SR0082985_SSNL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7 – Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2021 14800 W. Schulte Road Logistics Center 7-6 Alternative 2 Impact Analysis It is assumed that Alternative 2 would involve construction and operation of a land use of similar or greater development and operational intensity as the Project, would have a similar floor-area-ratio as the Project, and would be subject to the same federal, state, and local requirements as the Project. Thus, it is expected that most environmental impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be similar—if not identical—to those environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Project. In addition, while many uses under this alternative would likely result in a similar number of average vehicle trips as the Project, other allowable land uses could result in a higher daily or peak trip rate , including administrative offices and automotive rental/repair. Thus, there would be a potential for increased impacts associated with operational air quality/GHG emissions and traffic noise under Alternative 2. Despite potential for an increase in generated trips, Alternative 2 would likely also be screened out from further vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis based on its location in a low VMT generating traffic analysis zones. Allowable uses under the I-G zone include more intensive industrial uses when compared to the warehouse and distribution buildings proposed under the Project. Such uses, including heavy equipment/truck repair, manufacturing, and recycling services could require the use of more energy or water supply and generate greater noise levels during operation when compared to the Project. Alternative 2 Conclusion and Relation to Project Objectives It is likely that all or most of the mitigation measures required for the Project would also apply to Alternative 2, as the land use type, development intensity, and/or site coverage would be similar or greater to the Project. There is the possibility under Alternative 2, however, that some impacts associated with air quality, GHG, energy, noise, and water may be greater than those resulting from implementation of the Project, given that some of the other allowed land uses in the I-G zone have a higher peak hour and/or daily trip generation rate or are more intensive overall. Alternative 2 would feasibly meet all of the Project Objectives , with the exception of Objective 4 (fulfill the existing and growing demand for logistics and warehouse uses in the region). Because Alternative 2 could result in uses that are logistics/warehouses that are allowable in the I-G zone, this alternative might not meet Objective 4. 7.3.3 Reduced Development Intensity Alternative (Alternative 3) Description of Alternative 3 CEQA Section 15126.6, requires consideration of alternatives to the Project that are capable of avoiding or substantially reducing any significant adverse impacts associated with the Project. 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. (An alternative that would fully avoid this significant and unavoidable operational air quality impact was considered but rejected from further analysis; see Section 7.2, above). Presently, the only feasible approach to reducing the Project’s operational -related air quality impacts would be to reduce the total number of daily trips and employees generated by the Project. As such, in an effort to reduce the Project’s significant and unavo idable impacts, the C ounty considered a Reduced Development Intensity Alternative (Alternative 3).