SU0008325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

contribute traffic to these unacceptable LOS.As any contribution of traffic to the ramp junctions operating at LOS D would be a significant impact, and because no feasible mitigation is available, as is the case for the proposed Project, the ramp junction impacts for this alternative would be significant and unavoidable under both existing and cumulative conditions. As such, though traffic generation may be reduced under this alternative, impacts under this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project.(DEIR,p. 7-10.) Air Quality This alternative, by reducing the amount of traffic, would reduce the amounts of air pollutant emissions that would be generated by the Project, particularly NOx emissions. In addition, diesel particulate matter emissions would be reduced, along with health risks associated with these emissions. ROG, NOx and PM10 emissions under this alternative would be below the SJVAPCD significance thresholds.(DEIR,p.7-10.) 3. Feasibility of Alternative 2 Though traffic generation may be reduced under this alternative, traffic impacts under this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project. In particular,as with the proposed Project, the ramp junction impacts for this alternative would be significant and unavoidable under both existing and cumulative conditions. Furthermore,by substantially reducing the total proposed building square footage, this alternative would create a much smaller project that would be considered less of a draw to regional travelers. This would directly conflict with the objectives of developing a property of sufficient size to accommodate a truck and auto fuel dispensing area, emergency tire repair and replacement services, convenience store, and fast- food restaurant to create a regional travel stop.(DEIR,p.7-10.) For the reasons stated above, the Planning Commission finds Alternative 2 to be infeasible 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, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d at p. 521 (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").) Alternative 3:Alternative Use—Combination Gasoline Station 1. Description A combination gasoline station, as defined in Section 9-115.455 of the County Code, typically includes a convenience market that sells gasoline. As noted in Table 7-2, this land use is a permitted use subject to Site Approval by the County. For the purposes of this analysis, the alternative land use is a gas station with a convenience market. The gas station would have 12 fuel dispensing pumps. This station would serve passenger cars and lighter trucks. No heavy- duty trucks would be served. In addition,there would be no fast-food restaurant attached to this Love's Travel Stops Environmental Impact Report 17 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations