action on the Project. (Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477, 489 see also CEQA Guidelines, 15091(a)) (3)(findings requirement, where alternatives can be rejected as infeasible); ([an EIR] must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation ). The following factors may be taken into consideration in the assessment of the feasibility of alternatives: site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plan or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and the ability of the proponent to attain site control (Section (f) (1)). Equally important to attaining the project objectives is the reduction of some or all significant impacts, particularly those that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. The following significant and unavoidable impacts of the Sterling 5 th Street Apartments Project are discussed in Sections 3.1 through 3.14 (project-level) and Chapter 4.0 (cumulative-level): Impact : Project implementation may result in a significant impact at the unsignalized 2 nd Street/Cantrill Drive Intersection (#9) under the Cumulative Year 2035 Condition Draft Environmental Impact Report Sterling 5 th St. Apartments 5.0-1

2 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Impact : Project Implementation may result in a significant impact to Pole Line Road between 5 th Street and Cowell Boulevard under the Cumulative Year 2035 Plus MRIC and Nishi Projects Condition Impact 4.14: The project may contribute to cumulative impacts related to transportation and circulation The following analysis of alternatives focuses on significant impacts, including both those that can be mitigated to a less than significant level and those that would remain significant even if mitigation is applied or for which no feasible mitigation is available. The traffic analysis utilizes the trip generation and traffic analysis included in the proposed project Traffic Impact Study prepared by KD Anderson & Associates. A comparison of the number of trips generated by the proposed project and the project alternatives is included in Table A Notice of Preparation was circulated to the public to solicit recommendations for a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. Additionally, a public scoping meeting was held during the public review period to solicit recommendations for a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. The following comments were received related to potential alternatives to the project to be addressed in the EIR: C.M. Kriens (April 6, 2016): Suggested development of the project on University of California, Davis (UC Davis) property or in west Davis. Jerry Hallee (May 9, 2016): Suggested development of the project at a reduced density of 150 units with a density limit of 25 units per acre. Legal Services of Northern California (April 14, 2016): Suggested development of the project on UC Davis property or in west Davis. Also suggested development of the project at a reduced density of 150 units. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The alternatives to the proposed project selected for analysis in the EIR were developed to minimize significant environmental impacts while fulfilling the basic objectives of the project. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the following objectives have been identified for the Sterling 5 th Street Apartments Project: 1. Provide additional diverse housing options and contribute toward an adequate supply of rental housing in the City of Davis to help meet existing housing needs, including student rentals and affordable units, consistent with City Housing Policies. 2. Provide for increased residential density on an infill site with accessible infrastructure, proximity to services, and along corridors well-served by transit service and nonmotorized transportation infrastructure, in furtherance of growth policies identified in the Blueprint for Regional Growth prepared and adopted by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) and City Transportation Policies Draft Environmental Impact Report Sterling 5 th St. Apartments

3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Increase the supply of affordable housing for varying income levels and needs in a post- Redevelopment environment. 4. Provide for the adaptive reuse and redevelopment of an urban infill site that strengthens the City s compact urban form, and supports community and neighborhood compatibility. 5. Create and maintain a built environment that promotes safety and well-being for its residents and for surrounding neighborhoods, provides amenities and services for a healthy lifestyle, connects to and enhances the City s bike, pedestrian, and transit network, and reduces the need for off-site vehicle trips. 6. Promote environmental sustainability and reduce the community s carbon footprint and vehicle miles traveled, in accordance with the City s Climate Action Plan. 5.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THIS EIR Seven alternatives to the proposed project were developed based on City of Davis staff and City Council input, input from the public during the NOP review period, and the technical analysis performed to identify the environmental effects of the proposed project. The alternatives analyzed in this EIR include the following seven alternatives in addition to the proposed Sterling 5 th Street Apartments Project: No Project Alternative Existing Zoning Non-Residential Redevelopment Alternative Conventional Apartment Alternative Reduced Density Student Apartment Alternative Aggressive Transportation and Parking Demand Management Alternative Off-Site City (3820 Chiles Road) Alternative Off-Site Woodland Alternative NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The CEQA Guidelines (Section [e]) require consideration of a no project alternative that represents the existing conditions, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved. For purposes of this analysis, the No Project Alternative assumes that the project site would remain in its current condition and that the existing structures would become occupied by a new tenant. The project site is currently developed with seven 2-story buildings located throughout the site, totaling approximately 55,000 square feet. No site development or significant housing would occur under this alternative. This alternative assumes that the new tenant would be a similar use to the former occupant, Families First. The use would be either a low-density residential treatment facility, a similar non-profit institution, or a group of institutions. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sterling 5 th St. Apartments 5.0-3

