AgdaPkt 2013-03-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A. - Page 7 2. Gasoline Prices The Appellant objects to the fact that the Planning Commission's resolution did not include a condition of approval, which prohibits Costco from selling gasoline to the public below cost, in violation of the California Unfair Practices Act. Condition No. 36 of the Planning Commission Resolution approving the Use Permit (Attachment 3) states, "Applicant shall comply with all City, State and Federal regulations, applicable to the Project." Thus, the Applicant must comply with State regulations such as the California Unfair Practices Act, to the extent it is applicable. Furthermore, it is not within the City's purview to enforce the California Unfair Practices Act. Nevertheless, because of Condition No. 36, should it be determined by a court that Costco has engaged in unfair practices and therefore violated State law, such violation would implicate Condition No. 36 and the City would have the ability to revisit the Use Permit in accordance with Article 42 of the Zoning Ordinance. It should be noted that claims alone are not considered grounds for overturning the approval of the expanded gas station facility. 3. Air Quality Analysis The Appeal Filing Form submitted by the Appellant makes a comment "that no study was conducted regarding the amount of emissions caused by the expansion." The Appellant did not expand upon this statement in the appeal letter and no specifics were provided regarding this subject matter. Contrary to the Appellant's conclusory comment, the Applicant has provided additional air quality analysis specific to the gas station expansion project. This information was analyzed during the City's preparation of Addendum No. 2 and was part of the Planning Commission's consideration of the project. As proposed, the gas station expansion project would not result in any new impacts that warrant additional consideration or mitigation. Appeal No. 2 The Costco Wholesale Corporation appeal is based on the assertion that "there is no substantial evidence on which to base findings, to support the denial of the expansion of the Costco fueling to twenty vehicle fueling positions." The Applicant's position is further supported by an appeal letter from McKenna Long & Aldridge dated November 2, 2012, Attachment 5. The request for additional fueling positions has been made with the specific intent of reducing waiting times and lengths of queues, which would improve on-site circulation, decrease automobile exhaust emissions, and serve to improve the customer experience, according to the Applicant. The analysis conducted in Addendum No. 2 supports the position that the 20 fueling position project would not result in any new or any increase in the severity of previously identified impacts and no new mitigation measures were required. As such, the Applicant contends that the Planning Commission's discussion of the issues, primarily related to traffic concerns, was anecdotal and not based on substantial evidence. In further support of their appeal and in an attempt to respond to the Planning Commission comments and concerns, the Applicant has continued to work with City staff to analyze the existing constraints caused by the Woodside/Middlefield