VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE MASTER PLAN A. INTRODUCTION

Transcription

1 VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE MASTER PLAN A. INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION As stipulated in Sectin (a) f the CEQA Statutes (Public Resurces Cde): The purpse f an envirnmental impact reprt is t identify the significant effects n the envirnment f a prject, t identify alternatives t a prject, and t indicate the manner in which thse significant effects can be mitigated r avided. Mre specifically, the State CEQA Guidelines (Sectin ) require an EIR t describe a range f reasnable alternatives t the prject, r t the lcatin f the prject, which wuld feasibly attain mst f the basic bjectives f the prject but wuld avid r substantially lessen any f the significant effects f the prject, and evaluate the cmparative merits f the alternatives. The discussin f alternatives, hwever, need nt be exhaustive, but rather it must cnsider a reasnable range f ptentially feasible alternatives that will fster infrmed decisin-making and public participatin. An EIR is nt required t cnsider alternatives that are deemed infeasible. Sectin (a) f the State CEQA Guidelines states: Purpse An EIR shall describe a range f reasnable alternatives t the prject, r t the lcatin f the prject, which wuld feasibly attain mst f the basic bjectives f the prject but wuld avid r substantially lessen any f the significant effects f the prject, and evaluate the cmparable merits f the alternatives. An EIR need nt cnsider every cnceivable alternative t a prject. Rather it must cnsider a reasnable range f ptentially feasible alternatives that will fster infrmed decisinmaking and public participatin. An EIR is nt required t cnsider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is respnsible fr selecting a range f prject alternatives fr examinatin and must publicly disclse its reasning fr selecting thse alternatives. There is n irnclad rule gverning the nature r scpe f the alternatives t be discussed ther than the rule f reasn. Sectin (b) f the State CEQA Guidelines states: Because an EIR must identify ways t mitigate r avid the significant effects that a prject may have n the envirnment, the discussin f alternatives shall fcus n alternatives t the prject r its lcatin which are capable f aviding r substantially lessening any significant effects f the prject, even if these alternatives wuld impede t sme degree the attainment f prject bjectives, r wuld be mre cstly. Page VI-1

2 Selectin f a Reasnable Range f Alternatives Sectin (c) f the State CEQA Guidelines states: The range f ptential alternatives t the prpsed prject shall include thse that culd feasibly accmplish mst f the basic bjectives f the prject and culd avid r substantially lessen ne r mre f the significant effects. The EIR shuld briefly describe the ratinale fr selecting the alternatives t be discussed. The EIR shuld als identify any alternatives that were cnsidered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scping prcess and briefly explain the reasns underlying the lead agency s determinatin. Additinal infrmatin explaining the chice f alternatives may be included in the administrative recrd. Amng the factrs that may be used t eliminate alternatives frm detailed cnsideratin in an EIR are: (i) failure t meet mst f the basic prject bjectives, (ii) infeasibility, r (iii) inability t avid significant envirnmental impacts. Level f Detail The State CEQA Guidelines d nt require the same level f detail in the alternatives analysis as in the analysis f the prpsed prject. Sectin (d) f the State CEQA Guidelines states: The EIR shall include sufficient infrmatin abut each alternative t allw meaningful evaluatin, analysis, and cmparisn with the prpsed prject. A matrix displaying the majr characteristics and significant envirnmental effects f each alternative may be used t summarize the cmparisn. If an alternative wuld cause ne r mre significant effects in additin t thse that wuld be caused by the prject as prpsed, the significant effects f the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects f the prject as prpsed. Prject Objectives SMC s specific land use and planning bjectives identified fr the Bundy Campus in the Master Plan are as fllws: T advance the missin f SMC t create a learning envirnment that bth challenges its students and supprts them in achieving their educatinal gals; T advance the missin f SMC t prepare its students t cntribute t the glbal cmmunity as they develp an understanding f their persnal relatinship t the wrld s scial, cultural, plitical, ecnmic, technlgical, and natural envirnments; T further SMC s adpted gals in the area f prmting student success, advancing academic excellence, develping cmmunity partnerships, and prviding a supprtive physical envirnment; Page VI-2

