SR0082985_SSNL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2021 14800 W. Schulte Road Logistics Center 7-1 7 Alternatives 7.1 Alternatives to the Proposed Project In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15126.6, this chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) contains a comparative evaluation of the 14800 W. Schulte Road Logistics Center (Project) with alternatives to the Project, including a No Project Alternative. Consistent with CEQA Section 15126.6, this chapter focuses on alternatives to the Project that are capable of avoiding or reducing any significant adverse impacts associated with the Project, even if the alternatives may impede attainment of Project objectives or prove less cost efficient. In addition, implementation of a Project alternative may potentially result in new impacts or mitigation requirements that would not have resulted from the Project. The CEQA Guidelines require that the analysis of alternatives provide sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with a proposed project. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) outlines the scope of alternatives to a proposed project that must be evaluated: 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. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selection of a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. Under case law and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), the discussion of alternatives is subject to a rule of reason and need not be exhaustive. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d) states that “if an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternatives shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed.” Determining factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are (a) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (b) infeasibility, or (c) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 defines “feasibility” as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” An EIR need not consider a project alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained, whose implementation is remote and speculative, or whose execution does not substantially lessen or avoid the significant effects of a proposed project. As discussed in the Section 4.1, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR, at the Project and cumulative levels, operation-generated emissions would exceed the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) threshold of significance for oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Even with the incorporation of mitigation identified in this Draft EIR, operation NOx emissions would still exceed SJVAPCD’s threshold, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. For all other environmental issue areas, the Project would result in either less-than-significant impacts or no impact.