Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.A 01/28/2019 Attachment 06-05DATE: June 26, 2018 TO: Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 5 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7B FROM: Adam Petersen, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY: Heather Hines, Planning Manager SUBJECT: SAFEWAY FUEL CENTER PROJECT Site Plan and Architectural Review 335 South McDowell Boulevard. (APN: 007-820-046) FILE# PLSR 13-0012 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1) Adopt a resolution to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment A); and 2) Adopt a resolution approving Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) for the Safeway Fuel Center project (Attachment B). BACKGROUND The Planning Commission reviewed this project at their May 8, 2018 meeting. After receiving public comment and discussing the item, it was continued to a date certain of June 26, 2018. The Commission expressed concerns related to the traffic analysis, including pedestrian uses and safety, and air quality impacts. Additionally, the Commission also expressed concern about public outreach given the neighboring sensitive receptors (school and residential) and the amount of time lapsed since the last outreach was conducted by the applicant in 2014. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) approval to demolish the existing 13,770 sq. ft. commercial building and construct a new 697 sq. ft. convenience store, a 5,932 -sq. ft. fuel canopy with eight fueling stations (16 dispensers). The project also includes associated site improvements, consisting of, but not limited to, installation of underground fuel tanks, construction of a new covered trash enclosure, installation of bicycle racks and three new parking lot lights — two placed along the western edge of the site and one along the southern end of the site, and one near the northern parking — parking lot striping, perimeter landscaping, and signage. Off-site improvements associated with the project include construction of an approximately 120 ft. long bus pullout at the existing transit transfer station on Maria Drive. The bus pullout would 6-5-1 accommodate up to three busses, a transit kiosk, three benches and bus shelters, and new perimeter landscaping. For additional information about the project location, context, or detailed project description refer to the May 8, 2018 staff report at Attachment D. DISCUSSION The following discussion touches on the key concerns expressed by the Planning Commission at the May 8, 2018 hearing and in most cases provides an abbreviated summary of the discussion included in the Response to Comments (Attachment A, Exhibit 3). 1. Clarifying the assumptions used in the traffic modeling for trip reductions or credits. CHS Consulting has provided three traffic documents to inform the IS/MND: the 2014 Traffic Impact Study (TIS), a 2018 Traffic Memo (TM), and a June 2018 Technical Memo. The 2014 TIS and the 2018 Technical Memorandum use the same methodology to estimate trip generation. The 2014 TIS estimated the Project's trip generation based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip rates published in Trip Generation, 9th Edition, and empirical data from field surveys of two existing Bay Area Safeway gas stations in Pleasant Hill and Campbell. The 2018 Traffic Memo (page 3) clarifies that the 2014 TIS did not apply industry standard trip reductions for commercial uses on or formerly occupying the Project site, nor did the 2014 TIS apply reductions for internal, pass by, or diverted trips. Definitions of internal, pass -by, and diverted trips are provided in the 2018 Memo in an effort to demonstrate that the analysis is conservative in its calculations, not using industry standard trip reductions for gas station projects that would lower the average daily trips to the project. The 2014 TIS and the 2018 Traffic Memo did not take any reductions for internal, pass by, and/or diverted trips. The trip generation of the proposed Safeway Fuel Center project consists of 210 weekday a.m. peak hour trips, 276 p.m. peals hour trips, and 336 Saturday afternoon peals hour trips, all of which are considered and analyzed in the level of service analysis of the 2018 TM. While the internal, pass -by, and diverted vehicle trips were identified in the 2018 TM, these deductions were not taken in the 2018 analysis. 2. Response to concerns regarding pedestrian safety. Commenters expressed concern regarding pedestrian safety at the intersection of South McDowell and Maria Drive. Presently, this intersection is signalized, contains sidewalk on both sides and contains pedestrian improvements including striping for pedestrian crosswalk, pedestrian signals and curb ramps. The signal provides for left turn phasing from S. McDowell Boulevard onto Maria Drive, which provides protection to pedestrians by separating timing for pedestrians and vehicular left turn movements. To understand the existing collision and accident frequency at this intersection, CHS reviewed collision data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) between 2012 to 2016 for the intersection of South McDowell Boulevard and Maria Drive. 