4 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT EXISTING ZONING NON-RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, the project site would be redeveloped under the current zoning but at a more intense level than the existing on-site development. This Existing Zoning Non-Residential Redevelopment Alternative is similar to the No Project Alternative, but would include demolition of some, if not all, of the existing facilities and buildings for the new user. The existing PD 3-92 zoning allows hospitals, churches, and public/quasi-public uses by right, and office uses are conditionally allowed. Specific development standards such as building setbacks, height, open space, and lot coverage would be established as part of the specific development proposal. The existing General Plan designation for the site, Industrial, establishes a maximum floor area ratio of 0.50 for the site, which equates to 130,680 square feet for the 6-acre project site. CONVENTIONAL APARTMENT ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, the project site would be redeveloped at a residential intensity similar to the proposed project, but with conventional apartments leased by unit. Unlike the proposed project which is oriented to university students and designed to be leased by the bedroom, the residential units under this alternative would be designed for conventional households. This would most likely result in fewer students on-site, and a larger mixture of ages for the on-site residents and more family and working households. The density under this alternative would be slightly greater than the proposed project at 45 units per acre. This Conventional Apartment Alternative assumes a mix of 2-, 3-, and 4-bedroom units and a conventional apartment design to better accommodate families and traditional households. Assumed occupants per bedroom would be based on other multi-family housing in Davis. The Conventional Apartment Alternative would also include affordable housing. The affordable housing component would also be a conventional plan with the full affordable requirement provided as affordable apartments integrated with the market-rate units compared to the proposed project with a separate affordable site and a mix of affordable units and in-lieu fees. This alternative would result in 203 market-rate units and 68 affordable units for a total of 271 units. Parking would be provided in a structure with a similar number of parking spaces at a similar ratio as the proposed project. The total number of bedrooms would be similar or slightly greater than the proposed project due to the additional affordable units. Thus, the total population resulting from this alternative may be greater with students doubling up in rooms or from families with children. REDUCED DENSITY STUDENT APARTMENT ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, the project site would be developed with 189 student and affordable apartment units, which is allowed based on the maximum allowed density bonus. This Reduced Density Alternative would maintain the project as student-oriented apartments, but with a Draft Environmental Impact Report Sterling 5 th St. Apartments

5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0 reduced number of units, 150 market-rate units. This alternative would also include 39 affordable apartment units, but the affordable units would be integrated with the market-rate units instead of provided as a separate building and site. The overall development intensity under this alternative would be less than the proposed project. The buildings would be 3- to 4- stories tall, and parking would match City standards with a majority of the parking, if not all of the spaces, as surface parking. AGGRESSIVE TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING DEMAND MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, the project site would be developed with the same number of student and affordable housing units as the proposed project, but with fewer parking spaces. This Aggressive Transportation and Parking Demand Management Alternative would maintain a similar number of units, layout, and building design as the proposed project. The alternative assumes no changes to the affordable housing component of the project with the same units, parking, and other requirements as the proposed project. For the student market rate component, the alternative assumes the same number of units and same residential building footprint with the following restrictions or requirements to aggressively discourage car use and vehicle trips by residents. Measures to reduce car use would include a maximum of 50 pay-per-hour visitor parking spaces; no more than 50 resident permit parking spaces; owner-managed (or contracted) car-sharing services on-site which requires use of only electric vehicles; and number of vehicles to be determined based on market demand. The alternative assumes a one-story (two usable parking levels) parking structure to accommodate the above-referenced parking, permit parking, and car-share parking. Additional developer incentives and facilities to promote bicycle and transit use would be provided. OFF-SITE CITY (3820 CHILES ROAD) ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, the proposed project would be developed with an increase in both market-rate and affordable units at an off-site location. No parcels of similar size zoned for multi-family uses are currently available within the City for development. For the purposes of evaluating an off-site alternative location in the City, City staff has identified a 7.4- acre property at 3820 Chiles Road. The property contains an existing UC Davis office building and parking area. Surrounding uses include commercial properties, and multi-family and single-family areas. The site faces Interstate 80 directly to the north. The 3820 Chiles Road site is zoned Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) and does not currently allow residential uses. Development of the site would require similar land use entitlements as the proposed project, including a rezone for the multi-family residential use and site plan and architectural review. Existing facilities at 3820 Chiles Road would be demolished. This alternative assumes a similar affordable housing component would be provided on a separate affordable parcel. The Off-Site City (3820 Chiles Road) Alternative also assumes a similar residential density, building height and size, unit type, and parking as the proposed project. At a proposed 40 units Draft Environmental Impact Report Sterling 5 th St. Apartments 5.0-5

