LOWE S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE

Transcription

1 LOWE S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT V. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES A. Introduction Section III of this document provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative. This Section addresses the potential impacts associated with three alternatives: the, the, and the. Each of the alternative scenarios is described in greater detail below. Each of these alternatives is discussed below, addressing categorically the same issue areas as were addressed for the Preferred Alternative in Section III of this document. Impacts are quantified to the greatest extent possible, and compared to the impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative. Each alternative is also compared to the project s objectives. In addition to these three alternatives, two other alternatives were also considered: the No Project/No Development Alternative and the Residential Alternative. Both these alternatives were rejected, for the following reasons. The No Project Alternative assumes that the site would remain vacant. As a result, none of the impacts identified in Section III of this document would occur. There would be no impact to air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology, water resources, noise, visual resources, public facilities, traffic and circulation, or hazards and hazardous materials. This alternative, however, would not meet any of the project objectives, and would not further the City s General Plan or economic development goals and vision. Because this alternative does not represent a credible alternative for the project site, it is not considered further in this document. The Residential Alternative considered the development of the site as a medium density apartment project, with approximately 195 units. It was assumed that the project would include three story buildings, with surface parking and a common open space area. This alternative would require a General Plan and Zoning Map amendment, as the land use would not be permitted under the current designation. This alternative would also locate residential uses in an area surrounded by commercial and light industrial uses. Although the apartments would be well located for college students and V-1

2 workers in the area, the alternative was rejected because it would not be consistent with the General Plan goals for the area; would not be compatible with the commercial and industrial nature of the area; and would not meet any of the project objectives. B. Statement of Project Objectives The proposed project will result in the development of a Lowe s Home Improvement Warehouse totaling 165,500 square feet, including the garden center; a 30,000 square foot retail building whose tenants have not been identified; and a 6,000 square foot retail building likely to house two restaurants, one of which is expected to include a drive-through. Objectives of the project are listed below: To develop a high quality community shopping center with consistent design and uniform landscaping which results in a unified design. To broaden the community retail shopping opportunities for the residents of San Bernardino, particularly those of the Verdemont neighborhood. To provide employment opportunities for area residents. To increase sales tax revenues for the City. C. Alternative Projects Selected for Detailed Analysis 1. This alternative assumes that the project site would be built out at its maximum development potential under the General Plan. The General Plan allows for development in the University Park land use designation to reach a floor area ratio of 1.0. Under this alternative, therefore, site could accommodate up to 627,000 square feet of retail commercial development, with underground or deck parking provided, instead of the more conventional surface parking provided under the Preferred Alternative. For purposes of this alternative, it has been assumed that the project would consist of a shopping mall, including a broad mix of retail uses totaling 600,000, and a 27,000 square foot food court with 8 food outlets. 2. Under the, the site would develop as a professional office park, consisting of 220,000 square feet of professional office space. This alternative assumes that the office park would include 200,000 square feet of offices, from accounting and legal firms to government offices. It is also assumed that this alternative would generate 20,000 square feet of ancillary retail uses, including deli or café uses, and services such as dry cleaners and reprographic shops. Surface parking would be provided. V-2

