SR0082985_SSNL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7 – Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2021 14800 W. Schulte Road Logistics Center 7-8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Similar to air quality, the extent of construction activities would be reduced under Alternative 3 compared to the Project. Thus, construction-related GHG emissions would be lessened. Alternative 3 would also generate fewer daily vehicle trips due to the reduction in the amount of building space. Accordingly, GHG emissions associated with long- term operation of Alternative 3 would be lessened compared to the Project. Therefore, GHG emissions impacts would be reduced under Alternative 3 when compared to the Project. Noise Noise associated with Alternative 3 would occur during short -term construction activities and under long-term operation. The types of construction activities conducted on the Project site would be similar under Alternative 3 and would generally cover the same physical area. Despite Alternative 3 likely resulting in a reduced construction duration when compared to the Project, daily and hourly construction noise levels would be similar. Under long-term operational conditions, noise generated by Alternative 3 would primarily be associated with vehicles traveling to and from the site, and on-site vehicle idling, maneuvering, and parking. Alternative 3 would generate fewer daily trips than the Project, and, as such, would contribute less traffic-related noise to local roadways than the Project. Therefore, noise impacts would be reduced under Alternative 3 when compared to the Project. Transportation VMT is largely dependent on the specific land use type of a particular project and the location of that project. While a reduction in a project’s size could reduce the overall VMT associated with a given project, reducing a project’s square footage would not necessarily have an effect on a project’s average trip length. Thus, while under Alternative 3 the Project’s development footprint would be reduced by 20% compared to the Project, the average trip length for passenger vehicle and truck trips associated with the Project would essentially remain constant. Similar to the Project, Alternative 3 would be screened out from further VMT analysis based on its location in a low VMT-generating traffic analysis zone. Therefore, transportation impacts would be similar under Alternative 3 when compared to the Project. Water Given the reduced scale of construction, Alternative 3 would require less overall temporary water supply compared to the Project. Similarly, the reduced building square footage, operational intensity, and employees of Alternative 3 would result in less long-term water demand when compared to the Project. Therefore, water impacts would be reduced under Alternative 3 when compared to the Project. Alternative 3 Conclusion and Relation to Project Objectives Based on the above, Alternative 3 would result in incremental reductions in both construction activity and operational intensity, resulting in corresponding reductions in the severity of impacts related to air quality, energy, GHG, noise, and water. In the case of air quality, impacts under Alternative 3 would remain significant and unavoidable even with incorporation of mitigation measures. All of the same mitigation measures required for the Project would be necessary for Alternative 3, although no new measures would be required. Additionally, Alternative 3 would meet all Project objectives, albeit to a lesser extent as proposed under the Project because of the 20% reduction in the Project’s size. In particular, because of its reduced size, Alternative 3 would produce fewer jobs (Objectives 1 and 3), would generate less tax revenue (Objectives 1 and 3), would not maximize the use of an underutilized site (Objective 3), and would not fulfill the growing demand for warehouses in the region (Objective 4) to the same degree as the Project.