6 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT per acre, the off-site location could accommodate a total of 297 units, consisting of 220 marketrate units and 77 affordable units. This alternative would provide a slightly greater number of housing units for the City because of the larger site. The location of the site is about twice the distance from the UC Davis campus, approximately 2 miles, compared to the proposed project site and is less convenient to the City s bicycle network. OFF-SITE WOODLAND ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, an equal number of student and affordable housing units would be developed as the proposed project, but at an off-site location in the City of Woodland. An equal number of parking spaces would also be provided. Additionally, the proposed amenities, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and landscaping would be constructed at an off-site location. This off-site location in Woodland would have similar characteristics and size as the proposed project site. Development of the off-site location would also require similar land use entitlements as the proposed project. 5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The alternatives analysis provides a summary of the relative impact level of significance associated with each alternative for each of the environmental issue areas analyzed in this EIR. Table summarizes the trip generation for the proposed project and the alternatives. Following the analysis of each alternative, Table summarizes the comparative effects of each alternative. TABLE 5.0-1: PROJECT ALTERNATIVES TRIP GENERATION LAND USE (ITE CODE) TRIP GENERATION RATE AMOUNT DAILY AM PM DAILY AM PM Proposed Project , No Project Alternative Nursing Home (LU 620) Office (LU 710) Apartments (LU 220) Apartments (LU 220) University Related Housing Apartments (LU 220) TRIPS KSF Existing Zoning Non-Residential Redevelopment Alternative KSF , Conventional Apartment Alternative 203 DU , DU Total 1, Reduced Density Student Apartment Alternative 150 DU DU Total 1, Draft Environmental Impact Report Sterling 5 th St. Apartments

7 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0 LAND USE TRIP GENERATION RATE TRIPS AMOUNT (ITE CODE) DAILY AM PM DAILY AM PM Aggressive Transportation and Parking Demand Management Alternative University 727 beds Related Housing (203 DU) Apartments (LU 220) 41 DU Total Off-Site (3820 Chiles Road) Alternative Apartments (LU 220) 220 DU , Apartments (LU 220) 77 DU Total 1, Off-Site Woodland Alternative University 727 beds Related Housing (203 DU) , Apartments (LU 220) 41 DU Total 1, NOTES: KSF = THOUSAND SQUARE FEET; DU = DWELLING UNITS. SOURCE: KD ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. (2016). NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Aesthetics The No Project Alternative would leave the project site in its existing state and would not result in increases in daytime glare or nighttime lighting. Use of the site for a low-density residential treatment facility, a similar non-profit institution, or a group of institutions would not result in new sources of light or glare on the site. The visual character of the project site would not change under this alternative compared to existing conditions, and the existing buildings and parking areas would not be removed. As described in Section 3.1, the proposed project would result in potentially significant new sources of light and glare, which would be mitigated to a less than significant level. The No Project Alternative would avoid these impacts altogether and would have less of an impact than the proposed project on aesthetics. Air Quality As described in Section 3.2, and shown in Table 3.2-7, operation of the unmitigated proposed project would result in a significant impact associated with PM 10. However, with incorporation of the mitigation described in Section 3.2, the proposed project would not generate any significant operational impacts. Under this alternative, the project site would not be developed; however, depending on the ultimate use of the site under the No Project Alternative, some air emissions would occur. For example, should the site be used as low-density residential treatment facility, both employee and resident trips would result, generating mobile air emissions. Alternatively, should the site be used as a group of institutions, both employee and customer trips would result. While the proposed project would result in less than significant construction emissions impacts after mitigation, under this alternative, no construction Draft Environmental Impact Report Sterling 5 th St. Apartments 5.0-7

