AgdaPkt 2013-03-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 340 V�ayor arzd Councilrn�mbers City Council o�tkze Gity of Redwood City November 2, 20�2 Page 2 convince� �hat 20 vfps are necessary to best accammodate the traf�c, especia�Iy at the bt�siest of tin�es, and that is why tY�e Applicatior�s seek ap�roval for an expansian to 20 v��ps. To determine i� the 240'7 FEIR would be su�ficient to support tl�e expansion of t11e fueling facility, ti�e Ci�y, its environmei�tal consultant IC�' Internationai, a�ad Costco unc�er�oo�C exhausti�e analyszs of passibie environmei�tal effects af�he expansian. The co��c�usion of thai analysis was that the expansian wauld not result in any signi�"icant effects no� previo�sly addressed in ihe 2007 �'E�R, nor woulct any significant �ffects previo�sly exarnin�d in the 2007 FEIR Ue substantially �nore se�ere tl�an shown in the 2007 �'EIR, nor would any revised or diff�rent miti�;ation measures be recommen�ed ar required. The analysis was sumznarized in the 300-page Addendu�n Nn. 2 to the 2007 FEIR, providin�; th� CLQA compliance required far ap��roval of the Applzcations {Public Resources Code §211b). Based on this care�ul analysis, City Sta�f dra��ed and submitted to the Planning Cozxamissian a resolution approving the Applications fflr expansian af the fu�ling facility to 20 vfps. At the hea.ring on Octo�er 16, 2012, and by t1�e resuIting Resolution 12-22 an� Natice of Final Decision datecl C)ctaber 19, 2D12, t�e �'lanning Commission approved expansion o��ly to 16 vfps, thereby denying t��e Applications For expansion to 20 vfps. Costca appeals tlzis decision on t�e gro�i�ds that {1) proceduraliy, it fazis ta include findings for denial of the Applications for expanszon to 20 vfps, and {2) su�stantively, zt is not based upon substantial e�idenc�. �. The P��nning Con�mission Abused it Discret�an by Deny�ng the Applicat��ns far Ex�a�sion to Twen Vehicle F�eling Pasitioa�s witI�out Fi�dings to Su�ppc�rt th�t lDeania�. Because the �pplications are based on t�e 2007 FETR, they were heard by the Planning Conlmissioner rather tha�� the Zonin� Adrr�inistrator (City Municipal Code, Article 42, Section 42.1). Section �2.3 of Ai-ticle 42 requires that the Plan�i�� Comrnissaon I1old a publ;c hearing on the Applications (Subsectian A), and �1�at "Finding shall be za� writing and shali be based upon substantial evidence in view of the whol� recard" {Subsection C). �'urthermore, d�cisions on granting or denial of a us� permi� are administrative adj�dications (Saad v. City of Be�°keley (I si Dist. 1994) 24 Cal. A�p. 4th 1206, 1211) and must be supported by �ndi��gs (Breakzone Billiards v. City qf Torrance (2d Dist. 2Q00) 81 Cal. App. 4th 1205, 97 Cal. Rptr. 2d �67, 497 (Bs°eakzone)}. A� stated by the California Supreme Court, sucl� �ndings �nust be "suff cient ... to enable tk�e parties to determine whether az�d c�n what basis they s��ould seek revzew..." (Topernga Association faj° a Scenic Community v. Coun�y of Los Angeles {1974j i 1 CaI. 3d 506, 514.) The Court further clarified ihat substantial evidence r�ust support the findii�gs, and the findings rnust support the decision. (Id. at 5 i 4-515).