5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5.1 INTRODUCTION

Transcription

1 5.1 INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines state that an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives (Section ). The CEQA Guidelines state that the range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a rule of reason that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the Lead Agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project (Section ). In defining feasibility of alternatives, the CEQA Guidelines state that among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (Section ). The alternatives must adequately represent the spectrum of environmental concerns in order to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives. The EIR must also provide the rationale for selecting or defining the alternatives evaluated throughout the document, including identifying any alternatives that were considered by the Lead Agency but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process. The alternatives analysis for this EIR is presented in four major parts. The first section describes the objectives of the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Project (Project). The second section summarizes the potentially significant unavoidable short- and long-term impacts of the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Project from information presented in Section 3.0, Environmental Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures. The third section discusses potential impacts under the Project alternatives. The final section concludes with the selection of an environmentally superior alternative, based on the Project configuration with the fewest significant impacts while meeting the greatest number of Project objectives. East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 5-1

2 5.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The primary applicants and City objectives of the Project are discussed in Section 2.5 and summarized below. Objective #1. To designate appropriate land uses and design guidelines within the Specific Plan that will guide future development within the Project site; Objective #2. To provide for historical, recreational, and residential opportunities that both complement and augment the existing uses in the City; Objective #3. To comply with the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element Implementation Policy AG 14.2 with the protection and preservation of offsite agricultural lands; Objective #4. To set forth a development plan(s) capable of underwriting the cost of public and private infrastructure and capital improvements proposed as part of the Specific Plan; and, Objective #5. To promote orderly and attractive community development in the context of existing neighborhoods and in recognition of future development in the vicinity. 5.3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE PROJECT IMPACTS Long-Term Impacts Air Quality Emissions Long-term operational air quality emissions associated with the Project would marginally exceed the San Luis Obispo s Air Pollution Control District s (APCD s) operational threshold for combined reactive organic gases (ROGs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM2.5) after the implementation of mitigation measures, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality emissions and potential inconsistency with the County of San Luis Obispo s Clean Air Plan (CAP) Transportation and Traffic Long-term operational impacts from the proposed Project would contribute to the projected AM and PM peak hour LOS 'F' at the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection and increase delay by more than 5 seconds in each peak hour, resulting in a significant and 5-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan

3 unavoidable impact as no feasible mitigation is available to reduce traffic impacts at this intersection. 5.4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS This section discusses alternatives to the proposed Project, including the No Project Alternative, Reduced Development Alternative, and alternatives that were considered and discarded. Each of these considers the ability of a particular alternative to substantially reduce or eliminate the Project s significant environmental impacts, while still meeting basic Project objectives. The alternatives analyzed in the EIR include: CEQA No Project Alternative; and, Reduced Development Alternative Alternatives Considered but Discarded As discussed above, CEQA Section (c) requires that an EIR disclose alternatives that were considered and discarded and provide a brief explanation as to why such alternatives were not fully considered in the EIR. In particular, as required by the State CEQA Guidelines, the selection of alternatives included a screening process to determine which alternatives could reduce significant effects but also feasibly meet Project objectives. The following alternatives were considered but eliminated from further analysis by the Lead Agency due to infeasibility, inconsistency with primary Project objectives, or inability to reduce significant impacts Other Comparable Sites Alternative This alternative involves review of the potential to construct a development of similar size and scale as the proposed East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan at alternative locations, thereby lessening or avoiding site-specific impacts to traffic, agriculture, and other resource areas. Under the Other Comparable Sites Alternative, the proposed Project would be located at another large, predominantly vacant property to meet the Project s objectives of providing a historical, recreational, and residential development. Potential offsite alternative locations were screened for consideration based on size requirements (approximately 15 acres) and objectives for residential and commercial development, similar to the proposed Project. However, a limited number of undeveloped, comparatively sized, infill sites were identified within City limits as a result of the screening process. Potential sites generally consisted of other agricultural parcels located along the City boundary, which would not necessarily result in a reduction of impacts to agricultural East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 5-3

