9:30am | The recently released draft environmental impact review for the proposed mixed-use development at the intersection of 2nd Street and Pacific Coast Highway details that the full-scale project as proposed does not stack up well against proposed alternatives.
The environmental impact review, or EIR, details a wide range of potential impacts from the project covering everything from aesthetics to air quality to traffic flow. It also, as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), compares the project to various alternative options.
Section V of the EIR, titled Alternatives, discusses comparisons conducted of the various impacts that the full-scale project proposed by the developers and four other options might have and then ranks them according to various specific impacts.
In the EIR, there are four potential options considered other than the full-scale project: a no project/no development option (sometimes called a no-build option); a no project/existing zoning option (that would allow redevelopment of the property based on its current commercial zoning uses); a hotel only option (which would replace the Seaport Marina Hotel with a new similar hotel and facilities); and, a reduced intensity option (that would see the development goals of the full-scale project cut roughly in half).
Under CEQA guidelines, each alternative is evaluated to determine whether the overall environmental impacts would be fewer, similar or greater than the proposed full scale project. Thus, the full scale project’s estimated environmental impacts are the baseline, and in each impact category, the other options are analyzed and then given a label of “less,” “similar,” or “greater,” depending on their estimated impacts. For example, an option given a “less” ranking in a certain impact category means that it will have less impact in this category than the full-scale project.
In the 19 impact categories listed in the EIR there are a total of 61 specific impacts that are looked at.
Other than the obvious increases the full-scale project will offer, such as new housing units and new retail spaces, the full scale project actually rates poorly against the other four options.
The full-scale project only rates higher than the no project/no development option in three of the 61 specific impacts. The full project also ranks higher than the no project/existing zoning option in only 10 of the 61 specific impacts, in three of the 61 impacts when compared to the hotel-only option, and, in 3 of the 61 impacts when compared to the reduced intensity option.
The EIR goes on to state that the no development/no project option–in other words, doing nothing–is the most environmentally superior option explored. The second most environmentally superior option, according to the EIR, is the reduced intensity project, where the scale of the proposed project is cut roughly in half (same footprint but reduced building heights throughout).
However, the project developers argue that the scaled down and do nothing options would not benefit the community with the full-scale project’s promised employment (through increased retail space), housing (through more residential units), and parks and recreation facilities (namely in the form of green spaces, the proposed 3,860 sq. ft. 99-seat performance theater and the proposed 4,000 sq. ft. CSULB mini-aquarium science center).
We will be looking at other aspects of the EIR in the coming days, but to view the full draft EIR, you can click here or visit the Department of Development Service in City Hall, or any of the three local libraries listed below:
- Main Library, 101 Pacific Ave;
- Bay Shore Library, 195 Bay Shore Ave;
- Brewitt Library, 4036 E. Anaheim St