6-5-2 CHS concluded that pedestrian counts at the Maria Drive/McDowell Boulevard intersection indicate a low level of pedestrian activity during the a.m., p.m., and Saturday afternoon, peak periods, which is reflective of a free flow level of service with no impedances to pedestrian movements during all peals periods. The five-year collision history at the Maria Drive/McDowell Boulevard intersection indicates a low rate of collisions over the last five- year reporting period with four vehicle collisions per year on average. The City's Safe Routes to School Plan provides recommendations for pedestrian safety at the McDowell Boulevard/Maria Drive intersection. The suggestions include minor sidewalk repairs, widening the sidewalks, and including a pedestrian phase at the signal. Consistent with these recommendations, as a condition of approval, the proposed project would be required to achieve the following: 1) replace the existing sidewalks, driveways, and curb ramps that are broken or cracked; 2) install a new, accessible, and directional pedestrian ramp at the McDowell/Maria intersection; and 3) install a pedestrian crossing warning sign at the proposed driveway entrances. 3. Clarify how empirical data was used for traffic analysis instead of standard ITE standards. The 2014 TIS and the 2018 Technical Memorandum use the same methodology to estimate trip generation. The 2014 TIS estimated the Project's trip generation based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip rates published in Trip Generation, 9th Edition and empirical data from field surveys of two existing Bay Area Safeway gas stations in Pleasant Hill and Campbell. The Pleasant Hill and Campbell gas stations are similar to the proposed project in terms of size, hours of operation, circulation layout, adjacent grocery store size, and local setting (in a shopping plazas ) 4. What is the proposed throughput for the Safeway Fuel Station and what is the difference with the throughput approved with the BAAQMD Permit issued for the project. The Authority to Construct permit issued by BAAQMD for the Safeway Fuel Center project authorizes up to a maximum 25.71 million gallons of throughput per year. This amount was based on a Toxic Risk Screening Analysis performed by BAAQMD which concluded that the project met the screening level with a cap on throughput of 25.71 million gallons per year. The project description provided by the applicant to the City requests a throughput of 8.5 million gallons per year. The project description as included in the CEQA document also describes a maximum throughput of 8.5 million gallons per year. A condition of approval has been included in the draft resolution specifying that the project has a maximum throughput of 8.5 million gallons per year. 5. Clarify the thresholds and methodology used in the Health Risk Assessment. In addition to the Health Risk Assessment provided by Illingworth & Rodkin used to inform the analysis in the IS/MND, Illingworth & Rodkin also provided a memo responding to I Page 12 of the 2014 Traffic Study prepared by TJKM , August 13, 2014. 6-5-3 comments made by Environmental Science Associates (ESA) (May 8, 2018) and an additional memo to respond to follow up questions from the May 8, 2018 Planning Commission meeting (June 6, 2018). The HRA prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin relies on the BAAQMD- established thresholds of significance for local community risk and hazard impacts, which apply to the siting of a new stationary source emitter (gasoline station). The HRA evaluated the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial air quality pollutants based on an annual fuel throughput of 8.5 million gallons per year, consistent with the project description provided by the applicant. As explained in the throughput discussion above, this is approximately one-third of the throughput conditioned by BAAQMD. In response to the comment letter submitted by ESA, Illingworth & Rodkin calculated health risk assuming a throughput of 25.71 million gallons per year. Under this scenario, the operational risks at the school would increase by a factor of 3 from 0.69 chances per million to 2.04 chances per million such that the overall excess cancer risk, including project construction would be 7.9 chances per million. This remains below the excess cancer risk of 10 per one million threshold and would similarly have a less than significant impact. This corroborates the conclusion of the BAAQMD's Health Risk Screening Analysis that was conducted as part of the Authority to Construct Permit review, which analyzed a throughput of 25.71 million gallons per year. Therefore, even with a throughput of up to 25.71 million gallons per year, the conclusions of the HRA would not change, nor would any of the conclusion related to health risk as presented in the ISlMND be altered. However, the project has been conditioned to not exceed 8.5 million gallons per year. Also in response to comments submitted by ESA regarding the receptor height used in the HRA, Illingworth & Rodkin calculated health risk assuming a 0.0 -meter breathing height instead of the 1.0 meter height used in the HRA. Use of a 0.0 -meter receptor height instead of a 1.0 -meter receptor height would result in benzene concentration being increased by a small amount but the computed cancer risk would not change. Public comment at the May 8th Planning Commission meeting included concern about double exposure and an increased health risk for those children that may attend school and live in proximity to the project. Illingworth & Rodkin clarified that risks identified are worst case scenario for each person. The community health risk impacts are not additive (e.g., a child who attends North Bay Children's Center and lives at a residence along South McDowell Boulevard south of Maria Drive would either be exposed as a resident or a child attending school, not both). This is because each receptor is modeled under constant exposure for 30 years in the case of an adult and nine years in the case of a child. 