SU0008325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Supervisors January 28, 2013 Page 2 convenience store and fast-food restaurant. Under Alternative 3, a gas station and convenience market would be developed with the capacity to serve only passenger cars and lighter trucks. No heavy-duty trucks would be served and there would be no fast-food restaurant attached to the gas station. Under Alternative 4, a small grocery store and fast-food restaurant would be constructed as an alternative land use. No fuel dispensing services would be provided. The fast-food restaurant would be the same size as that in the proposed Project. (Draft EIR [DEIR],pp. 7-7, 7- 4, 7-11, 7-12.) In this letter and supporting attachments, we offer specific reasons why we believe the Board can reject each of these project alternatives as "infeasible" within the meaning of the CEQA. We base our suggestions in part on the professional opinions of Economic and Planning Systems (EPS), an expert economics firm that prepared the analysis found in Exhibit 1 attached hereto, and Omni Means, Ltd., an expert transportation engineering firm that prepared the analysis found in Exhibit 2 attached hereto. We hope that you will find our reasoning and the evidence supporting it to be persuasive as you consider approving the Love's Travel Stops Project as proposed. ANALYSIS A technical memorandum written by economists Tim Youmans and Amy Lapin of EPS, one of Northern California's leading firms in the business of assessing the economic and fiscal ramifications of developments proposals, is submitted herewith as Exhibit 1. These experts explain why, in their professional judgment, the Board has the ability to reject Alternatives 1,2, 3,and 4 as being infeasible for various reasons. A technical memorandum written by transportation planner Paul Miller of Omni Means, Ltd. is submitted herewith as Exhibit 2. This expert explains why, in his professional judgment, Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 are not environmentally superior to the proposed project with respect to traffic impacts. We respectfully submit that these expert conclusions, supported by mathematical calculations, provide the Board of Supervisors with an ample evidentiary basis for rejecting Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 as infeasible. No such evidence would be required, though, to reject the No Project Alternative, due to its readily apparent failure to meet many of the project objectives, the most important of which are: to "develop a regional travel stop on commercially- designated land within the northern portion of the County that is consistent with County General Plan policy and zoning" (Objective 1); to "create a high-quality travel stop commercial development near Interstate 5" (Objective 2); to "develop 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" (Objective 3); to "provide a travel stop facility that maximizes its proximity to Interstate 5 for all buildings and tenants" (Objective 4); to "construct a facility near a major freeway interchange in order to minimize traffic generation on local streets"(Objective 5); to "construct a facility with access to adequate existing or anticipated utility infrastructure to support planned operations" (Objective