SU0008325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r Board of Supervisors January 28, 2013 Page 11 objectives regarding the construction and operation of a truck stop serving regional travelers. (DEIR, p. 7-11.) Specifically, this alternative conflicts with the project objectives of developing a property of sufficient size to accommodate a heavy-truck and auto fuel dispensing area, emergency tire repair and replacement services, a convenience store, and a fast-food restaurant, and of providing a facility of sufficient size to capture overflow overnight truck parking, among others. (EPS Technical Memo,p. 5.) Further, this alternative would not result in an economically feasible return on investment for the Applicant, which relies on a business model that includes serving heavy-duty trucks and providing a fast-food restaurant. As noted above, the scale of the reduced number of pumps, in addition to the omission of the restaurant, would not result in a requisite return on investment because the Love's business model requires a combination of services to generate sufficient revenues from service of passenger cars, recreational vehicles, and heavy-duty trucks. (EPS Technical Memo,p. 5.) Finally, as with Alternative 2, this alternative would use less acreage than the Project, leaving the remaining acreage to be developed with additional land uses, such as commercial- freeway services, that are typically high-intensity, traffic-generating uses. Future commercial development on the remaining half of the site would likely result in environmental impacts worse than those created by the Project. (EPS Technical Memo,pp. 5-6.) Alternative 4:Retail with Fast-Food Restaurant For similar reasons discussed above, the Applicant also believes that the Board has ample bases for rejecting the Retail with Fast-Food Restaurant Alternative,under which a small grocery store and fast-food restaurant would be constructed. No fuel dispensing services would be provided, and the fast-food restaurant would be the same size as that proposed for the Project. While this alternative would meet some of the project objectives related to providing freeway commercial services, it would not meet project objectives related to providing a truck stop capable of serving regional travelers. (DEIR, p 7-13.) Specifically, this alternative conflicts with the project objectives of developing a property of sufficient size to accommodate a truck and auto fuel dispensing area, emergency tire repair and replacement services, a convenience store and fast-food restaurant to create a regional traffic stop, and of providing a facility of sufficient size to capture overflow overnight truck parking. (EPS Technical Memo,p. 6.) Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, Alternative 4 would not result in an economically feasible return on investment because it omits fuel dispensing services. As explained earlier,high G&A costs are associated with the management oversight of projects outside of Love's home base geographic area. As a result, this Alternative would not generate sufficient revenue to warrant development because it would not provide for the service of passenger cars,recreational vehicles and heavy-duty trucks and would limit Love's ability to effectively use the Project in the company's marketing efforts to its trucking customer base. (EPS Technical Memo,p. 6.)