6. Does case law limit the Commission's review authority under CEQA for this project? The applicant's attorney, Matthew Francois with Rutan & Tucker, LLP, contended that San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. City of San Diego (2010) 185 Ca1.App.4th 924 limits the scope of the Planning Commission's environmental review regarding the Safeway Project to aesthetic issues only. Planning staff and the City Attorney's Office have reviewed the case law and disagree. The Design Review application for the Safeway Fuel Center is a discretionary action that triggers review under the California Environmental Quality Act 6-5-4 (CEQA). CEQA requires an analysis of the whole of the project, including potential environmental impacts to all environmental categories that may result from construction and operation of the project. The Planning Commission's decision on the MND is the first instance in which CEQA is being applied to the project. In accordance with CEQA requirements, as the approving body, the Planning Commission must consider all environmental impact categories, not just aesthetics, before the project design can be approved. In the San Diego case, CEQA had already been done, there were no changed conditions to justify conducting further CEQA analysis, and the lead agency conceded that the approval being sought was ministerial and not discretionary. There were no grounds, in that case, permitting or requiring further CEQA analysis. The ISIMND prepared for the Safeway Fuel Center differs dramatically in that this is the first environmental review that has been conducted for the proposed project. Because it is clear from the City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance that the design review approval sought is a discretionary approval, and there are no other environmental documents that have been prepared for the Safeway Fuel Center project, an MND that examines the whole of the project is required. A failure to fully address CEQA in this manner for this project would be a failure to satisfy the City's obligations under CEQA. Per CEQA section 15162, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. In accordance with Section 15074 of CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission must consider and act upon the MND before approving the project. The Design Review approval sought for the Safeway Fuel Center is a discretionary action that triggers review under CEQA. An IS/MND has been prepared for the Safeway Fuel Center project. This the first instance in which the project is being evaluated for CEQA compliance. There are no prior project approvals or prior environmental review that covered the project. Accordingly, the Planning Commission is now required to review and make findings regarding the environmental document as a whole, not just the aesthetic component, per CEQA guidelines. Therefore, the San Diego case does not apply to the Commission's present action on the Safeway Fuel Center project. 7. What public outreach has been completed since the May 8t" Planning Commission hearing to respond to the public's questions about impacts associated with the project? Staff has had multiple communications with the applicant team following the May 8th hearing and among other things urged a robust community outreach effort to address the Commission's concerns and to respond to questions from the school district and nearby neighbors. A summary of outreach efforts is outlined in the applicant's response dated June 6, 2018 (Attachment G). The applicant references ten public hearings before the City Council and Planning Commission as part of the overall summary of outreach activities for the Safeway Fuel Center project. For clarification, the only public hearing before the City Council or Planning Commission for the Safeway Fuel Center SPAR application was the previous Planning Commission. meeting on May 8, 2018. The other meetings referenced by the applicant include general public comment at City Council meetings in 2013, discussion of a gas station moratorium at City Council 6-5-5 meetings in 2014, and transportation impact fee discussion at City Council meetings in 2014 and 2015. There is not a specific requirement in the IZO, General Plan, or any other City policy for type or frequency of outreach efforts. Staff and the Commission have encouraged the applicant to provide opportunity for dialogue and collaboration with members of the public. The outline provided by the applicant appears to be a complete summary of efforts made since the inception of the project but does not give a summary of feedback received, date of outreach, or other description. Based on follow up communication with the applicant after receiving the June 6th summary, the applicant has indicated outreach with representatives from the Petaluma City School District and dialogue with the McDowell Elementary School principal has occurred after the May 81h Planning Commission