AgdaPkt 2013-03-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 341 Mayor and Council�e�bers City Council of the City o£Re�.wood City November 2, 2012 Pa�e 3 The fii-�dings o�t�e Planning Com�nissioi�in its Resolutzon No. 12-22 include: �'zf�h WHEREAS (as incorpara�ed by Sectian 1 af the Resolt�tion}; Apprava� aft t�e Applicatipns "far I6 fuel purnps (rather than the praposed 20 fuel pum�s} {`Approved Project') would further the purpases of and a�propriately i�npleax�erzt the City of Redwood City Gen�ral Pian, a�piicahle pro�isaons afthe Redwood City Municipai Code and Zoni�lg Ordinance." Section 2c: Based o�� Addendum :�o. 2, `<I�Tone a� t�e cz'iteria set forth in CEQA G�iidelines Section 151b2 have bee�l triggered. The Approveci �'roject does not trigger !�e need for a S�ipplemental or Subseq�ient EIR u�lder Section 15l 62; tY�er�fore, the Approved Praject will not resuit in any r�ew or aa�y inerease i�� the severify o�'previausly identificd impacts a��d no new miti�atzon measures are req�.rired beyond tl�ose zdentif ed in the 2007 EIR." S�etion 3: The expanded (l 6 fuel pump) use satisfies a11 requirerr�ents of M�lz�icipal Cade Sectio� �2.3B for granting of the use penx�it, gaing thraugh each of those requirements individually in Su�sectiqns 3a through 3e, and concludin� ii� Subsection 3f, "There are no additio��al fndings t�at need to be made for the proposed use." Nowher� i» Resolution No. 12-22, ha�wever, ar�; there any findi��;s to suppor! the decision that the 20 vf�s sought by t�e Applications rnrou�d not also satisfy the requiremer��s o�' Mui�ici�al Code �ectioi� 42.3B. "When tl�e deci�ion is not supported by the findings or t�e find�n�;s are not supparted by the evidence, the decision is an abuse of diseretian. Code of Civil Procedure Sectioi� 1094.5, SubcEivision {b). The appropriate exercise of discretion is to review the evidence, draw its own cnnclusio�ls fron� any canflictzng substantial evidence before it and, i�x the exercise of i�s independent judg�nent in the matter, to render its decisions. (Cf., Lindell Cam�any v. Boa�d of Permit�lppeals �f the C'rly and Cnunty of San Frcr�cisco (1943) 23 Ca]. 2d 303, 315.) 2. Ti�ere i� no Substantial �vidence to S�tp�ort the Denial of the Applications for Expansion �a Tr�ven�y Vehicle Fueling Positions. Tlie Application� sou�ht to expa.��d the existin� 12 vfps to 20. Adciendum No. 2 analyzed the impacts of such az� expansian. Addendurri No. 2 contains no alternative analysis of what th� impacts wo�ld be if the �ruel'zn� facility was e�pal�ded to 16 ratller than 2Q vfps. The Planning Commission dici find, �ased on Addendum No. 2 (i.e., 20 vf�s}, that the Appraved I'roject will not result in any new or any increase in the severity of previous�y identified impacts and no new initigation ineasures are required beyond those identi�ed i� the 2007 FEIR. (Resolution 12-22, Sectian 2c.)