AgdaPkt 2013-03-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 6 The Commission acknowledged the analysis provided in Addendum No. 2, but expressed reservation about expansion to a 20 fueling position gas station, citing specific concerns regarding on-site circulation (i.e. the internal intersection located just west of the main vehicular entrance at the Middlefield / Willow intersection, where the Orchard Supply Hardware traffic intersects with the Costco drive aisle) and existing operation on Middlefield Road. The Commission also recognized that existing conditions on Middlefield Road are largely the result of the capacity issues at the Woodside/Middlefield intersection, which are under Caltrans jurisdiction. Ultimately, under the discretion afforded to them via the Use Permit process, the Planning Commission determined with a 6:1 vote that a 16 fueling position gas station was most appropriate. Appeal No. 1 The appeal filed by the law offices of James M. Dombroski on behalf of Appellant cites two objections to the Planning Commission's decision — traffic analysis and gasoline prices, and notes a third objection on the appeal form —air quality analysis (Attachment 4). 1. Traffic Analysis The Appellant claims there were "errors in approach, statistical analysis and arithmetic" in the 2007 EIR and relies upon a memorandum prepared by Robert L. Harrison in November 2007. The Robert Harrison memorandum was considered as part of the Final EIR for the 2007 project and the City certified the 2007 EIR, which withstood a legal challenge. To the extent the Appellant seeks to invalidate the decision based on the analysis of the 2007 EIR, this is extraneous to the expansion project. For purposes of this proposed Costco Gasoline Station Expansion Project, the City needs to determine only whether any of the grounds for additional environmental review exists; it does not need to recertify the 2007 EIR. The adequacy of the 2007 EIR is not relevant to the City's determination. A previous EIR is conclusively presumed to be valid if it has not been set aside by a court. (Laurel Heiqhts Improvement Ass'n v. Reqents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1130.) This presumption precludes reopening the CEQA process on the previous 2007 EIR. During the City's review and consideration of the 2011 Costco Gasoline Station Expansion Project the same November 2007 memorandum was submitted and the City's environmental consultant responded to each issue during the October 16, 2012 Planning Commission public hearing (Attachment 7). This information was considered by the Planning Commission and it was determined that the City had and has sufficient information as documented in the 2007 EIR, Addendum No.1, Addendum No. 2, and in the administrative record; therefore no additional analysis was deemed necessary and the proposed gas station expansion project is not anticipated to generate any new significant impacts.