meeting. Additionally, Safeway created a website (www.petalumasafeway aas.com) and is holding community open house events on the project site on Tuesday, June 19th and Saturday, June 23�d Although the project was continued to a date certain of June 26, 2018, staff mailed a public notice of the June 26th hearing to the standard 500 -foot radius, as well as to all individuals who had commented on the project. See below for further discussion about response to the notice. ANALYSIS The above discussion further details items that were discussed at the May 8, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. There is no new information that has significantly changed the description of the project or the associated impacts as outlined in the CEQA document or in the staff report from the May 8, 2018 planning commission meeting. No new impacts have been identified. Therefore, the recommendation and analysis behind the recommendation for approval remains unchanged. The full analysis can be found in the May 8, 2018 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment D) and is summarized in the draft resolutions (Attachment A and B). PUBLIC COMMENT At the May 8, 2018 Planning Commission Hearing, 16 speakers voiced opposition to the project. This included speakers from the Petaluma Unified School District, McDowell Elementary School Principal, and neighboring residents. School officials and residents expressed concerns related to traffic safety and walkability, increased traffic, criminal activity, impacts to the health of children as a result of deteriorating air quality, transitioning gas fueling stations to electric charging sites, and a lack of public outreach. While the Public Hearing was continued to a date certain, thereby negating the need to notice the meeting a second time, staff republished a Notice of Public Hearing for the Safeway Fuel Center SPAR application in the Argus Courier on June 14, 2018 and mailed to all property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the subject property and all individuals who had previously commented on the project. A total of 292 mailed notices and 45 emails were sent. Comments received after the publication of the May 8th Planning Commission packet are provided in Attachment H, including a recent letter from the Petaluma City School District. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study was prepared by staff to address the project's potential effects on the environment (Attachment A, Exhibit 1). The Initial Study documents that the project would not result in a significant effect on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. The environmental review 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. These impacts and mitigation measures are summarized further below: Intersection Level of Service (LOS): The project would contribute to vehicles at intersections around the project site. However, the project will not cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Therefore, the project's contribution to intersection LOS would not be considered cumulatively considerable. However, the queuing during peals hours may exceed acceptable levels onsite. Therefore, the project includes a mitigation to dedicate a sufficient number of employee(s) to serve as fuel ambassadors during peak hours to facilitate efficient and safe fueling of vehicles and maintain consistent egress/ ingress at internal access points onsite. • Noise: Construction activities may impact nearby sensitive receptors. The project includes standard mitigation measures that limits construction and delivery hours, regulates the position of noise producing equipment, and noise barriers if needed. • Hazardous Materials: The demolition of the existing building onsite may result in the release of asbestos containing materials. The project is required to do an analysis prior to demolition, and if the material contains more than asbestos than the standard, disposal is required to follow protocols that protect human health. • Geology and Soils: Compliance with existing regulations would reduce impacts associated with ground shaking, soil loss, and erosion during project operation and construction, respectively. • Cultural Resources: Standard mitigation measures are in place to ensure prehistoric, historic, or paleontological resources, or human remains are properly managed should they be discovered during project construction. • Biological Resources: The applicant is required to perform bird nesting surveys if trees are to be removed during nesting season. • Air Quality: The contractor(s) shall implement basic and additional air quality construction measures set forth by BAAQMD during project construction, and related to the demolition of the buildings. 6-5-7 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A. Draft Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit 1. CEQA Initial Study Exhibit 2. MMRP Exhibit 3. Response to Comments Attachment B. Draft Resolution Approving Site Plan and Architectural Review Exhibit 1. SPAR Conditions of Approval Attachment C. Project Plans Attachment D. Public Comments prior to May 8, 2018 Attachment E. Planning Commission Staff Report, May 8, 2018 Attachment F. Illingworth & Rodkin Response to Comments, May 8, 2018 Attachment G. Applicant Supplemental Information, June 6, 2018 (inchtdingAttachmentsA-D) Attachment H. Public Comments on and after May 8, 2018 6-5-8