Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.A 03/04/2019 Attachments 06-09SOLURI )�O r 1 ERVE January 28, 2019 SENT VIA EMAIL (edanly(a,ci.petaluma.ca.us) Eric Danly City Attorney City of Petaluma 11 English Court Petaluma, CA 94952 ATTACHMENT 6 tel: 910.455.7300 • fax: 916,244.7300 510 8th Street • Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: January 28, 2019 Regular Meeting of the City Council Agenda Item # 5.A (Safeway Fuel Center) Dear Mr. Danly: On January 28, 2019, we received notification that City of Petaluma ("City") staff intended to change its recommendation regarding the Safeway Fuel Center Project ("Project") in response to Safeway's January 24, 2019 letter. We did not previously address the issues or caselaw raised in Safeway's letter because it in no way compels the City staff to alter its recommendations. This letter explains why Safeway's January 24, ,2019 letter, and Safeway's reliance on McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena (Dec. 18, 2018, No. A153238) Ca1.App.5th (McCorkle) is misleading. As stated in earlier correspondence, the Project is subject to the City's discretionary review. McCorkle is distinguishable from the facts here and has no bearing on the City's decision. Safeway's letter misconstrues the law in an effort to avoid environmental review and strong arm the City into approving the Project. In McCorkle, plaintiff neighborhood group opposed a residential project, and alleged the City of St. Helena's approval of the project violated CEQA because it failed to consider anything other than design review, and the required demolition permit did not fall under the class 32 infill categorical exemption. City of St. Helena amended the housing element of its general plan in 2015 to make multifamily residential housing a permitted use, but still required design review. (Id. at *2-3.) Plaintiff argued to the City of St. Helena's planning commission that the project should not be approved for various non -design reasons. (Id. at *4.) The City Attorney advised that the planning commission did not have discretion to consider such use -related issues. (Ibid.) After Planning Commission approval, plaintiff appealed to the Eric Danly, City Attorney City of Petaluma January 28, 2019 Page 2 of 3 City Council, where again the City Attorney advised that City Council did not have discretion to consider anything beyond design review. (Id., at *5.) City Council approved the project. The trial court denied plaintiffs petition for writ of mandate. (Id. at *8.) On appeal, the 1 st District Court of Appeal found that the City of St. Helena design review ordinance limited the city's discretion to disapprove the project. (Id. at * 16-17.) Plaintiffs argued that because the City of St. Helena had discretion to conduct design review, that the entire project was discretionary and subject to CEQA. (Id. at *20.) The court disagreed, because that rule only applies when the discretionary component of the project gives the agency the authority to mitigate environmental impacts. (Ibid.) There is a significant distinction between the facts of McCorkle and those present here. In McCorkle, the plaintiff sought to force the city to act beyond its discretion and disapprove a project. Here, the City has not yet approved or disapproved the Project. In fact, it is Safeway that is attempting to divest the City of its discretion. Nothing in McCorkle supports Safeway position that the City cannot require environmental review of the Project. Moreover, while Safeway may be correct that the design review ordinance in McCorkle is similar to the City's site plan and architectural review ("SPAR"), such a comparison is superficial. In McCorkle nothing other than the design review ordinance applied to that project, and therefore the City of St. Helena could not consider non -design factors. Here, however, the City has discretion over the Project through the Implementing Zoning Ordinance ("IZO") section 1.040. The provisions of the IZO constitute the "minimum requirements for the promotion of the public health safety and general welfare" and whenever the City may exercise discretion, "that discretion may be exercised to impose more stringent requirements than set forth in [the IZO], as may be determined by the review authority to be necessary to promote appropriate land use[.]" (IZO, § 1.040.) The City has discretion over the Project through the SPAR provision (see IZO, § 24.010, subd. (G)(1)), and thus IZO section 1.040 applies as well. Eric Danly, City Attorney City of Petaluma January 28, 2019 Page 3 of 3 Therefore, the City has discretion to require environmental review of the Project, despite Safeway's misguided claims otherwise. The caselaw cited by Safeway is unavailing and unpersuasive here. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, SOLURI MESERVE A Law Corporation By: Patrick M. Soluri PS/mre cc: Heather Hines, Planning Manager, Planning Division (hhines@m-group.us) Olivia Ervin, Environmental Planner, Planning Division (oervin@m-group.us) Mayor Teresa Barrett (teresa4petaluma@comcast.net) and City Council Members Claire Cooper, City Clerk (ccooper@ci.petaluma.ca.us) Matthew Francois, Rutan & Tucker (mfrancois@rutan.com) Natalie Mattei (Natalie.mattei@safeway.com) ANR. ._ _ _.W RUTAN 'S TUCKER, LLP January 28, 2019 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL. Eric Danly City Attorney City of Petaluma 11 English Court Petaluma, CA 94952 Matthew D. Francois Direct Dial: (650) 798-5669 E-mail: mfrancois@rutan.com ATTACHMENT 7 Re: Safeway Fuel Center Project; Demand Letter to Cure or Correct Violations of Brown Act (Government Code Section 54960.1) Dear Mr. Danly: We write on behalf of our client, Safeway, Inc., regarding the proposed Safeway Fuel Center Project (the "Project") at 335 S. Me Dowell Boulevard in the City of Petaluma (the "City"), As you know, on December 3, 2018, the Petaluma City Council voted to adopt Resolution No. 2018-180 (the "Resolution") purporting to uphold the appeal of the Project ("Appeal") filed by JoAnn McEachin and others ("Appellants"). Because the City Council took action on the Resolution in violation of the Brown Act (Government Code § 54950 et seq.), we wrote on January 2, 2019 to demand that the City Council vacate its decision and conduct another hearing in order to cure and correct the multiple violations of the Brown Act. On January 9, 2019 at 5:55 p.m., you telephoned to state that the City Council would re - notice and re -conduct a hearing on the Appeal on January 28, 2019. On January 17, 2019, the City published and mailed notice of the January 28, 2019 City Council hearing on the Appeal. We subsequently received your January 22, 2019 letter confirming that the City Council would conduct the January 28, 2019 hearing to cure or correct the "alleged violations" of the Brown Act even though the City believed that no Brown Act violations occurred for the reasons stated in your letter. As explained below, the City's belief in this regard is not supported by the facts or the law. 1. The City Council violated Government Code section 54954.2 by taking action on an item that was not on its posted agenda. In response to our notifying you that the City Council violated Government Code section 54954.2 by taking action on an item that was not on its published agenda, you claim that the agenda for the December 3, 2018 hearing indicated that the City Council "would consider resolutions for Council action on the appeal of the Safeway Project." Yet nowhere does the agenda indicate that the City Council would take action to require an environmental impact report ("EIR") nor that it would stay the Planning Commission's Site Plan & Architectural Review ("SPAR") approval. Your assertion that the agenda description "listed both components of the Planning Commission's Ratan & Tucker, LLP I Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94306-9814 650-320-1500 1 Fax 650-320-9905 2696/031700-0001 Orange County I Palo Alto I NvNvw.rutan.com 13337869.2 a01/28/19 / ®I Eric Danly January 28, 2019 Page 2 approval of the Safeway Project that were on appeal: the MND and the SPAR for the project" is belied by the language of the Appeal actually filed, Staff's characterization of it, and the City's own notice for the Appeal hearing, all of which are attached hereto as Exhibit A. You claim that the Brown Act does "not require that each possible action that the legislative body may take regarding an agenda item be listed." Actually, that's exactly what the law requires. (See Government Code § 54954.2 [agenda must contain a description of "each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting" and "[n]o action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda ...."]; San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1178 [court rules that agency violated Brown Act by failing to identify action on CEQA document in its posted agenda, reasoning that the Brown Act "mandates that each item of business be described on the agenda, not left to speculation or surmise."]; Hernandez v. Town ofApple Valley (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 194 [agenda invalid for failing to reference action on a proposed memorandum of understanding]; San Diegans for Open Government v. City of Oceanside (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 637, 643 [agenda descriptions "must give the public a fair chance to participate in matters of particular or general concern by providing the public with more than mere clues from which they must then guess or surmise the essential nature of the business to be considered by a local agency."]; and California Municipal Law Handbook § 2.20 ["agenda descriptions should give enough information to permit a person to make an informed decision about whether they want to attend or participate in a discussion on an issue."].) Your claim that the City could not possibly address all possible permutations associated with action on the Appeal reads like a manufactured excuse for ignoring the requirements of the Brown Act. Staff revised its recommendation to uphold the Appeal by requiring an EIR on the evening of the December 3, 2018 hearing (which had been continued twice from September 17, 2018) after the agenda had been posted and with no advance warning or notice to Safeway or the public. Once it did so, the City Council should have continued the hearing so as to allow for an agenda with the Staff -recommended action to be posted. There are no exceptions or excuses for failing to comply with the salutary, straight -forward, and relatively simple requirements of the State's Open Meeting Law. The only possible reason for not continuing the Appeal to properly notice the City Council action was because Staff did not want to give Safeway or the public a "heads up" that its recommendation had substantially changed. Indeed, as late as October 1, 2018, the proposed agenda reflected Staff's recommendation that the Appeal be denied. At that hearing, Councilmember Healy requested that the agenda description be revised so as to be "more neutral." Additionally, you failed to failed to return several of my phone calls prior to the release of the November 27, 2018 agenda and staff report containing Staff's -then "recommendation" to take action on the Appeal. You also refused to take any of my phone calls on the day of the December 3, 2018 hearing, instead handing me one copy of a heavily -redlined version of the Resolution (to 2696/031700-0001 13337869.2 a01/28/19 M.- RUTAN -'Mi G TUC-CR, ILP Eric Danly January 28, 2019 Page 3 be shared amongst the entire Applicant team) reflecting the revised Staff recommendation to uphold the Appeal only after the City Council hearing was underway. Your letter further states that Staff "barely had enough time" to read and prepare a summary of Illingworth and Rodkin's December 3, 2018 response to Fox/Kapahi's December 3, 2018 submittal provided at 11:14 a.m. Another manufactured excuse. Staff would have had plenty of time to review and consider the evidence had it not received another calculated late "data dump" from Fox and Kapahi or had the City Council continued the hearing. While it may have been merely unprofessional and in bad faith to keep Safeway in the dark, it was unlawful to keep the public in the dark. 2. The City violated Government Code section 54957.5 by failing to make certain documents available for public inspection. Certain documents, including the actual approval document, were not made available for public inspection or review as required by Government Code section 54957.5. Instead, a single, heavily -redlined copy of the Resolution prepared by City Staff was only provided to me after the December 3rd City Council hearing had commenced. As your letter concedes, this document was not made available for public inspection as required by Government Code section 54957.5(b). Your claim that the Resolution would have been made available "if requested" is irrelevant and insulting. A member of the public should not have to ask for a document that the City is legally obligated to make available to them. 3. The City violated, and cannot cure or correct, its violation of the Brown Act's closed session procedures. Your assertion that the City's closed session descriptions satisfied the Brown Act are also not supported by the facts or the law. As explained in our January 2, 2019 letter, the agenda fails to disclose the "existing facts and circumstances" giving rise to a "significant exposure to litigation" as required by Government Code sections 54954.5(c) and 54956.9. In your letter, you claim that the closed session held on December 3, 2018 was due to a threat of litigation made by me at the June 26, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. A transcript of my remarks at the June 26, 2018 Planning Commission meeting is attached hereto as Exhibit B. At no point did I threaten litigation against the City. Even if I had, the Planning Commission acted to adopt the MND as I was urging them to do such that any such threat had long passed. Moreover, in a July 24, 2018 email, Councilmember Healy said this about the actual genesis of the closed session: 2696/031700-0001 13337869.2 a01/28/19 RUTAN .-I.N Q PIC.rF U.F Eric Danly January 28, 2019 Page 4 I really wish Mark [Friedman of Fulcrum Property] had not submitted that very unfortunate guest op ed.1 But it probably wasn't enough to flip my vote. I will be recommending that the city attorney have a closed session under the "threatened litigation" exception prior to Sep. 17 so that there can be a frank discussion of the legal issues.2 You also suggest that a threat of litigation was present based on my letters to the City Council dated December 1, 2018 and December 2, 2018. These letters were submitted as supplemental information in support of denying the Appeal, not as a threat of litigation against the City. Indeed, as noted above, Safeway was then unaware that the Staff recommendation was about to drastically change. More fundamentally, given that my December 1, 2018 and December 2, 2018 letters were submitted after the November 27, 2018 agenda was posted, they do not in any way, shape, or form justify a treat of anticipated litigation, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Further, these letters do not constitute a "statement" made in "an open and public meeting" so as to constitute a threat of litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(e)(4).3 4. The City is liable for its violations of the Brown Act, including an award of attorneys' fees. Finally, as shown by the analysis above and in our January 2, 2019 letter, the City did not "substantially comply" with the requirements of the Brown Act. Moreover, the City cannot credibly contend that Safeway or the public had "actual notice of the item of business at least 72 hours prior to the meeting at which the action was taken." (Government Code § 54960.1(d)(5).) It is plain that the "item of business" was evolving in real time seemingly to reflect behind -the -scenes Council input and was unknown to Safeway and members of the public until after the December 3, 2018 hearing was well underway. Finally, while your action to cure or correct the Brown Act violations may be inadmissible in an action to enforce said violations, the City still remains subject to liability for its violations of the Brown Act, including an award of attorneys' fees. (Government Code § 54960.5 [court may award court costs and attorneys' fees for violation of Brown Act; San Joaquin Raptor, supra [court refers to award of attorney's fees against agency for violations of Brown Act notwithstanding the fact that agency took action to cure or correct the violations].) 