8 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT emissions would be generated. Therefore, this impact is avoided under this alternative. The No Project Alternative would reduce air quality impacts as compared with the proposed project, and therefore have less of an impact than the proposed project on air quality. Biological Resources As described in Section 3.3, while project implementation is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to biological resources, construction activities would result in tree removal and ground disturbing activities that may impact or harm biological resources, including specialstatus bird species. Under this alternative, the project would not be constructed, no trees would be removed, and no ground disturbing activities would occur. Therefore, this impact would be eliminated under the No Project Alternative. Cultural Resources The No Project Alternative would not result in ground disturbing activities and would reduce the potential to disturb or destroy cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, as well as paleontological resources. While the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to cultural or historical resources, the No Project Alternative would further reduce the risk of the unintentionally discovery of such resources. Geology and Soils The No Project Alternative would result in the project site remaining in its existing condition. There are currently buildings on the project site that are subject to seismic or geologic risks, including earthquakes, liquefaction, subsidence, etc. However, additional buildings or structures would not be developed under the No Project Alternative. As described in Section 3.5, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to geology and soils, but would result in the construction of new residential structures on the project site which could be exposed to geologic hazards. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impact on geology and soils. Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Under the No Project Alternative, site development would not occur and a new tenant would occupy the existing on-site structures. Use of the site for a low-density residential treatment facility, a similar non-profit institution, or a group of institutions would result in vehicle trips associated with employees of the facility and potentially from on-site residents should the site be used for a treatment facility. Development of the project site under this alternative would not provide for a development that is consistent with SACOG s SCS. Additionally, the proposed project assists with regional GHG reduction efforts by providing a residential project at a density level that meets the SCS goals. As described in Section 3.6, the proposed project is consistent with SACOG s SCS and the City of Davis Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, as well as the City s GHG Thresholds and Standards for New Residential Development. Under the No Project Alternative, the site would not be developed, and there would be no potential for the project to conflict with any adopted plans or policies related to GHG reductions. Overall, impacts related to greenhouse gases and climate change would be reduced as compared to the proposed project Draft Environmental Impact Report Sterling 5 th St. Apartments

9 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain in its existing conditions and a new tenant would occupy the existing on-site structures. As described in Section 3.7, construction activities may result in the use and transport of common hazardous materials, including oils, fuels, paints, and solvents. This potential impact would be eliminated under the No Project Alternative. Under the No Project Alternative, a new land use would be introduced to the site, and the potential for future residents to be exposed to contamination on the site would be eliminated. This impact, though less than significant with implementation of mitigation, would be avoided under the No Project Alternative. Hydrology and Water Quality Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain in its existing conditions and a new tenant would occupy the existing on-site structures. Currently, drainage is conveyed through three on-site storm drain systems, generally draining in the southeast direction (Rick Engineering, 2015). The three storm drain systems drain into an existing public storm drain system that travels parallel to the eastern property line on the adjacent property; then turns west, enters the property, and flows parallel to the southern property line to a point near the middle of the southern property line, where the system turns back south and flows off-site. Stormwater from the proposed project buildings and site would flow into the proposed biotreatment basins placed throughout the site. In order to meet the guidelines and requirements set forth in the Phase II Small MS4 General Permit, DWQ, dated February 5, 2013, adopted by the City of Davis, permanent storm water control measures are proposed to be incorporated into the project in order to mitigate the impacts of pollutants in storm water runoff from the proposed project. Because project improvements would manage and treat stormwater flows from the site, it would represent an improvement to water quality over the No Project Alternative. As described in Section 3.8, when the proposed project is developed, the on-site impervious area would increase, from an existing 58.5% impervious surface to a proposed project 80.2% impervious surface, leading to faster runoff rates. Thus, the proposed project would provide more impervious surface on-site as compared to the No Project Alternative, which would also result in an increase in rainfall infiltration, and a reduction in runoff during storm events. As described in Section 3.8, project implementation has the potential to result in the discharge of pollutants into on-site detention basins and storm drains, and would change the existing drainage pattern on the site, although these impacts are less than significant as a result of project design and applied mitigation measures. Under the No Project Alternative, these potential impacts would be eliminated. Overall, potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be reduced under the No Project Alternative when compared to the proposed project. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sterling 5 th St. Apartments 5.0-9

