SU0008325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Supervisors January 28, 2013 Page 12 As with Alternatives 2 and 3, this alternative would use less acreage than the proposed Project, leaving the remaining acreage to be developed with additional conforming land uses, such as commercial-freeway services, that are typically high-intensity uses. Future commercial development on the remaining half of the site would likely result in environmental impacts worse than those created by the Project. (EPS Technical Memo,p. 6.) Economic and Revenue Impacts of the Proposed Project In addition to addressing the above-described problems with the alternatives set forth in the EIR, the EPS memorandum also analyzes and summarizes the economic and revenue impacts of the Project, providing ample substantial evidence to support a Statement of Overriding Considerations. One-time economic impacts will be generated by Project construction as a result of spending on construction related goods and services. This direct economic impact will be limited to the construction period of the Project. An estimated direct construction investment of $7.1 million is estimated to create about 45 jobs over the duration of construction. Indirect economic impacts are estimated to equal approximately $1.6 million and create about 10 jobs. (EPS Technical Memo,p. 7.) The Project will also result in revenue generated through property tax. Based on a total assessed value of approximately $8.5 million, it is estimated that the project will generate about $85,000 annually at full buildout. The County General Fund would receive about$12,000 of this amount annually. The remainder of the property tax revenue would be allocated to other taxing entities such as school and fire districts. (EPS Technical Memo,p. 8.) Finally,the Project will result in revenue generated through sales tax.At full buildout, the Project is expected to generate$39.9 million in annual taxable sales from various services. Based on this total, the Project is estimated to generate about $299,000 in annual sales tax revenue for the County. (EPS Technical Memo, p. 8.) B. Expert Opinion of Paul Miller of Omni Means, Ltd. As noted above, the Project Applicant believes that the Board has ample basis for rejecting each project alterative. Additional data included in the Omni Means technical memorandum provides the Board with additional support for its rejection of alternatives. The Omni Means report compares each alternative to the Project based on potential development of the Project site and trip generation associated with this development. As studied in the Ea the Project would be constructed on approximately 11.6 acres. The EIR also analyzed four alternatives to the Project,but these analyses assumed the site would only be partially developed with uses other than a travel center. The Omni Means analysis considers the potential for full development of the Project site with uses similar to those considered in the EIR alteratives analysis. (Omni Means Technical Memo,p. 1)