1 (See "Affordable, local gas option," Argus Courier, July 12, 2018, attached hereto as Exhibit C.) 2 As noted in our January 2, 2019 letter, if the closed session had been scheduled at the request of Councilmember Healy, instead of at the direction of the full City Council, this would separately violate Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2). 3 For similar reasons, my January 2, 2019 letter outlining the City's myriad Brown Act violations cannot possibly serve as a credible threat of anticipated litigation. 2696/031700-0001 13337869.2 a01/28/19 Eric Danly January 28, 2019 Page 5 In closing, we appreciate the City's efforts to cure and correct the Brown Act violations described above. However, because the City violated the Brown Act, it is not immune from liability by taking such action. Thank you for your consideration of Safeway's views on this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this correspondence. Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP 4attWD.ancois cc: Honorable Teresa Barrett, Mayor and City Council Members, City of Petaluma Scott Brodhun'Interim City Manager, City of Petaluma Claire Cooper, City Clerk, City of Petaluma Heather Hines, Planning Manager, City of Petaluma Natalie Mattei, Senior Real Estate Manager, Safeway, Inc. Mark Friedman, President, Fulcrum Property 2696/031700-0001 13337869.2 a01/28/19 I W, 64 oll I RD] mw Boo Type of Application For City Use Only ❑ Conditional Use Permit; Minor/ Major Permit No; V L_- e'— i % — 000 1 ❑ Fence Project Name.: .' W_ ❑ Home Occupation Permit Cl Preliminary Review by Staff Date Permit filed: ❑ SPAR: Minor / Major Date Permit issued; :1^ ❑ Tentative Map; <4 />S lots Revision q. by: E ❑ Zoning Amendment: Minor Received VOther: t , Approved by (if applicable): Property Information Land Use Information (ask f unsure) Address/Location: Existing Use of Property: Assessor's Parcel No,: General Plan Designation; Property Size: Zoning Designation; Historic Designation; Contact Information �— J Owner; Agent: Firm (opt): Firm (opt); Phone: Phone; L} 1 S S � S- � 9 50 Email: Email;X0 11 m ce fL& i�� vrtot i 'rLo t�" Address; Address; tri 1 2L S 12( ReA76A.�UVYIq,1',& ��lS Authorization of Agent, Declaration of Accuracy, and Agreement for Inspection ' (not required for Home Occupation Permit applications)� 11 _`�.ed 1 � am the ❑ owner / ❑ agent of the property for which the I ' development or change is proposed, The above information and attached documents are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, I have read and agree with all of the above, Signature of Property Owner or Agent Date I, the owner, hereby ❑ do / ❑ do not authorize the agent to act on my behalf for this project, be notified of all application proceedings, and agree to allow employees or authorized agents of the City of Petaluma to enter upon the subject property, as necessary, to inspect the premises and process this application, Signature of Property Owner Page I of I General Application Form City of Petaluma Planning Division 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 Hours: 8'am-5 pm Mondays through Thursdays, Closed Fridays Date Last updated; December 14, 2017 T:(707)778-4470 For faster responses, please e-mail us at: planningfti.p etaluma, ca,us URL; http;//cityofpetaluma,net/edd/planning.html RECEIVED JUL 09 2018 JoAnn McEachin on behalf of: CITY CLER Friends of McDowell Elementary School, Little League children, and East Petaluma residents 1512 Sierra Drive Petaluma, CA 94954 July 8, 2018 Petaluma City Council, We, the undersigned, petition to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission to approve a building permit for a Safeway gas station on the corner of Maria Dr. and S. McDowell Blvd. Our objections are based on the following: This project is only for the benefit of Safeway, not the community, Petaluma already has several gas stations - THREE in the area of this proposed site, including the Chevron where Safeway customers can get up to 20 cents off per gallon - and research has shown that, contrary to what Safeway would like us to believe, Safeway's reduced gas pricing has nat brought down the pricing of other gas stations nearby. The proximity of the proposed gas station is too close to the day care and school, as well as the Little League ball park. Just because the regulations differ for building a gas station near a school (allowed) as opposed to building a school near a gas station (not allowed), it doesn't make the proximity Issue any less of a health and safety concern. Traffic wW increase. This is common sense. The Intersection at S. McDowell and E. Washington is already congested, and more traffic from cars zipping off and on to Hwy. 101 for cheaper gas will only exacerbate the problem. Cars waiting to turn off of McDowell and In line In the parking lot (potentially blocking the sidewalk) will be idling and spewing emissions causing health concerns for all in the community. Add into the mix the city transit buses, retail delivery vehicles of all kinds, long gas trucks, and school buses; the physical area is just not safe for vehicles trying to make turns into and out of a gas station there, And, lastly, California is the nation's leader in the purchase of electric cars: "..,in some months, buyers in California purchase more than half of all the electric cars sold in the U.S." (Eric C. Evarts, Green Car Reports) We emphasize this to reenforce that the community of Petaluma does not need another gas station now. This Safeway gas station Issue has been cleverly under -advertised to the public. Many residents don't even know this project is being put forth; It is a hotly contested issue and needs to be heard by the City Council with full public participation, We ask you to reverse the Planning Commission's conditional approval, despite (or perhaps in defiance of) the threat of a lawsuit by Safeway. The decision should be decided In court, if necessary. Potential court costs should not deter you from protecting the health and safety of our community. That would be a bad. precedent and would send the wrong message to every potential applicant for a project in Petaluma now and in the future. Sincerely, JoAnn McEachin 0 c� ;1 JoAnn McEachin Horst Steinfels 1512 Sierra Drive 'jv4 Laura Steinfels Oliver Steinfels 510 Crineila Drive Adriann Saslow Alex Saslow G( r SKIm Pierce Grouse Lane �o I Cabr�' ►ID feu r� 4��� 76pQ-, I P ( (wood W . TRalumq so�zr - Covklll�') I z 5 G U K [,IDb �, 1 q fda (c'-01te" -I Yys� Pty 6(Jkl,* cry- '7 V 7j—X P- b -AY �s �,E�-,na(-,d hIbpa) �b6� c�Ku"cw Cir anes, Heather <HHINES@ci.petaluma.ca.us>; Natalie Mattel (Natalie.Mattef@albertsons com) <Natalie.Mattei@albertsons.com> Cc: Adam Petersen <APetersen@m-group.us>; Ervin, Olivia <OERVIN@ci.petaluma.ca us> Subject: RE: Safeway Fuel Center Thanks, Heather. Can you please forward a copy of the appeal today. Mafthew D. Francois Rutan & Tucker, LLP Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Ste, 200 Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 798-5669 (direct) mfrancois0rutan.com www.rutan.com I/ Privileged And Confidential Communication. This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 -USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the fntended recipient named above. If you have received tfiis electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message, Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the Information received in -error is strictly prohibited. From. Hines, Heather [mailto:HHINES@ci.petaluma ca us] Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 3:13 PM To: Francois, Matthew <MFrancois@rutan,com>; Natalie Matte[ (Natalle.Mattei@albertsons com) <Natalie.Matte i@albertsons.com> Cc: APetersen m-group.us; Ervin, Olivia <OERVIN_@ci.petaluma.ca.us> Subject, Safeway Fuel Center Matt, The -City has received an appeal of the Planning Commission's SPAR approval. The appeal was filed today with our City Clerk and is currently being processed by our administrative staff. As soon as I have a copy of the appeal letter I will forward to you for your review, but wanted to give you an immediate heads up. It is my understanding'that the appeal was'filed by a group of neighbors. Heather Heather Hines, Planning Manager M -Group Consulting Planner Serving the City of Petaluma 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 Phone: (707) 778-4316 Hours: M -Th Sam -spm, closed Fridays TRY OPEN COUNTER FOR INFO ZONING • PERMITS + COSTS p, L U PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN a APPEAL OF THE PLANNING- COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF SITE PLANT AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW z s 5 SAFEWAY FUEL CENTER PROJECT PLAP-18-0001 335 SOUTH MCDOWELL BOULEVARD APN 007-820-046 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, to all interested persons that the City Council will consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) of the Safeway Fuel Center project as summarized below: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: On June 26, 2018 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2018-21B approving Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Safeway Fuel Center project, including development of a new gas station on a 0,71 acre site located at 335 South McDowell Boulevard, within the Washington Square Shopping Center. Site improvements include the construction of a 5,932 square foot fueling canopy covering 16 fueling positions, a 697 square foot convenience store, two 20,000 gallon underground storage tanks, landscaping and parking. Site preparation will include the demolition of the existing 13,770 square foot commercial building and associated existing site improvements, Offsite improvements consist of modifications to the adjacent Transit Center to increase the width of the bus turnout area to allow for buses to queue outside of the Maria Drive travel lane. Additionally, the Transit Center amenities will be enhanced to include new shelters, seating, landscaping and ancillary improvements, PROJECT LOCATION: The project is located at 335 S. McDowell Blvd, withinthe Washington Square Shopping Center, ENVIRONMENTAL REVEIW: An Initial Study (IS) was prepared for the project and published for public review period that extended from April 5, 2018 to May 7, 2018, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No, 2018-21A approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration on June 26, 2018. CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE/TIME: Monday, September 17, 2018, at or after 6:45 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City Council Chambers, City Hall of Petaluma, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA. WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and approve, approve with modifications, or deny the appeal. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND: You can send a letter to the Planning Division, City of Petaluma, I I English Street, Petaluma California, 94952, You can also hand deliver letters prior to the meeting or e-mail comments. All Planning Commission meetings are televised on the Petaluma Community Access Cable Channel 28. FOR MORE INFORMATION: You may contact Olivia Ervin, at (707) 778-4556 or oervinna,m- rgroup.us and/or Heather Hines at (707) 778-4316 or hhines? - rg_oup.us. You can also come to the Planning Division. to review the project file, The office is open Monday through Thursdays from 8:00 a.m, to 5:00 p.m, City Hall is closed Fridays, Efforts will be made to accommodate persons with disabilities. The City Manager's office must be notified at (707) 778- 4345 within 5 days from date of publication of this notice if you need special accommodations, For accessible meeting information: Please call (707) 778-4360 or LEI TDD 707 778-4480 Irraccordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (707) 778-4360 (voice) or (707) 778-4480 (TDD), Translators, American Sign Language interpreters, and/or assistive listening devices for individuals with hearing disabilities will be available upon request. A minimum of 48 hours is needed to ensure the availability of translation services. In consideration of those with 6hemical sensitivities or other environmental illness, it is requested that you refrain from wearing scented products. I (D - * * - Lm � N *- - - , I " . �,---------��"- :'.&-- -`- - -�'.- �',--��i,,,,�..,�-,..', , � -, nf .- A , . ." - ;* A- . -� 'N" . . --V- . '� ... - -1- , - . , 4 I , - -� - ... ". . . - 1 - , -- ' -`� '� - - --`- '7��'f 1� -- � .. -.- - - , ,. �� � .-- - . , - , , - - -- - '�� , - - -- --.�'�-. M It.. '� - - I , . . "." ,", ;'a' ': 7'v�'-�"--- , - jI.-' . -1 .- '. .I, ... . . . - - .� `4 -'j�--' * .-�� - ---t.6*j�'7-'7 . --"-'-,.---, . '- - - - - - - - - - 11 - ' , - A - ' , -:�' . -' ... - - --, t�-t-. �!'.� 4;.4. I , *** ��' 0 -, - � . � . - 'Uil��. IiW - - - . W, �'.z'� * .. :4-��" -' - -,�.L " "7'. ::S" :1 - -- - -c,2.11 . -- " \� * �' -, , .... - - Wm-t�- - .... --"--'4�7*�A',',*� , I . . . .- .- ".--.---� ..... . . �� t��. . '-"�". . . , -*t -`t7' - -'� . . ��". . -'- . --l-11-1 -s . " ' '- , 1 . �- - - 1� :. l---,, 1, . . t , .� .. , - '�: - '�' � , . .- ."��i .,t,- -!� !'i�; i' 't -- * O.".. iM.. `' ,�."­. , . - * � , �� �- -��.-"­=' -'� 4. - ,. , -`." ." " '�"'�lj' -�': . ".�'. - -- - -.*'��.�: -'i�'��---!---�'--------��'�- -�.'.''�" ..�.;',. I .. .r .�- '. . . . - '� .. , - - . :.'y��'-- .�. . .z " ��-"- lk�*t' - , .'- - ' ;` " --,:- - - , , ',' -. . t" , "t'�' -'-- "�- - , " . " -�' , , �" - -- , .��: -?� -, '�' ,,, - '&,�--- '. . . -.-t g - - . ii, - ...1- ---'.- Fl- . . .�'.-, �.�-' ,�- , �.. 1- '*Z;..- - - " ..-,.:-. ' �-',"\-�F' , "-�-f'*i�� -'Z'�'��" , ti,l ... � I. . ­' 1. 1- " -'��k � -. �- ' .V - - �h*i'.' - --�01.�' '� '.-.�. 'il - -� M - -. --, - 'f'�� il. 11 .1 .1.1 - �' .":, - t .-,, . '. � - - - - e � Z 1 4 .- ,'%4 . - � - .7 . ""' . - --,. .-� � t- .- -t2-_-. '* =g� � -...- R� -,- - , ".'-�' .,...-- . 4,' - , . -, 1�- , "-'.-�-'ilt'� N . �­-- . "'. �' -'-� ,-f�' , ... 'i'- . ,�.t'g--I� -.-�-�---� :azt !�- ..� .;?, ." .i... ­ .. - .�z . -_ .�. -".. .. . !-:'ll �"*'-'- ��.1 - ! ., . - - - -11 - --- , ...... 1 � j . �" '�'i - �---- .'. - 7 - '. - -*-�' -a �zZ--� - :'-i. .' - -'�-.-- '� i"', ...._ - -�' - .-�-.t .1 , -... - " t-': . .. '. . '-i� Rq�.' R'�� "'S -, -"--'- . 'i - "t .q' -y .. ,�-'..' ..: - "'�� -.-.-, -ip".. I �' �n- .'-"�;" '.'I"�' -- . - .. �F. .'�� , .. . -'� -��'- ' �'-'-N�* �-'* �p; ,"V, - - -.­.� .1K - - , ,� - '% � j. - --- ' I . . - ", �" . , � -- ,� ax, - ", -. -.1"t" �� '... - j;l�'"., . ��-' -�-'-- ! " . . - - ... - '�4` " - - - - 1 , � I -" e" �5 � . - .. ,,, " _:� - ". -" tt" �'�� - � ='�. % �: - . .!�'��! ,in'-, '�' t " - - :r- K - . , 3v �- - :'�'� � I- '�.- "�,'- -"� , �'� -t'. - - -t�� . - ,,, - ---�- ---:� - - - -A�.'�t--"�'- "'* It.. -.; '- �--t - .. � e�. - , � ... .-"�-' - , -0 T - 1 �.�-� -'. '�-' "�-- .- . to� I- - � �':�� *'; ., .'­ . . . . � _ --'�'A �11 .l.. - 1. � -� . - � � �;' , .� '�' "t �.-z ", , , * �Rt-" , g'l� *'* �'• - �-- . ' 0, ci�-V'w* .�*;�.�" - Q'-.' , -��." . -it;� - !,.­. I , , -� i'�' .��' "-" .-*' tw . ' .-C., " .: - ,. .'��q -.:. .' , .. - ' `�' ,:* *i'fr -- '��' , . . �W .. - I T- . .. I- -, .. � 4, .- -. - "t"', .. - ..' "....-t-....' -..:� - ,­'......­..-.-. -'-ll-'-t'2 '4 .. . - --'-'�" -'�i "v �. , '. .--.:;.Y"�;-t-`:!- , --- . *-1.�."�.�?i;,V' '-.�- 'lh'. , '-4N '- . . - , . . ".. - I �-,� 6�'- , j--';-:.*!,'�-'-`-' \.�'��...�:-.-- , ,;,,','tl-- * r* , ". " -�-'-�- - *�-'-f��-j:: - • , "-.�'.' I "�-�A - , ':---- -- � . " -, � * I -.-.N'....:,it:i - - - ... . � . .... � '. -, �' '.. - - " , .. -. - , t ,�i-,',.iz��i,�-,'., '-;,.�'jl'��_l - " , - . - - `-',t�.":' - .. , , ".: - -, - --;-*'-'-�Mlli*.�-i:� -1 - �'. -- ' I - '�- 'i ��' �" -.: " " , -.!!- - 4---F. . �3 - . -';�; - . . . . . ". 1-:1.,t'll .... . �lt. -*� , - -'�- 1V .. . . -,I,. � 0- . ' ill -.,!,-" ' ,�-� . . I . "�.. -. '.�G' .'� '. . ". 1. " '-�-'�'�`�;C�-* ' -". ... ,i�-r:. :"-'.,�. 1- .". -�x ' -- `�� : Rl. . , . % � Z�L ;. ,-t . , ��:�';' ".' - --�"-'t- �'t-l- T--- 1. '. I . . -�"*"-W- . ­'---':L--'.'.74,1v ., '-.W�. ��' . _ , " 2'r; '.;'�"--.';'� . ... . :� , .1, . - 11N!l '�'i�-­' I '--- ---.- .1. . ,. -, " **. ! -'*�" - :,-, , , I iz;F It" 11 * �'�, -�"%�­-�-'� . I -- . .'--W'. .1 Q '- - 'V�'� 1 4. .I. -�""­'-�' , _'. .­!"!"�!""-:��"� -I.:." �'tj��.- �" , f�' - - ! . - . - .... .. . : ,t' . - ,. *L --- .. . ,'. .... . - - -% '.-�r!6'W' '�' -, . .1��. : 'If ,: � V . 1. I - � �.. . . '. , 4-'�"' � ,- *� . v -tt- - . .'T -,.' ��'* ". ;'.'-:-- - : -��.'.:' �. ��..�� i .. - - .... .. ��' --l( ... .... I 11 -;. �&'­ I � -w, . . . e - _4t , . . I .' . . . .. " " � -'.'�:. , ", , v 'gti&;'- � 1, ��;:z,-.,-.�",...-,-.-�;---,�.-�,;�� - ... ::V. - :- � .:,* r�t- ' �'.*,%` " - ; -'v-��'Sttl - ..� , . f. -Z' . , . -- ':%'.'-'.l V, ".... '. 'r-, . '140'--- -'-r' - � � 1.1� -1.11t:-�'�,�',- --. 1. - .. - . - -- ... - '4�. - . - 4- A. . N' .t: '.. -'�- .: . ..". ";..- ,A - . - ,:- -..t�- ,.-';f,. j--�':�-' 7, , . A� - . , ;a' -M �j t' t � - I I j , , .':'t.:;�'-'!�V'�'7-;-Q-.. ': .... . . - . - - -'%'-, :.'.'- , ... . . !""'-..*"" - - '.� ----�"- :- t;. 4't . , . .�. �* . . - ' ', -'."*:Z? ,.' '-t�z.'� . , � , --,,- . . -:- I .. . � .k� ' - " , �''c:"i "I't - -� - ' ` tz��i" , -, -.tt'.r ....; 1., 4-."' t ., - � . ; '- .�'zt.. .k - ,'-..4 .--��.-:--- -1 ... � . .'.',;t�"� - N%t:' �.M� - -- '.N. .t .' . f - . � . . , . '��" 'e . � .�", I .1 . .". - .. " " , ,-.. - ,". mh: tt� g . -'�'� ..' ..' - �' -k. � ��' el.i -, '�-' k. ":' , " - * I -1 - . . ", * , ' -6. "..- - : .�'..' ' -�� 14�1-,��' .1. �§' ��1-111�: . � ��: . *"�) .'V'."'.l. . oo�'.'* .". . ' " * � " � ": " , "' * 7i- ' ­ ' ""' " I-- -.11 . 1-77 , " ." - ,-.I-- L i ..' ': A � . 1. �11 ,fl--- '��'- -., . Z'. � . ' " " " ' " �' ' :� - . .'4'. - - T4 , - R� ' •.. ;..... . . I 1 ('�y 'L�t." '4-,'-- - - ,-- - . - -�� .. � . .. ".� "� ---ll 4 ',�l�tj'-. . . Itt, . .j " . .".. I '� .*NI'4. * -;'--.:--� �- .. .,,' �, - . , - - ' , *-::. , '-�'-"-'gF'- . �--� --, �iO - � *�','�. .. w �lq .. -ir-'- 1-'.'�� *,%'� ' --l: ,a Xl'*'Z� ... 'Z:�*at'_�j . .."'� "'..i.-�.- ` -- t '�� '-'---'� * I.... � - . * - � ' , ." , t�' - --. t.� . . -:itt"I.: ... 1 . " - - -�* - . -�' ha" "�. �;--t -", -- ,,:-, ' * - . '�. 4 L�, , ; . . . -- . .. '�tr -* A'. tll� I . I . '-q - ll� I � , , , �'�zi�-'7"' .." .. ' .' . , , , ", ".. .. 11 ---i.411 �'2 - .. .-,.-,--,.;I. " t I .. - - -N --t . "�-""k, . . "j. t1t. "!" - A . '��-. - .,,' I .z '.-'�- - * . '- ,.-" -t,-�--'i��':C I -'.--�'-""�' -, -*-'S;TV ,i*.,. ".. '4�q - ", - - - ­ %. Z....:�' � 1. . : - " --.- . * . , � .5 . . -- I � � . ' , - . , . . tt�' I - , . - ".. I : - . � . ---;,-- - - *V1. - . - . .,-4" , . 1. . . . .. i . .. i . , "t� M�'--a_$,,�" . �i*"' '. � "�-*.-�- - - I' . , � '. ., .. :- -.- -. :.-.-,. 35M . ' - -'-- * . . ..z . . . . ' � - 7.riA-'�- '-.:. -, .::� V�-'-' - " * , w-, .� ., ' .. .. -Vt� . �i�� . . ," - '_ - df"��--'I� � � . .. - V - � I .% : . : - ".. . � 1. ,�m- lj�l"'­-- '. .� - � �-- .. .t*. , .' . . . '­� -- .- - , .,747 , .. I - , , � Z* -'.-'�t��;' . -ta� r . .'. '. t" �. .,�--���-�,�--�i,,..,, - '& . ,fir ,---- - Qp ' ': - - -�-P' - . - 5M * - " ". "� .1 -, 1 - , �' , - : - At . - 'c , ' - ` � --k' - �-' -,* �!' - . ,ttt-i'�-��'� kji;'r� -':" . . -41�. - -'� 1'1-� .1 -� .;,,. �'--*' ... 1., .�-.! '-�, 1* , - -*- '! . - '. , 'g z . .11"A..� -- - -P �-'-."- .":� .'e,-- .: -, � " I --, - , -� z. i ;,- " . 'o.k��v, - �- - .:; , . . y "" 1: - - - 1�.Z� - .. -�' '�� , **i*, -� .1 --� �`� .1 tl!*'�t- - 'W-� , , i�-.' - . W.-� - '-moi=:': �.W:- 1� * -, -- �'-I- "2 -. .,--. gmm� g� �� � .. ��--Q.17'- :z,- -, .. '-*- .Z -R, i'�O"t, . '- '-" -- � - �. . . . :' -l.; -"-�-' - . . , , -a , - - - r , . - ` , , ." I G� ��z M , , . � - _.,,, t .4 ".'. I I , ;' - 'I": *'�� , '� - -, O - .. 10'a ,'., -:1F." : . , .1it, - z . .' f�r� � .n " .':"';I� � ��" '. .' ��.kt - . . , , . I .. I t� , . .- - . . � ,I - .�'� ` .�,-P- -.'-�:N'K'�d-7 �p �' .. , .' -:-4` -, , '��' - ."�-- . *j�r , - -A�; -, . " -* '�-_" I ..".�'f*mw""� �*. -�'�- .' 4� .. - �,t; ... �.";' �.' ,,, - "�'J�'," -,-.- - -, '... '-;t��"i�'-'��:"- -��t� ---�* .1 ... .. , I - -ii, .'-'-M , - � �6'z-�� . ._:. , -"'&�. ..�;Nt'- -- . , .. , -..!'�"' . �. ", .*,*-- A" 6al .... .. - t'_ul - .-� , - - &� , - . I - �. - ", / �� 1- . . . .' , --,' . - �­" .�� ", v- �Ati *-"�t--- " - .", �C,-'� �'�- ' ' ., :7'�-".*� .9�9��"';�- ��f "�' - . . , - -1 . . . .. * . I Z�7� . - . � !� � I �i--'�� -'��-'4' ... .... r, --"'�'lz�%'11' ' ,"'. :'gz�� .6 . .".'-.�' "',*- . -�'ll .� q , ..'�. �.' -r .)�. '.•- . - �' - '. -'�!�' '� . �-. V-�i' MR,W ' "! - . � 'k, -P ,.! . '. -'-_".'t� - �k� -"�'�' , I - � �iT�' -'. 1,4' 1� 'I, , '�." . , ` .-'�� ' - 1�f �Wl. , . . . � .. . ... I t''-�T4;tp-AA -�� � -� , .tt ' * -!:-'-� -�'.::' , - " - -lW -� - - - . ---- - ", �' . - . -,.:-* -- t�'* -t' - -, -ot'�-O'. � .':� . , - - "J ' .1-::-011 'E' --- ., . ""Zi%'"' .1 r� , '-�'.' - - J�gt. : -,,.I. �' t :k� t ..�" , .rt. , � . -.1,,i . . -.� ..-., . " � - ' �' .. :-�-.-. t '--"-' -,-,, " " ' i��" � \'' � -. , A�z-. - , ' I.... :-fAT9l--'�::!-!:- -� , . , " , , ... ��-'��-' . ", - ' - -, ' ' t .lt� g " ' 1, - , . , � . 'eiv - -*..- *- 17� 1 - . . . . . - - _.•..:-,:'.-'-��M' , - -*':' , 1� I -F , - - �r,.'. L/ * �':* - .. ::: .' � � . .. -�.'- �'� -�' * - . -: - ., . .. .. . .. ... .. , .'�"t��F.' '.�:%�VL--'­'-.'- ' . . rt� N , ,03� .'-. . . .. .� - -:� -"- �.'�,'..- 1. .' . Qim� - - , * * t%- " . . . - , .. '�-.;.'�--- :.�-: ,,- '.�"'.' . 6'k�. . '�: *-�� '... ,Ti� '- '-.A�T- --'Ncz I . , - .. -' . , . . - . . I ��.-! � *1'�.�',�;'-...'.', "�. �' 11- . .. I .l... . , ". . 4��' ... '�. ".'�"* - � ...... . �-' , � L, �' - .11 - . .. . -1 , 't. * I - - - 1 - a., , ��"'."-- ' 51, s -* . - .0 J9.0 , �� -11, .. - : -. -r�- -, ��"' *'.N, 1. -.,. .. . "'. .1.*A . , .-.-- , *,!- . -_-,- - ., . .. . - �-�.' . -1 '�.-'-- ' .. ';-�t3t� . ..' ,..--.,i,;�:,-,�t,",'��'��,:",.��W.'. , . ,..' 1�0,111- .. \ A I 1. . W, �' :.-,-,.,-. 11 , - .. -'3�'- . 'I ."-I ' I-- -.1- . -�'�� �.".'-'. �. .-- 1. .-.",.,..,, . 1�6�0'-':.I';:W V: -z N"�':?k...�*'. : 1. '� � �� ---�T, - - - .' 'i- �" .' . . - s � - , <" - - '?-A .. '� .' - - , .- .�,O! " --l" ... I.- ", -.1t;,o �;- '. - .�' -r,-,Vis.' ' '� ' % ". ' F lk-'- , '*' '�:�st:,�. , i -z" - ..' 't! . :' �� '.-tt' % � 'A�' ".7. *9 -:- -r- - . t'.'� . .- . . 'k�7" - -1 A, . ....0'. . .", - � I t -0 '* ' � - " , .'N�4:: " . � &' -4"�' , -:' t ." - '* -1 � �'� 'I , '�i- ", " , .&� - ' - ., - l-'Jk. '. a�." . ,, -*so�' t - V, -.�. . . 'jp' O i'MI .. . . "g. , - I , V,t-ll. -- -';t, 'Z� - - -, -.�'.' - .' . . .; . :'� " - . I 1 ' , '`=.i`; *;� - , ��,-- �-,,:- 41�.' -, '. '-' "�' - O- . .�"'�T .;�� .0-�% .. . '� * . & ... . , ." - 'tt' .:, . .. � .. U-',. , . . . 0 . . . !, �' - - --,,, 5.., - '�-- " " , " . �W - -- -� " ..-.., - . . '�- ll;�t,,- . �' .1 �Fillj 1: - "N' -� .�.. -, '.' - . . *� -1 . , .", . . , 1;' . . 71� . . . .. . � - 4 -, I , g� .. , ��' �. 1. '.11. 14 1, . , . -�;- . -%!. ..-... . .'----��%-.�i . ,.,. . , . .1., ,'.. . � " � .. ". �' . I - -I:`tyle::, .• " :'J'.'�.--- lil 0 g'l; -, - ;;tt, -- - - , :'S.'> 1i"I..; . . * ` - " . - - .'. . .- R . � . �'..' -'-O' , . t' 1. O., - -- �Ul-"--�-'• -* - ... . - ."' - .Q z N '. '�' ..,. - --ll. I .. .:- �'.' 0 � , "�. ,��, �' - - .'. , " � - I . �" , �-'�? -, I .A.- I? -14f,L - ,-- A�v -"�! .. ", - . .1-11 S 4, : �-"- - , " ' - � ... :... i--'�' �: -- . RS . - ­;." � �'-'.'. .. . '.1 . t� '. ..I ., � �T� - * , - � - ... .. .1 .-O.V, .-*,:' - .'-'li�rw ' " -, -,* ��" -,"t:- - ' - J . 0 , . . � wit" t -Z . . - �. !"-"-�*W� '%"&�. o-, - . -� . . ��.�:, -1 , � - I '.'-'�'��tr%-- -�-: AV?. �11 * - . - -, - . .- . �; ' 0, I - � 0 V- �-' I." '� ....... �.' & � '- :S � . . - - -,i ' - - --t I .. .. ;� �: . : -.2N --j -- , � .. .' ' "or'.o *- . ir, 14�- � Z;�-' � , � � . . - � --�-'� . * . . '*' �' i--� , . . I '*"i'�f-Fl*�� kc -'11-.- - '� ,&,: - , "' - -'-, . - 0 . 0 - '4� ""�-N'&;V . . - I I , , - '��' , .,.- I . "', �." .tro ..' .." g.l,":}i; . , . - I - I I - . . . '�- .':� --""� ..' -1-- '. - , . . �� � '�� '4 '�'. 0 tTallt` 0.1 0. . ­-.'��--' L':!"'�:.' -0 't- -:.. / . ,, - -�& - ." - . ?4 - , iz�j . . , -� , . '��** , " , , . . .71, t -.. 0 : I %'�k -;;, � , - . " . 0 --�- - � �- 1� '-.'��- I - . �%', - ,11 ;" 1 - ' . . -- -�N'F -i- , � - -Z - . . . N- " :1 ll", I x.. --.3t -* . - �. �'!-. , '� - t'j'- '*� . �'. - - . . . , . ' tK.-�P'- *.� Zttv* , .1 -'O-'�. .--t�' . '� . �" I . . .. -; - ��!' ; -, , . . � -- ' . '� it! . �':ti��* . ,11 ; � ". : t'. I ' ,,,, ..... �'.--. ',�4' ,�v �" . " I - - - -� ". ' . . ' -�' 0 , " ,� -ld.-;l- - * A.n.:. .. . ' ' I ---ftZtl- I �'w 'A� - � '�T., !" .' , �'- *� I. 'M . t`�- '..-' ��-' iO.�z' 1]il-1 ."'7-.,\;' ."'. 0 . - .. -�' ' ` A -P � - I ' -, - I %l - - ..", ,t. -'�' '�A -t-* ') ; 'A I - - . . '� , - - : -. ... .N � ,.;.. . - . 4.4 3 ';!� _ - . _ ...,,- . .­ - . t�q't�'lv ;i� : .F'l.. . .�'. - _ 0� . � � jL . .. * - .. . . ...' . -��.' . . - - ­� .5, - , ',tt' z' . ��:21'.:w - ,,,,•- , -' *�: - . , , , , '�- - . � . . , �' . :c,'. . . .: . ;�tll't,� m-'. . t" .. ". .,'-1. 411�- I -". . .� ......... ` ' � . , , t� "� � , --b -t- -- ,R, .'.'.-- �Z�- t� , t*O'k ��'.*P 0- , ... I --t-lvl ... �. -.�' , 0, , 0�'z . .' . - . , ,,, . . , . . '..; - s . . 1, .. - - , �- - , � \ �"' *' - - . --;. .0 .. - ijil 't %�Ell:' I -.t - �� -�j�'��' . - t .' , .:d- I -'. - 11 -- ... t . . . . . . . ."i , . . I ,. ;.", r:-. , .1 ; '."-t-. , :4 A r�j�j� . ,.. . . � - - j��j!. . "," I I . - -I'l . �J. . . , . . . I * * -. , � -;.i � - �. . . , , - I . . . . 4,.", '-, ! �. ``:Tr ' -�' - :0.. 0 , - '. -, �� " �,t.:"I ' -'. F; - , . .. -11 -�' t�, t�'7.lt-' - , O-z�! - - - ,;..,, , : .1 1, I I . . '�� I ... -C � - 0-0 -'.,--' '-�g "�".:- ' . 'd�I ... - � : -�* - " . e� ­ �;�!' , � . . . . , - ; - ' ' 4ili - - . ��i " . - -'.� -� . c. , �� '. 1. . " vh* -�s- , 'T. - ,� " . A. !'�-1111, 0. *' , .� 3�"lp"Nto ^ 1, , ", -� "ti -.�� - - � d. -L'2 � - � , .. . . - "� '\ - .. .. 0, ,.Vt -I"..'- .*-_-�'- - it, . *'�� ' �'. * .. .. _�. �- , z5t '�'lo Z" *' . ,g' 1.2�or'�. . ,"'. .'% il'k�l . I - '. ---';;'-.!-�- - -, - V . �..'. --Z � ? �.�i'.,�.---.,..O..,.,..,�*.'�' - , �' - 1 "--";-, - . ':*::: ' .- 1 �' 0*-*�kk � � ". .. 0 t,'-: .." . - .. . ." ". ". ": � tit -jtl� --.'�'2R*�-:�?h.,R Vk �.. '� . * ' . : . �, -'�-`t:- .. -�.Z' - . � 4'�. !:, -, V -1. � ��` .. lV111- , . 1, t�'t' . .-��il' -. �-�lr . '� -% . . �:.' - -iW' , �� - "'-l- 61 - -iF 'lz . . :'. _--';�"�T ,ov.-O' -�-. . �� 'o. �. � .. �'� --_ '�'. ,• , �"i�%- --1 .0". . �%t .' 1; '. �' - ..tt . , , - '...�'i' -;.'� %-, O'. �'- --'n . ', " - - " - - . . ... . ,l --k . g ... - ��-- -- , , - '. 0 � s�. -'�- - � 'N " , - '.' '; � . ..�' . .:�--" . �i Z4�*'§,--'-'��"'!'r' ' * ' ... 'j, *- - I - - : . .., -��;. I - . , '-'-'.-' --.,,--,.-,,--, Z% , . t�!.' . , � . 'j' .. ... ... . .. . . . - . - � � . j !�.t , - i4 . .0 ""X�� -.;... -,,- "";r,-,.,! �'-. ':��" - I.Is, � 'L'l- - -":. ' " - \ t,, . .. � . ........ , �,' .T� .. .. �i t;tw,W. \ I - I . t?,'% ' -, 4it' '�.V ,;;;' - -, :�' :' ?.'�" ' . �4-- - ip. " , ,ql -':; '. . , . ,;?,, . '- " . * , ; .- .-; -, , � _- �:"-'�l 4 -;%""*f'. \ �-�. -1-1., F- .--�' .l: . . - . "M - ,4': .. - - .". " '.' .�. . .� lil�--" ' ' . " "..*;;��;:'r,l'i., -":"--"��. I.-c�' �fjf�- t . '..� . , , '�Y .is" , .!�t,t . . --�' ... -;T g- - - ... -�� , - , ttl . '�`�F'l� M- t - .. I .... -.,;" -�. 't', � " . t., , - I !*: - '-'L"�� - - �-�'�' , I .. --1 � , '. S' �. .- . . .1 - .'t �5' - -% . . . 4 4:," . - . - , 4 -� 11 �� "- 0. I'. - , * - ,, -- - ::j�,5--lr- '� .-'�� ". .i., - " " 11 ,P x - ---'-�.--',%-'.-�.... --:�t7' � r;2' . �- - '�L \ ��:e,3 �"'; .�. .:t:.,.. . . . ,,.0 , '_'-�:t -.' . i� , '. �. '. , - .;,.�,�;�:i..;.�.-;.t. . ;.--'!f'i:.: - . - - '-'"'.' .'i; .• tl'�. ".. --,:-" I - � " % . ': ' - . � , . . " --.�--:� - -.1 "*' .w,- - - ,.;�. .'-.;:":�,..-.�t-.t:-.-l.�... -. .. 1. . -.;-. -tal" . : ' - - . . , - * . , . . . : , ." , A -A . ; !. .' !:,�4�t.iR�l-�:.�.-�.'.*��-.. ;�:-I". �'-..':':.-.t.lt..�". ... , "�.',,�"� . . .1 - -1;v,�". - -W . . I . .. 1. - - � .. . . . - - :�-'�11:� -.,;.-..! ,%"-'�'..lj';i.-`:-.. - It' .-.". .. : ,;..tt. . .. ... .." I - -v - ,-- e. ,,,:,-- . -"�" , �;i;. , �-- ��:. ... .. !'�.-'%.'�:."'::� :t:;*. �:-,::.;..,*.:..,.,.",,z��.",-,, . . -. � . . . . . .. -- mt,g -..' -p- , �.�v -?4.". -- � - . , . . - . , -� .1 . % . \ - .. .. I � I - '4 . , . . , - : I ...' - �: '- - " , , - - -�- , -�A - , 'v, .. - - -��e4 .iOU -'j-`�'-�!"t"j;".-.j.;.'-�. , ' -'�',*�i.,;,.�'*.�.'*i-".".,...,,",!�:. : .. . . . jti,' **tl� - . . .1 Iti' --" -1 y.:y- .,"', , .1%,""'. -.�.I'-"�. " � . . . ,,,,���-...Cs.:.,*...,.I. I.. , . , . I , R : " '�"�'-�' , ,�l;;;..�i�:i,. . "� - , ":' " ':;j-;�*.-'.:-':'.-�:;-::;::. . " - 1:. , I "'$ i . - :i'��,�-.,*,�:,,,�,�'-:-.*!,",.�*i.,.., . . I . " . - .1�,..,:,..!.:..i..,.,I.i.',.*,.t��:*,.'. '. ' 4 ' � �"%,.."�i�l,."."��',"..i::, �j 1 t,..*!�.,.,.*.,N".,-..;,..I,;li.,,ii*�', :: - "';�-lf:*'.':""-* -'�'-��-'.i:- F':l' : - . I il. , ' . ..' - .. . -, i .1 I - . �-'-- ' I - - '- - '� - -1 ". - � - vt� t' . tEit,- . Q� . .: . I' - - - .. - -'.--t�'--.%' ' - - . '. .'-'.!�'. .."t. ..' % � - - , "%u . , g.". : ��'�ti- .. �t�;':�' . ."� , * -' 11 ;- , 10";'- � -'- L , ' . . ..... ...�:;t.."... - '. jut tV* : -�. - * ''�q. -'� . 7, -,:-.' -'- -, - t - �­ .. ... - 4� -x'lt.. '�lri','.'--:;��","-. t�'. " �'.-.-': , � '.-�'i , , " "&."'-*�zdz� -. pg' .. - -�i:"04 -!'-'.--:*'-.'!; '."':�:��:.F-.`--;--*--N i--"i";--'L-';; V., , .:. , �q�:� I .."; :t" �' - ',:. t.",!jn-�.'...l.��j...j... .1 - . .. i.'��::. .A. ,';t-'�.'! �-` % .�,4'�'� :�" . � i '� . . . . '�;��Y" " 1. - " - - '44 . .. . I'l-, . . .�' - ,,, . .. 1,p. ,: �' . .. I '.. - - , , .'.� . I . . . -, . , � . . - "It -4 - .� .t��..'�-'M.;. -��.' , -'-t,�.'n- -'�-*-. ... ..' -:!'�'--' !;*-.-'.-'..'.,- -F:'%'K*-.'�-.r" ,!.-.*f'�,�',',.r,*.�%'�*-�.�-.�i!i��'..."'.".'..'-,.�.,�.�,--.-% '�'T--.- '.--"!� ; �- --' -, t: . -I.-V. , . � � ** � ." lt�' "' 1"�' ";l. ... - . I "r - - -, .;.!.,, -:". -.:,..:, - , �" �' - .. � ...' .v, * , . ,'�;; '�l . a;.t, - . .�t- -- , . - il'--�"W.'4 ... *'. , '. �� �, . " :.: 1 'i 4 �" 'N'. I � .. ., , . , � . - % � � - - . P � . , - - , I ".: 'L.�.'!::; - �'-.-."�.'.! -.;'� -�.�"'!".' --' .... ..' �!-'. -�'i l'l.'t.;:: ,:,:, v':�,.*.:'-' *�.�: �-'-.::: . .. .. �- - .: ::! L. - . . . % * ,N"' 'F� . �11.- . a�� - ' �---.--.-.-.:.-�%'--;-�:-" , --- a*�� '��' " .. I 9iil- I ItNi'll . I lt� -k�t!- - t--- lit" ' - I ., �-- I - ' .' ' . rl.- . - . * - - -� - ' , -. , . ',,,?-:' -1 I � A . '17 �k ,� . - - - " : - �'- -j' '� - .. . , . � . . t14; 1 ��t- '. :" . A _'. - .. .. - - - . - .. .'�L��` .' , I . , ��z .. - . - , . ' , w. - -, I - 4- "' *' " -"�-' . , . �'�" - - ,,, ';;- '. ' '. - �� � � . - Int, r '� , . 5- .. �Q- ' , ��*-.��, C�X- - t .,S"'. - I ��- .:� .. - '41, A - - ..... 1� I . . . . . :.. ... � . 't-;44�?��-. I IP . . . - . : tip" , ... , . ...... " . I ", .r. - - A'. - ­-� - - , '. , "..' *�� - . -'4 - . ' � 4 - q . . . 