3A Public Hearing 2010 0503 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

31. The No Project/No Build Alternative, which would avoid all potential impacts, was identified as the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would also avoid the proposed project's significant and unavoidable air quality and traffic impacts. Under CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(2), if a No Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Alternative 3 (Reduced Development) would result in a reduction in traffic when compared to the proposed project. This reduction in traffic would reduce air quality and climate change impacts. Thus, the Reduced Project Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative. 32. The City Council certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the EIR and in the record. The EIR reflects the City of San Leandro as lead agency's independent judgment as to alternatives. The City Council finds that the Project provides the best balance between the project sponsor's objectives, the City's goals and objectives, the project's benefits as described below in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and mitigation of environmental impacts to the extent feasible. The other alternatives proposed and evaluated in the EIR are rejected for the reasons stated in the EIR and for the following reasons. Each individual reason presented below constitutes a separate and independent basis to reject the project alternative as being infeasible, and, when the reasons are viewed collectively, provide an overall basis for rejecting the alternative as being infeasible. 33. Under Alternative 1: No Project / No Build, the Project would not be undertaken. In this scenario, the existing 63 -acre project site would remain as is and no project components would be constructed. The southern portion of the project site would remain vacant and the existing industrial warehouse buildings on the northern portion of the project site would be retained. The Mixed -Use Retail Development would not be constructed on the northern portion of the project site nor would the Kaiser Medical Center be constructed on the southern portion of the project site. On-site and off-site roadway and circulation improvements would not be included. The No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid all potential impacts. This alternative is rejected as infeasible because it would not achieve any of the City's or the Project sponsor's objectives for the Project. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not include retail, mixed-use housing or a hotel, or the Kaiser Medical Center, it would not provide the surrounding communities with any of the identified needs for retail or medical services, nor would it provide the tax base or the types of jobs to the community that are identified in the project objectives. 34. Under Alternative 2: No Project / Existing Zoning, the Project would not be undertaken. The project site would be redeveloped with light industrial and warehouse uses similar to those that existed on the project site prior to the start of demolition activities. Total development under this alternative would include approximately 840,000 square feet of light industrial/ warehouse space. No changes in land use, General Plan amendments, or rezoning would occur under this alternative. The No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would avoid the proposed project's significant and unavoidable air quality and traffic impacts and would also avoid the proposed project's potentially -18-