3 3. This alternative proposes a neighborhood commercial center of approximately 200,000 square feet, including a 75,000 square foot grocery store, a 20,000 square foot drug store, and 95,000 square feet of in-line retail shops typical of a neighborhood shopping center, which could include a dry cleaner, video rental, banks and specialty retail shops. In addition, it has been assumed that 3 fast food restaurants of 3,000 square feet each would be located within the project. D. Alternative Projects Analysis Introduction All of the issue areas addressed in Section III of this document are addressed below. Each of the alternatives is considered independently, and impacts are presented and discussed. Alternatives are also compared, as regards potential impacts, to the Preferred Alternative, and to the other alternatives considered. Where appropriate, conclusions regarding the relative benefit or greater impact of each alternative is discussed. The impacts discussed below are quantified to the greatest extent possible. In some instances, percentages are used to compare the alternative to the Preferred Alternative or to other alternatives. In other instances, the impacts have been quantified independently of either the Preferred Alternative or the other alternatives. 1. Land Use Compatibility The No Project/General Plan Build Out alternative would result in a 627,000 shopping mall on the project site. Because of the need for deck or underground parking, the structure would be expected to be at least two stories in height, and potentially could extend to three stories. This alternative would result in most of the site being occupied by structures, with only perimeter landscaping visible from outside the property. This alternative represents an increase of 228% over the Preferred Alternative in terms of building mass. This alternative would be much more intense in terms of land use than the development which currently occurs in the area, and would be incompatible with the surrounding development, which is primarily single story in nature. The maximized use of the site would not integrate well into the area, and would dwarf, in particular, the gasoline service station located on the southwest corner of Hallmark Parkway and University Parkway. This alternative would be expected to meet the General Plan and economic development goals of the City, in terms of providing broader opportunities for shopping and jobs in the area. It would also be expected to have a greater benefit to the City in terms of potential sales tax generated, insofar as the increased square footage would result in a greater amount of sales tax generation than the Preferred Alternative. V-3

4 This alternative would result in approximately 220,000 square feet in an office park setting. The building mass would increase only marginally from the proposed project (15%). This alternative would be expected to have a similar bulk and mass as the proposed project, and would include surface parking and its associated landscaping. The development of the office park would be compatible with the surrounding development, given its scale, and would be well located for employees of the park to have convenient access to retail commercial opportunities. Impacts associated with this alternative would be approximately equivalent to those of the Preferred Alternative. This alternative would be expected to meet some of the General Plan and economic development goals for the area, insofar as it would result in the creation of new jobs, and would further the commercial development of the area. This alternative, however, would not provide significant sales tax revenue to the City, insofar as office development generally does not generate sales tax, and the retail component would be only ancillary to the office use. This alternative would also meet half of the objectives of the project, insofar as it would create a unified, high quality commercial project, would create new jobs, but would not broaden retail opportunities in the area, or create additional dales tax revenue for the City. Under this development alternative, the project site would be developed with a typical neighborhood shopping center, including a supermarket and drug store, banks, miscellaneous retail and three fast food restaurants. Total square footage under this alternative would be equivalent to that proposed under the Preferred Alternative, but the type of retail development would change. The mass and scale of the buildings would be similar to the preferred alternative, and would therefore integrate into the area and be compatible with existing development. This alternative would have somewhat different activity patterns than the proposed alternative, insofar as supermarkets and drugstores experience somewhat different peak times than community-based retail. Impacts associated with this alternative would be approximately equivalent to those of the Preferred Alternative. This alternative would meet the General Plan and economic development goals for the area, insofar as it would create new jobs and increase sales tax revenue to the City. It would be expected that sales tax revenue would be somewhat less than the Preferred Alternative, insofar as supermarket food sales are not all taxable. This alternative would also meet the objectives of the project, and would result in a high quality, unified design; would create new jobs and sales tax revenue; and would broaden shopping opportunities in the area. V-4

5 2. Air Quality The Preferred Alternative would result in unacceptable levels of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides through the life of the project. These impacts are depicted in Table V-1, below. Table V-1 Anticipated Cumulative Daily Project-Related Emissions Associated with Build Out of the Proposed Project Stationary Source Emissions Power Plants Nat. Gas Consumption Moving Source Emissions Total Anticipated Emissions (lbs./day) SCAQMD Threshold Criteria* (lbs./day) Carbon Monoxide , , Nitrogen Oxides Sulfur Oxides Particulates Reactive Organic Gases * Threshold criteria offered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for assistance in determining the significance of air quality impacts. Source: "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993, Revised January This alternative would have similar fugitive dust impacts to the Preferred Alternative, insofar as the entire site would be graded under both scenarios. The construction impacts would be expected to be greater, particularly as regards the duration of construction, and the application of coatings and resulting reactive organic gasses emissions. For operation of the project, this alternative would generate up to 22,395 vehicle trips, and would consume more electricity and natural gas than the Preferred Alternative. As a result, as shown in Table V-2 below, impacts associated with operation of this Alternative would be greater than those of the Preferred Alternative by over 80%. V-5

