Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.A 01/28/2019 Attachment 06ATTACHMENT 6 DATE: September 17, 2018 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Heather Hines, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding the Planning Commission's Approval of Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Safeway Fuel Center Project RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's approval of Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Safeway Fuel Center project. BACKGROUND The Safeway Fuel Center project proposes a new gas station on the 0.71 acre parcel located at 335 South McDowell Drive in the Washington Square Shopping Center. The site is currently developed with a 13,077 square foot commercial building which would be fully demolished to facilitate the new development. The Safeway Fuel Center project includes installation of an eight pump (16 fueling positions) facility under a 5,932 square foot fueling canopy with an adjacent 697 square foot convenience store. Site Improvements include, but are not limited to landscaping, off street parking, an electric vehicle charging station and relocation of two underground storage tanks. Primary access to the pumps is from the existing drive aisle in the shopping center with egress either onto Maria Drive via an existing curb cut or into the interior of the shopping center via a new access at the northwest corner of the parcel. Queuing space for 12 vehicles has been accommodated through placement of the fueling canopy. The project also includes improvements to the eastside transit center consisting of an off-street pull out for the three bus stops, shelters, benches, and landscaping and solar powered arrival sign. A more detailed project description is available in the May 8th Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 6) and in the Initial Study (IS) (Attachment 7). The Planning Commission initially reviewed the project on May 8, 2018. After public comment and discussion, the Planning Commission continued the item to June 26, 2018. The Commission expressed concerns related to the traffic analysis, including pedestrian safety, and potential air quality impacts. Additionally, the Commission expressed concern about the amount of recent public outreach that's been conducted, given the surrounding uses (school and residential) and the extended amount of time since the last outreach was conducted by the applicant in 2014. 6-1 At the June 26, 2018 hearing, the Commission considered the application, including a detailed Response to Comments to address comments received during the public review of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and including updated memos from both the traffic consultant and the air quality consultant (Attachment 8). The staff report for the June 26th hearing is included at Attachment 5. The Commission received testimony from staff, the applicant and members of the public. The public comments maintained concerns regarding traffic, unsafe circulation along Maria Drive due to conflicts between busses and the pick-up and drop-off for the school and day care center, emissions that impact air quality, and a lack of public outreach. After in depth discussion the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2018-21A approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (Attachment 3) and Resolution No. 2018-21 (Attachment 4) approving the Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) for the project. The decision was not unanimous (4-3) and there was frustration voiced by even those Commissioners that voted in support of the project regarding the poor public outreach by the applicant but acknowledging that there was no legally defensible reason to deny the project. The SPAR approval included the following additional conditions of approval: • Requiring tanker trucks to access the site from South McDowell Boulevard • Constructing a median barrier on Maria Drive to prevent left turn in and out from the first two driveways on Maria Drive • Explicitly limiting maximum fuel throughut to 8.5 million gallons per year and requiring annual reporting from the applicant • Conducting outreach to the McDowell Elementary School population prior to construction, with bilingual translators for all oral and written communication The Planning Commissioners supporting the project cited the following reasons: • No legally defensible reason for denial • Proposed conditions of approval alleviate the remaining concerns regarding operation • All environmental issues had been adequately addressed through the analysis in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and subsequent Response to Comments • Support of overall site plan and architectural design for the project Those Commissioners opposing the project cited the following reasons: • Inadequate engagement with the surrounding neighborhood, including residents and the school population • Incompatibility with General Plan goals related to reducing air quality and protecting quality of life DISCUSSION Consistent with the requirements of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) Section 24.070, JoAnn McEachin filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval within 14 days of the Planning Commission's approval. The appeal was filed on behalf of the McDowell Elementary School, Little League Children and East Petaluma Residents, and included 15 additional 6-2 signatures from members of the public. The grounds for appeal, outlined in the Letter of Appeal (Attachment 2), were based on multiple points. The appellant states the following general reasons for the appeal: 1. The proposed project benefits Safeway and not the community. Petaluma has three gas stations in the area of the proposed site, including Chevron where Safeway customers can receive up to a 20 -cent discount. Research has shown that Safeway's reduced gas pricing has not reduced the price of other nearby gas stations. 2. The proposed fuel center is too close to the day care, school, and little league fields. The permitted use of a fuel station on the site does not make health and safety less of a concern. 3. Traffic will increase. The intersection of South McDowell Boulevard and East Washington Street is congested, and cars from U.S. 101 will exacerbate the scenario. 4. Cars turning off of South McDowell Boulevard and in line in the parking lot will be idling and spewing emissions causing health concerns for the community. 5. The site is not safe to combine transit buses, retail delivery vehicles, gas trucks and school buses in one area. 6. Given the increased purchase of electric vehicles, Petaluma does not need another gas station. 7. The project was under -advertised to the public. Implementing Zoning Ordinance Section 24.070 established procedures for the appeal and review of determinations and decisions. A decision of the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council. City Council may affirm; affirm in part; or reverse the decision to approve the architectural review of the Safeway Fuel Center. The following analysis responds to each of the appeal points as listed above. 1) Project Benefits Safeway and Not the Community: The project consists of a SPAR application. Pursuant to the IZO a gas station is a permitted use under the IZO standards for the C2 zone (see Table 4:4, IZO §4.030). According to IZO §28.020, "Fueling Station/Gas Station" may include a convenience store, vehicle services (includes attended and self-service car washes), and restaurant facilities. The only entitlement required for the project is Site Plan and Architectural Review, which is governed by the provisions of IZO Chapter 24.010 — Site Plan and Architectural Review, and include the standards in §24.010.G, which govern the scope of the City's review. The required findings for approval of SPAR consist of the following: 1. The project proposes appropriate use of quality materials and harmony and proportion of the overall design. 2. The architectural style should be appropriate for the project in question, and compatible with the overall character of the neighborhood. 3. The siting of the structure on the property is compatible with the siting of other structures 6-3 in the immediate neighborhood. 4. The size, location, design, color, number, lighting, and materials of all signs and outdoor advertising structures. 5. The bulk, height, and color of the proposed structures are consistent with the bulk, height, and color of other structures in the immediate neighborhood. 6. Landscaping, to approved City standards, shall be required on the site and shall be in. keeping with the character or design of the site. Existing trees shall be preserved wherever possible and shall not be removed unless approved by the Planning Commission. 7. Ingress, egress, internal circulation for bicycles and automobiles, off-street automobiles and bicycle parking facilities and pedestrian ways shall be so designed as to promote safety and convenience and shall conform to approved City standards. Any plans pertaining to pedestrian, bicycle, or automobile circulation shall be routed to the Pedestrian Bicycle Advisory Committee for review and approval or recommendation. As discussed in detail in the May 8, 2018 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 6) and outlined in the adopted approval Resolutions (Attachments 3 and 4), the Planning Commission found the project consistent with all of the required findings for approval. The appellant notes that there are three other gas stations in proximity to the project. The closest gas stations are 76 and Chevron, located 0.3 miles to the northwest of the project site along South McDowell Boulevard and East Washington Street, respectively. Shell is located approximately 0.8 miles southwest of the project site, along East Washington Street. Despite the location of the three fuel stations, the City of Petaluma does not regulate gas stations based on proximity or concentration. Further, gas station land use is permitted by right under the Petaluma IZO in the C2 zoning district. No entitlement tied to the use of the property is required for the proposed project. Discretionary review of this project is limited to Site Plan and Architectural Review as defined in Section 24.010 of the IZO. Therefore, proximity of other gas stations and use of the site for a gas station are not grounds to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission to approve SPAR for this project. The appellant's additional point regarding the lack of research to demonstrate that Safeway's reduced prices will cause a further reduction in gas prices at other Petaluma gas stations is also not relevant to the approval of the project. The reduction of gas prices is not a required finding for approval of the project under the provision of SPAR. Additionally, this issue was not a basis for the Planning Commission's approval of the project,as outlined in the resolution. 2) Permitted Use at Location Adjacent to Day Care, Playfield and School Does Not Make Health and Safety Less of a Concern The Planning Commission decision to approve the project was made after in-depth analysis and discussion regarding potential health risk exposure because of the new gas station and in particular due to nearby sensitive receptors (school, day care, residential). In fact, health risk due 6-4 to air quality impacts as well as traffic safety issues were two primary topics discussed at the first hearing for the project. Materials for the June 26, 2018 hearing included additional technical response from both the traffic consultant and the air quality consultant to ensure that the questions, and in particular the concerns expressed by Petaluma City Schools in their letter dated May 7, 2018 (Attachment 14), were appropriately addressed. Additionally, staff prepared a Response to Comments (Attachment 8) to ensure an appropriate response to the comments received during the public comment period for the IS/MND. In summary, it was only after a detailed analysis of the potential health and safety impacts associated with the project and a finding that said impacts were less than significant after mitigation that the Planning Commission approved the project. 3) Traffic will increase. The intersection of South McDowell Boulevard and East Washington Street is congested, and cars from U.S. 101 will exacerbate the scenario. A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was completed in 2014 and an updated Technical Memorandum was completed in 2018 for the proposed project. The traffic generation for this project was based on both Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip rates and empirical data from two existing Bay Area Safeway gas stations (Pleasant Hill and Campbell). Additionally, the TIS did not apply industry standard trip reductions for commercial uses on or formerly occupying the project site or reductions for internal, pass by, or diverted trips. The result was a conservative analysis of trip generation from the project. As stated in the adopted IS/MND and discussed in the Response to Comments, the project will increase traffic. More specifically, the project is expected to generate 210 trips during the a.m. peals hour and 276 during the p.m. peak hour for weekday trips. The trip generation for the . Saturday peak hour (between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m.) is projected to generate 336 trips. While this trip generation is expected to increase traffic and degrade level of service at surrounding intersections (McDowell/Maria, Maria/Project Driveway, and E Washington/McDowell), the degradation is measured in seconds and does not represent a significant traffic impact consistent with the City's thresholds. 