SU0008325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

leaves 10.70 acres available for potential development of uses allowed under the current C-FS zoning. If the entire Project site were developed with retail and fast food uses,an increase in trips of nearly 500 percent as compared to those of the Project could occur. If the Project site is developed with a higher ratio of commercial services to fast food restaurants, an increase of 200 percent in trips as compared to those of the Project could occur. As a result of these significant increases in trip generation, Alternative 4 would result in a significant deterioration in intersection LOS conditions as compared to LOS conditions under the Project. (Omni Means Technical Memo,p.6.) Air Quality Reduction in traffic volumes would also reduce the amounts of air pollutant emissions that would be generated, particularly NOx emissions. ROG,NOx and PM10 emissions under this alternative would be below the SJVAPCD significance thresholds. In addition, as with Alternative 3, diesel particulate matter emissions would be reduced due to elimination of service for heavy-duty trucks. This would reduce the potential health risks associated with these emissions. (DEIR, p. 7-12.) As noted above, the DEIR reached this conclusion after assuming 10.70 acres of the Project site would remain undeveloped under Alternative 4. In the long term, this remaining acreage could be developed with further commercial and fast food uses, thereby increasing trip generation and air quality impacts. 3. Feasibility of Alternative 4 Though traffic generation may be reduced under this alternative, traffic impacts under this alternative would be similar to those 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. The Retail with Fast-Food Restaurant alternative would meet some of the Project objectives, as they related to providing freeway commercial services. However, it would not meet Project objectives related to providing services for autos and trucks, particularly fuel dispensing services, emergency tire repair and replacement services. (DEIR,p. 7-13.) In addition, this Alternative would not be economically feasible for the Applicant. Alternative 4 does not comport with Love's business model, which is to develop a travel stop that combines auto and truck fuel services with convenience store and fast-food restaurant services if a project is located outside of Love's home base geographic area. Love's home base geographic area includes the states of Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, and Colorado. There are two reasons Love's will not operate stand-alone restaurants outside of this home base geographic area. First, projects operated outside of this area entail high General and Administrative ("G&A") costs associated with management oversight. Second, a project that excludes or reduces the amount of parking or fuel dispensing pumps would Limit Love's ability to effectively use the Project in its marketing efforts to their trucking base. Based on these factors, the Project requires the profit margins of all three uses combined (fuel dispensing area, convenience store, and fast-food restaurant) to achieve economic viability.Also, as noted above, the Applicant specifically chose the location of the Project to fill a coverage gap in the corridor for its trucking customer base, which is an important factor in the economic feasibility of the Project. (EPS Technical Memo,pp. 2,6.) Love's Travel Stops Project 23 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overridng Considerations