6 Table V-2 Anticipated Cumulative Daily Project-Related Emissions Stationary Source Emissions Power Plants Nat.Gas Consumption Moving Source Emissions Total Anticipated Emissions (lbs./day) SCAQMD Threshold Criteria* (lbs./day) Carbon Monoxide , Nitrogen Oxides Sulfur Oxides Particulates Reactive Organic Gases * Threshold criteria offered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for assistance in determining the significance of air quality impacts. Source: "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993; revised January This alternative would result in similar fugitive dust and construction air quality impacts to the Preferred Alternative, insofar as the square footage of building, areas needed for parking lots, and mass and scale of structures would be expected to be similar. Under operational conditions, however, this alternative would result in lower emissions than the Preferred Alternative, due primarily to the anticipated reduction in vehicle trips, and the proportional reduction in emissions. The emissions associated with stationary emissions would be similar to the Preferred Alternative, because the project square footage would be close to that of the Preferred Alternative. Overall, as depicted in Table V-3, the would reduce air quality impacts by about 40%, although thresholds of significance would still be exceeded for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides. V-6

7 Table V-3 Anticipated Cumulative Daily Project-Related Emissions Stationary Source Emissions Power Plants Nat.Gas Consumption Moving Source Emissions Total Anticipated Emissions (lbs./day) SCAQMD Threshold Criteria* (lbs./day) Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Oxides Sulfur Oxides Particulates Reactive Organic Gases * Threshold criteria offered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for assistance in determining the significance of air quality impacts. Source: "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993; revised January As with the Preferred and Office Park alternatives, impacts associated with fugitive dust and construction emissions would be about the same under this alternative, since the area to be disturbed, and the square footage to built are similar to these two other alternatives. Under this alternative during operation of the site, however, impacts associated with air quality would be greater than with the Preferred Alternative. This results from two primary components. First, the incorporation of a grocery store in the alternative greatly increases the amount of electricity used, because of the refrigeration and freezer capacity required. Secondly, the traffic generated by this alternative results in almost 35% more daily trips than the Preferred Alternative. Under the, overall impacts to air quality would be approximately 35% greater than with the Preferred Alternative. V-7

8 Table V-4 Anticipated Cumulative Daily Project-Related Emissions Stationary Source Emissions Power Plants Nat.Gas Consumption Moving Source Emissions Total Anticipated Emissions (lbs./day) SCAQMD Threshold Criteria* (lbs./day) Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Oxides Sulfur Oxides Particulates Reactive Organic Gases * Threshold criteria offered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for assistance in determining the significance of air quality impacts. Source: "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993; revised January Biological Resources This alternative would disturb the entire project site, as will the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, initial impacts to biological resources would be similar to those expected from the Preferred Alternative. In the long term, however, this impact would likely result in greater impacts to biological resources, since little new, albeit ornamental landscaping would occur on the site. The species displaced by the proposed project would have limited area to return to, since only perimeter landscaping would be expected to result from this Alternative. Overall impacts would therefore be somewhat greater than under the Preferred Alternative. This alternative would have similar impacts to the Preferred Alternative. There could potentially be slightly less landscaping with this alternative, because of the increased square footage, but the difference would be marginal. As with the Preferred Alternative, the entire site would be graded, and habitat would be lost. Replaced ornamental habitat could be somewhat less, but would be expected to be roughly equivalent to the Preferred Alternative. As with the Preferred Alternative, habitat loss from initial site grading would involve the entire site. Replacement landscaping would be approximately equivalent to the Preferred Alternative. Impacts associated with this alternative would be the same as those for the Preferred Alternative. V-8

9 4. Cultural Resources This alternative would disturb the entire site, as would the Preferred Alternative. No cultural or paleontological resources are expected to occur on the site. Therefore, there would be no impact to these resources under either alternative. Impacts from this alternative would be identical to those of the Preferred Alternative, since the entire site would be graded. No cultural or paleontological resources are expected to occur on the site. Therefore, there would be no impact to these resources under either alternative. As with the Preferred Alternative, the project site would be disturbed in its entirety. No cultural or paleontological resources are expected to occur on the site. Therefore, there would be no impact to these resources under either alternative. 5. Geology and Soils Build out of this alternative would require greater structural support than the Preferred Alternative, due to the mass of the structure, and the multiple stories of construction required. Additional remedial grading and over-excavation would be likely. In a seismic event, hazards could be higher, if significant damage occurred, insofar as the structure required would be more massive than with the Preferred Alternative. The standards to which the building would be built, however, would be equivalent to the Preferred Alternative, insofar as the City applies the standards of the Uniform Building Code to all buildings. This alternative would involve similar construction to that for the Preferred Alternative, and would therefore be expected to have similar grading and soil compaction requirements. Structural requirements would also be similar, and the Uniform Building Code would be applied to both structures. During a seismic event, potential hazards associated with falling debris would be reduced, insofar as this alternative would not involve the stacking of inventory on shelves. Impacts would be the same as with the Preferred Alternative. Under the, construction would be similar to the Preferred Alternative. Single story construction would be anticipated, and similar grading and soil compaction would be required. Shelves in a grocery store or drug store would not be as tall as in the Preferred Alternative, so the hazard from falling debris during an earthquake would be reduced. The impacts associated with this alternative would be the same as with the Preferred Alternative. V-9

10 6. Hazardous and Toxic Materials The No Project Alternative would result in general retail stores and restaurants which would utilize cleaning products and similar materials in small quantities. Unlike the Preferred Alternative, it would be unlikely that large quantities of chemicals, fertilizers and similar products would be stored for sale under this alternative so the impacts associated with a potential spill would be greatly reduced. No hazardous materials would be transported under this alternative. As a result, this alternative would have lower impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials than the Preferred Alternative. As with the No Project Alternative, this alternative would not be likely to store hazardous materials beyond those required for cleaning and office operations. No hazardous materials would be transported. This alternative, like the No Project Alternative, would have lower impacts than the Preferred Alternative. The stores likely to locate in a neighborhood shopping center such as that proposed under this alternative would have a potential to store some chemicals and solvents for sale, including motor oil, pool supplies and household cleaning products. It would be expected, however, that the quantities would be less than under the Preferred Alternative. Some materials would be transported, since deliveries and sales would result in transport of the products. This alternative would have somewhat lower impacts than the Preferred Alternative on hazards and hazardous materials. 7. Hydrology The No Project Alternative would result in a substantially larger structure, and less landscaped area on the project site. As a result, it would be expected that storm water would occur on the site in greater volume than under the Preferred Alternative. It would be expected that like the Preferred Alternative, this alternative would be designed to drain to the Macy Basin. The additional volume of storm water would have to be accommodated. Since the Macy Basin is a regional facility designed to accommodate General Plan development, however, it is likely that the Basin would have capacity to accommodate the additional flows. Should that not be possible, either on-site retention, in the form of underground storage facilities, would be required on the site. Under this alternative, approximately 15% more building coverage would occur than under the Preferred Alternative. There would therefore be a slight increase in impermeable surfaces, and a similar increase in storm flows through the site. Like the Preferred Alternative, it would be expected that the site would drain to Macy Basin. It would also be expected that the small incremental increase in storm water could be accommodated in that facility. Impacts would be marginally higher than those associated with the Preferred Alternative. V-10