4 resources or land use. Larger agricultural parcels located west of the Project site, on the opposite side of U.S. Highway 101, are located adjacent to Arroyo Grande High School and Arroyo Grande Creek, and could potentially result in increased traffic congestion, as well as impacts to hydrology and water quality, and biological resources. In addition, the historical use objective met by the proposed JWA mixed cultural development in Subarea 3 could not be realized at an alternate location due to its ties with the historical Japanese- American cultural activities that took place specifically at the proposed Project site. Therefore, this alternative was considered and discarded, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section (c) Circulation Planning Alternative An alternative circulation plan to avoid or lessen traffic and transportation safety impacts was considered as an alternative to the proposed Project, including realignment of onsite roadways and/or connection points to surrounding roadways, as well as, improved connectivity for onsite and offsite pedestrian and bike facilities. Project impacts to site access, connectivity, and safety were determined to be less than significant; however, contribution to AM and PM peak hour level of service (LOS) F impacts at the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection were determined to be significant and unavoidable under this alternative and would not be reduced compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, this option was considered and discarded, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section (c) Agricultural Preserve Alternative Preservation of the Project site solely for agricultural production, facilitated through an agricultural preserve designation, was considered as an alternative to the proposed Project. However, this alternative would be inconsistent with the City s General Plan/Land Use Map designation intended for traffic mixed-use development in Subarea 1, and therefore, would require a General Plan amendment. In addition, this alternative would not meet the Project objectives, which include the provision of historical, recreational, and residential opportunities that complement and augment existing uses in the City. From a land use perspective, the City s General Plan identifies Subarea 1 as being appropriate for development over the long term. Finally, this alternative would not be necessary to reduce potentially significant impacts since the proposed Project would meet City policies through agricultural land dedication and payment of in-lieu mitigation fees. Therefore, this option was considered and discarded, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section (c). 5-4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan

5 Additional Park and Recreational Facilities Development of a portion of the Project site (Subarea 1) for additional park and recreational facilities was considered as an alternative to the proposed Project. Possible use as a community park would include development of ball fields, picnic areas, and other major park facilities. This would increase the ratio of park land acres per resident as required by policies and standards in the City s General Plan Parks and Recreation Element. However, this alternative would be inconsistent with the City s General Plan/ Land Use Map for Subarea 1, and would not be necessary since the proposed Project could meet City park standards and reduce potentially significant impacts by dedicating and improvement the proposed neighborhood park and through payment of in-lieu mitigation fees. Therefore, this option was considered and discarded, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section (c) Alternatives Considered for Analysis No Project Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, the Project would not be approved and no proposed development would occur. This alternative could result in two possible outcomes. Under one possible outcome, the No Project Alternative would be a continuation of the existing setting. The Project site would remain vacant for the foreseeable future and no development would occur. Under this alternative, ongoing agricultural production would continue in Subarea 2 and 3, with associated water use, application of pesticides and herbicides and other ongoing impacts (e.g., dust generation). Subarea 3 would retain its agricultural zoning and would remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future. Subarea 1 may remain a fallow agricultural field unless agricultural uses are resumed. No new hotel/restaurant or residences would be constructed and no associated new source of automobile trips would be generated with impacts to congestion, air pollutants, and GHG emissions. In addition, the Japanese Welfare Association (JWA) cultural heritage and historic garden facility would not be developed. Therefore, no changes would occur with regard to aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, recreation, transportation and traffic, or utilities and public services. A second possible outcome of the No Project Alternative would be development of the Project site in accordance with the City s existing zoning and General Plan/Land Use Map. The City s General Plan/Land Use Map identifies the Project site land use as Mixed-Use East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 5-5

