AgdaPkt 2013-03-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 394 Michelle Littlefield, the project planner, gave an overview of the project. She gave background information of the project, noting that Costco submitted in 2005 for a total redevelopment of the warehouse. She stated that the Planning Commission had reviewed and certified a draft and final EIR for the Costco project in 2007 and thought the project was initially proposed with 16 pumps, the Zoning Administrator approved the project with 12 pumps. This was appealed to the City Council who upheld the project and decisions made by the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission. She stated that now Costco is asking for an additional 8 pumps and gave an overview of the numbers including changes in square footage, trees and parking. She stated this is a proposal to modify the existing Use Permit application and apply for a new Architectural Permit for the expansion of the canopy for the gas station. If approved this will also require an approval of a Sign Permit for new signage on the canopy. She noted project milestones and stated that part of the evaluation is consideration as to which level of environmental review would be appropriate based on the whole record, including new information provided by Costco. She stated that Staff determined that an Addendum #2 would be appropriate and based on these conclusions the City found no significant environmental impacts or increases in previously identified impacts from the 2006 EIR for the Costco project. She noted that five comment letters were received, all by email, and spoke about one in particular. She stated the Mr. James Dombroski raised two points in his letter: the first was that the transportation impact analysis had errors, and the second was that if the project were approved by the City that a condition of approval be included that the project comply with the California Unfair Practices Act. She stated that the letter is addressing a transportation analysis done in 2006 and not the current analysis or Addendum #2 and therefore the Statute of Limitations to raise issues with it has expired. She stated that compliance with the Unfair Practices Act, as a standard procedure in the City to comply with all state, local and federal laws, is required. She introduced Aaron Carter with ICF, the consultant who helped prepare Addendum #2 to provide technical explanations regarding the comment on the 2006 transportation impact analysis. Mr. Carter spoke specifically to Mr. Dombroski's letter. He stated that the first comment relates to prior analysis, which was not used as a basis for current proposed modifications. He stated there are four basic issues raised by Mr. Dombroski and addressed each in turn. He stated that the three nearest intersections to the facility were evaluated both in the prior study and the current study and are sufficient. He stated that the letter claims that improper trip generation rates were used and noted that any issues with trip generation related to the existing facility are a moot point as it is already completed and the current numbers only reiterate what the previous study found. He stated that the sub-consultant for traffic analysis looked at trip generation rates at similar Costcos, in similar facilities with a similar orientation to this project and better data simply cannot be found for that analysis. He noted that the comment refers to ITE trip generation rates, which were not used in this analysis, as the sub-consultant's reports were very similar to ITE numbers. He stated that the most current available information, existing conditions, were used to confirm the report. He noted that any trips related to the existing facility and existing 12 pumps are irrelevant for the purposes of the proposed modifications. The new analysis and existing observed data on the ground couldn't be more accurate than it is now. He noted the claim that the prior study underestimated the level of service impacts on the surrounding intersection system and stated that comparing existing conditions on the ground now to prior analysis reveals that the prior analysis conclusions have held true. Jessica Manzi, senior transportation coordinator for Redwood City, discussed significant traffic thresholds. She stated that all three studied intersections are signalized and for Page 2 of 21