11 Development of a neighborhood shopping center on the site would have similar impacts to those associated with the proposed project. The square footage of this alternative is equivalent to the Preferred Alternative, and would likely result in almost identical storm flows from the site. Since under the Preferred Alternative Macy Basin has sufficient capacity to accommodate storm flows, it would be expected that the would have the same impacts as the Preferred Alternative. 8. Water Resources/Quality Water usage for this alternative would be greater than for the Preferred Alternative, due to the increased square footage, and likely increase in the number of restaurants. This alternative would be 228% larger than the Preferred Alternative in terms of square footage. Correspondingly, water usage could increase to acre feet per year under this alternative. The parking decks which would occur under this alternative would be a source of potential pollution for groundwater, insofar as the chemicals and oils discharged from vehicles could be more than under the Preferred Alternative, since more parking would have to be provided. The same best management practices, however, would be required under this alternative as would be under the Preferred Alternative. This alternative may result in the construction of additional facilities to assure that storm water is not degraded when it leaves the site. Therefore, impacts associated with water consumption would be greater than the Preferred Alternative under this scenario, but impacts associated with water quality would be similar. Under the, square footage would be increased slightly, and the use of the buildings would change from retail to office. Offices generally use less water than retail uses, so the total consumption of water at the project site would be approximately 18,480 gallons per day, or approximately 20.7 acre feet per year. This would represent a reduction in water use of about 50% from the Preferred Alternative. This alternative would result in surface parking similar to the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, it would be expected that issues associated with water quality would be equivalent to those associated with the Preferred Alternative. In conclusion, impacts associated with water consumption would be less under this alternative, and impacts associated with water quality would be equivalent under this alternative. This alternative would result in equivalent water consumption to the Preferred Alternative, because of the equivalent square footage proposed. Surface parking would occur under this alternative, with similar impacts as the Preferred Alternative. Overall, this alternative would be expected to have similar water resources impacts to the Preferred Alternative. V-11

12 9. Noise Vehicle trips associated with this alternative would be three times that of the Preferred Alternative. As a result, noise on affected streets would be increased under this alternative. On site noise might be somewhat reduced, insofar as it would be expected that the parking decks and an indoor mall would have lower noise levels than a single story open commercial development. Noise during construction under this alternative would be greater than under the other alternatives, due to the extent of construction for a multiple story, structurally significant building mass. Since this type of construction would also require a longer construction period, the impacts, although still temporary, could extend for a longer period of time. Overall impacts associated with this alternative would be expected to be greater than the Preferred Alternative. Under the, a total of 3,161 daily vehicle trips would be generated, representing a reduction of 60% as compared to the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, it would be expected that noise levels on surrounding streets would also be reduced. The nature of office development, and the limited outdoor activities when compared to retail land uses, would also likely result in lower noise levels on the site, and lower noise levels at surrounding properties. The relatively impacted nature of the area, however, would make this reduction insignificant. Construction noise under this alternative would be expected to be similar to that generated under the Preferred Alternative, insofar as building mass and surface parking would likely require similar construction methods and time periods. Overall, impacts from noise under this alternative would be somewhat lower than those of the Preferred Alternative. The would result in a total of approximately 10,656 average daily trips, or an increase of 35% over the Preferred Alternative. As a result, noise on surrounding streets would also be expected to be increased somewhat. Given the noise environment on major arterials in the City, however, this increase would not be likely to be perceptible. On-site noise levels would be expected to be equivalent to those of the Preferred Alternative, since a similar surface parking lot would occur. The nature of the neighborhood shopping center, with later shopping hours, might result in slightly higher noise levels during the evening hours. The closest sensitive receptors in the area, however, are located across University Parkway, and would likely not perceive the increase in activity at the site. V-12