1. ;.. .. , -'t ". "I -J. . - . -'-�� . .'i '! . .. . .. .. .. . . . I . : . . .. , �l '- , N W+E S 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 ' m! I Inch = 750 feet Date: 4/212018 -*I- ( a Petaluma Argus -Courier - 09/06/2018 1868 PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SAFEWAY FUEL CENTER PROJECT PLAP-18-0001 335 SOUTH MCDOWELL BOULEVARD APN 007-820-046 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, to all Interested persons that the City Council will consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) of the Safeway Fuel Center project as sum- marized below: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: On June 26, 2018 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2018-21B approving Site Plan and Architectural. Review for the Safeway Fuel Center project, including development of a new gas station on a 0.71 acre site located at 335 South McDowell Boulevard, within the Washington Square Shopping Center. Site improvements Include the construction of a 5,932 square foot fueling canopy covering 16 fueling positions, a 697 square foot convenience store, two 20,000 gallon under - 9 tanks, landscaping and parking. Site preparation will include the demolition of the existing 13,770 square foot commercial building and associated existing site improvements. Offsite improvements consist of modifications to the adjacent Transit Center to Increase the width of the bus turnout area to allow for buses to queue outside of the Maria Drive travel lane. Additionally, the Transit Center amenities will be enhanced to Include new shelters, seating, landscaping and ancillary Improvements. PROJECT LOCATION: The project Is located at 335 S. McDowell Blvd, within the Washington Square Shopping Center. ENVIRONMENTAL REVEIW: An initial Study (1$) was prepared for the project and published for public review period that extended from April 5, 2018 to May T, 2018. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2016-21A approv- ing the Mitigated Negative Declaration on June 26, 2018. CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE/TIME: Monday, September 17, 2018, at or after 6:45 p,m. MEETING LOCATION: City Council Chambers, City Hall of Petaluma, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA, WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and approve, approve with modifications, or deny the appeal. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND: You can send a letter to the Planning Division, City of Petaluma, 11 English Street, Petaluma California, 94952.You can also hand deliver letters prior to the meeting or a -mall comments, All Planning Commission meetings are televised on the Petaluma Community Access Cable Channel 28. FOR MORE INFORMATIONt You may contact Olivia Ervin, at (707) 778.4556 or oervin®m-group.us and/or Heather Hines at (707) 778-4316 or hhines®m- group.us, You can also come to the Planning Division to review the project file. The office Is open Monday through Thursdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 P.M. City Hall is closed Fridays. Efforts will be made to accommodate persons with disabilities, The City Manager's office must be notified at (707) 778-4346 within 6 days from date of publication of this notice if you need special accommodations. For accessible meeting information: Please call (707) 778.4360 or TDD (707) 778-4480 1A J In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (707) 778-4360 (voice) or (707) 778.4480 (TDD), Translators, American. Sign Language Interpreters, and/or assistive listening devices for Individuals with hearing disabilities will be available upon request. A minimum of 48 hours Is needed to ensure the availability of translation services. In consider- ation of those with chemical sensitivities or other environmental illness, It is requested that you refrain from wearing scented products, 2819212- Pub Sept 6, 2018 1ff• Page : B05 Copyright © 2018 Press Democrat Media. All rights reserved. Restricted Use only 0910612018 &bull; Privacy Policy &bull; Terms of Service Powered by TECNAV/� 2 11--h-9A 9MA 1.47 nm /(;MT+R-nnt ® J EXHIBIT B Francois, Matthew RE: PC 6/26/18 Meeting Thank you Madam Chair. Safeway deeply appreciates the public comment, the continued public outreach it's been conducted tonight and obviously, I will address any of the issues that you want me to and our consultants are here as well. But 3 or 4 items thatjumped out of me that I wanted to address for sure were trip generation, safety, the health risk assessment and then some comments in terms of the need for the project. In terms of trip generation, the consultant here went really above and beyond what's typically done in a traffic analysis. Normally, a traffic consultant would be well within their rights, to rely simply on the institute of transportation engineer's analysis of gas stations all over the country that comes up with the trip generation rate and rely on that to do the analysis. Here, the consultant compared that trip rate to the actual trip rates of 2 very comparable Safeway fuel centers — Pleasant Hill and Campbell. Those 2 had been approved most recently when the study was done and so we're felt to be more reflective of conditions at this site than the Novato fuel center. Those two sites are substantially similar in terms of the size, the hours of operation, the circulation and layout, the fact that they're adjacent to a grocery store in a local setting. So, the consultant here compared the rates of actual fuel centers to the ITE rate which he could've relied on and been perfectly well within his rights to rely on and apply that more conservative rate, not only in the PM peak hour but in the AM peak hour and then also in response to questions from staff study this Saturday midday peak. So we don't believe there's any shortcoming in the trip generation analysis or any flaw there and of course CEQA also is pretty clear that an applicant and an agency don't have to conduct every single study that's requested and that it's enough that the analysis that's relied on is supported by substantial evidence. In terms of safety at the intersections, we presented a slide on this before — pedestrian counts were done 3 times in the intersection, collision data was reviewed which showed an average of 4 collisions per year over a 5 year period. And the consultant compared that to the state standard for Sonoma County and it's essentially half of the state standard so there's no real credible claim that this is an unsafe intersection, if it were, your staff would be telling you that and you would be implementing design changes to it — so that's not an accurate reflection of what's happening there. Now, one of the speakers, Brian and I'm sorry I forgot his last name, did come to the open house on Saturday and did mention the instance of living in the neighborhood and crossing with the green directional arrow for pedestrian and traffic travelling West bound making a left turn going South on McDowell basically not being stopped and being able to turn into a pedestrian crossing the street, that's a serious issue and so we here tonight to say something that we would urge the City to address because it's something that Safeway doesn't control but your Traffic Engineering Department could control through making that movement not possible through the signal light. On the health risk assessment, one of the teachers mentioned the point about only looking at a nine year old child, actually, the health risk assessment looked at infant exposure, it looked at child exposure, and it looked at residents exposure and then in the supplemental response, it looked at all three together, so when it says nine year in terms of child, that's the exposure rate for a child not that it's a nine year old child, the actual range of a child that was looked at under that category is a five to a thirteen year old. There was a comment raised about - it's unheard of to have a gas station near a school, the Campbell fuel center is in close proximity to a school, not as close of a proximity as this one. It happens pretty much everywhere throughout this city and other cities, that gas stations are located in extreme close proximity to residential uses. You have a 150 unit project being constructed right now on the south side of town that's immediately adjacent to a Valero gas station. So those uses, one would argue are even more sensitive than schools `7—/ because you have infants there, so in light of that, we don't believe this is really any different than gas stations being located immediately adjacent to residential uses. - .1 did want to respond also to the timing aspect and respectfully disagree with the city attorney that the fact that the timelines are directory does not mean they're not enforceable and the Sunset Drive Corporation vs. City of Redlands case is directly on point for that statement and the application here — Ms. Hines was correct that Safeway did not sign off on the MNI) back in December of 2014 but it did resume the project in 2016, early 2017 — so that's far more than 180 days and we disrespectfully urge that it's time to act on the project now, we've done all that's been asked or Safeway has done all that's been asked of it, it's committed the outreach even though it wasn't required to do it, it was the right thing to do, it did it, it's done 13 studies, it's kind of like an episode of the Amazing Race — that it's satisfied every single condition and requirement that was imposed on it and there are no findings that would support denial, the only finding would support approval and we'd respectfully urge your action approving the project tonight. Thank you. 0 Im,40,11 luffo m 1/27/2019 Affordable, local gas option li r! Uir) to t 'k 'Ivi5 of.ir d -J 1V n--eUA,,-s z iej_1i- =ar ! 11 rIc'.v � c11If1 ,•`3 %fill i'i� eAffOrdable, lo(ml guas-, O%ptio%m MARK FRIEDMAN " 't I July 12, 2018 It's another gorgeous summer in Northern California. The sun is out and it's a great time to visit the coast or wine country, or to just drive to a nearby park and barbecue. There aren't many places in the country that are better for a road trip than ours. And there are even fewer where it's more expensive to buy a tank of gas. Now, we all know that California has some of the highest gas prices in the country and that costs in the Bay Area are even higher. But if you've ever filled up in Petaluma, you'll know gas prices here are off the charts, Petalumans pay more for gas than a whopping 99.6 percent of their fellow Americans. And within our region, Petalumans consistently pay at least 10 cents more per gallon — or $2 to 3 million more per year — than their neighbors in'the North Bay. It's no surprise that more and more locals are leaving town to fill up. According to a recent survey of over 500 Petaluma residents, 67 percent of respondents are concerned about the increasing cost of gas and 52 percent say they often travel to other cities to buy gas because it's too expensive in Petaluma. As families and those on fixed incomes grapple with the rising cost of living, it's clear that trips to the local gas station aren't helping. At Washington Square, we hear these concerns all the time from our customers. It's precisely why we've worked so hard for so long to bring a new affordable gas option to our shopping center. Safeway gas stations are widely popular across the country, providing an affordable gas option for all consumers, and even further savings to shoppers registered to earn Safeway's Gas Rewards. It's no surprise that since we first started exploring the addition of a Safeway gas station in 2013, over 2,000 residents have signed a petition We Use Cookies to OptiMire yOUr eXperienLe, analyze traffic, and personalizecontent, To i^cairn Accept rn0t piease visit our Pr iv ;cy Policy. By using our sits' wit.{' out disabling cookk?S; y' U Ct}i Ise rlt to ot..ir use of them. e1't'?. https://www.petaluma360.com/opinion/8515474-181/affordable-local-gas-option?sba=AAS 1/ 1 /27/2019 Affordable, local gas option Unfortunately, despite the proposal's popularity with the public, and its status as a permitted use under the City zoning code, the project has endured an unprecedented amount of red tape and delay. In 2014, a few politicians attempted an outright ban on all new gas stations citywide, a remarkable overreach that was quickly abandoned under public scrutiny. Later that year, they tried to levy a preposterous 14,000 percent increase in city fees on the project, before once again pulling back when legally questioned. As time has passed, and the cost of living has continued to rise, awareness and support for the project has only grown. In that same recent survey of more than 500 Petaluma residents, 68 percent were familiar with the Safeway gas station project and respondents expressed support by a 55 percent to 35 percent margin. Amid public debate about the project, both community members and policymakers raised fair and reasonable questions about the station's potential impact on the neighborhood and environment. Time and time again, Safeway and Washington Square have carefully listened and responded, commissioning 14 independent analyses that consistently affirm that the project meets all thresholds for air quality, traffic, and public health and safety. In turn, city staff duly reviewed all the data and recommended the project for approval. We've also listened to the community. We've conducted surveys, held community open h-ouses, met with the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee, school leaders, families and neighbors. The result is over 60 specific enhancements and alterations to our original plans to ensure the project integrates safely and seamlessly into the shopping center and surrounding neighborhood. The Safeway gas station will utilize state of the art technology to monitor and protect air and soil quality, and construction equipment with stricter emission standards known as Tier 3. We'll add additional street trees and drought -resistant landscaping, replace public sidewalks and make long -overdue ADA improvements to the intersection of South McDowell Boulevard and Maria Drive to enhance pedestrian safety. We'll rebuild the Eastside Transit Center, creating a dedicated bus stop within the shopping \41-- use cool;Ies to optimize your experience, analyze traffic, and personalize co tT..,I"ft. To learn Accept more, e, please `Jisti. JUr Privacy Policy, By using our Site withouit disabling coiai<ies, you coi tse ft to Our use of the -in, https://www. pateluma360.com/opinion/8515474-181/affordable-local-gas-option?sba=AAS I i 1/27/2019 Affordable, local gas option We'll install an electric vehicle charging station and preserve flexibility to add even more in the future. And while several existing gas stations in Petaluma operate 24 hours per day and sell alcohol, Safeway has agreed to limit station hours and prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages. In short, this project has been thoroughly analyzed, debated and vetted. With city staff's recommendation in hand, the city's Planning Commission finally approved the project last month. We thank the Commission for doing the right thing and approving the project. We are ready to move forward in a spirit of cooperation and partnership with our neighbors. We hope others in the community are ready to do the same. (Mark Friedman is president of Fulcrum, a Sacramento development firm.) I _;, t<`pc h� r LiI"s"tl'E your ;`'3Ei`1'wi1CL a ltliv� a ij c'?lV?C, (1C� ''e'r-sonaiize ti of tent. -i o learn ,� _ o :i z_ y o r p Accept �t fllot'e, olease visit- Our P rivacj\ Policy. By using our. ite without chsc"tbling COOkie , `'GNU consent: to vUr t.lse of ? i fern, https://www,petaluma360.com/opinion/8515474-181/affordable-local-gas-option?sba=AAS 3/3 f�UTAN RUTAN 6 TUCKER, LLP January 28, 2019 VIA E-MAIL Honorable Teresa Barrett, Mayor and Members of the Petaluma City Council City of Petaluma 11 English Court Petaluma, CA 94952 Matthew D. Francois Direct Dial: (650) 798-5669 E-mail: mfrancois@rutan.com ATTACHMENT 8 Re: Safeway Fuel Center Project; January 28, 2019 City Council Agenda Item 5.A Dear Mayor Barrett and Members of the City Council: We write on behalf of our client, Safeway, Inc.; regarding the City Council's proposed reconsideration ofthe long -planned Safeway Fuel Center Project (the "Project") at 335 S. Mc Dowell Boulevard (the "Property") in the City of Petaluma (the "City"). The Project has already been reviewed by the City for more than six years and has been 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. Yet, on December 3, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-80 (the "Resolution") purporting to uphold the appeal of the Project (the "Appeal") filed by JoAnn McEachm and others ("Appellants") and ordering the preparation of an environment impact report ("EIR"). On January 2, 2019, we wrote to demand that the City Council vacate the Resolution and conduct a new hearing to cure and correct specified violations of the Brown Act. In response, the City noticed a new hearing on the Appeal for January 28, 2019. At that hearing, we strongly urge you to deny the Appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approvals for the Project. This is the only lawful action that the City Council can take on the Project. Our suggested revisions to the resolution-denymg the Appeal (Attachment 2 to the Staff Report) are attached hereto as Exhibit A.t In connection with its consideration of the Appeal and in response to submissions by Appellants and others, Safeway submitted letters dated September 6, 2018, September 11, 2018, September 14, 2018, September 17, 2018, October 10, 2018, November 14, 2018, December 1, 2018, December 2, 2018, December 3, 2018, and January 24, 2019 providing updates and ' Multiple efforts to reach City Attorney Danly were made starting on January 24, 2019 to discuss our January 24, 20191etter as well as the proposed- revisions to the resolution. He initially stated that he was free to talk on January 25, 2019 and on January 27, 2019, but then subsequently canceled and indicated that he would not be available until January 28, 2019, the day of the hearing. He also did not reply to my January 27, 2019 email asking whether there were any changes to the Staff recommendation since issuance of the Staff Report. Rutan &Tucker, LLP (Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 EI Camino Real, Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94306-9814 � 650-320-x500 � Fax 650-320-9805 Orange County � Palo Alto � wwvr.rutan.com 26961031700-0001 133381062 a01l28/19 RUTAN RUT.3I. TUCYiR I,IP Honorable Teresa Barrett, Mayor and Members of the Petaluma City Council January 28, 2019 Page 2 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: (i) Moira Sullivan's December 10, 2018 letter to the City Council claiming that the Project will result in significant health risk impacts and (ii) supplemental documents and other materials, some of which were only recently produced by the City despite Safeway's earlier Public Records Act requests dated May 24, 2018 and November 19, 2018. 1. The Project will NOT result in significant health risk impacts. In a December 10, 2018 letter to the City Council, Moira Sullivan, an associate toxicologist with the State,2 writes again to question the health risk assessment ("HRA") prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin for the Proj ect. In her letter, Ms. Sullivan not only insults Mr. Reyff, a respected, credible, and extremely competent air quality consultant, but manages to malign BAAQMD and City Staff as well. As explained in the January 28, 2019 response from Illingworth & Rodkin, attached hereto as Exhibit B, the latest submittal from Moira Sullivan, as with her prior August 14, 2018 submittal,3 is based on argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion, clearly inaccurate and erroneous information, and evidence that is not credible. As such, the letter does NOT constitute substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may result in a significant environmental impact. 2. The City Council cannot lawfully uphold the Appeal given that City decision - makers and Staff are biased against the Project. Since our January 24, 20191etter to you even more evidence has come to light underscoring that City decision -makers and Staff are not neutral and unbiased, as the law requires a In an August 9, 2018 email to Bernie Album, fellow appellant Glenn Rubinstein notes that Planning Commissioner Scott Alonso, who voted against the Project, advised him that there would be "no collusion risk" for reaching out to the City Attorney "for legal clarification and guidance on -- .- --the-scope . of our appeal." It is unknown whether and to what extent the City Attorney or his subordinates advised Appellants as to the scope of their Appeal. a Ms. Sullivan appears to have used her position with the State to get BAAQMD to conduct a detailed review of the HRA. (See August 23, 2018 email from Moira Sullivan to Aneesh Rana of BAAQMD, attached hereto as Exhibit C.) 3 Illingworth & Rodkin's response to Ms. Sullivan's August 14, 20181etter to the City Council is provided in Attachment 13 to the Staff Report. 4 Documents referenced in this paragraph are attached hereto as Exhibit D. Information pertaining to the approval of the ARCO gas station in Gridley and the Chevron gas station in Niles (Fremont) based on CEQA exemptions are attached hereto as Exhibit E. 2696/031700-0001 13338106.2 a01/28/19 � -Z RUT_AN .RUT�.Y [TUCYSR LLP Honorable Teresa Barrett, Mayor , and Members of the Petaluma City Council January 28, 2019 Page 3 Mr. Alonso was not the only Planning Commissioner with an undisclosed conflict. In a June 26, 2018 email Planning Commissioner Bill Wolpert, who also voted against the Project, wrote to Christian Kallen with Sonoma News regarding a proposed Safeway gas station in Sonoma.5 At the Planning Commission hearing that evening, Commissioner Wolpert then questioned Safeway's Senior Real Estate Manager extensively about Safeway's business plans in Sonoma. He failed to disclose this ex parte communication with Mr. Kallen, which appears to have contributed to his reason for voting to deny the Project. The fact that Appellants did not appeal the MND to the City Council is plainly demonstrated in an August 7, 2018 email from Mr. Album to Mr. Rubenstein, one month after the Appeal was filed, wherein Mr. Album acknowledges that the notion of advocating for an EIR first occurred to him. Indeed, as late as October 3, 2018, City Attorney Danly was referring simply to the "Safeway Fuel Station SPAR Approval Appeal." In an October 11, 2018 email from former City Councilmember Chris Albertson to then -City Manager John Brown regarding yet another continuance of the City Council's hearing on the Appeal, Mr. Albertson asks in a seemingly knowing, and certainly disapproving, manner: "Hopefully, this delay is not the making of our legal or planning offices." In a June 27, 2018 email to Mr. Brown, Planning Manager Heather Hines referred to the June 26, 2018 Planning Commission hearing at which the Project was approved as "long and extremely painful." In a July 7, 2018 email, she cautioned proponents of an ARCO gas station across town to review the "videos of the recent public hearings for the Safeway Fuel Center" citing concerns regarding the proximity of the site to a school, even though Ms. Hines stated in a June 25, _2018 email to the City Council that no laws or regulations imposed any siting restrictions on a new gas station near schools or similar uses. As early as May 2013, she also met with Arash Salkhi, owner of three gas stations in Petaluma, including the Valero gas station at 532 E. Washington Street,6 to "discuss potential impacts of a Safeway gas station." Finally, as a separate and distinct basis for disqualifying Councilmember Healy, it appears that Councilmember Healy cannot act to uphold the Appeal based on the doctrine of incompatible offices. Government Code section 1099 expressly prohibits a public officer from simultaneously holding two incompatible public offices, particularly where one office may overrule the other or where there is a "possibility of a significant clash of duties or loyalties." The supervisory role the City Council exercises over the Planning Commission plainly falls within the circumstances 5 (See June 26, 2018 email from Bill Wolpert to Christian Kallen of Sonoma News, attached hereto as Exhibit F.) 6 On July 10, 2018, the Planning Commission approved a use permit and SPAR for remodeling of the Valero gas station relying on a categorical exemption from CEQA. 2696/031700-0001 13338106.2 a01/28/19 RUTAN nurau a nc+cn u� Honorable Teresa Barrett, Mayor and Members of the Petaluma City Council January 28, 2019 Page 4 contemplated by Government Code section 1099. As such, separate and apart from the disqualifying evidence of bias, Councilmember Healy is precluded from taking action to uphold the Appeal based on the doctrine of incompatible offices. Thank you for your consideration of Safeways views on this matter. Representatives of Safeway, including the undersigned, will be in attendance at your January 28, 2019 hearing on the Appeal. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this correspondence. Very truly yours, RUT. MDF:mtr & TUCKER,JjfL>=�P . - f + jrt } J �} . FranCO1S cc: .Eric Danly, City Attorney, City of Petaluma Scott Brodhun, Interim City Manager, City of Petaluma Heather Hines, Planning Manager, City of Petaluma Olivia Ervin, Principal Environmental Planner, City of Petaluma Claire Cooper, City Clerk, City of Petaluma Natalie Maffei, Senior Real Estate Manager, Safeway, Inc. Mark Friedman, President, Fulcrum Property � (See The Honorable Dorothy L. Schechter, 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 607 (1980) [fmding that the offices of planning commissioner and city councilman are incompatible offices, and thus an individual may not simultaneously hold both offices.]) 2696/031700-0001 13338106.2 a01I28/19 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL RESCINDING AND REPLACING RESOLUTION N0.2018-180 ADOPTED DECEMBER 3, 2018, DENYING THE APPEAL FILED BY JOANN MCEACHIN AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION BY RESOLUTION N0.2018 -21A AND SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BY RESOLUTION N0.2018 -21B ON JUNE 26, 2018 FOR THE SAFEWAY FUEL CENTER PROJECT LOCATED AT 335 SOUTH McDOWELL BOULEVARD ASSESSOR'S PARCEL N0.007-820-O�d6 File No. PLAP 18-0001 WHEREAS, � ����e1Eer��Safeway. inc, en—helm-l-�e�-prepet#�=-�«- ., submitted an application for Site Plan and Architectural Review approval ("Application") to demolish an existing 13,770 square foot vacant building and construct a new 5,931 square foot fueling canopy, 16 fuel dispensers, a 697 -square foot convenience store, and associated landscaping and appurtenant parking ("Project") located at 335 South McDowell Boulevard at APN 007-820-046 ("Property"); and WHEREAS, the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and notice of a public hearing on the Application before the Petaluma Planning Commission was published in the Argus Courier on Apri15, 2018 and mailed to residents and occupants within a 500 foot radius ofthe Project site, incompliance with state and local law; and WHEREAS, the public review period for the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ( MND"1 ran from April 5, 2018 to May 7, 2018 during which time the document was available for review at the City's Planning Division and on the City's website; and WHEREAS, on May 8, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance Section 24.010, to consider the Project; at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on May 8, 2018, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date certain of June 26, 2018 to allow interested parties an opportunity to review technical studies and comments received about the Project; and WHEREAS, public notice of the continued June 26, 2018 public hearing before the Planning Commission was published in the Argus Courier on June 14, 2018 and mailed to all occupants and property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the Project site and all public commenters on the project; and WAEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 26, 2018, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and, WHEREAS, at the June 26, 2018 public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the staff reports dated May 8, 2018 and June 26, 2018, analyzing the application, including the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") determination included -therein, and all comments received concerning the Project; and 2-9 ATTACffiVIENT 2 WHEREAS, on June 26, 2018, prior to acting on the Site Plan and Architectural Review ("SPAR") application, the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative T eela atie the MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") prepared pursuant to CEQA for the Project via Resolution 2018-21A; and WHEREAS, on June 26, 2018 following its action under CEQA the Planning Commission approved SPAR for the Safeway Fuel Center project pursuant to Resolution 2018- 2113, subject to conditions of approval listed in Exhibit 1 to the Resolution; and WHEREAS, on June 29. 2018, the Citv duly filed a Notice of Determination ("NOD"1 related to the Planning Commission's adoption of the Proiect MND, which remained Hosted until July 30. 2018; and WHEREAS, the Appeal included a letter specifying the grounds of the Anneal that were sinned by Ms. McEachin and -1-3-16 ther persons ("Appellants"l; and WHEREAS, the grounds for appeal given in the Appeal letter included: questioning the community need for the Project; the proximity ofthe Proj ect to a day care, school and Little League ball park; increased traffic; project emissions and health impacts; and public awareness of the Project; and WHEREAS. on August 14. 2018 con•espondence was received from Moira Sullivan uestioning the analysis of the health risks of the Proiect: and WHEREAS. on August 31. 2018. a public notice of a September 17.2018 hearing on the A peal before the Citv Council was Hosted on the Proiect site in accordance with Citv Council Resolution No. 2018-107: and WHEREAS. on Sentember 4.2018. Richard Sachen submitted a letter to the City claiming that the Proiect will result in adverse impacts to air quality. traffic. and health risk: and WHEREAS, on September 6, 2018 a public notice of � �� >,o�r:�b >,o� ro *'�� r:* Ee���aeptem-be�'L?94Sthe September 17. 2018 City Council hearine on the Appeal was published in the Argus Courier and mailed to all property owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of the Property and City Council Resolution No. 2018- 107, and to all members on the interested parties list for the Project; and WHEREAS. on Sentember 6. 2018, the Citv received a memorandum from Illingworth and Rodkin responding to the comments received from Ms. Sullivan and stating that based on the use of conservative assumptions and accepted methodologies. the Proiect will result in less than significant impacts with respect to community risk for all categories of sensitive receptors: and 2-2 �-7 ATTACHMENT 2 WHEREAS. on September ll. 2018. correspondence was received from the Applicant responding to Mr. Sachen'sSeptember 4. 2018 comment letter, noting that the MND properly found that the Project would result in less than significant impacts to air quality, trafficand health risk based on numerous reports and studies prepared by expert consultants and accented by the City's professional tanning staff: and onsultants regardingapproved ' • 1 • to air quality,•• missions,••noise,•• traffic, whieh 4; • WHEREAS, on September 14, 2018. memoranda were received from Illingworth and Rodkin and CHS Consulting Group responding in full to the comments from Meridian Consultants and providing further substantial evidence to support the MND's conclusions that the Project would result In less than significant impacts to air quality greenhouse gas emissions hazardous materials noise and traffic, and • -•. • STM 10• •Ed WAV V fil • • ,•. •� . • 4101 111 0 1 .. . .. . "TMMMTWMT III IS A, IS IS all go a a OF wrilwaill UUJ.. a a •• W Jill P11 illoillipillilill III will III ow III V IF • WHEREAS, +t, c i . eo..+o.,,be.. 14, 2n1 Q ., ,.,-os,,,,,,don,.o .,is,.., o..+oa +t,,.+ s„bsA ,,..+;.,i eeause of bexpeft aftalysesb' health risks,greembouse gasFrIpaelts> > > 2-3 R+ f ATTACHMENT 2 �IE�lE AS, tie -Mr. Soluri's September 14, 2018 correspondence also included ate eet +rafanal ,.:s romments prepared by Larry Wymer and Associ f,. ates Traffic Engineering on the Project traffic studies previously reviewed and approved by City's Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 2018, the City received comments from Fox and Kapahi on the Project NOiD health nsk assessment ("HRA") previously reviewed and approved by the Cit 's professional planning staff and Planning Commission pared by Fox and Kapahi on ehalf of 7 b nifielant health and MINE III, q •did dill NIORMON2PPIR 1 W11 W1 III, I oil Oil I will will W 11 1 1 11 11 A�DOWAWMMK�g�WAK 1 IN 1114, .PII Pill . . memorandum responding to the X�VFIA CHS Consulting Group submitted to the City a technical raffic analysisillicomments of • • and • • • I t") commenting on prepared • • and neting 111111 1 • lmanowswrmro Will 2-4 nFejeet re 0 oa ..t,,.Aly be f fe an 1 a.o a^.. the staff recommended that the City Council continu ATTACERVIEN 1 2 Seember 17, 2018 City Council hearing, City th pte on the Appeal to October 15, 20183to provide more time for i3efffift ette staff to brreview and provide the Council with analysis of the comments and information submitted following the Planning Commission's June 26. 2018_ approvals, n :^^* r�,^*�^^ ro^a��r��, and to provide additional time for Gerrit interested parties and members of the public to also review the recent comments and submittals infer-fliatian reeeived prior to the Council hearing on the Appeal hearing; and ' _ 11 earin• • 1 •the City Couneil eentinued the item te a da4e eef4aifl of. •without 1 ' • ' • 1 • • • ' • - • • 1 •the City Council• 1 the item to a date ertain of October 1 1 WHEREAS, on October 10, 2018 the City received correspondence from r a�-- o Mr. Seltir-i's September- 14, 2018 corr-espendenee, teAbe September 17, 2018 from pfepafed4oxand Kapahi aii behalf of Appellant,and to the September1 etter from i • 1 WHEREAS, the October 10, 2018 Illingworth and Rodkin response provided a supplemental HRA using the American Meteorological Society (AMS)/EPA Regulatory Model ("AERMOD"1 model as requested by BAAOMD. which like the original HRA prepared using the Industrial Source Complex Short -Term 3 ("ISCST3") model. a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") -approved and BAAOMD-recommended model- concludes that the Project will result in a less than significant health risk impact to all categories of potential sensitive receptors; and WHEREAS. the October 10. 2018 Illingworth and Rodkin response further explainedin detajl the errors inaccuracies and misstatements of fact in the Fox/Kapahi letter, including, but not limited to, its improper reliance on Santa Rosa wind data, its overestimation of Project diesel emissions by a factor of ten, and its overstatement of benzene emissions; and WHEREAS, Citvistaff prepared a staff report for Agenda Item �S.B for the October 15, 2018 City Council meeting, which st-�€€ summarized the Project -related information received since the September 17, 2018 City Council meeting and noted that a written response was anticipated from BAAQMD to the Fox/ -ted Kapahi September 17, 2018 letter and the October 10. 2018 Illingworth and Rodkin supplemental HRA, and recommended that the Council hearing on the Appeal be continued to December 3, 2018, to i more tune for review and consideration of the newly -submitt ed and anticipated Project information from BAAOMD by City staff, decision -makers, interested parties and members of 2-5 ATTAC�IMEN 12 the public; and WHEREAS, at the October 15, 2018 City Council meeting publie heating on the -P- E get to a date eet4ain of Deeember 3, 2018 -without opening the public hearing and without deliberation the City Council continued the public hearing on the Project to a date certain of December 3. 2018 to allow additional time to review new materials, including new technical studies, and consult with responsible agencies for the Project; and WHEREAS, on November 13, 2018, the City received from Mr. Breen on behalf of BAAQMD correspondence dated November 8, 2018 responding to the September 17, 2018 Fox Kapahi HRA and the up4ate44llingworth and Rodkin HRA dated October 10, 2018; and WHEREAS, the November 8, 2018 BAAQMD- correspondence- noteds-several- key concerns regarding the Fox&aPA Kapahi letter, including its use of Santa Rosa meteorological data -as being inappropriate because of wind patterns inconsistent with the Project area, use of benzene emission factors substantially higher than the BAAQMD standard benzene emission factor, and residential exposure assumptions inconsistent with BAAQMD HRA risk calculation -procedures; and WHEREAS, the November 8, 2018 BAAQMD correspondence stated that BAAQMD had found the October 10, 2018 Illingworth and Rodkin HRA to be acceptable and to have resolved BAAQMD's concerns expressed in the September 17, 2018 BAAQMD letter, and N oncluded tamed that BAAQMD has no further concerns about or comments on the October 10, 2018 Illingworth and Rodkin HRA, b and •WSW Y a@ 98L • • . r 2-6 ATTAU MNI2 welfaEle�,urcyina th oLincil to deny the Project and providing a evisedsupplemental health risk discussion results from Fox and Kapahi also dated November 30 118.wind d4a with the AERA40D • WHEREAS, on December 2, 2018 the City received written analvsis by Illingwol-th and Rodkin. submitted on behalf of the Applicant, Mr. Franeeis p " ed endeflee to the City erg 11;-inewerth and RE) analyzing and critiauina -'' �'' �' des that Fox and Kapahi's supplemental health risk revisions rests and concluding that the revisions still applied an artificial, misleading, and erroneous hybrid meteorological data set to their previous analysis" thereby "compoundfingl the numerous key concerns that we and BAAOMD have identified." that WMEMOMMAL MON •. \ • \111111111111 •111110 NOW I" M OIL V La 90M�L��RONUAW&WAM�ilill 1111 111 P _•• IN W MEMEMI 1111 11 11 11 11 11 11 111 .1111LOWKWAVA&I hTj M\am • • \ • 6NAW • _ _ • • \ • • • i \ • • •Joao Mm a IN • en behalf ef the WHEREAS, on December 3, 2018, ,Illingwort h and Rodkin submitted a response to the December 3, 2018 submittal from Fox and Kapahi asserting: that the Illingworth and Rodkin HRA modeling using AERMOD and EPA -approved procedures is appropriate and it is improper to draw correlations between the resolution of the meteorological data and the prediction accuracy ofthe dispersion model; comparing 5 -mph travel emission factors used to compute idling emissions to travel emission factors for diesel emission analysis is not appropriate; that BAAQMD recommends using 30 -year exposure duration for analyzing cancer 2-7 ATTAUMVMIN 12 exposure risk; that the Fox and Kapam benzene emission analyses are overstated due to California fueling station vapor recovery standards; and that BAAQMD uses benzene to compute health risks from gasoline evaporation; and WHEREAS, the CEOA Guidelines provide, at Section 150645 subdivision kah paragraph klI f the CEQA Guidelines providesthat if there is substantial -evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have significant effect on the environment, the agency shall prepare a draft EIR; -and WHEREAS, Section 24.070.D of the City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance and Section 9.9.0 of its Environmental Review Guidelines provide that an anneal of the Planning Commission's adoption of the MND was required to be filed within _fourteen (14) days of the Planning Commission's action: and WHEREAS, the July the with 9. 2018 Public discretionary Resources Code Appeal 21167, did for a not include a an appeal from the Planning to the MND had to be filed within thirty Commission's adoption of the MND nor did it request that an EIR be prepared: and Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena (2019) 2018 Cal.AM.LEXIS 1233. Friefrds (Davis v. City WHEREAS. the time to administratively appeal the MND has expired with no appeal having been filed such that the Planning Commission's adoption of it is now final (Implementing Zoning Ordinance § 24.070.D): and WHEREAS. in accordance the with of Public discretionary Resources Code Section 21167, for a a legal challenge to the MND had to be filed within thirty (30) days from the filing and posting of the NOD: and Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena (2019) 2018 Cal.AM.LEXIS 1233. Friefrds (Davis v. City WHEREAS. no legal challenge to the MND was filed within thirty (301 days of the filing and posting of the NOD such that the MND is now conclusively presumed to comply with CEOA (Public Resources Code §§ 21167. 21167.2; Citizens fora Mega lex-Free Alameda __ v. City o_f_A_la_m_ eda (2.0.0_7.) 149 Cal.App.4th 911; and WHEREAS, the CEOA statute, guidelines, and case law also make clear that the scope of review under CEOA WHEREAS. the Proiect is a principally permitt is no greater than the scope of the discretionary land_use apn_rovals needed for a particular Proiect (Public Resources Code & 21004: CEOA Guidelines & 15040: McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena (2019) 2018 Cal.AM.LEXIS 1233. Friefrds (Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004; San Diego Navy Broadulav Complex Coalition v. City of Safi Diego(2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 924. Friends of Westivood. Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1987) 191 CA1.App.3d 259: and Leach v. City of San Diego (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 389.395.). and ed use in the controlling Commercial zoning district such that the only discretionary land use approval needed ftom the Citv for the Proiect is SPAR approval: and WHEREAS. Section 24.010 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance expressly restricts the City Council's discretion during SPAR review to achieving 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: and WHEREAS. the City's discretion, and thus scone of its CEOA review. is limited to design and related site planning issues: and 2-8 O'�3 ATTACHMENT 2 WHEREAS, the City has no authority or ability through the SPAR approval to meaningfully address non -design related issues or impacts by imposing conditions of approval or mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, at a noticed public hearing on December 3, 2018, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, the City Council considered the Appeal and �e-�€a� eneefHingg ,,, a paf* of thisased on the information and facts before it then and its then - understanding of the law with respect to the scope of CEOA review. adopted Resolution ?018- 180 purporting to uphold the Appeal filed by Appellants and ordering the preparation of an EIR 2-9 Im 00 IN IF siom� WHEREAS, at a noticed public hearing on December 3, 2018, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, the City Council considered the Appeal and �e-�€a� eneefHingg ,,, a paf* of thisased on the information and facts before it then and its then - understanding of the law with respect to the scope of CEOA review. adopted Resolution ?018- 180 purporting to uphold the Appeal filed by Appellants and ordering the preparation of an EIR 2-9 Im 00 WHEREAS, at a noticed public hearing on December 3, 2018, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, the City Council considered the Appeal and �e-�€a� eneefHingg ,,, a paf* of thisased on the information and facts before it then and its then - understanding of the law with respect to the scope of CEOA review. adopted Resolution ?018- 180 purporting to uphold the Appeal filed by Appellants and ordering the preparation of an EIR 2-9 ATTACMVMNT 2 and staving the SPAR approval pending certification of the E1R by the City Council: and WHEREAS on December 10. 2018 supplemental correspondence was received from Moira Sullivan questioning the analysis of the health risks of the Proiect: and WHEREAS, on January 2, 2019, Matthew Francois representing the Applicant submitted to the City correspondence alleging that at the December 3 appeal hearing, the City had violated the Brown Act by: taking action on an item that was not on the published agenda in violation of Government Code Section 54954.2, because none of the agendas that had been prepared concerning the Appeal indicated that the City Council might take any action underCEOA. including Wkea action to require an EIR,, or stay the Planning Commission's SPAR approval; by failing to make available to the public in accordance with Government Code Section 54957.5Q eseltitien b , nzQ -email ironrpryJoc*rscppvrtoisand the n ....b .. 2 ...o ff..t....b•eAh and nea.. :; an by failing to disclose the existing facts and circumstances giving rise to significant exposure to litigation in accordance with Government Code Sections 54954(c) and 54956.9 regarding the anticipated litigation items listed on the September 10, 2018 and December 3, 2018 agendas; and WHEREAS. on January 11. 2019, a public notice of the January 28, 2019 City Council hearing on the Appeal was posted on the Proiect site in accordance with Citv Council Resolution No. 2018-107: and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2019 the City published notice in the Petaluma Argus Courier of MW 4WIMP WHEREAS on December 10. 2018 supplemental correspondence was received from Moira Sullivan questioning the analysis of the health risks of the Proiect: and WHEREAS, on January 2, 2019, Matthew Francois representing the Applicant submitted to the City correspondence alleging that at the December 3 appeal hearing, the City had violated the Brown Act by: taking action on an item that was not on the published agenda in violation of Government Code Section 54954.2, because none of the agendas that had been prepared concerning the Appeal indicated that the City Council might take any action underCEOA. including Wkea action to require an EIR,, or stay the Planning Commission's SPAR approval; by failing to make available to the public in accordance with Government Code Section 54957.5Q eseltitien b , nzQ -email ironrpryJoc*rscppvrtoisand the n ....b .. 2 ...o ff..t....b•eAh and nea.. :; an by failing to disclose the existing facts and circumstances giving rise to significant exposure to litigation in accordance with Government Code Sections 54954(c) and 54956.9 regarding the anticipated litigation items listed on the September 10, 2018 and December 3, 2018 agendas; and WHEREAS. on January 11. 2019, a public notice of the January 28, 2019 City Council hearing on the Appeal was posted on the Proiect site in accordance with Citv Council Resolution No. 2018-107: and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2019 the City published notice in the Petaluma Argus Courier of ATTACHNIEN 1 2 the January 22. 2019 28, 2019 public letter disputing hearing to cure or correct alleged violations of the Brown Act at the had not violated the December 3. 2018 hearing on the Appeal and mailed notice of the January 28 hearing to all property Brown Act at the December 3, 2018 hearing on the Appeal, and owners and occupants within 1.000 feet of the Property, in accordance with the requirements of the City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance and City Council Resolution No. 2018-107, and to all members on the interested parties list for the Proiect: and WHEREAS. the Citv staff issued a staff report on January 22, 2019 for the January 29.2019 City Council hearing: and WHEREAS, by letter dated January 22, 2019, the City Attorney responded to Mr. Francois's letter indicating that the City Council would take action to cure and correct the alleged Brown Act violations at a noticed public hearing on January 28, 2019, even though the City contended that it had not violated the Brown Act at the December 3,201 8 hearing on the Appeal}; and WHEREAS. the Applicant submitted a letter on January 24, 2019 outlining multiple factual and legal bases in support of denying the Appeal: and WHEREAS. by letter dated Januaiv 28. 2019. Mr. Francois responded to the City Attorney's January 22. 2019 letter disputing the City's contention that it had not violated the Brown Act at the December 3, 2018 hearing on the Appeal, and WHEREAS. in a memorandum dated January 28. 2019. Illingworth and Rodkin responded to Ms. Sullivan's December 10. 2018 lett er: and ATTACHIVIENT 2 WHEREAS, at the noticed public hearing on January 28, 2018, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, the City Council considered the Appeal and the information submitted by City staff, the Applicant, the Appellants, interested parties and members of the public concerning the Project and the Appeal at both the December 3, 2018 and January 28, 2019 public hearings on the Appeal ("Reear-a on A ^rre l "', all of which information comprising the Record on Appeal is hereby incorporated into and made a part of this resolution; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Petaluma as follows: 1. The above recitals are hereby declared to be true and correct and are incorporated into this resolution -as findings �of the City Council. 2. Resolution Ngo. 2018-180 adopted by the City Council on December 3, 2018, is hereby rescinded in its entirety and is longer in effect. On January 28, 2019 the City Council fully considered all evidence presented before it , regarding the Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of ^ "' eelar-Mieff p ant to Reset •tier No 2018 21A and Site Plan and A .^h:teti,r^1 v evict,, p nt to Resolution No 2018 21-B f r the Safeway Fuel et^tief Project ^ad eenipr-ising the Reea.,1 on App ,l; including evidence that was untimely. inadmissible or irrelevant given the Appellants' failure to timely appeal and/or legally challenge the Planning Commission's adoption of the MND as well as the limited scope of review that applies to CEOA review of SPAR matters, and on the basis of the staff report, testimony and other evidence, and the record of proceedings herein, including the views held by members of the public and all interested parties"' all armeas aff ete . expressed in the wh„le Reeefd a Appeal, the City Council hereby denies the appeal- A of T) ^ nn Me -E ^hi*Appellants filed with the City Clerk on July 9, 2018 on behalf of Friends of McDowell Elementary School, Little League Children and East Petaluma Residents as to the Mitigated Nega4ive Dl , ,«: , . ( .,,„.,:S..:,,„ „„ Tune 76 201 7 b y Rese„ten N Int 8 71 A , tho b , liand as t C:t„ Plan and A ,.,.h:t^,.t..,..,1 Review ., ^1 of -the Petalufna Dl^ f',...,.... is �g . Rine e 26, 2018 by Resolution NE). 2018 21B, in accordance with the following findings for denial of the appeal, as support ed by the record of proceedings: CEQA A. No appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the MND was timely ffff�lflk �-am M OW �I 2110 allr EE WHEREAS, at the noticed public hearing on January 28, 2018, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, the City Council considered the Appeal and the information submitted by City staff, the Applicant, the Appellants, interested parties and members of the public concerning the Project and the Appeal at both the December 3, 2018 and January 28, 2019 public hearings on the Appeal ("Reear-a on A ^rre l "', all of which information comprising the Record on Appeal is hereby incorporated into and made a part of this resolution; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Petaluma as follows: 1. The above recitals are hereby declared to be true and correct and are incorporated into this resolution -as findings �of the City Council. 2. Resolution Ngo. 2018-180 adopted by the City Council on December 3, 2018, is hereby rescinded in its entirety and is longer in effect. On January 28, 2019 the City Council fully considered all evidence presented before it , regarding the Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of ^ "' eelar-Mieff p ant to Reset •tier No 2018 21A and Site Plan and A .^h:teti,r^1 v evict,, p nt to Resolution No 2018 21-B f r the Safeway Fuel et^tief Project ^ad eenipr-ising the Reea.,1 on App ,l; including evidence that was untimely. inadmissible or irrelevant given the Appellants' failure to timely appeal and/or legally challenge the Planning Commission's adoption of the MND as well as the limited scope of review that applies to CEOA review of SPAR matters, and on the basis of the staff report, testimony and other evidence, and the record of proceedings herein, including the views held by members of the public and all interested parties"' all armeas aff ete . expressed in the wh„le Reeefd a Appeal, the City Council hereby denies the appeal- A of T) ^ nn Me -E ^hi*Appellants filed with the City Clerk on July 9, 2018 on behalf of Friends of McDowell Elementary School, Little League Children and East Petaluma Residents as to the Mitigated Nega4ive Dl , ,«: , . ( .,,„.,:S..:,,„ „„ Tune 76 201 7 b y Rese„ten N Int 8 71 A , tho b , liand as t C:t„ Plan and A ,.,.h:t^,.t..,..,1 Review ., ^1 of -the Petalufna Dl^ f',...,.... is �g . Rine e 26, 2018 by Resolution NE). 2018 21B, in accordance with the following findings for denial of the appeal, as support ed by the record of proceedings: CEQA A. No appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the MND was timely ATTACHM ENT 2 filed to the City Council within fourteen (14) days of the Planning Commission's determination to approve the MND as required by the City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance and Environmental Review Guidelines. Since i►o an_neal of the MND was filed within these time limits. the Planning Commission's approval of the MND is final and the City Council has no jurisdiction to consider any purnorted anneal of it now. Further, no lawsuit was filed within thirty (30) days of the filing and posting of the NOD to challenge the MND as required by Public Resources Code Section 21167. As no one filed a legal challenge to the validity of the Planning Commission's approval of the MND within that timeframe, it is now conclusively presumed adequate for purposes of CEQA. _(Pub. Res. Code & 21167.2). B. The City Council further affirmatively finds that: (1) the MND remains relevant. (2) there are no substantial changes in the Project or the circumstances in which the Project will be undertaken that require major revisions of the MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects: and (3) no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the MND was adopted, shows any of the following: (a) the Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the MND. (b) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the MND: (c) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives, or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. C. Based on its review of the entire record of proceedings herein, including the MND_ Mitigated Negative ^,.i.,fation, the Initial Stud ,, -Response to Comments, all supporting, referenced and incorporated documents and all comments received, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may wil4-have a significant effect on the environment due to aesthetics (the only topic over which the City Council may lawfully impose mitigation assuming a timely appeal of the MND had been filed to it) or any other environmental tonic over which it is has no regulatory jurisdiction to impose mitigation (including_ but not limited to, pedestrian safety and health risk), that the MitigeAed MND reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis, and that the Mitigated Nega4iye Deet is ^^MND ,initial Swdy and supporting documents provide an adequate description of the impacts ofthe Project and comply with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines andthe City of Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines, as outlined in the record. The comments received into the Project record regarding potentially significant impacts resulting from the Project either address 2-13 ATTACHMENT 2 potential impacts already satisfactorily analyzed in accordance with CEQA requirements as described in the staff report accompanying this resolution and the Project record, and/orthe comments received constitute argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, Generalized concerns or fears, or evidence that is clearly erroneous or inaccurate, and thus does not constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument. that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts. General Plan D. The proposed construction of the Safeway Fuel Station project at 335 South McDowell Boulevard is, for the reasons discussed in the May 8, 2018 Planning Commission staff report, consistent with the following Petaluma General Plan policies: Policy 1-P-2 (Promote infill development), Policy 1- P-6 (mixed-use development) 1-P-11 (Land use intensification at strategic locations), Policy 1-P- 14 (street trees), Policy 2-P-5 (Strengthen the visual and aesthetic character of major arterials), Policy 4-P-10 (Electric Charging stations), Policy 5-P42 (expand bus transit), Policy 6-P-29 (Integrate Ali), Policy 10-P-3 (Protect Public Health and Welfare), and Policy 10-P4 (Transport of Hazardous Materials). E. The Project is consistent withthe "Community Commercial" General Plan land use designation because the project contributes to the variety of commercial services provided to the larger the region from this area of Community Commercial properly. Implementing Zig Ordinance F. The Project is consistent with all development standards ofthe C2 Zoning District including, but not limited to, those pertaining to building height, setbacks and off- street parking requirements. G. All the required findings for Site Plan and Architectural Review approval found at Implementing Zoning Ordinance Sectiones 24.010_EG�} can be made, as follows: i. ThePr ect includes the use of quality materials and is in harmony with and in proportion with the overall design through its use of single -story architecture with building articulation that employs varying depths and balances solid and transparent fa9ade materials in the form of stucco and concrete masonry unit walls stucco, and glass windows with metal aluminum trim; the use of metal, stone, and concrete finishes; added accent to the main entrance; metallic awnings; and consistent detailing for the proposed canopy. Articulation is applied on all building elevations appropriately. ii. The Project's building form, materials and architectural —style is appropriate for the Project and compatible with the overall character 2-94 ATTACHiNMNT 2 of the area. The proposed facades include varying depths and materials divided into low, mid, and upper level strata to provide visual variety. Architectural -detailing is carried through to all structures. The area features similar, rectilinear, simplistic commercial structures oriented to passing vehicle traffic on South McDowell Boulevard and Maria Drive and pedestrian -on-site. iii. The proposed site design frames the interior of the lot and more clearly defines the boundaries of the site than current development, particularly along the southern propeliy line adjacent to Maria Drive. Positioning the structure approximately five -feet (5 ft.) from the property line at this location establishes a pedestrian friendly building edge along the street. Further, the building is designed with an entry to the kiosk from Maria Drive that orients the building for customers walking on the sidewalk. The location of the canopy and the kiosk are located at approximately the same depth as the adjacent building along South McDowell Boulevard. This positioning enhances the streetscape because it maintains consistent siting of structures on the east side of the South McDowell Boulevard. iv. The project identifies new building signage consisting of two new signs on the convenience store and on the canopy. The project also includes a price sign elevation. However, this signage is representative only and is not proposed as part ofthe application. An application will be submitted in the future for signage on the north and south elevations ofthe convenience store, on the east and west edge of the fueling canopy, and for a monument signage on the site. Proposed signs generally fit within the area of the canopy and the kiosk. Additionally, signage is generally consistent with location, number and size requirements of the sign code and sign program, although staff will ensure that any future application for project specific signage' will be consistent with the sign code and sign program. v. The project identifies new building signage consisting of two new signs on the convenience store and on the canopy. The project also includes a price sign elevation. However, this signage is representative only and is not proposed as part ofthe application. An application will be submitted in the future for signage on the north and south elevations ofthe convenience store, on the east and west edge of the fueling canopy, and for a monument signage on the site. vi. The project is harmonious with adjacent structures interms ofbulk, height, and color. The architecture is, like adjacent buildings, simple in form and design. Immediately north of the site is a bank and commercial retail store that is approximately one -and -a -half - 2 -15 ATTACHMENT 2 to two stories in height. This building is comprised ofrectilinear features with strong square cut elements. Similar bulky square cut features that are simple in design and foi7n are used in the canopy overthefuel pumps and portions ofthe fa9ade ofthe kiosk. To the west of the site, across South McDowell Boulevard are single story single family homes. The convenience store bulk, at 697 square feet, is similar in size to the single family homes, and the earth tone color scheme of the homes compliments the beige and taupe color scheme of the project. Similar to other structures, the single story nature, architectural expression and color scheme of the project compliment the structure to the south because the structure to the south is a single story building, with a rectilinear form, and earth tone color scheme. East of the project is the Safeway grocery store. The color scheme of the project matches the color scheme of the Safeway grocery store, with each being comprised of beige and taupe tones. Similarly, the vertical bands that extend up the face of the fuel canopy and the convenience store are also found on the grocery store. Additionally, the proposed trash enclosure employs the same materials (concrete masonry unit walls and standing seam metal roof, and metal doors) color scheme, and resembles a similar square bulk as the proposed convenience store and canopy and is therefore consistent with other existing structures in the immediate neighborhood of the project site. For these reasons the project is harmonious with the bulk, height, and color schemes of other structures in the immediate neighborhood. vii. Proposed landscaping serves three functions: to screen structures on the lot and soften views fromMariaDriveand South McDowell Boulevard, and to provide stormwater retention on-site. Denser landscaping is proposed along the west and south property boundaries to increase screening, particularly with respect to the queueing lane for the proposed trash enclosure. The project also includes landscaping along Maria Drive, along the back of the proposed improved bus turnout. This landscaping will provide a buffer between the bus turnout and the parking lot for the shopping center. Further, the project preserves key street trees atthe corner of South McDowell Boulevard and Maria -Drive, and the trees along Maria Drive as well. The project would remove two street trees to accommodate the improved transit facility but proposes two new 24 -inch box red maples behind the bus stop. viii. Circulation patterns will not be substantially altered by the project. A new accessible pedestrian path is proposed .to connect the convenience store to the existing sidewalk on Maria Drive, with bicycle parking positioned at a logical location - at the terminus of the pathway at the building. Vehicle access follows the predominant current pattern. New access is provided to the site from the east. 2-16 �-2l ATTAC�IMENT 2 This area will allow for queuing of vehicles so as to not impede the drive aisle on the adjacent property. The project also provides anew egress to the north to facilitate internal circulation in the shopping center. 3. This resolution shall take immediate effect upon its adoption. 4. Should any portion of this resolution be held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this resolution shall be unaffected and remain in full force and effect. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this resolution notwithstanding some portions being held invalid, and that such invalid portions ofthis resolution are severable. 2-7 7 ZZ �-z3 �/Nf GWORTH � Rt?1)KIN, /NC. ll//l Acoustics •Air Quality //lll 429 E. Cotati Ave Cotati, California 94931 Tel.