LongBeachReport.com | LBReport.com | 2nd/PCH Draft EIR: Benefits + Amenities But Significant Unavoidable Traffic Impacts At Five Intersections; Says Reduced Intensity Alternative Is Environmentally Superior, With Caveat

(April 24, 2010, initial report w/ further to follow) -- An draft Environmental Impact Report says the proposed 2nd/PCH development would bring a number of benefits and amenities to the current Seaport Marina Hotel site...but would also create significant and unavoidable traffic impacts for which it says mitigation measures are not feasible at:

PCH at 2nd St.
Studebaker Rd. @ 2nd St.
PCH @ 7th St.
Studebaker Rd/SR 22 westbound ramps
Bay Shore Ave. @ 2nd St.

The document, circulated for written public comments now with hearings to follow, says a Reduced Intensity Alternative (with similar mix of land uses but 50% reduction in development intensity and without certain public amenities, details below) is the superior environmental alternative.

It adds that it's "possible" that the Reduced Intensity Alternative "would not provide an adequate amount of development to be economically viable, such that it would not meet the objective of creating a successful mixed-use project, and likewise would not contribute as much revenue to the City as the proposed project once developed."

Released by city management for public comment a little over a week after elections that decided the coming composition of most of the City Council which will vote on the land use and impacts, the draft EIR describes a Reduced Intensity Alternative as follows [cited text from Executive Summary]:

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would consist of redevelopment of the project site with a similar mix of land uses as the proposed project, but with an overall 50-percent reduction in development intensity. For the purposes of this Alternatives analysis, this development scenario is assumed to include residential, retail, restaurant, and hotel uses with roughly the same building footprint as the proposed project, but with reduced building heights throughout the site.
Accordingly, this Alternative would include up to 163 residential units, 95,800 square feet of retail uses, 12,730 square feet of restaurant uses, and 50 hotel rooms, and building heights would generally range from one to three stories in height with one residential tower reaching a maximum height of six stories (77 feet). Under this Alternative, project-related open space, landscaping, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be provided to serve the development, as is the case under the proposed project.
However, due to the reduction in development intensity, various project-related amenities, such as the Marine Science Learning Center or CSULB Repertory Theater, would not be provided under this Alternative. As with the proposed project, the existing soil and groundwater remediation program associated with the former on-site 76 gas station would continue to be implemented under oversight of the Los Angeles RWQCB.

Regarding traffic, the draft EIR's Executive Summary states:

Project-related traffic impacts at five (5) study area intersections, including one CMP intersection, would exceed level of service thresholds and therefore result in significant traffic impacts at these locations. Mitigation measures for these locations are not feasible given right-of-way constraints or other physical limitations. As such, due to the infeasibility of mitigation measures at these locations, significant unavoidable impacts to the following intersections would occur:
No. 6 -- Pacific Coast Highway at 7th Street
No. 8 -- Studebaker Road at SR-22 Westbound Ramps
No. 14 -- Bay Shore Avenue at 2nd Street
No. 17 -- Pacific Coast Highway at 2nd Street
No. 19 -- Studebaker Road at 2nd Street

With regard to cumulative analyses contained in Chapter IV, Environmental Impact Analysis, the project will contribute to significant cumulative impacts associated with regional construction and operational air pollutant emissions, global climate change, and local and CMP intersection traffic impacts.

Concerning the Environmentally Superior Alternative, the draft EIR Executive Summary states:

...With respect to identifying an environmentally superior alternative among those analyzed in this EIR, the range of feasible alternatives to be considered includes Alternative 1, the No Project/No Development Alternative; Alternative 2, the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative; Alternative 3, the Hotel Only Alternative; and Alternative 4, the Reduced Intensity Alternative.
...Of the Alternatives analyzed in the EIR, the No Project/No Development Alternative is considered the overall environmentally superior alternative as it would reduce all of the significant or potentially significant impacts occurring under the Second+PCH project...However, as indicated above, this Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives established for the Second+PCH project.
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines’ requirement to identify an environmentally superior alternative other than the No Project Alternative, a comparative evaluation of the remaining alternatives indicates that the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be environmentally superior.
Relative to the Second+PCH project, this Alternative would result in less impacts to aesthetics (views, light/glare and shade/shadow), air quality (construction and operational emissions, toxic air contaminants, AQMP consistency, and global climate change), biological resources (indirect impacts), geology and soils (seismic groundshaking and liquefaction/ground failure), hydrology and water quality (floodplains, construction water quality, and operational water quality), land use (consistency with plans), noise (construction and operational noise and vibration), population, police protection, fire protection, schools, libraries, traffic and circulation, water, wastewater (operational impacts), and solid waste (construction and operational impacts).
In addition, this Alternative would reduce the significant air quality impacts during construction and operation, and the significant traffic impacts to intersections; however, construction-related and operational air quality impacts, as well as traffic impacts would remain significant under this Alternative. It should also be noted that impacts would be similar to the proposed project regarding visual quality, nesting birds, cultural resources (archaeological, paleontological, Native American, and historic resources, all of which except historic resources would still require mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level), geology and soils (soil erosion/loss of topsoil), hazards and hazardous materials (which would still require mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level), hydrology and drainage, land use (plan consistency), site circulation/emergency access, and wastewater (construction impacts).
However, this Alternative would result in greater impacts in regards to employment, housing, and parks and recreation.
In addition, this Alternative would fully or partially achieve all of the project objectives, but not to the extent that the proposed project would. This is due to the fact that while this Alternative would provide for redevelopment of the project site with retail, restaurant, hotel, and residential uses oriented toward the adjacent marina, with project architectural and landscaping features that would create an attractive development with access to various forms of transportation, this Alternative would not provide various public amenities such as the Marine/Science Learning Center and CSULB Repertory Theater.
Additionally, it is possible that this Alternative, while mixed-use in nature, would not provide an adequate amount of development to be economically viable, such that it would not meet the objective of creating a successful mixed-use project, and likewise would not contribute as much revenue to the City as the proposed project once developed.

The document's Executive Summary includes a summary of impacts and proposed mitigation measures (ES pages 12-32) which can be viewed by clicking here

The full draft EIR can be viewed by clicking here.

LBReport.com will have much more on this story.

Follow LBReport.com w/