SU0008325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Furthermore,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. The Planning Commission, 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 Project in its current form, moreover, reflects the landowner's considered judgment regarding how to develop its property in light of the realities of the marketplace. The Planning Commission believes it is appropriate to give some weight to this judgment. (See Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 CalApp.3d 515, 521 (Laurel Hills) (a "public agency may approve a developer's choice of a project once its significant adverse effects have been reduced to an acceptable level — that is, all avoidable damage has been eliminated and that which remains is otherwise acceptable'l.) Alternative 2:Reduced Project Size 1. Description This alternative considers potential changes in the Project uses related to its size. The Reduced Project Size alternative is defined as development of a truck stop that is half the size of the proposed Project. Specifically, the alternative proposes a truck stop with 12 available fuel dispensing pumps—four for trucks and eight for passenger cars. The convenience store would be reduced in size to 3,850 square feet, and the attached fast-food restaurant would be 1,500 square feet. The maintenance building and the storage building would also be reduced by half. (DEER,p.7-9.) 2. Analysis of Alternative 2's Ability to Reduce Sienificant Proiect Impacts Adoption of Alternative 2 would not avoid the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts. Transportation This alternative would result in an approximately 50%reduction in trips generated by land use activities associated with the Project. Based on figures in the Kimley-Horn traffic analysis, this would mean half of the 4,532 new trips used to evaluate air quality impacts of the proposed Project, or 2,266 trips (see Table 1 of traffic analysis in Appendix B of this EIR). The total number of AM and PM peak hour trips would likewise be reduced by approximately 50%, as would new trips at site driveways and net new external trips. Although precise quantification is not available,it is expected that intersections operating at LOS D with the proposed Project under cumulative conditions would likely operate at a minimally acceptable LOS C under this alternative, due to reduced,traffic generation. As indicated in the Project traffic analysis,however, LOS D and LOS F occurred under cumulative conditions with the proposed Project at the SR 12/North Thornton Road intersection during AM and PM peak hours,respectively. For the proposed Project,a mitigation measure requiring signal coordination at the three intersections studied in the traffic analysis was recommended. This same mitigation would apply under this alternative. Freeway ramp junctions would continue to operate at LOS D under both existing and cumulative conditions under this alternative and this alternative would Love's Travel Stops Environmental Impact Report 16 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations