HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.A 01/28/2019 Attachment 06-10� t
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
June 6, 2018
VIA EMAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS
Heather Hines
Planning Manager
City of Petaluma
11 English Court
Petaluma, CA 94952
Re: Safeway Fuel Center Project
Dear Ms. Hines:
ATTACHMENT 10
Matthew D. Francois
Direct Dial: (650) 798-5669
E-mail: mfrancois@rutan.com
rutan.com
We write on behalf of our client, Safeway, Inc., in response to the request by the Petaluma
Planning Commission for supplemental information regarding the proposed Safeway Fuel Center
Project (the "Project") at 335 S. McDowell Boulevard in the City of Petaluma (the "City"). The
Project has been reviewed by the City for nearly 5 years and was the subject of numerous studies
prepared by expert consultants as well as a detailed mitigated negative declaration ("MND").
At its May 8, 2018 hearing on the Project, the Planning Commission requested
supplemental information regarding: (1) the traffic analysis prepared for the Project; (2) the air
quality analysis prepared for the Project; and (3) the community outreach and public hearings held
to date concerning the Project. In addition, certain questions were raised regarding the scope of
the City's discretionary review authority over the Project. Summaries of the responses to these
requests are provided below; more detailed responses are provided in the enclosed attachments.
1. Supplemental information regarding the traffic analysis prepared for the
Project.
At the May 8, 2018 Planning Commission hearing, questions were asked regarding
pedestrian safety at the S. McDowell Boulevard/Maria Drive intersection. The Project traffic
engineer, CHS Consulting Group, analyzed intersection collision data from the Statewide
Integrated Traffic Records System ("S WITRS") for the last reported five year period (2012-2016).
CHS also collected and analyzed pedestrian intersection counts. As explained in the June 6, 2018
memorandum prepared by CHS, attached hereto as Exhibit A, the Project will not result in any
significant impacts to pedestrian safety. A question was also asked regarding the breakdown of
Project trips. As also explained in the CHS memo, all Project trips were accounted for in the traffic
analysis.
Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 EI Camino Real, Suite 200, Palo Alto, CA 94306
650.320.1500 1 Fax 650.320.9905
Orange County I Palo Alto 1 www.rutan.com
6-10-1
2696/031700-0001
12432412.2 a06/06/18
RUTAN
RUTAN 5 TUCKER, LLP
Heather Hines
June 6, 2018
Page 2
2. Supplemental information regarding the air quality analysis prepared for the
Project.
At the May 8, 2018 Planning Commission hearing, certain questions were raised
concerning the Health Risk Assessment ("HRA") prepared for the Project. These questions
concerned the volume of estimated throughput analyzed in the HRA, whether prevailing wind
patterns and vehicle queuing was factored in the HRA, and the treatment of sensitive receptors in
the HRA. As explained in the June 6, 2018 memorandum by Illingworth & Rodkin (attached
hereto as Exhibit B) as well as in the HRA itself, the Project will not result in significant health
risk impacts, either on a project level or on a cumulative basis.
3. Summary of community outreach efforts made by Safeway concerning the
Project.
Safeway has utilized various methods for creating community awareness and citizens
have been offered multiple opportunities for input during the City's five-year review process. A
summary of those methods and opportunities is provided in the document prepared by Safeway
attached hereto as Exhibit C.
4. The scope of the City's discretionary review authority over the Project.
As explained in the June 6, 2018 memorandum prepared by our firm, attached hereto as
Exhibit D, the City has limited discretionary review authority over the Project. As a permitted
use, the only discretionary approval need for the Project is Site Plan and Architectural Review.
The scope of the City's discretion is accordingly limited to aesthetic and design issues.
Thank you very much for your assistance on this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact
me with any questions regarding the enclosed information.
Very truly yours,
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
Aac LI_
Matthew D. Francois
cc: Natalie Maffei
Marl-, Friedman
6-10-2
2696/031700-0001
12432412.2 a06/06/18
10 R6 IIWA
6-10-3
Y
�7 Consulting Group
Technical Memorandum
Date: June 6, 2018
To: Natalie Mattel, Safeway
CC: Matt Francois, Rutan &Tucker LLP
From: Andrew Kluter, PE, CHS Consulting Group
Re: Petaluma Safeway Fuel Center: Pedestrian Counts and Safety Analysis
J
220 Montgomery Street
Suite 346
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 392-9688 P
(415) 392-9788 F
www.chsconsulting.net
The purpose of this technical memorandum is to summarize the updated pedestrian counts and evaluate the
five year collision history at the Maria Drive/McDowell Boulevard study intersection requested by Safeway to
address comments from the May 8, 2018 Planning Commission hearing. The Project consists of the demolition
of the 7,370 square foot building and parking. Proposed improvements include the construction of a new 697
square foot kiosk, 8 fuel dispensers, and appurtenant parking.
CHS collected new pedestrian intersection counts at the Maria Drive/McDowell Boulevard intersection for 48
consecutive hours, between Tuesday May 29, 2018 and Wednesday May 30, 2018. Pedestrian counts were
analyzed at three intervals including the AM peak period (7:00 to 9:00 a.m.), PM peak period (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.),
and for the midafternoon McDowell Elementary School release bells occurring at 1:50 and 2:40 p.m. on Tuesday
and 11:50 a.m. and 1:05 p.m. on Wednesday.
During the AM peak hour (8:00 to 9:00 a.m.), there were a total of 19 pedestrian crossings on Tuesday
(May 29, 2018) and 26 pedestrian crossings on Wednesday (May 30, 2018). The highest levels of
pedestrian traffic during the AM peak period occurred on Wednesday in the eastbound direction with a
total of 8 pedestrian crossings. The level of pedestrian traffic at the study intersection during the AM
peak hour indicates a free flow level of service with approximately one pedestrian crossing every 2
minutes.
During the PM peak hour, there were a total of 31 pedestrian crossings on Tuesday (4:30 to 5:30 p.m. on
May 29, 2018) and 17 pedestrian crossings on Wednesday (4:00 to 5:00 p.m. on May 30, 2018). The
highest levels of pedestrian traffic during the PM peak period occurred on Tuesday in the eastbound
direction with a total of 13 pedestrian crossings. The level of pedestrian traffic at the study intersection
during the PM peak hour indicates a free flow level of service with approximately one pedestrian
crossing every 2 minutes.
On Tuesdays, McDowell Elementary School dismisses students at 1:50 p.m. and again at 2:40 p.m.
During the 1 -hour period (1:45 to 2:45 p.m.) when students are released, there was a maximum of 24
pedestrian crossings at the study intersection. The highest levels of pedestrian traffic during the midday
6-10-4
04
Petaluma Safeway Fuel Ctr. Pedestrian Analysis: June 6, 2018 - Page 2
school dismissal period occurred in the westbound direction with a total of 7 pedestrian crossings. The
level of pedestrian traffic at the study intersection during the Tuesday afternoon dismissal bell indicates
a free flow level of service with approximately one pedestrian crossing every 2.5 minutes.
On Wednesdays, McDowell Elementary School dismisses students at 11:50 a.m. and again at 1:05 p.m.
During the 1 -hour period (11:30 to 12:30 p.m.) when students are first released, there was a maximum of
31 pedestrian crossings at the study intersection. During the 1 -hour period (1:00 to 2:00 p.m.) when the
second dismissal bell releases students, there was a maximum of 53 pedestrian crossings at the study
intersection. The highest levels of pedestrian traffic during the midday school dismissal period occurred
on in the westbound direction with a total of 24 pedestrian crossings. The level of pedestrian traffic at
the study intersection during the Wednesday dismissal bells indicate a free flow level of service with
approximately one pedestrian crossing every minute.
