AgdaPkt 2013-03-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 9 Although staff notes that the Planning Commission did not deny the project, but approved a reduced version of the proposed project, as a result of the new information and additional analysis provided after the Planning Commission's decision combined with the information available in the administrative record, staff recommends approval of an expanded 20 fueling position gas station. ALTERNATIVES 1. Uphold the appeal filed by Andy Saberi, Andy's BP, Inc. and Fifth Avenue Enterprises, Inc. and deny the appeal filed by the Costco Wholesale Corporation, thereby retaining a 12 fueling position gas station. Should this alternative be selected, staff recommends that the City Council continue this matter to prepare a resolution to this effect. 2. Deny the appeal filed by Andy Saberi, Andy's BP, Inc. and Fifth Avenue Enterprises, Inc. and deny the appeal filed by the Costco Wholesale Corporation, thereby confirming the Planning Commission approval of expansion to a 16 fueling position gas station. Should this alternative be selected, staff recommends that the City Council continue this matter to prepare a resolution to this effect. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed project qualifies for the City's cost recovery systems; therefore, costs associated with the review of the project are paid for by the project applicant. As described by the Applicant, the proposed Gas Station expansion project is not intended to generate more sales volume, rather address existing wait times; however, should the project result in additional fuel sales, the increase in sale tax would have a positive fiscal impact for the City. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record, including the technical studies prepared to date for the proposed Project, staff determined that the preparation of Addendum No. 2 to the 2007 Final EIR for the previously approved Project pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines was the most appropriate CEQA document for evaluating the proposed Project. None of the criteria set forth in said sections of the CEQA Guidelines have been triggered by the proposed Project. There is no need for a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR under Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines because the proposed modifications would not result in the identification of new significant environmental impacts nor substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant environmental impacts. Addendum No. 2 provides an analysis of the proposed modifications, and does not result in any new conclusions about project impacts or mitigation measure. Under Section 15164(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, an Addendum is not required to be circulated for public review. The Planning Commission has considered Addendum No.