6 (Subarea 1) and Agriculture (Subareas 2 and 3), and defines residential densities, subdivision designs, envisioned mixed uses, and design standards to address land use compatibility between varied uses onsite and with the surrounding neighborhood. The current zoning designation for the Project site is Traffic Way Mixed-Use (TMU) with D Design Overlay (Subarea 1) and Agriculture (Subareas 2 and 3), consistent with the City s General Plan. Under this version of the No Project Alternative, ongoing agricultural production would continue within Subareas 2 and 3; however, potential development of Subarea 1 could result in a variety of automobile-related developments (e.g., automobile sales, automobile parts sales, tire store, quick vehicle lubrication shop, and automobile care center), ranging from approximately 13,000 to 38,000 square feet (sf) of floor area, as intended by the zone designation, or other mixed-use commercial/retail uses under a use permit, including hotel/restaurant, similar to the proposed Project. Environmental impacts similar to the proposed Project would occur as a result of hotel/restaurant development in Subarea 1 under a conditional use permit (CUP) (i.e., significant and unavoidable impacts to LOS at the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection from the new source of automobile trips). Impacts to the Project site as a whole would be reduced compared to the Project. In addition, impacts to agricultural resources and land use would be less than significant, as development of Subarea 1 for this use would be consistent with existing land use and zoning. While this Subarea contains prime farmland soils, the site is designated for development, and loss of these soils is already anticipated in plans for City build-out. Impacts to other resource areas, including aesthetics, biological resources, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, recreation, and utilities and public services would be less than under the proposed Project and would have less than significant impacts. Overall, neither outcome of the No Project Alternative would achieve the stated Project objectives. The No Project Alternative would reduce the magnitude of impacts to traffic and air quality emissions. As the No Project Alternative would not involve the development of Subareas 2 and 3, operational air quality emissions would be reduced and would be below APCD s air quality emissions thresholds and would achieve greater consistently with the CAP; however, traffic impacts would still potentially be significant under the No Project Alternative, in particular, LOS at the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection Reduced Development Alternative The Reduced Development Alternative is designed to meet the central objectives of the proposed East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan, namely, to provide for historical, recreational, and residential opportunities that both complement and augment the existing uses in the 5-6 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan

7 City. However, this alternative would reduce the scale and intensity of proposed development, and associated trip generation and intersection congestion, air pollutants, and GHG emissions generated by new source of automobile trips. Under this alternative, reductions within the hotel/restaurant component in Subarea 1 and the residential component in Subarea 2 would reduce the number of hotel rooms/restaurant size and the number of residences compared to the proposed Project. The specific square footage and number of units reduced under this alternative was determined based on trip reduction necessary to reduce potential impacts at the Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way intersection from a less than significant unavoidable impact with mitigation under the proposed Project, to a less than significant impact with mitigation. Subarea 1. Based on a traffic level reduction required to reduce impacts to the Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way intersection, the proposed number of hotel rooms in Subarea 1 would be reduced from approximately 100 to 70, and the restaurant size would be reduced from approximately 4,000 to 3,000 sf. Subarea 2. Based on traffic level reduction required to reduce impacts to the Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way intersection, the number of proposed residences in Subarea 2 would be reduced from 58 to 40. Subarea 3. Development within Subarea 3 would the same as under the proposed Project. Based on these development reductions and a traffic rate of 8.92 trips/unit/day, traffic generated by the development of a 70 unit hotel would result in a total of trips per day, with an AM peak trip level of 46.9 and a PM peak trip level of For the Subarea 2 development, a traffic rate of 9.52 trips/unit/day for a 40 housing units would equate to a total of trips per day, with an AM peak trip level of 30.0 and a PM peak trip level of Under these reduced development plans, total trips per day would be reduced by approximately 449 trips/day, from a total of 1,646 trips/day generated under the proposed Project, to 1,197 trips/day, with an AM peak trip level of 76 and a PM peak trip level of 104 for the Project. Initial traffic analysis indicates that the reductions in hotel rooms/restaurant size and residences under this alternative would reduce delays and congestion the Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way intersection to a less than significant impact, and implementation of any mitigations measures required under the proposed Project would not be required. Despite a reduction in trips generated by reduced development of the Project, implementation of this alternative would not reduce traffic impacts at the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection below a significant and unavoidable impact; East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 5-7