Pedestrian traffic at the intersection of McDowell Boulevard/Maria Drive is fairly minimal. Nonetheless,
pedestrian safety was fully analyzed in the original TIS as well as the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). No
significant impacts were identified. The City's Safe Routes to School Plan provides recommendations for
pedestrian safety at the McDowell/Maria intersection. The suggestions include minor sidewalk repairs, widening
the sidewalks, and including a pedestrian phase at the signal. Consistent with these recommendations, the
Project's approval would be conditioned on, among others, (1) the replacement of existing sidewalks and curb
ramps that are broken or cracked, (2) the installation of a new, accessible, and directional pedestrian ramp at the
McDowell/Maria intersection, and (3) installation of pedestrian crossing warning signage at the proposed
driveway entrances. (May 8, 2018 Planning Commission hearing, Conditions of Approval 39, 40, & 51.)
Additionally, CHS acquired intersection collision data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
(SWITRS) for the last five full years for which information is available (2012 to 2016) at the Maria Drive/McDowell
Boulevard intersection. Between 2012 and 2016, there were a total of 20 collisions at the study intersection with
17 involving vehicles only, three involving pedestrians, and no bicycle involved collisions. Two of the pedestrian
involved collisions occurred in 2015 and the third occurred in 2016. All three collisions involving pedestrians
were caused by vehicle violations related to the pedestrian right of way as pedestrians were crossing in the
crosswalk. The severity of the pedestrian involved collisions was relatively minor with two of the three involved
pedestrians complaining of pain, but with no visible injuries reported. The third pedestrian involved collision
included visible injuries and complaint of pain, but injuries were not considered severe. There were no
pedestrian fatalities at the study intersection in the last five year reporting period.
No reductions were taken for any project trips. The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Update provides a breakdown of
typical internal, pass -by and diverted trips for fuel centers located in shopping center locations, such as the
Project. Internal trips are those trips made within a site and thus do not add any new trips to the adjacent
roadways or project driveways. Pass -by trips are those trips in which drivers made an immediate stop along
their typical route and only add new trips to the project driveways. Diverted trips are those that divert from their
6-10-5
ConsultingGroup
Petaluma Safeway Fuel Ctr. Pedestrian Analysis: June 6, 2018 - Page 3
typical route to access their immediate stop; such trips add new trips to most (but not all) adjacent roadways
and likewise add new trips to the project driveways. All trips are accounted for in the traffic analysis. To the
extent the trips are not new trips, they are accounted for in the existing, background, and cumulative 2025 traffic
scenarios. To the extent the trips are new trips, they are accounted or in the existing plus project, background
plus project, and cumulative 2025 plus project traffic scenarios.
Pedestrian counts at the Maria Drive/McDowell Boulevard intersection indicate a relatively low level of
pedestrian activity during the AM, midday, and PM peak periods. The maximum observed level of pedestrian
activity occurred between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday May 30, 2018 with a total of 53 pedestrian
crossings, approximately one pedestrian crossing per minute. The level of pedestrian activity at the study
intersection indicates a free flow level of service with no impedances to pedestrian movements during all peak
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 only 4 vehicle collisions per year on average. Furthermore,
only three of the collisions over this reporting period involved pedestrians, of which none were severe and no
fatalities were reported. All pedestrian involved collisions were the result of vehicle code violations (i.e. vehicle
failed to yield to pedestrian in crosswalk). Therefore, there were no patterns of pedestrian involved collisions
that would suggest a safety concern at the Maria Drive/McDowell Boulevard intersection.
6-10-6
lon.,
1 .1
WIN Acoustics • Air Quality l/
I Willowbrook Court, Suite 120
Petaluma, California 94954
Tel: 707-794-0400 Fax: 707-794-0405
www.illingworthrodkin.com illro@illingworthrodkin.com
Date: June 6, 2018
To: Natalie Mattei
Senior Real Estate Manager
Albertsons Companies
11555 Dublin Canyon Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
From: James A. Reyff
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
1 Willowbrook Court, Suite 120
Petaluma, CA 94954
RE: Safeway Fuel Center CEQA document - Petaluma, CA
SUBJECT: Safeway Fuel Center Health Risk Assessment, Response to Follow -Up
Questions - Job#13-205
This memo responds to questions regarding the health risk assessment (HRA) that was prepared
by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc for the Safeway Fuel Center project.
1. Fuel Throughput. As stated in the HRA (page 12), the analysis used the throughput
that Safeway anticipates generating based on market research data, which is 8.5 million gallons
per year. The HRA points out that the BAAQMD permit would allow up to 25.71 million
gallons of throughput. The throughput permitted by BAAQMD is an unrealistic amount that was
calculated based on results of their screening assessment. Safeway does not anticipate to sell
more than 8.5 million gallons of gasoline.
2. Double Counting of Sensitive Receptors. There is concern that the analysis does not
address impacts to potential sensitive receptors that both live and attend school in the area. The
LIRA looked at receptors that were either at a residence or at the daycare/school. Results were
reported for the maximum exposure at each location based on the modeling conducted at the
receptors shown in Figure 1 of the LIRA report.
6-10-8
Memo to Natalie Maffei
June 6, 2018 — Page 2
The residential receptors were modeled as if the receptor spent almost all their time at that
location and included exposure parameters for a 2nd year infant, child and eventually adult during
29.5 years of project operation. A Yd trimester fetus and infant exposure was assumed during the
construction period. Total time exposed was 30 years.
The school child exposure was based on the maximum exposure of the school/daycare receptors
(shown in Figure 1 of the HRA) that occurred at the Not Bay Children's Center. The HRA
assumed child exposure parameters, where children were assumed to be fully exposed to
construction activity since construction activities would only occur during daytime hours and
then 8.5 years at the school for operation of the fueling center (9 -year total exposure).
The questions being addressed here is what the risk would be for a nearby resident who is a child
that also attends the North Bay Children's Center. To address this question, we are looking at it
two ways:
i. The maximum construction risk for an infant at the residence and adding the operational
risk at for the school child and the residence. This is an over estimate because it assumes
33 hours of daily exposure (9 hours at school and 24 hours at home) during the school
years. Based on Table 3 of the HRA, this would be increased cancer risk, in terms of
chances per million, of 2.4 during construction + 2.6 for residential operational exposure
+ 0.7 school child exposure = a cancer risk of less than 5.7 per million.
ii. The maximum risk for a child at North Bay Children's Center exposed to construction
and operation and residing that the maximum affected residence would be exposed to
cancer risk of 5.8 for construction + 0.7 operation at school and less than 2.6 operation at
home = less than 9.1 per million. We state "less", because the operational risk at the
residence assumes infant exposure but we are assuming the maximum exposure to
construction at the school, so, there would be no infant exposure under this hypothetical
case. Additionally, the 2.6 for operational risk while at home does not reflect the
decreased home exposure while the child is at school.
Note in both cases, construction is the primary contribution of cancer risk. Because of the
conservative. exposure assumptions, a receptor can only be exposed to construction at one of the
two locations.
3. Queuing of Vehicles.
Response: As described on page 11 of the MA, vehicle idling emissions were included. These were
based on queueing assumptions that assumed 12 vehicles constantly idling during the peak hour. The
peak hour was assumed to represent 10 percent of the total daily queuing emissions. The relationship
between peak -hour to daily was based on a typical relationship of peak -hour traffic to average daily
traffic assumptions. The contribution from idling and traveling customer vehicles is included in Table
3 of the HRA and makes up a small portion of the overall predicted risk (i.e., 24% for residential and
4% of school risks).
6-10-9
Memo to Natalie Maffei
June 6, 2018 —Page 3
4. Wind Patterns.
Response: As described on pages 8 and 12 of the IIlZA, the dispersion modeling used hourly
meteorological data collected at the Petaluma Municipal Airport and made available by BAAQMD. A
wind rose that illustrates the wind flow is shown below. The pedals and their length describes the
frequency that the wind blows fi-om the different compass directions. The color and length of each
colored portion relates to the fi•equency of occurrence for the different wind speed ranges. The wind
rose illustrates the predominant flow from the west-northwest.
YYI`ID R03E PLOT: OISPIAY:
BAAQMD Petaluma Airport Station - Windrose (1990 -1994) Wind Speed
Direction (blowing from)
i
i
24§>
i
i
y_ 12%
i
WEST EAST
i
i
i
i
iJ
i
i
i
i
i
i
-'
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
rM —221
11-17
7-11
Q 4-7
1-4
C3tms: 007%
DATA PERIOD:
Start Date: 11111990 - 00:00
End Date: 12!31119 94 - 23:00
CALl.1_10&. TOTIOOU **
0.07% 43824 hrs.
AVO—II.S-0 I DAT-- I PROJECT11O_
6.01 Knots 3/14/2012
Yraxorv_ -I�uee Em,;�c+menw sotwxre
6-10-10
6-10-11
PUBLIC DISCUSSION AND OUTREACH ACTIVITIES FOR SAFEWAY FUEL STATION
As of June 6, 2018
PUBLIC DISCUSSION AND REVIEW
• 5 Years of public discussion and debate
• 5 Public Hearings, including May 8, 2018 Planning Commission and unsuccessful attempts to
impose Moratorium and Fee Increase to $1.8M
• 10+ City Council and Planning Commission meetings with feedback provided via public
comment and elected officials
• 4 Resubmittals of Application until deemed complete
• Multiple On -Site Meetings with City Staff
COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND MEDIA
• 2,000+ "Yes" votes on supporter Petitions
• Mailer sent to Safeway customers provided detailed information on the project
• 20+ Invitations to one-on-one, personalized meetings with public meeting attendees and other
members of the community
• 3 In -Person meetings with representatives from adjacent schools, including an invite to watch
the movie Frozen with students
• Extensive In -Store communication with customers, including detailed FAQ document
• 30+ Press Articles and Editorials
• Multiple meetings with Chamber of Commerce
• Meetings with Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee
• Outreach via Social Media
• Additional public input and discussion via media (e.g. television reports, blogs, etc)
6-10-12
10 R-6 M)TE c
6-10-13
Z�mi
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
TO:
Natalie Maffei
FROM:
Matthew D. Francois
DATE:
June 6, 2018
FILE NO.:
031700-0001
Rutan & Tucker, LLP
Five Palo Alto Square
3000 EI Camino Real, Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94306-9814
(650)320-1500 Fax(650)320-9905
www.rutan.com
1'•
PALO ALTO
ORANGE COUNTY
(714)641-5100
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
RE: Safeway Fuel Center: Scope of City's Discretionary Review Authority Over The
Project
The Property is zoned Commercial 2 ("C2"). Gas stations are permitted uses in the C2
zone. The only discretionary approval needed from the City for the Project is Site Plan and
Architectural Review ("SPAR"). The purpose of SPAR approval is to "secure compliance with
the Zoning Ordinance and to promote the orderly and harmonious development" of the City.
(Implementing Zoning Ordinance ("IZO") § 24.01 O.A.)
In taking action to approve a SPAR application, the reviewing body must consider the
following:
Any controls to be exercised to acheive a satisfactory quality of design in the
individual building and its site, appropriateness of the building to its intended use,
and the harmony of the development with its surroundings. Satisfactory quality
design and harmony will involve among other things:
o The appropriate use of quality materials and harmony and proportion of the
overall design.
o The architectural style which should be appropriate for the project in
question, and compatible with the overall character of the neighborhood.
o The siting of the structure on the property, as compared to the siting of other
structures in the immediate neighborhood.
o The size, location, design, color, number, lighting, and materials of all signs
and outdoor advertising structures.
o The bulk, height, and color of the proposed structures as compared to the
bulk, height, and color of other structures in the immediate neighborhood.
2696/031700-0001 6-10-14
12453571.1 a06/06/18
Natalie Mattei
June 6, 2018
Page 2
Landscaping to approved City standards shall be required on the site and shall be
in keeping with character or design of the site. Existing trees shall be preserved
wherever possible, and shall not be removed unless approved by the Planning
Commission.
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.
• It is recognized that good design character may require participation by a
recognized professional designer, such as an architect, landscape architect or other
practicing urban designer and the reviewing body shall have the authority to require
that an applicant hire such a professional, when deemed necessary to achieve good
design character.
