Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Supervisors <br /> January 28, 2013 <br /> Page 14 <br /> Under Option 1 for the Combination Gasoline Station Alternative, the remainder of the <br /> Project site would be developed with additional gas station and convenience market uses. This <br /> development pattern would result in a more than 800 percent increase in trips compared with <br /> those of the EIR alternative and an approximately 300 percent increase in trips as compared to <br /> those of the Project. This increase in trip generation would result in a significant deterioration in <br /> intersection LOS conditions as compared to LOS conditions under the Project. (Omni Means <br /> Technical Memo,pp. 4-5.) <br /> Under Option 2, the assumed commercial uses would result in a total trip generation of <br /> 13,989 daily trips, 645 AM peak hour trips, and 1,186 PM peak hour trips. This would result in a <br /> 600 percent increase in trips compared with those of the EIR alternative and an approximately <br /> 200 percent increase in trips as compared to those of the Project. This increase in trip generation <br /> would result in a significant deterioration in intersection LOS conditions as compared to LOS <br /> conditions under the Project. (Omni Means Technical Memo,p. 5.) <br /> Alternative 4: Retail with Fast-Food Restaurant <br /> Under Option 1 for the Retail with Fast-Food Alternative, ten additional fast-food <br /> restaurants and approximately 70,000 square feet of retail uses could be accommodated on the <br /> Project site. This would result in total trip generation of 27,126 daily trips, 2094 AM peak hour <br /> trips, and 2,174 PM peak hour trips. This substantial increase in trips equates to a 500 percent <br /> increase compared with those of the EIR alternative and approximately a 200 percent increase as <br /> compared to those of the Project. This increase in trip generation would result in a significant <br /> deterioration in intersection LOS conditions as compared to LOS conditions under the Project. <br /> (Omni Means Technical Memo,p. 6.) <br /> Under Option 2, the assumed commercial uses would result in a total trip generation of <br /> 14,451 daily trips, 702 AM peak hour trips and 1,221 PM peak hour trips, which would be a 500 <br /> percent increase in trips compared to those of the EIR alternative and a 200 percent increase as <br /> compared to those of the Project. This increase in trip generation would result in a significant <br /> deterioration in intersection LOS conditions as LOS conditions under the Project. (Omni Means <br /> Technical Memo,p. 6.) <br /> CONCLUSION <br /> For the reasons set forth in this letter, as supported by both Exhibits 1 and 2, the Board <br /> can, and we believe should, reject as infeasible the No Project Alternative, the Reduced Project <br /> Alternative, the Combination Gasoline Station Alternative, and the Retail with Fast-Food <br /> Restaurant Alternative. Properly understood, none of these alternatives would result in lower <br /> environmental impacts than would occur under the Project. For that reason, the Board, as a <br /> technical legal matter, need not even address whether the alternatives are infeasible within the <br /> meaning of CEQA. Even so, we recommend that, in light of Pilot's having taken the County to <br /> court over the Board's original approval of the Project, the Board reject the alternatives as <br /> infeasible in order to create the strongest possible record for judicial review of the Board's <br />