SU0008325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AM and PM peak hour trips would likewise be reduced by approximately 99.7%, as would new trips at site driveways and net new external trips. Given that new trips generated by the small group care facility would increase traffic in the area by only 0.03%, it would have essentially no impact on the intersections and ramp junctions analyzed in the Project traffic study. The small group care facility would also have virtually no impact on air pollutant emissions. Maximum potential development of Project site: While the DEIR anticipates that the remainder of the Project site would remain vacant in the short term under this alternative, in the long term, the DEIR anticipates that the Project site would be developed with land uses permitted only by right under the current C-FS zoning for the site. (DEK p. 7-7.) A technical memorandum submitted by engineering and planning consulting firm Omni Means, Ltd. ("Omni Means Technical Memo") analyzed the potential transportation impacts of the maximum potential commercial development of the site as allowed under C-FS zoning. The Omni Means analysis assumed retail uses would be developed for the entire 11.68 acre site and would include two fast food restaurants, a grocery store, and a general retail store. This development scenario would result in an approximately 180 percent increase in trips as compared to the proposed travel stop Project As a result, trip generation for this altemative could result in a significant deterioration in intersection LOS conditions as compared to LOS conditions under the Project. (Omni Means Technical Memo, pp. 2-3.) Increased traffic in tum could cause increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. (See Economic & Planning Systems Technical Memo ["EPS"], p. 5 [attached to January 28,2013, correspondence to Board from attomey James G. Moose].) 3. Feasibility of Alternative 1 (No Proiect) The No Project Alternative would have impacts that are reduced compared to those of the Project. The No Project alternative would involve the least environmental effects of the alternatives considered in detail. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would be considered the "environmentally superior alternative" for purposes of CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6, subdivision(c)(2). The reduction in environmental impact associated with this alternative would be limited, however, as most of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project would not occur or would be reduced to a less than significant level with proposed mitigation measures. In addition, full development of the site in the long term for commercial use as allowed under the current C-FS zoning could potentially generate more traffic impacts and more air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions than would occur under the Project Finally, this alternative is in conflict with all the Project objectives, which are based on the construction and operation of a truck stop serving regional travelers. (DEIR,p. 7-9; EPS Technical Memo,p.4.) The Board of Supervisors, therefore, finds the No Project Alternative to be infeasible for the above stated reasons, and rejects it as a viable alternative to the Project. The Board also notes that full site build-out under Alternative 1 might lead to environmental impacts worse than those of the Project, making the No Project Alternative potentially environmentally inferior to the Love's Travel Stops Project 16 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations