SU0008325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Family Day Care Home. As defined in County Code Section 9-115.380(a), a "family day care home"is a facility that provides care for 14 or fewer children. It does not include uses requiring overnight care,and is typically located near existing residences. Since there are no residences on the Project site or in the vicinity,this land use was not analyzed further in the Draft EIR. (DEIP, p. 7-8.) 2. Analysis of Alternative 1's Ability to Reduce Significant Project Impacts The analysis for the No Project Alternative assumed development of a Small Group Care facility. County Code Section 9-115.115(a)defines a"small group care"facility as a facility authorized, certified, or licensed by the State of California to provide nonmedical care and supervision to adults or to dependent and neglected children,in which the number of residents are six or fewer. For this analysis,it was assumed that no other development would occur on the Project site other than the small group care facility,which would have the maximum six occupants. ITE's Trip Generation does not have a rate specifically for small group care facilities. A review of ITE trip generation rates indicated that two land uses are the closest to small group care facilities. One is assisted living facilities, with a trip generation rate of 2.74 trips per bed per day. For this analysis, it is assumed that there is one bed for each occupant of the care facility, with the maximum six occupants allowed by the zoning ordinance. The other trip generation rate available, for congregate care facilities, is 2.02 trips per dwelling unit per day. Assuming one dwelling unit per occupant with the maximum six occupants, the resultant trip generation would be less than that for the assisted living facility. Therefore,the assisted living facility rate, which generates the larger number of trips,is used to provide a conservative analysis. Based on the assisted living facility trip generation factor of 2.74 trips per bed per day, a small group care facility would generate 16.44 vehicle trips per day, which is approximately 99.7% less than the total trips that would be generated by the proposed Project. The total number of 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. 3. Feasibility of Alternative 1 (No Project) 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(e)(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. Love's Travel Stops Environmental Impact Report 15 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations