SR0082985_SSNL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7 – Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2021 14800 W. Schulte Road Logistics Center 7-3 Alternative Locations CEQA does not require that an analysis of alternate sites always be included in an EIR. However, if the surrounding circumstances make it reasonable to consider an alternate site, then a project alternative should be considered and analyzed in the EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2), in making the decision to include or exclude analysis of an alternate site, the “key question and first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR.” As discussed in Chapter 5, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, the Project is consistent with the County’s General Plan and Ordinance Code. An analysis of alternate sites is typically not necessary when a proposed project is consistent with the applicable land use plans and policies because it can be reasonably assumed that development would ultimately occur in conformance with the applicable land use designation, whether by the currently proposed project or by another future development project. It should be noted that although the Project site is currently undeveloped, the Project site was previously developed for industrial/energy use. In cases where a proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan land use designation, the alternatives analysis should typically focus on options for developing the property consistent with adopted plan policies, and the discussion of alternatives should search for an environmentally superior version of a proposed project on the selected site instead of an alternate site. Few other vacant, development-ready properties of similar size as the Project site are available in San Joaquin County or neighboring cities that would offer less developmental and environmental constraints, or fewer physical environmental impacts, than the current site. Development of the Project in an alternate location would have similar impacts as would occur with implementation of the Project at its proposed location. Thus, moving the Project to an alternative site—assuming that another approximately 37-acre property exists within the Project area and is available—would merely displace environmental impacts instead of avoiding or minimizing them. At this time, the Project applicant does not own or control extraneous land in or around the Project area that could accommodate implementation of the Project. A search of similarly sized, available properties within and near the Project site failed to find any industrial-zoned, similarly sized, vacant sites that are currently on the market and available to purchase (LoopNet 2021). Other vacant areas located farther north of the Project site are located within and near the City of Stockton. While these areas may serve as alternative sites for the Project, these vacant sites are either substantially larger than the Project site or partially developed within a harbor . Consequently, this Draft EIR does not address these alternative locations. Further, if the alternate site were to be located farther from major regional transportation routes (e.g., Interstate 580), operational impacts associated with traffic congestion, truck noise, and truck trip-generated air emissions would likely be greater than those associated with the Project and disclosed in this Draft EIR, as the vehicles would need to travel farther on local roads to reach the regional highway system. While an alternative location may meet most of the Project objectives, given the above discussion, an alternative location was rejected from further consideration. Substantially Reduced Intensity Alternative As discussed throughout Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, except for significant and unavoidable operational air quality impacts, the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts or no impact, with and without implementation of mitigation measures. As such, an alternative that would avoid this operational air quality impact was considered.