4) Cars turning off of McDowell and waiting in line in the parking lot will be idling and spewing emissions causing health concerns for the community.. Cars will access the site internally from the Washington Square Shopping Center. The site plan provides space for up to 12 cars to be stacked prior to filling and up to 16 vehicles at pumps while fueling. Further, a condition of approval for the project is that Safeway shall install signage requiring customers to turn off engines while waiting. Additionally, a condition of approval requires a "fuel ambassador" on site during peak hours to help enforce the idling prohibition and guide cars to available pumps to improve efficiency on site. The use of fuel ambassadors will also ensure that cars will not be blocking drive aisles within the shopping center or blocking pedestrian walkways. The Health Risk Assessment prepared for the project evaluated the potential health risk assessment from operational emissions. The Health Risk Assessment found that operational impacts of the project would not adversely affect the health and safety of the community. 6-5 5) Site Safety — Combination of Transit Buses, Retail Delivery, Gas Trucks, School Buses The appellant notes that the combination of transit and school buses, retail delivery and gas trucks in the project area make the area unsafe. The operational impacts of the new gas station was analyzed in the context of the typical existing operations of surrounding uses. No significant safety impacts were identified. The project would also construct infrastructure improvements that would enhance operation of the East Side Transit Center. The project proposes an increase in the width of the bus pull out area at the East Side Transit Center to enable City buses to queue completely out of the primary lane of travel and load passengers outside of the primary travel lane on Maria Drive. Lastly, the proposed project uses existing driveways and curb cuts. A condition of approval requires installation of a median on Maria to prohibit a left turn into the middle driveway. Existing conditions at the first driveway on Maria limit turning movements to right out only. 6) Increased Electric Vehicle Purchases The project complies with the Petaluma General Plan policy 4-P-10 which requires electric vehicle charging facilities at all new gas stations. The trend to electrical vehicles is not relevant to the required SPAR findings required for approval of the project and therefore was not part of the Planning Commission's deliberation on the suitability of the proposed project. 7) Under -Advertised to the Public The City of Petaluma noticed all public hearings for the project consistent with the requirements of the IZO. Public notice was published for the May 8, 2018 meeting in the Argus Courier newspaper on April 5, 2018 and mailed notices were sent to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the site on April 5, 2018. Although the project was continued to a date certain of June 26, 2018, additional public notice was published in the Argus Courier on June 14, 2018 and mailed notices were sent to all property owners within a 500 foot radius of the site. In addition to the legal requirements for the public hearing, a notice was mailed or emailed to everyone who had commented on the project with adequate information to send a notice. As noted in the June 26, 2018 staff report, a summary of outreach efforts conducted by the applicant team is outlined in the applicant's response dated June 6, 2018 (Attachment 13). In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared to address the project's potential effects on the environment (Attachment 7). The Initial Study indicates that the project would have impacts to intersection levels of service, noise, hazards and hazardous materials, geology and soils, cultural resources, biology, and air quality However, the IS/MND also documents that with the incorporation of mitigation measures the project would not result in a significant effect on the environment. A Response to Comments was prepared to respond to all comments received during the public review of the IS/MND and presented to the Planning Commission at their June 26, 2018 meeting. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2018-21B on June 26th, approving the IS/MND for the project. PUBLIC COMMENT Public comments received throughout the process are included in Attachments 13 through 17. Comments in opposition to the fuel center primarily discuss the projects proximity to the adjacent day care, school, fields and perceived health effects, as well as traffic and congestion. Comments supporting the project discuss the lowered gas prices, need for access to fuel, and ability to conduct one -stop -shopping. Since the appeal has been filed, staff has received additional comments from the public ranging in support to opposition. Public notice for the City Council hearing was published in the Argus Courier and mailed to all property owners and tenants within a 1,000 foot radius of the site and to 274 people on the interested parties list. Additionally, two public hearing signs were posted on the site in advance of the September 17, 2018 hearing. FINANCIAL IMPACTS The appeal is a cost recovery project. The initial $235.00 deposit was paid by the appellant upon submittal of the appeal while all additional costs of processing the appeal are paid by the applicant. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1. Draft City Council Resolution Attachment 2 Letter of Appeal Attachment 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2018-21A Attachment 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2018-21B Attachment 5 June 28, 2018 Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment 6 May 8, 2018 Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment 7 Public Draft IS/MND Exhibit A Traffic Study, (online) Exhibit B Traffic Study, (online) Exhibit C Health Risk Assessment (online) Attachment 8 Response to Comments Attachment 9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment 10 Supplemental Analysis from Applicant Attachment 11 Illingworth and Rodkin — Response to Comments on Health Risk Assessment Attachment 12 Complete Plan Set Attachment 13 Applicant Supplemental Information Attachment 14 Public Correspondence Prior to May 8, 2018 Planning Commission 6-7 Attachment 15 Public Correspondence after May 8, 2018 Planning Commission through June 26, 2018 Planning Commission Attachment 16 Public Correspondence after June 26, 2018 Packet Distribution Attachment 17 Public Correspondence after Appeal Filed