3 T create a state-f-the-art satellite campus that reflects SMC s cmmitment t prviding the best pssible educatinal envirnment; T develp a Master Plan that demnstrates SMC s cmmitment t the use f sustainable resurces and energy efficient building standards; T incrprate technlgy t supprt the Bundy Campus self-sufficiency, t exert a direct influence n traffic and parking mitigatin, and t enhance learning and teaching pprtunities; T create an rganized and unified develpment plan that cncentrates new cnstructin in a manner that maximizes bth educatinal space and pen space; T create a campus that can accmmdate all f its parking needs nsite; and T manage SMC s verall expansin by establishing and perating largely self-cntained satellite campuses such as is envisined fr the Bundy Campus. Overview f Selected Alternatives As indicated abve, prject alternatives shuld feasibly be able t attain mst f the basic bjectives f the prject (State CEQA Guidelines Sectin (a)), even thugh implementatin f the prject alternatives might, t sme degree, impede the attainment f thse bjectives r be mre cstly (State CEQA Guidelines Sectin (b)). Therefre, fr purpses f this alternatives analysis and t cmpare the merits f an alternative s ability t reduce envirnmental impacts and meet the Master Plan s bjectives, the fllwing Alternatives were defined and analyzed (brief descriptins are prvided herein with mre detailed descriptins prvided later in this Sectin): N Prject Alternatives: N Prject Alternative (1) - Under this Alternative, the Master Plan wuld nt be adpted and implemented. The existing fur-stry West Building wuld remain n the Bundy Campus and cntinue t prvide SMC classes within the existing 16 classrms currently in use and the existing East Building wuld remain vacant and wuld nt be ccupied by SMC activities. N access, parking, r landscaping imprvements identified under the Master Plan wuld ccur under this Alternative. Under this Alternative, thse prgrams slated t mve t the New Building under the Master Plan, wuld remain at the Main Campus. N Prject Alternative (2) - Under this Alternative, the Master Plan wuld nt be adpted and implemented and the entire site wuld be develped with 494,100 square feet (sf) f cmmercial ffice develpment (with apprximately 1,728 emplyees) and a multi-level 2,000-space parking garage. This ffice space wuld be prvided within three new six-flr ffice buildings prviding a ttal f 468,000 sf f ffice space and the existing East Building which wuld be renvated t prvide 26,100 sf f ffice space. This Alternative wuld result in reduced permeable surface area as cmpared t the Master Plan. Under this Alternative, Page VI-3

4 all prgrams currently prvided within the renvated West Building wuld be mved back t the Main Campus and thse prgrams slated t mve t the New Building under the Master Plan wuld remain at the Main Campus. N Prject Alternative (3) - Under this Alternative, the Master Plan wuld nt be adpted and implemented and the entire site wuld be re-graded and develped with 625 new multi-family residential units (husing apprximately 1,413 residents) prvided within several six-stry buildings and a multi-level 1,250-space parking garage. This Alternative wuld result in reduced permeable surface area as cmpared t the Master Plan. Under this Alternative, all prgrams currently prvided within the renvated West Building wuld be mved back t the Main Campus and thse prgrams slated t mve t the New Building under the Master Plan wuld remain at the Main Campus. Renvated East Building Alternative This Alternative wuld include the cntinued use f the renvated West Building and the renvatin f the tw-stry East Building at the existing lcatin t prvide classrm uses. Apprximately the same building density, number f students, and number f vehicles trips wuld ccur under this Alternative as under the Master Plan. The Renvated East Building Alternative wuld prvide 609 surface parking spaces and wuld nt prvide any subterranean parking. Therefre, this Alternative wuld result in reduced landscaping and permeable surface area as cmpared t the Master Plan. Access Alternatives These 17 Access Alternatives (including the N Prject Access Alternative) demnstrate a cmparisn f the varius accesses t the Bundy Campus that may be prvided under the Master Plan. The Access Alternatives include: ten Access Alternatives that wuld prvide access t the Bundy Campus via the existing Bundy Driveway at its current lcatin n Bundy Drive and via Airprt Avenue accesses (i.e., Access Alternatives A1 thrugh A10); fur Access Alternatives that wuld prvide access t the Bundy Campus via a new Nrtheast Bundy Driveway n Bundy Drive and via Airprt Avenue accesses (i.e., Access Alternatives B1 thrugh B4); and tw Access Alternatives that wuld prvide access t the Bundy Campus via a new driveway n Bundy Drive cnslidated with Airprt Avenue and via additinal Airprt Avenue accesses (i.e., Access Alternatives C1 and C2). These 17 Access Alternatives are analyzed in detail in Sectin IV.J (Transprtatin and Traffic) f this Draft EIR. Alternatives Rejected as Being Infeasible Sectin (c) f the State CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs t identify any alternatives that were cnsidered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scping prcess, and briefly explain the reasns underlying the Lead Agency s determinatin. Amng the factrs that may be used t eliminate alternatives frm detailed cnsideratin in an EIR are: (i) failure t meet mst f the basic prject bjectives, (ii) infeasibility, r (iii) inability t avid significant envirnmental impacts. The fllwing alternatives were cnsidered and rejected by SMC: Page VI-4