8 therefore, impacts at this intersection would remain the same as those anticipated under the proposed project. In addition, reduced employment could incrementally reduce longdistance commuting. Therefore, this alternative would reduce, but not eliminate all of the proposed Project s significant impacts to traffic and transportation. Short-term air quality impacts would be slightly less than those described for the proposed Project as a result of decreased construction building size for the hotel/restaurant and number of residences, but remain less than significant with mitigations. Operational air quality impacts would be reduced as smaller development would result in fewer automobile trips for hotel/restaurant patrons and residents, and a decrease in air pollutants and GHG emissions when compared to the proposed Project. With the reduction in daily trips due to reduced development of the Project, this alternative would further reduce operational air quality emissions, and impacts would potentially be less than significant. This alternative would also potentially achieve CAP consistency if standard mitigation measures within the CAP are applied. Visual impacts would be slightly less than under the proposed Project due to the decrease in square footage of new building space and resulting views of a reduced scale and intensity development from U.S. Highway 101 and surrounding streets. Lighting and glare impacts would also be somewhat less due to the decreased amount of development in proximity to the existing residential uses surrounding the site. Similar to the proposed Project, standards for outdoor lighting would be applied, per Section of the City Municipal Code, and exterior light fixtures would be shielded and directed downward to avoid light spill and glare, per Project Design Guidelines and General Plan Policy Ag/C/OS.23. Overall aesthetics impacts would remain less than significant. Short- and long-term noise impacts associated with reduced development of Subarea 1 (i.e., construction, maintenance and pickup/delivery activities, and noise-generating rooftop equipment such as air conditioners or kitchen ventilation systems) would be slightly less than under the proposed Project due to the reduced development size and close proximity of residential units onsite. Mitigation measures listed within Section 3.8, Noise, would continue to be applied to this alternative in order to reduce impacts to below a less than significant level. Similarly, impacts to utilities and public services would slightly decrease with the reduced hotel rooms/restaurant size and dwelling units requiring water, wastewater, solid waste, and police and fire services, and would be less than significant. Impacts to recreation, associated with the City s required parkland-resident ratio of 4 acres per 1,000 individuals, would be reduced due to the decrease in residential units and 5-8 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan

9 individuals. The number of single-family medium-density residences in Subarea 2 would be reduced from 58 to 40, with an associated reduction in individuals from 140 to 96. Under this alternative, the estimated 96 new residents would require 0.38 acres of parkland to meet City standards. Therefore, the proposed Project s development of a 0.35-acre neighborhood park within Subarea 2 would require the dedication of an additional 0.03 acres of parkland. Similar to the proposed Project, mitigation for payment of a park improvement in-lieu fee equal to the fair market land value, plus twenty (20) percent toward the cost of offsite improvement, for the additional 0.03 acres of parkland would reduce impacts to less than significant. Impacts to agriculture, biology, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and land use under the Reduced Development Alternative would be slightly less or similar to those described for the proposed Project. All proposed Project mitigation measures would also apply under this alternative. Overall, this alternative would reduce impacts to transportation and GHG emissions. However, LOS impacts at the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street would continue to be significant and unavoidable. 5.5 IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Table 5-1 summarizes the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project and the analyzed alternatives. CEQA Guidelines Section states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. Table 5-1 summarizes the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project and the analyzed alternatives. Of the alternatives considered, the No Project Alternative would result in the fewest impacts as no development would occur within Subareas 2 and 3; therefore, it is environmentally superior. Of the development alternatives, the Reduced Development Alternative is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative since impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level, except for anticipated significant and unavoidable long-term impacts to traffic and transportation at the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection. With implementation of this alternative, impacts to the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection would be reduced, although impacts to this intersection would not be fully reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, because this alternative would reduce all but one impact to a less than significant level with required mitigation, the Reduced Development Alternative is considered to be East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 5-9

10 the environmentally superior alternative. Table 5-1. Impact Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project Resource Proposed Project Residual Impact No Project Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality & GHG Emissions Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Noise Recreation Transportation & Traffic Utilities & Public Services Project Objectives Met? Significant and Unavoidable Significant and Unavoidable Less ( ) Less (No Impact) Less (Significant and Unavoidable) Yes No Yes Reduced Development Significant ) Less ( ) Significant ) Significant ) Significant ) Significant ) Slightly Significant ) Less ( ) Less (Significant and Unavoidable) Slightly 5-10 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan