HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.A 01/28/2019 Attachment 11RUTAN
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
September 17, 2018
VIA E-MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY
Honorable David Glass, Mayor
and Members of the Petaluma City Council
City of Petaluma
11 English Court
Petaluma, CA 94952
Re: Safeway Fuel Center Project;
September 17, 2018 City Council Agenda, Item 6.13
Dear Mayor Glass and Members of the City Council:
ATTACHMENT 11
Matthew D. Francois
Direct Dial: (650) 798-5669
E-mail: mfrancois@rutan.com
We write on behalf of our client, Safeway, Inc., regarding the proposed Safeway Fuel Center
Project (the "Project") at 335 S. Mc Dowell Boulevard (the "Property") in the City of Petaluma (the
"City"). The Project has been reviewed by the City for nearly six years and was the subject of
numerous studies prepared by expert consultants as well as a detailed mitigated negative declaration
("MND") prepared by M -Group, the City's contract Planning Staff.
After continuing its May 8, 2018 hearing to obtain more information regarding air quality
and traffic, and to allow additional review by Petaluma City Schools (the "District"), the City's
Planning Commission approved the Project on June 26, 2018. On July 9, 2018, an appeal of the
Planning Commission's action was filed by JoAnn McEachin and others.
In connection with its consideration of the appeal, Safeway submitted letters dated
September 6, 2018, September 11, 2018, and September 14, 2018 providing updates and voluntary
supplemental information for the benefit of City Council, City Staff, and the public record. Today,
we are writing to again provide voluntary supplemental information in response to the September
14, 2018 letter from Patrick Soluri on behalf of Joann McEachin and No Gas Here alleging, among
others claims, that the City cannot lawfully rely on the MND but must instead prepare an
environmental impact report for the Project. The commenter is wrong both as a matter of fact and
as a matter of law.
The scope of the City's discretionary review authority over the Project.
As detailed in' previous submittals, the City has limited discretionary authority over the
Project. (See, e.g., September 5, 2018 memo from our firm to Heather Hines, attached hereto as
Exhibit A-1.) As noted in the September 17, 2018 memo prepared by our firm (attached hereto as
Exhibit A-2), Mr. Soluri misconstrues the applicable "considerations" at issue in the Project's Site
Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 EI Camino Real, Suite 200, Palo Alto, CA 94306 11-1
650.320.1500 1 Fax 650.320,9905 2696/031700-0001
Orange County I Palo Alto I www.rutan.com 12849409.2809/17/18
RUTAN
RUTAN s TUCKER. LLP
Members of the City Council
September 17, 2018
Page 2
Plan & Architectural Review ("SPAR") application review process and misstates the legal standard
of review applicable to the City's action on a SPAR application.
2. The City is legally obligated to rely on the MND as there is no substantial
evidence of a fair argument that the Project may result in a significant
environmental impact.
A. The Project will not result in significant impacts related to traffic.
The conunenter questions the assumptions and methodologies used in the traffic analysis for
the Project, citing a September 14, 2018 memo prepared by Larry Wymer & Associates. Of note in
Mr. Wymer's biography, is his lack of experience in the City, County of Sonoma, and Bay Area in
general, with his focus centering on Sacramento, Southern California and Nevada. The September
17, 2018 memo prepared by CHS Consulting Group (attached hereto as Exhibit B) responds to all
of the claims raised by Mr. Wyrner and Mr. Soluri. No additional analysis is needed.
B. The Project will not result in significant impacts related to hazards and
hazardous materials.
Commenter claims that the MND failed to adequately address potential hazards that may
result from the Project, specifically as the Project relates to nearby schools. The MND does analyze
the Project's proximity to the schools, which it acknowledges are located within one-fourth mile of
the Project site. As a result of the Project's adherence to existing federal, state, and local regulations
regarding the proper storage, handling, and transport of hazardous materials, the MND concludes
that the Project will result in less than significant impacts to health and safety. (MND, p. 38.)
Commenter is incorrect by stating that an agency must impose such legal requirements as a
mitigation measure. (Tracy First v. City of Tracy (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 912 [compliance with
applicable regulatory standards can provide a basis for determining that the project will not have a
significant enviromnental effect].) Moreover, the MND does properly conclude that due to
adherence to existing federal, state, and local regulations regarding the proper storage, handling, and
transport of hazardous materials, the Project's contribution to any cumulative hazards/hazardous
materials impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
C. The Project will not result in significant health risk impacts.
The commenter questions the modeling used for the air quality analysis and alleges that there
is a significant, unidentified health risk. The extensive technical studies performed by Illingworth
& Rodkin, and reviewed and concurred with by multiple City Staff members and ESA, consistently
demonstrate that the Project will result in less than significant health risk impacts. The commenter
2696/031700-0001
11-2
12849409.2 a09/17/18
RUTAN
RUTAN 6 TUCKER. LLP
Members of the City Council
September 17, 2018
Page 3
claims that an additional health risk assessment is forthcoming. As of the time of the submittal of
this letter, no such assessment has been provided to Safeway. We will strive to respond to any other
late submittals from Mr. Soluri as quickly as possible.