10 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Land Use The No Project Alternative would not require a change of the project site s General Plan Land Use designation from Industrial to Residential High Density. While the proposed project will allow for the utilization of a significant infill site within the City of Davis, the No Project Alternative would maintain this site in its current state and the site would be used for a lowintensity residential treatment facility, similar non-profit institution, or a group of institutions with no new construction or significant housing. Maintenance of the site for a similar use as the former Families First facility would be consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations for the site. While the analysis in Section 3.9 concluded that the proposed project would not result in any significant land use impacts, the No Project Alternative would devote the existing site and structures to a productive use, and therefore, would result in a reduction of impacts compared to the proposed project. Noise and Vibration As described in Section 3.10, implementation of the proposed project would result in increased transportation and stationary source noise levels. Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would not be developed and, depending on the ultimate use, the No Project Alternative could result in land uses which may be sensitive to existing noise sources in the area. Construction noise and vibration and parking garage noise would not occur under this alternative. This would result in a reduction of noise from on-site activities at existing sensitive receptors. Additionally, operational noise resulting from the proposed swimming pools and outdoor recreation areas would be eliminated under the No Project Alternative. Therefore, impacts related to noise and vibration would be reduced under this alternative. Population and Housing Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed project would not be developed and additional housing sites within the City of Davis would not be provided. This alternative would not assist the City in providing additional housing sites for low-income residents. Although the No Project Alternative would not result in significant housing, the No Project Alternative could provide a low-intensity residential treatment facility. Additionally, as described in Section 3.11, project implementation would result in a maximum population of approximately 801 residents to the City. The No Project Alternative would not result in development of housing which could increase the population, but could instead house Davis residents seeking treatment or assistance. Overall, under this alternative, the proposed project would have similar impacts as the No Project Alternative. Public Services and Recreation Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain in its existing conditions and a new tenant would occupy the existing on-site structures. As described in Section 3.12, implementation of the proposed project would result in a modest increase in demand for police and fire protection services, as well as increased demand for schools, parks, and other public facilities. Under the No Project Alternative, there would be a slight increase in demand for public Draft Environmental Impact Report Sterling 5 th St. Apartments

11 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0 services from existing levels. The level of increased demand for public services and recreation would depend on the ultimate use of the project site under the No Project Alternative. For example, should the on-site buildings be used for a group of institutions which would not house residents on-site, the increase in demand for public services and recreation would be greatly reduced as compared to the proposed project. Overall, the No Project Alternative would have less of an impact than the proposed project on public services and recreation. Transportation and Circulation The No Project Alternative would introduce additional vehicle trips onto the study area roadways identified in Section As described in Section 3.13, implementation of the proposed project would require intersection and roadway improvements to ensure less than significant impacts to roadways and intersections within the City of Davis. As shown in Table above, the number of trips generated by the No Project Alternative would be significantly less than the proposed project. Additionally, under the No Project Alternative, these potential impacts would be avoided, and the No Project Alternative would have less of an overall traffic impact than the proposed project. Utilities As described in Section 3.14, implementation of the proposed project would result in increased demand for wastewater treatment, water supply, and solid waste disposal. Under the No Project Alternative, the uses at the project site would also demand wastewater services, potable water supplies, and solid waste disposal services. The demand for solid waste disposal would be lower under the No Project Alternative than the proposed project. Using the General Plan Update EIR s generation rate of 3.12 pounds per person per day, the proposed project would generate approximately 2,499 pounds per day (lbs/day) of solid waste from the proposed residential uses. Using CalRecycle s solid waste generation rate for public/institutional land uses of lbs/square foot/day, the No Project Alternative could generate up to 385 lbs/day. 1 Additionally, the amount of wastewater generated and the amount of water demanded by the No Project Alternative would be less than the proposed project. Using the water demand factors provided in the Brown and Caldwell Water Supply Assessment prepared for the City of Davis (June 2015), the projected potable water demand for the proposed project is estimated to be approximately acre-feet per year (AFY). Using this same source, the No Project Alternative would demand approximately 1.55 AFY. Overall, the demand for utilities would be reduced under the No Project Alternative when compared to the proposed project. 1 CalRecycle. Last Updated January 14, Waste Characterization: Public Sector and Institutions: Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Accessed June Available at: < Draft Environmental Impact Report Sterling 5 th St. Apartments