13 As with the Preferred and Office Park alternatives, similar building mass and site improvements would be required, and construction noise, and its duration, would be expected to be equivalent. Impacts associated with noise under the would be similar to those associated with the Preferred Alternative. 10. Public Services and Facilities Law Enforcement The, because of its increased square footage, would be expected to generate a higher need for police service than the Preferred Alternative, because of the higher concentration of people resulting from a shopping mall development. The would likely generate a lower demand for police services than the Preferred Alternative, due to the type of land use. The would be likely to generate an equivalent need for police services to that of the Preferred Alternative, because of the similarity in land uses and building mass. Fire and Emergency Services The would be expected to generate a higher need for emergency service than the Preferred Alternative, particularly that related to emergency medical aid. Additionally, the construction of a multi-story structure with parking decks above or below could result in a more complex fire response should a fire occur on the site. Impacts to fire services would likely be greater than the Preferred Alternative overall. Because of the similar building mass and surface parking proposed under either the Office Park or the Mixed Retail alternatives, fire service impacts would be equivalent to those associated with the Preferred Alternative. Because of the lower number of people likely to occur in an office setting, however, medical aid impacts might be somewhat lower under the than under either the Mixed Retail or the Preferred alternatives. Schools Impacts on schools are difficult to quantify under any of the alternatives. Since any retail project on the site would likely be built in response to residential growth, it would also be likely that most employees would either be existing residents, or persons from nearby communities, rather than persons moving to the area specifically for a retail employment opportunity. Therefore, the impacts to schools associated with either the or the Mixed Retail Alternative would be likely to be similar to those resulting from the Preferred Alternative. The would be likely to generate a greater number of jobs, but would still be expected to employ existing residents. The, on the other hand, could result in the relocation of employees from other areas, and the associated need for additional student space within the school district. This alternative, therefore, could have a somewhat greater impact on schools than any of the other alternatives. V-13

14 Solid Waste Disposal Because of the square footage proposed, it would be likely that the No Project/General Plan Build Out Alternative would generate an equivalent increase in solid waste generation. On this basis, the would be likely to generate up to 1,532 tons of solid waste annually, or 228% more than the Preferred Alternative. The would have similar square footage as the Preferred Alternative, but would generate a different waste stream than commercial development. Assuming up to 440 employees within the project (1 employee per 500 square feet), and depending on the type of office uses which would locate within the project, a range of 132 tons to 748 tons per year would be generated by this alternative. Therefore, depending on the mix of uses, this alternative could have a lesser or greater impact on solid waste than the Preferred Alternative. The would have similar square footage to the Preferred Alternative, and would include a grocery store, which has similar waste generation rates to home and garden stores. This alternative would have three restaurants, compared to the two proposed for the Preferred Alternative. This alternative would likely generate about 300 to 400 tons of solid waste annually, or somewhat less than the Preferred Alternative. Water Services Please see Water Resources, above. Sanitary Sewer Services Under all the alternatives, the City will supply service to the site. The increased square footage associated with the would also result in a higher amount of effluent from the site, and would therefore have a greater impact than the Preferred Alternative. The Office Park and Mixed Retail alternatives would be expected to have similar discharge rates to the Preferred Alternative, and therefore have similar impacts. In all cases, each alternative would connect to existing service in the surrounding rights of way, and would not require the extension of new service lines. Natural Gas Service Using the same factors as presented in Section III of this document, the No Project/General Plan Build Out Alternative would use 1.8 million cubic feet of natural gas per month, or 1,233,950 cubic feet more than the Preferred Alternative. The would be expected to use 440,000 cubic feet per month, or 144,350 cubic feet less than the Preferred Alternative; and the would consume 580,000 cubic yards, or almost exactly the same as the Preferred Alternative. In all cases, natural gas infrastructure occurs at the project site, and would not require the extension of new service. V-14

15 Electrical Services The would be expected to require 8,495,850 Kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, or 5,571,900 Kilowatt-hours more than the Preferred Alternative. The would be expected to use 2,849,000 Kilowatt-hours per year, or 74,950 Kilowatt-hours less than the Preferred Alternative; and the would consume 5,982,800 Kilowatt-hours, or 3,058,850 Kilowatt-hours more than the Preferred Alternative. In the case of the, the high generation requirement is primarily due to the food store and restaurants, which consume much more electricity than general merchandise retail. In all cases, infrastructure occurs at the project site, and would not require the extension of new service. Public Transportation Impacts to public transit would be greatest under the, because of the higher number of employees and patrons which would be likely to use transit. Impacts to the transit service would also be higher under the, because of the larger number of employees likely to be employed there. Impacts associated with the Mixed Retail Alternative would be equivalent to the Preferred Alternative, given the similar size of that project, and the likely number of employees. Under all alternatives, Omnitrans service exists on University Parkway, and would continue to be available to employees and patrons. 11. Traffic/Circulation The trip generation for the Preferred Alternative is illustrated in Table V-5, below. Table V-5 Preferred Alternative Traffic Generation Peak Hour Morning Evening Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily Home Improvement Store , 955 Specialty Retail ,463 Fast Food Restaurant ,488 Total ,906 The would result in 22,95 average daily trips, as illustrated in Table V-6. V-15

