SU0008325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Supervisors January 28,2013 Page 9 The Project Applicant believes that the Board has ample basis for rejecting each project alternative for the reasons discussed in draft and final EIR. The EPS Memorandum provides additional supporting evidence regarding the feasibility of Project alternatives. First, the EPS memo notes that Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores (Love's) specifically chose the location of the proposed Project to fill a coverage gap in the corridor for its trucking customer base. The proposed Project would serve to fill a gap between Love's Santa Nella and Corning travel stop locations. The ability of the Project to address this coverage gap and thereby allow Love's to serve the entire I-5 corridor is an important factor in the economic feasibility of this particular travel stop project. (EPS Technical Memo,p. 2.) Second, the Project as proposed comports with Love's business model for projects located outside of Love's home base geographic area, which includes the states of Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, and Colorado. For projects outside these states, Love's business model is to develop travel stops that combine auto and truck fuel services with convenience store and fast- food restaurant services. 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 Love's marketing efforts to its trucking customer base. Based on these factors,the Project requires the profit margins from all three uses combined (fuel dispensing area, convenience store, and fast-food restaurant) in order to achieve economic viability. (EPS Technical Memo,p.2.) Finally, based on Love's experience in developing similar truck stops, the Project site will be developed with a focus on accommodating trucking customers. To accommodate these customers, the site must be configured to allow trucks to safely maneuver around the site and park. Love's considered alternative configurations to reduce the acreage of the Project, but there were no other feasible site configurations that would maintain required operational and safety considerations. (EPS Technical Memo,p.2.) With these and other considerations in mind, the EPS Memorandum specifically compares each alternative against the Project in light of the project objectives, traffic impacts, and economic feasibility. (EPS Technical Memo,p. 3.) Alternative I:No Project Alternative The Draft EIR provides sufficient reasons for the Board to reject the No Project Alternative as infeasible, as it would fail to meet any of the primary objectives set forth in the DEIR. (DEIR,p. 7-9;EPS Technical Memo,p. 4.) Alternative 2:Reduced Project Size