12 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT EXISTING ZONING NON-RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE Aesthetics This alternative would result in the construction of up to 130,680 square feet of industrial uses on the project site. This Existing Zoning Non-Residential Redevelopment Alternative is similar to the No Project Alternative, but would include demolition of some, if not all, of the existing facilities and buildings for the new user. The existing PD 3-92 zoning allows hospitals, churches, and public/quasi-public uses by right, and office uses are conditionally allowed. Specific development standards such as building setbacks, height, open space, and lot coverage would be established as part of the specific development proposal. When compared to the proposed project, approximately the same area of the project site would be developed with urban uses. Developing the entire project site with industrial uses would likely result in buildings with fewer stories when compared to the proposed project. Additionally, there would likely be a greater building setback from 5 th Street under this alternative, which may increase the visual and aesthetic appeal of the site compared to the proposed project. Industrial uses may also result in additional signage and exterior advertising when compared to the proposed project, which may degrade the visual aesthetics of exterior spaces within the site. Overall, this alternative would have slightly reduced impacts to aesthetics when compared to the proposed project. Air Quality As described in Section 3.2, implementation of the proposed project would generate emissions during both the construction phase and the operational phase. Construction related impacts would be similar under this alternative when compared to the proposed project, as the area of ground disturbance would be comparable, and the duration of construction would be comparable. However, under this alternative, mobile source emissions would increase. Mobile source (vehicle emissions) are directly related to the number of vehicle trips generated by a project. As shown in Table above, the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 1,454 new external vehicle trips on a daily basis. Under this alternative, the industrial uses developed on the project site would generate approximately 1,441 daily vehicle trips, which would generate slightly reduced levels of pollutants from mobile sources. However, with more on-site industrial uses under this alternative, there would be the potential for increased stationary source emissions (emissions associated with operation of hospital equipment, emissions associated with painting/finishing, etc.). Therefore, this alternative would have increased impacts related to air quality when compared to the proposed project. Biological Resources Potential impacts to biological resources are related primarily to the area proposed for disturbance and less to the type of urban uses that would occur on the project site. Under this alternative, a similar amount of the project site would be disturbed when compared to the Draft Environmental Impact Report Sterling 5 th St. Apartments

13 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0 proposed project, and the potential for impacts to biological resources would remain unchanged when compared to the proposed project. Cultural Resources Potential impacts to cultural resources are primarily related to the area proposed for disturbance and less to the type of urban uses that would occur on the project site. Under this alternative, a similar amount of the project site would be disturbed when compared to the proposed project, and the potential for impacts to cultural resources would remain unchanged when compared to the proposed project. Geology and Soils Under this alternative, the project site would be developed with up to 130,680 square feet of industrial uses. This Existing Zoning Non-Residential Redevelopment Alternative is similar to the No Project Alternative, but would include demolition of some, if not all, of the existing facilities and buildings for the new user. These buildings and structures would be exposed to the same level of risk from geologic hazards as the proposed project. Therefore, under this alternative, this impact would remain unchanged when compared to the proposed project. Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Development of the project site under this alternative would not provide for a development that is consistent with SACOG s SCS. While this is not a significant impact in and of itself, the proposed project assists with regional GHG reduction efforts by providing a residential project at a density level that meets the SCS goals. Additionally, as described above, this alternative would result in nearly comparable daily vehicle trips when compared to the proposed project. The daily vehicle trips under this alternative would generate comparable levels of GHGs from vehicles when compared to the proposed project. There is also the potential for increased GHG emissions associated with the industrial uses on the project site under this alternative, compared to the residential uses under the proposed project. Therefore, this impact would increase under this alternative when compared to the proposed project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Under this alternative, the project site would be developed with up to 130,680 square feet of industrial uses. This Existing Zoning Non-Residential Redevelopment Alternative is similar to the No Project Alternative, but would include demolition of some, if not all, of the existing facilities and buildings for the new user. As described in Section 3.7, construction activities may result in the use and transport of common hazardous materials, including oils, fuels, paints and solvents. This potential impact would still occur under the Existing Zoning Non-Residential Redevelopment Alternative. However, the industrial uses that may be introduced to the site under this alternative could result in the handling of more hazardous materials when compared to those under the proposed project, potentially resulting in increased transportation, storage, usage, etc. of hazardous materials with the accompanying potential for an accidental exposure or release. For example, should the site be constructed with a hospital use, potentially large Draft Environmental Impact Report Sterling 5 th St. Apartments

