SR0082985_SSNL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 – Executive Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2021 14800 W. Schulte Road Logistics Center 1-19 Reduced Development Intensity Alternative (Alternative 3) CEQA Section 15126.6 requires consideration of alternatives to a project that are capable of avoiding or substantially reducing any significant adverse impacts associated with that project. As discussed throughout Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR, 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. Presently, the only feasi ble 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 unavoidable impacts, the County considered a Reduced Development Intensity Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 3, the same industrial distribution and warehouse buildings would be constructed and operated as planned on the Project site, with the exception that the size of the proposed development would be reduced by 20%. This would equate to an industrial/warehouse project consisting of approximately 543,130 square feet, compared to the Project’s 678,913 square feet. Because the building footprint would be reduced by 135,782 square feet (approximately 3.1 acres), this extra space on the site would remain vacant. All other on - and off-site improvements proposed as part of the Project were assumed to still be required under Alternative 3. Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 15126(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to identify an “environmentally superior alternative.” If the No Project/No Development Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, which is the case in this analysis, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other project alternatives. Based on a comparison of Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, environmental impacts associated with air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and water would be less under Alternative 3 compared to Alternative 2. However, despite the reduction to air quality impacts, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Impacts associated with biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, and transportation would be similar under Alternative 3 compared to Alternative 2. Based on these findings, Alternative 3 would be considered the environmentally superior alternative.