AgdaPkt 2013-03-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 342 Mayor and Councilmernbers City Caur�cil of the Gity of Redwood City IvTavemb�r 2. 2012 Page 4 As s�ated in the Breakzone ca�e, supra at 499, "Tz� r�achin� a decisic�i� on a�� applicatio�� for a CUP it is also ap�aropriate for an agei�cy to c�nszder tz•affic, parking, satety, noise �nd ��ui�ance p�-oi�lei�zs; t�3ese c�e�rly represez�t coneerns tl�at ��•e we�l witl�i� tl�e domain of ihe pu�lic interest �nd pLi�lie welfare. (Desn�ond v. Counly of Contra Cvsta supra, 21 Cal.A�p. 4t1� at p. 337, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 842.) Such findii�gs are s��f�'icie��t basis to sustai�� a pernr�it or zonin�; decision when they are suppo��ted by substan��ai evide�ce. {Guinnane v. San T'rancisco Citv Plannin� Com., su�rcr, 209 Cal.A�p.3d at p. 7�3, 257 Cal. Rptr. 742• Paoli v. Calif�rnicr Cvast�l Co�n., sunra, � � �� 178 Ca1.A�p.3d at pp. 550-551, 223 CaI.R tp r. 792.)" The Plannii�g Coinrnission recezved a wri�ten subrr�ission and oral testimony fram rr�embers of the public regarding pi°imariIy traffic problems at and near the Redwood City Costco. Most of t�is evideiace and even tl�e di�cussion a�nong the �lazzni�g Carnrnissioners was aneedotal ar�d focused oz� existing traffic i�sues, pri�nariIy in eonnectian witl� aceess from the 4rcharct Su�ply HarcIware par�ir��; area to t�e Castco parking area, left turns exiting from the Castco par�Cing lat onto Middle�'zeld Raae�, anci wait tin�es/c�ueuing at the Midc�lefi�Id Road/Woadside Roac� intersectioa�. (Transcrzpt/video recordii�g of Proceedings of the Plannin� Con�rnission Meetang o� Oeto�er 16, 2012.) Evidence o:� existi��g conditions is no� releva��t or substantial except as a baseline for project im}�acts (CEQA Guidelines, §15125{a)); rele�a�lt "substa�ltial �vidence" would have to shaw that approval of tile e�pansion sought in �he Applications would exacerbate the existing conditions. Tkzere is no subsfantial evidence that expansian to 20 vfps would exacerbate t�e existing conditions; �•ather Adderzdum No. 2 sho�rrs that the expansion would ha�e no signi�'icant adverse impaet and, iildeed, would reduce automative exhaust e�issions. And Costcn's p�rpose in �lin�; the Applications was to i�nprove existi�z� conditions. T�zei°e is no ar�alysis of (and t�ezefore z�o s�lbstantial evider�ce as to) tile difference that wouid result froin ex�anding the RedwQOd City Costco to only 16 vfps rather than 20 vf�s. The analysis and substantial evi�ence is th�t 20 vfps wo�ld �ave no significant n�w or rr�are se�rere ad�erse ir�paets tk�an the existing 12 vfp facility. Logic, however, tells us that i�a given va�ume of cars inust pass t�rough 16 vfps instead o#20 vfps, t1��n tl�e time t�pracess the cars through the 1 b vfps, the queues of ve��icles, and the wait tiines in those que�es ALL will be Ionger. That tra�lslates to rnore automativic exhaust erz�is�ions thar� would accur with th� 20 vfp facility and rnor� occasinns on wlzich the queues �vill continl�e to b�.oc� tra�f c cir�ulatio�. The 20 vfp facility 4vi11 �nt resuli in any significant adv�rse impacts as compared ta t�e existin� 12 vfp fac�Pity, but c�r�ly by expanding to 20 vfps can the deszred max�muz�n bene#'rts be achieved: imprav�d circulation, r�duced einissians, and ei�hanced member experie��ces. Tl�e written submittal challen�;es tl�e assump�zans and conclusior�s of th� traffic analysis in the 2007 EIR (Letter dated October i 5, 2012, frorr� James M. Dornbros�Ci of the Law Offices o# James M. Dombroski, and attachment thereto.) That challenge is not relevant to the proposal to