14 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT volumes of hazardous materials could be stored on-site. This impact would be increased under this alternative when compared to the proposed project. Hydrology and Water Quality Under this alternative, approximately the same surface area of the project site would be developed with urban land uses and impervious surfaces when compared to the proposed project. The potential for pollutants from stormwater runoff to enter local surface waters would be comparable to the proposed project. It is anticipated that the drainage improvements under this alternative would be similar to those for the proposed project, and that the potential to place structures within the 100-year flood plain would also be the same. As such, there would be no change related to this topic between this alternative and the proposed project. Land Use The Existing Zoning Non-Residential Redevelopment Alternative would not require a change of the project site s General Plan Land Use designation from Industrial to High Density Residential. This alternative would be required to be consistent with the General Plan, including the goals, policies, and standards and with the Zoning Code. While the analysis in Section 3.9 concluded that the proposed project would not result in any significant land use impacts, this alternative would be consistent with the adopted General Plan and other land use regulations, and therefore, would have less of an impact than the proposed project. Noise and Vibration As discussed in Section 3.10, the primary sources of noise associated with implementation of the proposed project are from increased vehicle trips on study area roadways in the project vicinity from on-site uses, and increased noise from the proposed parking garage and outdoor areas. Under this alternative, noise associated with vehicle trips is expected to increase (based on greater peak hour vehicle trip generation when compared to the proposed project). As shown in Table above, the proposed project is estimated to generate up to 1,454 new external vehicle trips on a daily basis, including 94 AM and 156 PM peak hour trips, respectively. Under this alternative, the industrial uses developed on the project site would generate up to 1,441 daily vehicle trips, including 204 and 195 AM and PM peak hour trips, respectively. This increase in AM and PM peak hour trips under this alternative would generate increased noise levels on area roadways when compared to the proposed project. While this alternative would not expose new residential uses to noise sources, this alternative would have the potential for increased on-site stationary noise sources associated with activities associated with the industrial uses which may affect residential uses in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, this alternative would have increased impacts related to noise when compared to the proposed project. Population and Housing Implementation of the Existing Zoning Non-Residential Redevelopment Alternative would increase the supply of jobs within the City of Davis, but would not increase the supply of housing. There would be significantly more jobs created under this alternative when compared Draft Environmental Impact Report Sterling 5 th St. Apartments

15 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0 to the proposed project. As described in Section 3.11, the City currently has a jobs:housing balance of 0.70:1. The City s General Plan EIR identifies a jobs:housing balance in the range of 0.8:1 to 1.2:1 as the City s target. In other words, the City needs to increase the supply of jobs to raise the existing jobs:housing balance to the desired ratio range. This alternative would provide more jobs and no housing units as compared to the proposed project, and would, therefore, provide greater assistance to the City towards achieving the desired jobs:housing balance. This alternative would have a greater beneficial impact than the proposed project in terms of the jobs:housing balance. Public Services and Recreation Implementation of the Existing Zoning Non-Residential Redevelopment Alternative would increase the supply of jobs within the City of Davis, but would not increase the supply of housing. It is anticipated that implementation of this alternative would indirectly increase the population of the City of Davis, as it is likely that increased employment opportunities would motivate people to move to Davis to be closer to the new jobs created under this alternative. However, it is not anticipated that this alternative would increase the City s population as greatly as the proposed project, which would provide for up to 244 new housing units in Davis. Therefore, population growth would be reduced under this alternative. Because the alternative would result in less population growth than the proposed project, there would be reduced demand for public services such as parks, libraries, schools, and other public facilities. Development of this alternative would likely generate similar demands for police and fire services when compared to the proposed project. Overall, this alternative would have a reduced impact to public services and recreation when compared to the proposed project. Transportation and Circulation As described above, this alternative would result in an increase in peak hour vehicle trips when compared to the proposed project. As shown in Table above, the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 1,454 new external vehicle trips on a daily basis. Under this alternative, the industrial uses developed on the project site would generate approximately 1,441 daily vehicle trips. As shown in Table above, the proposed project would generate up to 94 AM peak hour vehicle trips, and 156 PM peak hour vehicle trips. Under this alternative, up to 204 AM peak hour trips would be generated, and up to 195 PM peak hour trips would be generated. This alternative would substantially increase the amount of AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips generated at the project site. This has the potential to increase impacts to area roadways and intersections. Impacts related to traffic and circulation would be increased under this alternative when compared to the proposed project. Utilities As shown in Table in Section 3.14, the proposed project would generate approximately 56,120 gallons per day (gpd), or 0.06 mgd of wastewater. Using the wastewater generation factors provided by City staff in an August 1, 2012 Utility Guidance Letter and further supported by the Wastewater Collection System Capacity Technical Memorandum prepared by West Yost Associates in March 2015, the Existing Zoning Non-Residential Redevelopment Alternative Draft Environmental Impact Report Sterling 5 th St. Apartments

