8B Public - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City of San Leandro 880 Doolittle Drive Industrial Project ES-4 Included in this analysis are three alternatives, including the CEQA-required “no project” alternative, that involve changes to the project that would reduce the project-related potentially significant environmental impacts as identified in this EIR. Alternatives have been developed to provide a reasonable range of options to consider that would help decision makers and the public understand the general implications of revising or eliminating certain components of the proposed project. The following alternatives are evaluated in this EIR:  Alternative 1: No Project  Alternative 2: No Natural Gas  Alternative 3: Airport Parking Land Use Detailed descriptions of the alternatives are included in the impact analysis for each alternative. The potential environmental impacts of each alternative are analyzed in Sections 6.2 through 6.4. Alternative 1 (No Project). The No Project Alternative assumes that the two existing industrial masonry buildings would remain on the project site. These buildings are currently vacant. The City has no applications on file for occupancy of the buildings; therefore, this analysis assumes the buildings would remain vacant under this alternative. The project applicant or another person or organization could submit an application for occupancy of one or both buildings in the future. Granting an occupancy permit for a business or activity allowed by-right within the existing Industrial General zoning district of the site would be a ministerial permit, and CEQA may not be applicable. The No Project Alternative would not fulfill any of the project objectives. Alternative 2 (No Natural Gas). Under the No Natural Gas Alternative, the proposed industrial building would be constructed on the project site, nearly consistent with the proposed project. Alternative 2 assumes that the industrial building and associated surface parking lot would be approximately the same size and design as the proposed project, which would require the same demolition and construction activities as the proposed project. Once construction is complete, Alternative 2 assumes the same on-site operations would occur as with the proposed project, with the exception of natural gas consumption. Under this alternative, natural gas connections would not be provided on the project site. Therefore, potential future occupants and uses in the new industrial building would not consume natural gas, as natural gas would be unavailable on the project site. Alternative 2 would instead require on-site building operations to rely entirely on electricity for energy. The No Natural Gas Alternative would fulfill most project objectives but not all objectives. For example, this alternative would develop an industrial building with easy access to freeways and airports, while also supporting industrial employment opportunities within the city’s industrial sector. Alternative 2 would also contribute to the aesthetics of the surrounding area because the vacant and aging existing buildings on-site would be demolished and replaced with a new building. However, Alternative 2 may not fulfill the objective of creating a warehouse that is attractive to future tenants to the same extent as the proposed project. While it is reasonable to assume a new warehouse proximate to freeways, rail, and the Oakland International Airport would be attractive to many tenants, the elimination of natural gas utility may deter some tenants from leasing or purchasing the warehouse, as natural gas could be critical to their business or operations. For example, businesses that manufacture products such as paper, glass, and steel typically use natural gas.