(IZO § 24.010.G.)
The above "considerations" are in stark contrast to the "findings" required for a conditional
use permit. For a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission can approve (or disapprove)
such a permit only when it finds that the proposed structure or use "will (or will not) conform to
the requirements of the [IZO] and the Petaluma General Plan and that such use "will not (or will),
under the circumstances of the case, constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare
of the community." (IZO § 24.030.H.) As a principally permitted use, the Project does not require
a conditional use permit. It only requires design review (or SPAR) approval from the City.
As correctly noted in the Staff Report for the May 8, 2018 Planning Commission hearing,
the Project achieves a satisfactory quality of design and harmony with its surroundings. It
incorporates an appropriate use of quality materials and reflects a harmonious and proportional
design. The architectural style is appropriate for the Project and compatible with the overall
character of the neighborhood. The siting of the structure is compatible with the siting of other
structures in the immediate neighborhood. Project signage shall be designed to conform with the
City's Sign Code and any applicable Sign Program. The bulk, height, and color of the structure is
compatible with the bulk, height, and color of other structures in the immediate vicinity.
Further, landscaping to approved City standards will be provided in keeping with the
character and design of the site. Circulation patterns will not be substantially altered by the Project
and will conform to approved City standards. Further, the Project was appropriately designed by
a professional architect.
2696/031700-0001 6-10-15
12453571.1 a06/06/18
Natalie Mattei
June 6, 2018
Page 3
As detailed above, the City's discretion over the Project under the IZO is very narrow and
limited to design issues. To the extent, the City attempts to expand its limited design -review
discretion to preclude the Project, its efforts would be in contravention of the law. (See, e.g.,
Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.AppAth 1004 [Court of Appeal rules that design
review ordinance does not confer on a city the unrestrained power to decide who may and may not
do business in the city.].)
Further, nothing in the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") expands the City's
discretionary review authority over the Project. To the contrary, the scope of environmental review
is constrained by the discretion an agency possesses over the project, which is extremely minimal
here. (Public Resources Code § 21004; CEQA Guidelines § 15040; Sierra Club v. County of
Sonoma (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 11, 28.) In San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. City
of San Diego (2010) 185 Cal.AppAth 924, the court rejected a CEQA challenge to a design review
approval for a large mixed-use development project for allegedly failing to consider the impacts
of global climate change. The court reasoned that since the agency had no authority to impose
mitigation for this issue, CEQA review "would be a meaningless exercise."].)'
In addition, it is well settled that "[e]conomic or social effects of a project shall not be
treated as significant effects on the environment." (CEQA Guidelines § 15131.) Specifically,
CEQA does not CEQA does not extend to social or economic issues, such as quality of life matters.
(CEQA Guidelines § 15131; Preserve Poway v. City of Poway (2016) 245 Cal.AppAth 460; City
of Pasadena v. State of California (1993) 14 Cal.AppAth 810; Cathay Mortuary, Inc. v. San
Francisco Planning Com. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 275; Citizen Action to Serve All Students v.
Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748.)
Even though the scope of environmental review could legitimately be confined to aesthetic
issues since SPAR is the only needed discretionary entitlement, all applicable environmental
resource categories were studied in the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") and associated
reports prepared by expert consultants. The MND concludes that the Project's potentially
significant impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level through the imposition of
mitigation measures. The MND's conclusions are fully supported by substantial evidence in the
record and must be upheld.
In sum, the City has limited discretion over the Project. The scope of discretion relates to
aesthetic and design issues. To the extent the City attempts to employ this limited discretion to
preclude a use that it or some of its residents to do not want, it would be acting in contravention of
the law.
1 Although this case arose in the context of supplemental environmental review, "the court based
its holding on generally applicable CEQA principles and did not limit it to the supplemental EIR
context, so this holding may apply more broadly to EIRs generally." (Kostka & Zischke, Practice
Under the California Environmental Quality Act § 13.22.)
2696/031700-0001 6-10-16
12453571.1 a06/06/18