5 Off-site Alternative - Expansin f Existing Campus: An alternative invlving the same develpment envisined under the Master Plan, but at anther existing SMC satellite campus r the Main Campus was cnsidered and rejected. The SMC Main Campus lacks the capacity fr an additinal building and nne f the ther existing satellite campuses in the District are greater than fur acres such that they culd accmmdate the new classrms and parking envisined under the Master Plan. Therefre, this alternative was rejected as infeasible. Off-site Alternative - Develpment f New Satellite Campus: An alternative invlving the same develpment envisined under the Master Plan, but at a new SMC satellite campus at the nrthern bundaries f the District (i.e., Malibu) was cnsidered and rejected as infeasible. This lcatin fr the Bundy Campus and its prgrams wuld nt meet the Master Plan bjectives that aim t maximize educatinal space and pen space, prvide a supprtive physical envirnment, prvide the best pssible educatinal envirnment, and manage SMC s verall expansin, as it wuld nt attract the same students as the Bundy Campus, and, therefre, wuld nt serve t shift the same prgrams frm the Main Campus that currently require additinal space. Therefre, this alternative was rejected due t failure t meet basic prject bjectives. Stewart Avenue Access Alternative: An alternative invlving the develpment f the Master Plan but with full access at Stewart Avenue was cnsidered and rejected. This alternative wuld nt reduce significant air, nise, and traffic impacts at sensitive receptr lcatins in surrunding neighbrhds, and wuld nt meet the Master Plan bjectives that aim t develp cmmunity partnerships, prvide a supprtive physical envirnment, and exert a direct influence n traffic mitigatin, because this alternative wuld invlve substantial cllege-related traffic traveling thrugh surrunding residential neighbrhds t the suth and west f the Bundy Campus. Therefre, this alternative was rejected as it wuld nt meet basic prject bjectives and wuld nt reduce significant prject impacts. Assumptins and Methdlgy The anticipated means fr implementatin f the alternatives can influence the assessment and/r prbability f impacts fr thse alternatives. Fr example, a prject may have the ptential t generate impacts, but cnsideratins in prject design may als affrd the pprtunity t avid r reduce such impacts. The alternatives analysis is presented as a cmparative analysis t the Master Plan, and assumes that all applicable mitigatin measures prpsed fr the Master Plan wuld apply t each Alternative. Impacts assciated with the Alternatives are cmpared t the Master Plan s impacts and are classified as increased, reduced, r essentially similar t the level f impacts assciated with the Master Plan. The fllwing alternatives analysis cmpares the ptential envirnmental impacts f the N Prject Alternative (1), N Prject Alternative (2), N Prject Alternative (3), Renvated East Building Alternative, and Access Alternatives with thse f the Master Plan fr each f the envirnmental tpics analyzed in detail in Sectin IV (Envirnmental Impact Analysis) f this Draft EIR. Page VI-5