16 Table V-6 No Project/General Plan Build Out Traffic Generation Peak Hour Morning Evening Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily Commercial Retail ,009 1,093 2,102 22,395 Total ,009 1,093 2,102 22,395 At General Plan Build Out, with improvements, all studied intersections under the Preferred Alternative would operate at acceptable levels of service in the evening peak hour. The development of the No Project/General Plan Alternative would add over 1,500 trips to local roadways during this time period. However, the addition of these trips, given the capacity of local roadways in 2030, would be expected to be sufficient to maintain level of service D or better on area roadways. As with the Preferred Alternative, University Parkway at Kendall Drive and State Street at the I-210 westbound ramps are expected to be the most congested intersections in the study area. The would result in greater impacts upon traffic and circulation than would the Preferred Alternative. The would result in a total of 3,161 average daily trips on area roadways, 281 of which would occur during the evening peak hour. Table V-7 Office Park Traffic Generation Peak Hour Morning Evening Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily Office ,275 Specialty Retail Total ,161 Under this alternative, the trips generated during the evening peak hour would 60% of those generated under the Preferred Alternative. As a result, in 2030, levels of service on all studied intersection would be marginally improved, although individual intersection levels of service would not be expected to change. The reduction is of sufficiently small size that a change on local roadways would not be perceptible. The would result in marginally lower impacts on the regional circulation system when compared to the Preferred Alternative. The, although similar in square footage to the Preferred Alternative, would generate a total of 10,656 trips, or 2,750 more daily trips than the Preferred Alternative, as shown in Table V-8, below. V-16

17 Table V-8 Mixed Retail Traffic Generation Peak Hour Morning Evening Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily Commercial Retail ,656 Total ,656 Under this alternative, almost 400 more trips would occur on study area roadways during the evening peak hour. As with the, the capacity of local roadways is sufficient that these trips would not be expected to significantly impact intersection operations. The addition of 400 trips across area intersections would be marginally perceptible, and would not change the levels of service at these intersections. As with the Preferred Alternative, the most significantly impacted intersections would be University Parkway at Kendall Drive, and State Street and the I-210 westbound ramps. The would have marginally greater impacts on the circulation system than the Preferred Alternative. 12. Visual Resources No Project Alternative Development of the No Project/General Plan Build Out alternative would have a greater impact on visual resources than any of the other alternatives. The bulk and mass of a multi-story structure at this location would cause view blockage for all surrounding development, and would over-whelm the existing service station located at the southwest corner of Hallmark Parkway and University Parkway. The project itself might enjoy better views, because of the potential height of the structure, but the impacts to surrounding development would be considerable. The would have a similar impact on viewsheds as the Preferred Alternative. The mass and scale of the buildings would be expected to be similar to the Preferred Alternative, and would not significantly impact surrounding development. Views from the site would be limited by the existing topography and physical features surrounding the site, including the I-215 right of way. Under the, the development of the site would be of almost identical size to the Preferred Alternative. The bulk and mass of buildings would be similar, and would have a similarly limited impact on surrounding development. As with the Office Park and Preferred Alternatives, the views from the site would be limited by the I-215 right of way, and existing surrounding development. Impacts would be identical to those of the Preferred Alternative. V-17

18 E. Environmentally Superior Alternative The would represent the Environmentally Superior Alternative. This alternative would reduce vehicle trips, thereby reducing air quality impacts. It is important to note, however, that although the air quality impacts would be reduced, they would still be considered significant and unmitigable. The would reduce impacts to water consumption by 50% over the Preferred Alternative. This alternative would also marginally reduce noise impacts to and from the site, and would also have somewhat lower impacts relating to hazardous materials. Impacts associated with land use compatibility, biological and cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology, public services and visual resources would all be similar to those of the Preferred Alternative. V-18