D. The Project will not result in significant impacts to greenhouse gas
emissions.
The commenter raises claims regarding the modeling use for the greenhouse gas emissions,
alleging there is a significant, unidentified impact. As explained in the September 14, 2018 memo
prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin (attached as Exhibit A to our September 14, 2018 letter to you)
the greenhouse gas assessment modeled the Project as an 8 gas island (16 -pump) gas station using
standard default CalEEMod model settings. The resulting analysis shows that the Project will result
in less than significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. As a land use project, the Project was
evaluated in accordance with BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines which requires use of the CalEEMod
land use model. Auto manufacturers and refineries are subject to their own regulations pertaining to
greenhouse gas emissions. The emissions associated with such activities are beyond the scope of
the Project application.
Thank you very much for the 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
/�d
64
Matthew D. Francois
MDF:mtr
Attachments
cc: John Brown, City Manager, City of Petaluma
Heather Hines, Planning Manager, City of Petaluma
Olivia Ervin, Principal Environmental Planner, City of Petaluma
Adam Petersen, Senior Planner, City of Petaluma
Eric Danly, City Attorney, City of Petaluma
Natalie Mattei, Senior Real Estate Manager, Safeway, Inc.
Mark Friedman, President, Fulcrum Property
2696/031700-0001 11-3
12849409.2 a09/17/18
11-4
r
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
Rutan & Tucker, LLP
Five Palo Allo Square
3000 EI Camino Real, Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94306-9814
(650)320-1500 Fax(650)320-9905
www.rutan.com
PALO ALTO
ORANGE COUNTY
(714) 641-5100
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
TO: Natalie Maffei
FROM: Matthew D. Francois
DATE: September 5, 2018
FILE NO.: 031700-0001
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") § 24.010.A.)
In taking action to approve a SPAR application, the reviewing body must consider the
following:
® Any controls to be exercised to achieve 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
12803366.2 a09/06/18 11-5
Natalie Maffei
September 5, 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 (or City Council on appeal)
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 bulls, 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. In addition, the Project was appropriately designed
2696/031700-0001 11-6
12803366.2 a09/06/18
Natalie Mattei
September 5, 2018
Page 3
by a professional architect, with extensive review and input from City Staff, the Pedestrian and
Bicycle Advisory Committee, and the Transit Advisory Committee.
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.App.4th 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."1
In California Water Impact Network v. County of San Luis Obispo (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th
666, the court of appeal reaffirmed San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition in a case that
did not involve subsequent review. In that case, an agency's issuance of well permits was
challenged for failure to comply with CEQA. The court upheld the agency's finding that the permit
were ministerial and thus exempt from CEQA. The court noted that even if the ordinance gave
the county discretion over water quality issues, that did not extend to water supply issues, which
were the subject of challenge in that case.
Notwithstanding the above case law, City Staff claimed that CEQA review extends to all
environmental resource categories reasoning that CEQA applies to the whole of an action. (Staff
Report for June 26, 2018 Planning Commission hearing, pp. 4-5.) The fact that CEQA requires
an analysis of the whole of an action does not mean that CEQA somehow expands an agency's
discretionary review authority. It does not.
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 extend to social or economic issues, such as quality of life matters. (CEQA
I 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
12803366.2 a09/06/18 11-7
Natalie Mattei
September 5, 2018
Page 4
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.) As noted by the California Supreme Court, CEQA "must
not be subverted into an instrument for the oppression and delay of social, economic, or
recreational development or advancement." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors
(1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 576.)
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 or outside parties do not want, it would be acting in
contravention of the law.