16 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT would generate approximately 4,500 to 7,500 gpd, or to mgd of wastewater. The decrease in wastewater flows generated under this alternative would be significant when compared to the proposed project. As shown in Table in Section 3.14, the proposed project would generate the demand for approximately AFY of potable water. Using the unit water demand factors provided from the Brown and Caldwell Water Supply Assessment prepared for the City of Davis (June 2015), the Existing Zoning Non-Residential Redevelopment Alternative would generate demand for approximately 1.69 AFY of potable water. The decrease in water demand generated under this alternative would be significant when compared to the proposed project. Using the General Plan Update EIR s generation rate of 3.12 pounds per person per day, the proposed project would generate approximately 2,499 lbs/day of solid waste from the proposed residential uses. Using CalRecycle s solid waste generation rate for industrial land uses of lbs/square foot/day, the Existing Zoning Non-Residential Redevelopment Alternative could generate up to 784 lbs/day. 2 Overall, under this alternative, wastewater generation, water demand, and solid waste generation would decrease significantly when compared to the proposed project. Overall, this alternative would have reduced impacts to utilities when compared to the proposed project. CONVENTIONAL APARTMENT ALTERNATIVE Aesthetics This alternative would result in the construction of 203 market-rate units and 68 affordable units, for a total of 271 units. However, under this alternative, the units would not be oriented to university students. When compared to the proposed project, approximately the same area of the project site would be developed with residential uses. Developing the entire project site with an increase in residential units would likely result in buildings with equal stories as the proposed project. Additionally, the building setback from 5 th Street under this alternative would likely be similar to the proposed project, which would equally impact the visual and aesthetic appeal of the site compared to the proposed project. Overall, this alternative would have equal impacts to aesthetics when compared to the proposed project. Air Quality As described in Section 3.2, implementation of the proposed project would generate emissions during both the construction phase and the operational phase. Construction related impacts would be similar under this alternative when compared to the proposed project, as the area of 2 CalRecycle. Last Updated January 14, Waste Characterization: Industrial Sector: Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Accessed June Available at: < Draft Environmental Impact Report Sterling 5 th St. Apartments

17 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0 ground disturbance would be comparable, and the duration of construction would be comparable. However, under this alternative, mobile source emissions would increase. Mobile source (vehicle emissions) are directly related to the number of vehicle trips generated by a project. As shown in Table above, the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 1,454 new external vehicle trips on a daily basis. Under this alternative, the conventional residential uses developed on the project site would generate approximately 1,615 daily vehicle trips, which would generate higher levels of pollutants from mobile sources. Therefore, this alternative would have greater impacts related to air quality when compared to the proposed project. Biological Resources Potential impacts to biological resources are primarily related to the area proposed for disturbance and less on the type of urban uses that would occur on the project site. Under this alternative, a similar amount of the project site would be disturbed when compared to the proposed project, and the potential for impacts to biological resources would remain unchanged when compared to the proposed project. Cultural Resources Potential impacts to cultural resources are primarily related to the area proposed for disturbance and less to the type of urban uses that would occur on the project site. Under this alternative, a similar amount of the project site would be disturbed when compared to the proposed project, and the potential for impacts to cultural resources would remain unchanged when compared to the proposed project. Geology and Soils This alternative would result in the construction of 27 more housing units as compared to the proposed project over approximately the same area as the proposed project. These buildings and structures would be exposed to the same level of risk from geologic hazards as the proposed project. However, because 27 more units would be constructed under the Conventional Apartment Alternative, more residents would be exposed to the risks from geologic hazards as compared to the proposed project. Therefore, this impact would be slightly increased under this alternative when compared to the proposed project. Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change This alternative would result in the construction of 27 more housing units as compared to the proposed project over approximately the same area as the proposed project. Development of the project site under this alternative would provide for a development that is consistent with SACOG s SCS. Similar to the proposed project, the Conventional Apartment Alternative would assist with regional GHG reduction efforts by providing a residential project at a density level that meets the SCS goals. Additionally, as described above, this alternative would result in greater daily vehicle trips when compared to the proposed project. Therefore, this impact would be slightly greater under this alternative when compared to the proposed project. Draft Environmental Impact Report Sterling 5 th St. Apartments