AgdaPkt 2013-01-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.B. - Page 7 3. Air Quality Analysis The Appeal Filing Form submitted by the Appellant makes a comment "that no study was conducted regarding the amount of emissions caused by the expansion." The Appellant did not expand upon this statement in the appeal letter and no specifics were provided regarding this subject matter. Contrary to the Appellant's conclusory comment, the Applicant has provided additional air quality analysis specific to the gas station expansion project. This information was analyzed during the City's preparation of Addendum No. 2 and was part of the Planning Commission's consideration of the project. As proposed, the gas station expansion project would not result in any new impacts that warrant additional consideration or mitigation. Appeal No. 2 The Costco Wholesale Corporation appeal is based on the assertion that "there is no substantial evidence on which to base findings, to support the denial of the expansion of the Costco fueling to twenty vehicle fueling positions." The Applicant's position is further supported by an appeal letter from McKenna Long & Aldridge dated November 2, 2012, Attachment 5. The request for additional fueling positions has been made with the specific intent of reducing waiting times and lengths of queues, which would improve on-site circulation, decrease automobile exhaust emissions, and serve to improve the customer experience, according to the Applicant. The analysis conducted in Addendum No. 2 supports the position that the 20 fueling position project would not result in any new or any increase in the severity of previously identified impacts and no new mitigation measures were required. As such, the Applicant contends that Planning Commission's discussion of the issues, primarily related to traffic concerns, was anecdotal and not based on substantial evidence. In further support of their appeal and in an attempt to respond to the Planning Commission comments and concerns, the Applicant has continued to work with City staff to analyze the existing constraints caused by the Woodside/Middlefield intersection, possible improvements to the Middlefield/Willow intersection, and improvements to site conditions that would result in improved on-site circulation. The revised conceptual site plan dated November 9, 2012 (Attachment 8) references specific improvements to the on-site circulation. For example, the main driveway entrance/exit would be reconfigured to include a stop sign for traffic exiting the site to help further control operations at the internal intersection. The first drive aisle would be closed and a new cut through would be created, resulting in five fewer parking spaces, to help pull traffic away from the internal intersection. Further consideration has also been given to improvements that can be made to the Middlefield/Willow intersection, such as additional signage, such as "do not block intersection," and lane guidance markers, both of which are intended to keep the intersection free of obstructing traffic.