2696/031700-0001
12803366.2 a09/06/18 11-8
11-9
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
Rutan & Tucker, LLP
Five Palo Alto Square
3000 EI Camino Real, Suite 200
Palo Allo, CA 94306-9814
(650)320-1500 Fax(650)320-9905
www.rutan.com
PALO ALTO
ORANGE COUNTY
(714)641-5100
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
TO: Natalie Maffei
FROM: Matthew D. Francois & Emily Webb
DATE: September 17, 2018
FILE NO.: 031700-0001
RE: Safeway Fuel Center: Response to Mr. Soluri Re: Scope of City's Discretionary
Review Authority Over The Project
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a voluntary response to the September 14,
2018 letter from Patrick Soluri on behalf of Joann McEachin and No Gas Here misstating the legal
standard of review applicable to the City's action on the Site Plan and Architectural Review
("SPAR") application for the Safeway Fuel Center Project ("Project") and misconstruing the
applicable "considerations" at issue in the SPAR application review process.]
As an initial matter, Mr. Soluri misrepresents the holdings of the cases upon which he
relies. For example, Mr. Soluri asserts the following: "The agency's decision will be overturned
only if no reasonable person would have reached the same conclusions." (Harris v. City of Costa
Mesa (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 963, 969 (Harris); Breakzone Billiards (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1205,
1244.) In reality, the court in Harris affirmed the long-established rule that an agency's decision
on a land use matter must be based on substantial evidence:
Our review of an administrative decision requires that we scrutinize the record and
determine whether substantial evidence supports the administrative agency's
findings and whether these findings support the agency's decision.... To this end,
we consider the entire record to determine whether substantial evidence supports
the city council's findings and whether those findings support its decision.
(Harris v. City of Costa Mesa (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 963, 969.)
Similarly, the court in Breakzone Billiards held:
Findings must be made by the quasi-judicial body as part of its determination of
whether to grant or deny a [conditional use permit]. Such findings must be
supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record. Appellate courts
] This memo supplements our September 6, 2018 memo regarding the City's limited
discretionary authority over the Project.
2653/031700-0001
11-10
12851171.2 a09/17/18
Natalie Mattei
September 5, 2018
Page 2
.review such adjudicatory planning actions under the substantial evidence standard,
looking to the administrative record to determine whether,the agency's decision is
supported by substantial evidence and whether the findings of the agency support
the decision made.
(81 Cal.AppAth at 1244.) Thus, as Mr. Soluri's own cases confirm, "[s]ection 1094.5 clearly
contemplates that at minimum, the reviewing court must determine both whether substantial
evidence supports the administrative agency's findings and whether the findings support the
agency's decision." (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11
Cal.3d 506, 514-515.)2
Substantial evidence is defined as evidence of ponderable legal significance, reasonable in
nature, credible, and of solid value. (Lucas Valley Homeowners Assn. v. County of Marin (199 1)
233 Ca1.App.3d 130, 142.) It includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert
opinion supported by fact. (Public Resources Code § 21080(e).) It does not include argument,
speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous,
or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical
impacts on the environment. (Id.)
Contrary to Mr. Soluri's suggestion, the "substantial evidence" standard is not met by
speculative or imaginary evidence. In order to be valid, the city council's findings are required
"to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision and to show the
analytic route the administrative agency traveled from evidence to action." (Great Oaks Water
Co. v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. (2009) 170 Cal.AppAth 956, 971.) Indeed, the findings
requirement "serves to conduce the administrative body to draw legally relevant sub -conclusions
supportive of its ultimate decision; the intended effect is to facilitate orderly analysis and minimize
the likelihood that the agency will randomly leap from evidence to conclusions." (Id.)
Additionally, the cases cited by Mr. Soluri are inapposite. In both Desmond v. County of
Contra Costa (1993) 21 Cal.AppAth 330 and Saad v. City of Berkeley (1994) 24 Cal.AppAth 1206,
only one of the findings made by the relevant agencies was ultimately challenged by the
petitioners. With respect to the Project here, in order to overturn the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve the SPAR application, the City Council would need to reject nearly the
entirety of the evidence before it, including the analysis of City Staff. Thus, this situation is more
akin to the facts of Sinaiko v. Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal.AppAth 1133, in which the court
2 It is also worth noting that Mr. Soluri relies exclusively on cases involving a city's action on
a conditional use permit. As noted in our prior submittals, the City's "considerations" with
respect to a SPAR application are in stark contrast to the more stringent "findings" required for a
conditional use permit. 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. The City therefore
has less discretion to deny a SPAR approval than a conditional use permit.
2653/031700-0001
12851171.2 a09/17/18
Natalie Mattei
September 5, 2018
Page 3
considered Desmond and Saad, but ultimately determined that they were not applicable where the
relevant agency engaged in the "wholesale" rejection of evidence contrary to its ultimate decision.
(Sinaiko v. Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1146.)
Mr. Soluri's claim that the Project is not consistent with one consideration for SPAR
approval (e.g., the siting of the structure on the property compared to the siting of other structures
in the immediate neighborhood) is incorrect. That consideration relates to setbacks and other site
plan elements. It does not relate to land uses because that is not at issue in a design -focused SPAR
application.3 City Staff correctly construed that provision and found the Project to be consistent
with it. (See, e.g., May 8, 2018 Staff Report, pp. 16-17.) The City's interpretation of its own codes
is entitled to deference. (Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City
of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.AppAth 1032, 1047.)
In sum, the City's discretion over the Project under the Implementing Zoning Ordinance is
very narrow and limited to aesthetic and design issues. The only evidence in the record supports
findings for approval of the SPAR application for the Project. No evidence let alone substantial
evidence, as required, would support findings for denial of the SPAR application for the Project.
3 The Project is unquestionably a permitted use in the controlling C2 zoning district.
2653/031700-0001
1-12
12851171.2 a09/17/18
11-13
Consulting Group
` Technical Memorandum
Date: September 17, 2o18
To: Natalie Mattei, Safeway
CC: Matt Francois, Rutan & Tucker LLP
From: Andrew Kluter, PE, CHS Consulting Group
220 Montgomery Street
Suite 346
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 392-9688 P
(415)392-9788 F
www.chsconsulting.net
Re: Petaluma Safeway Fuel Center: Traffic/Transportation Response to Peer Review Conducted by Larry
Wymer, September 14, 2o18
CHS Consulting Group has reviewed the subject Transportation peerreview and offers the following responses,
organized by the peer review's headings:
1. Trip Generation/ Trip Distribution /TripAssignment—
a. US 1o1 Trip Distribution - The trip distributions of j.5% for US 1o1 from the north and 5% for US 1o1
from the south as shown in Figure 4 of the 2014 Traffic Impact Study (TIS) are the distributions that
were applied in the traffic analysis. Page 14 contained a typographical error regarding these
numbers. As such, there is no material effect on the traffic analysis.
b. Lakeville Street vs. Kenilworth Drive Distribution — CHS agrees with the commenter that the
typographical error identified has no material effect on the traffic analysis conducted.
c. Sonoma Mountain Pkwy vs. Maria Dr. Trip Distribution - The trip distribution 1.5% from the north via
Maria Drive as shown in Figure 4 of the 2014 Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is the distribution that was
applied in the traffic analysis. Page 14 contained a typographical error that stated this distribution
was for Sonoma Mountain Parkway. As such, there is no material effect on the traffic analysis.
Trip Assignment Assumptions from 20-14 Traffic Study & Initial Study IS / MND — The commenter's peer review
Figure A and associated text discussion contained before and after this figure asserts that there are missing
illustrations of trip assignments within the 2014 TIS, both at the study intersections and along internal
driveways and circulation aisles within Washington Square shopping center. The assignments that were
presented in the 2014 TIS are based upon the most likely vehicular paths of Safeway Fuel Center (Project)
customers and staff given the conservative / worst-case assumption that all Project trips would be assigned to
the Maria Driveway labeled as Intersection #6. These assignments were developed in consultation with City
of Petaluma engineering staff based on local knowledge of area traffic patterns. This approach of assigning
Project traffic to the Maria driveway in the 2014 TIS is common in traffic engineering, particularly when
tasked with presenting a "worst case", and City staff agreed with this reasoned approach for purposes of the
MND. It should be noted that the 2014 TIS further stated that in reality Project trips would likely be split
among the shopping center driveways as follows: 40 percent using Maria Drive, 3o percent using S. McDowell
Boulevard, and 3o percent using E. Washington Street. The 2o18 TIS Update reflects this more realistic
scenario of customers using multiple access points along Maria Drive, E. Washington Street, and S. McDowell
Boulevard, given that many Project customers will likely already be patronizing the Safeway grocery store
and other stores within the Washington Square shopping center. As such, there is no material effect on the
traffic analysis conducted to -date, and therefore no further sensitivity or other analyses as stated in the peer
review need be conducted in response.
3. Study Intersections — As previously noted, the 15% distribution from the north via Maria Drive was the
distribution used for the traffic analysis, so the response here focuses on the comment that 25% of traffic
would be channeled through the E. Washington Street / Sonoma Mountain Parkway intersection, over one
11-14
r
Petaluma Safeway Fuel Ctr. Wymer Appellant Response — 9/17/18 - Page 2
mile away from the Project. (Notably, this is the intersection I have interpreted from the peer review as the
commenter mislabels E. Washington Street as Washington Boulevard in his review.) This 25% of Project
traffic in and of itself does not trigger any specific requirement for the intersection analysis per City of
Petaluma staridards, but rather requires judgment based on local engineering knowledge of the area, which
was done in consultation with City engineering staff as is standard practice. This consultation determined
that the E. Washington Street / Sonoma Mountain Parkway intersection need not be included in the analysis,
and as such, no further analysis is warranted or required for this Project.
4. Level of Service Threshold Criteria & General Plan Policies —The commenter cites level of service (LOS)
threshold discussions that were provided in the 2014 TIS and 2018 TIS Update. The 2018 TIS Update LOS
threshold discussion simply provides a clarification of the thresholds previously applied in the 2014 TIS. The
intent of the statement in the 2014 TIS, that "all study intersections all within City of Petaluma jurisdiction
(emphasis added)", was to state that all study intersections are physically located within the City of Petaluma.
The LOS threshold discussion in the 2018 TIS Update further clarified that the two US 101 ramp intersections
at E. Washington Street are operated under Caltrans jurisdiction and were analyzed under the Caltrans
threshold. This distinction becomes moot when one notes that City of Petaluma and Caltrans share the same
LOS D threshold for intersections. As such, there is no material effect on the results and conclusions of the
traffic analysis conducted for either the 2014 TIS or 2018 TIS Update, and no new analysis relative to the two
study intersections under Caltrans jurisdiction is required as a result.
Washington Street/ McDowell Boulevard LOS Analysis — The commenter cites changes in the LOS and delay
for this intersection under both Background and Background plus Project Conditions between the 2014 TIS
and 2018 TIS Update. The changes are attributable to several factors, most notably the change in Existing
traffic volumes between 2014 and 2017 (counts were collected in spring 2017 for the 2018 TIS Update), and
upon which Background and Background plus Project Conditions are based; and the change in the City's
Major Development List from 2014 to 2018, in which some of the 2014 listed projects have since been built
and occupied (and thus became part of Existing traffic volumes). These intersection LOS results were further
checked against other area development studies in the area, most notably the City -approved Brody Ranch
Subdivision Traffic Impact Study. The Brody Ranch study's intersection LOS results were found to be within
the range of the updated 2018 TIS Update. The changes to LOS and delay resulting from changes in volumes
and development assumptions between the 2014 TIS and 2018 TIS Update are typical and based on
professional experience can be reasonably expected for a TIS conducted for the same project given a four-
year period between analyses.
The commenter further asserts that the E. Washington Street / Maria Drive intersection be reanalyzed based
upon "more realistic" trip assignments. See response to Comment z above. As such, there is no material
effect on the traffic analysis conducted to -date, and no further sensitivity or other analyses need be
conducted in response.
6. Cumulative Transportation Improvements — The text contained in this section of the peer review merely
restates the assumption that the Rainier Avenue Crosstown Connector would be completed by year 2025.
This assumption is consistent with year 2025 conditions in the Petaluma General Plan. No comments on this
assumption were offered. Thus, no response is provided or deemed necessary, and there is no material effect
on the results and conclusions of the traffic analysis as a result.
The appellant's attorney in the subject peer review cover letter asserts that based on Sonoma County's
Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies (County of Sonoma Department of Transportation and Public Works &
Permit and Resource Management Department, May 2016), that planned roadway improvements should only
11-15
Petaluma Safeway Fuel Ctr, Wymer Appellant Response — 9/17/18 - Page 3
be assumed if such improvements are fully funded and programmed. However, application of the Sonoma
County guidelines is inappropriate as this document governs the conduct of traffic impact studies (TIS) for
developments that are under the review of both the Sonoma County Department of Transportation and
Public Works and Permit and Resource Management Department, notthe City of Petaluma. City of Petaluma
engineering and planning staff have discretion over the review of development applications within the City,
and as such, County TIS guidelines do not apply to the Safeway Fuel Center Project.
Given the City of Petaluma staff's jurisdiction over review of the Safeway Fuel Center project cited above, for
both the 2014 TIS and 2o18 TIS Update, I consulted with City staff on the applicability of including the Rainier
Avenue Crosstown Connector under year 2025 assumptions for completed transportation improvements. In
both instances, City staff affirmed the appropriateness of including a completed Rainier Connector by year
2025, citing that this project is included in the 2025 buildout conditions of the City of Petaluma General Plan.
The 2025 General Plan has remained the guiding document for City development and transportation
improvements between 2014 and 2o18. In my professional experience, it is common practice to use General
Plan transportation improvements as part of approximating City roadway network conditions in future years,
given that the time frame for completion of future year projects often extends past the five-year duration of
most City capital improvement programs (CIPS). As such, there is no material effect on the traffic analysis
conducted to -date.
11-16