• 707-794-0400 Fax: 707-794-0405 www. illingworthrodkin. com illro@illingworthrodkin. com Date: January 28, 2019 To: Natalie Mattei Senior Real Estate Manager Albertsons Companies 11555 Dublin Canyon Road Pleasanton, CA 94588 From: James A. Reyff Illingworth &Rodkin, Inc. 429 E. Cotati Ave Cotati, CA 94931 RE: Safeway Fuel Center CEQA document -Petaluma, CA SiJB.TI;CT: Safeway Fuel Center Health Rislc Assessment -Response to 12/10/2018 Submittal from Moira Sullivan, M.S. .,; �} This memo is lllingworth &Rodkin, Inc.'s (I&R) response to a letter from Moira Sullivan, M.S., dated December 10, 2018. Ms. Sullivan is an associate toxicologist that works with the California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA), however her communication is made as a resident of Petaluma and not in her professional capacity. Our responses pertain to the air quality health risk assessment. 1. In terms of experience, I&R has been conducting air quality studies since 1995, which is longer than Ms. Sullivan's 20+ -year career. This is James Reyff's 31st year working in this field and William Popenuck has almost 40 years' experience. I&R conducts approximately 50 to 100 air quality assessments each year. In Petaluma, I&R has conducted the air quality assessments for the Brody Ranch residential project, the Riverfront development, Marina aparhnents, Deer Park, and several others. The City's Planning Staff is quite familiar with I&R's experience conducting air quality studies and health risk assessments. Major projects recently in the Bay Area include the redevelopment of the Vallco Shopping Center Redevelopment in Cupertino, San Francisco Giants Mission Rock Redevelopment in San Francisco, and Forest City's Pier 70 Development in San Francisco. I&R's clients include private entities, Cities, Counties (including Sonoma County), and Caltrans. It appears Ms. Sullivan is unfamiliar with I&R's extensive experience in conducting air quality assessments. I&R is considered an expert in this field. �'2� Memo to Natalie Mattei January 28, 2019 —Page 2 2. As a preliminary matter, Ms. Sullivan's claims that the proposed station does not meet any regulatory agency setback recommendations in inaccurate because there are no regulatory agency setback regulations. Further, her assertion that the gas station avoids federal and state regulatory agency recommendations is flatly incorrect. The HRA was prepared in accordance with all regulatory guidance and recommendations and has been accepted as adequate by BAAQMD, the regulatory agency with primary jurisdiction over the matter. Moreover, the gas station will operate in accordance with all local, state, and federal laws and standards. 3. As an associate toxicologist with OEHHA and 20+ years of experience, we believe Ms. Sullivan should be aware that OEHHA develops guidance for risk assessments that air districts use to develop their risk policy. After reviewing these data, BAAQMD uses a threshold of 10 chances per million based on 9 -year exposures for school children and 30 years for residential exposures. This is also their recommendation for evaluating community risk assessments, per their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The District's New Source Review Rules makes the exception for the use of a 70 -year risk assessment for gasoline dispensing facilities only, but that with the use of less protective exposure parameters that include lower breathing rates and results in a lower overall predicted cancer risk for lifetime exposures of 70 years, as compared with 30 -year exposures that use the newer, more restrictive, exposure parameters. 4. I&R's response to the use of meteorological data and the ISCST3 model vs. the AERMOD model is documented in our responses dated October 10, 2018 and December 3, 2018. In summary, I&R followed BAAQMD's guidance and used meteorological data measured at Petaluma Airport and provided by BAAQMD along with the ISCST3 model. This was the method recommended by BAAQMD for use in Petaluma and used by BAAQMD in 2018 for permitting of other facilities in Petaluma, including the Valero Gas Station at 910 Baywood Drive in Petaluma.. The City's planning staff also accepted this type of analysis on several other projects. Subsequent to the project analysis, U.S. EPA approved methods that use numerical weather models to develop meteorological datasets that use forensic analysis to develop meteorological data sets for use with the AERMOD dispersion model. Both results were provided. Citing the Fox/Kapahi HRA, Ms. Sullivan claims that "using the correct air model/air model inputs," results in "harrowing" and "egregiously high cancer risk results." As shown by I&R's October 10, 2018 Fox/Kapahi did not use the correct air model/air model inputs. Instead they improperly rely on Santa Rosa wind data and use artificially inflated and overblown assumptions regarding Project diesel and benzene emissions. In a November 8, 2018 letter, BAAQMD concurred citing "several key concerns" with the Fox/Kapahi study. Her assertions that the Fox/Kapahi results are somehow valid and show "harrowing" and "egregiously high cancer risks" are incorrect as well as unscientific and hyperbolic. 5. Further, by substituting wind data designed to be used with the ISCST3 model into the completely distinct AERMOD model, such as that done by Fox and Kapahi in their November 30, 2018 supplemental health risk report, yields modeling conditions that do not occur in nature and could not even be imagined for science fiction. Atmospheric stability, which is related to vertical dispersion, is a key meteorological variable in dispersion of contaminants. By combining wind data for one station with another for 'Z� Memo to Natalie Maffei January 28, 2019 —Page 3 completely different time periods, one creates artificial, inaccurate, and unreliable meteorological data, such as high winds under very stable conditions, or vice versa. 6. There are other faulty assumptions that Fox & Kapahi used in their assessment that result in much higher impacts. For example, they overestimated diesel exhaust emissions considerably, used erroneous residential risk exposure parameters (pointed out by BAAQIVID) and used erroneous benzene emission factors that they developed (also pointed out as erroneous by BAAQIVID). 7. Ms. Sullivan references studies conducted outside of California and the U.S. that do not reflect the design of fueling stations in California that meet new stringent standards to control all aspects of emissions from gasoline fueling stations, including the control of vent pipe emissions. The guidelines that Ms. Sullivan points out with respect to California and U.S. EPA are with respect to siting new sensitive receptors near EXISTING fueling stations and not new fueling stations that meet the latest Statewide standards. 8. As noted in our September 4, 2018 response to Ms. Sullivan, California likely has the most extensive control requirements for gasoline emissions in the world. These requirements are developed and enforced by the California Air Resources Board (GARB) and BAAQMD permitting requirements. The evaporative emissions from volatile organic compounds from gasoline, which include benzene, have been greatly reduced over the past two decades. GARB has adopted a number of significant advancements as part of the Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) program to reduce these emissions. Phase I EVR, which addresses transfer of bulk fuel from delivery trucks to the underground storage tanks, requires more durable and leak -tight components, along with an increased collection efficiency of vapors to be 98 percent. Phase II EVR, which addresses fueling of vehicles that purchase gasoline and the transfer of vapors back into the underground storage tanks, includes three major advancements: (1) dispensing nozzles with less spillage and required compatibility with onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) vehicles, (2) a processor to control the static pressure of the ullage, or vapor space, in the underground storage tank, and (3) an in -station diagnostic system that provides warning alarms to alert the facility operators of potential vapor recovery system malfunctions. Phase I EVR was fully implemented in 2005. Phase II EVR was fully implemented between 2009 and 2011. Attachment 1 includes a summary of the mandatory emission controls implemented at gas stations in California. 9. Note that new fueling stations, including this project, include Vacuum, Pressure, and Hydrostatic (VPH) monitoring that were not required for existing gas stations. VHP is a continuous monitoring of the secondary containment of the tanks, piping and sumps using either vacuum, pressure or hydrostatic methods. Tanks installed before July 1, 2004 are exempt from VPH monitoring. Safeway would have continuous VPH monitoring, whereas it is believed not all Petaluma gas stations have upgraded since 2004. As a result of new stringent regulations and. fueling station design, emissions of hydrocarbons, which contain toxic air contaminants, have been reduced by about 99 percent, compared to dispensing facilities with Standard Vapor Recovery and non-ORVR vehicles. Memo to Natalie Maffei January 28, 2019 —Page 4 U. As also noted in our September 4, 2018 response to Ms. Sullivan, as a result of the improvements described above in addition to the reformulation of gasoline that occurred in the late 1990s, emissions of benzene and other TACs from gasoline have decreased substantially in the last 10 to 20 years. A report recently released by OEHHA in 20181 describes the trend in exposure and health risk to TACs from gasoline (the press release for this study is included as Attachment 2). In this report, emissions of benzene statewide are described as being reduced by 70 percent since 1996 as reflected in ambient statewide benzene concentrations that decreased at or greater than that rate. The report describes the primary source of benzene emissions as from on -road mobile sources, where gasoline production and distribution make up a small fraction of the overall emissions. Benzene concentrations in the air are primarily the result of emissions from traffic. While the report addresses California as a whole, monitoring data in the Bay Area support these conclusions.' � OEI=IIIA. 2018. Gasoline -Related Air Pollutants in California -Trends in Exposure and Health Risk, 1996 to 2014. January z Measured benzene levels in an Francisco are reported at this CARB website. Within the Bay Area, benzene is only monitored in San Francisco. Note that levels in Petaluma are expected to be lower due to the less intensive urban environment. https://www.arb.ca.Qov/adam/toxics/sitepages/benzsfo.html. Accessed August 28, 2018. Stantec Attachment 1 Vapor Recovery Summary Phase I and Phase II vapor recovery were implemented in California 1987 in an effort to reduce fugitive VOC emissions from fueling facilities. The majority of the US states implemented the requirement in 1990. Before Vapor recovery was introduced fugitive emissions from a fuel dispensing facility were 8.4 lbs. of hydrocarbons per 1,000 gallons dispensed. Phase I vapor recovery is the reclaim of vapors from a storage tank back into the truck that is delivering fuel. As the tank is filled, a second hose is connected to the tank. As the tanks fill, the vapors are pushed through the hose back into the delivery truck. Phase II vapor recovery occurs at the fuel dispenser. When a vehicle is adding fuel to the tank, the vapors are pushed back through the nozzle and hose, through the dispenser and back into the fuel storage tank(s). Some systems use a vacuum pump to pull the vapors from the vehicles tank and push them back into the fuel storage tank. The recovery of vapors can pressurize the storage tank. When this happens, the pressure is released through the tank vents. This releases fugitive emissions. A fuel dispensing facility with Standard Vapor Recovery and non- ORVRvehicles produces 2.4 lbs. of hydrocarbons per 1,000 gallons dispensed. fl1C,ATWF FMISSIf]NG ® Stantec ORVR is the acronym for Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery. This process is handled inside the vehicle. Newer vehicles are equipped with a canister system that collects fuel vapors as the vehicle is refueling. In 1998, the first vehicles with ORVR were produced. Since 2006, all vehicles produced are required to have ORVR. A fuel dispensing facility with Standard Vapor Recovery and ORVR vehicles produces 0.12 lbs. of hydrocarbons per 1,000 gallons dispensed. LESS Enhanced Vapor Recovery occurs at the vent riser. EVR requires introducing a means to capture the fugitive emissions from the vent riser. There are 3 approved methods available. A Veeder Root carbon canister captures vapors in a carbon filter. The carbon is refreshed as the storage tank returns to normal pressure and clean air is pulled through the carbon canister. The Healy system is a large bladder tank that captures vapors in a bladder tank and returns them to the storage tanks when the pressure returns to normal. The Hirt system is a furnace that burns the vapors as they are released. With all 3 systems, the vapors are now captured instead of being released through the vents. $ -Z`� Stantec The combination of Enhanced Vapor Recovery and ORVR have significantly reduced fugitive emissions to nearly zero percent. A fuel dispensing facility with Enhanced Vapor Recovery and ®RVR vehicles produces 0.021 lbs. of hydrocarbons per 1,000 gallons dispensed. NFARI Y 7FR0 SCIENCE FOR A HEALTHY CALIFORNIA Attaehtnent � Press Release California Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Lauren Zeise, PhD, Director For Immediate Release: Contact: January 24, 2018 Sam Delson (916) 324-0955 (0) (916) 764-0955 (C) State's Cleaner Gasoline is Significantly Reducing Air Pollution, ®EHHA Study Shows Gasoline -related pollutants associated with health concerns steadily declining SACRAMENTO —Anew analysis released today by state environmental health researchers shows that California's cleaner gasoline and vehicle controls have significantly reduced emissions of toxic pollutants and lowered cancer risks. Since 1996, estimated total emissions of volatile air pollutants from gasoline -related sources declined nearly 70% statewide, including significant declines for toxic chemicals such as benzene and toluene. "These reductions in toxic gasoline -related chemicals demonstrate the substantial progress California has made in reducing air pollution," said Dr. Lauren Zeise, Director of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). "When we reduce air pollution, important public health benefits follow." Using emissions data and ambient air-quality measurements from the California Air Resources Board (GARB) and other sources, OEHHA researchers estimated average gasoline -related exposures and associated health risks statewide and for five major air basins. OEHHA's analysis covers the years 1996 to 2014. Significant findings include: • Estimated emissions of total volatile air pollutants from gasoline -related sources declined nearly 70% statewide between 1996 and 2012. Pollutants with the most substantial declines include harmful carcinogens like benzene and reproductive toxicants like toluene. • Emissions of gasoline - related pollutants declined even while gasoline sales remained steady and California's population grew. By 2012, total emissions from on -road gasoline -powered vehicles had decreased so I j is o z,000 i � in i 12 0 a I 10 a i ° 6 0 o € m •„ 3 ~ ti9�� ti9�� y��a ��ga �od3 tioo1 ��ti ryoo3 ryoary ryoo5 tiooe tiro^ tioo� X08, ryo10 tion~ tio~ry �Gasol(ne-related on -road mohlle source emissions ®Gasoline -refaced off-road source emissions (e.g., recreational koats, lawn and garden equipment, off-road vehicles) All gasoline -related source emissions �Californta net taxable gasoline gallons Dara from GiflB fm6s(on/nventor/ond3tate°aatdaj-Equa6zarion. Mobile source emissions estimates notovoi.'abJefor2Q09. i 1 substantially that they were not much higher than the total emissions from off-road sources like lawn and garden equipment, recreational boats, and off-road vehicles. (See chart) • Cancer risks associated with average gasoline -related exposures to the most highly emitted carcinogens declined by more than 80% between 1996 and 2014. Since 1996, CARB has worked to adjust the state's gasoline formula in an effort to reduce gasoline -related pollutants. To maximize those benefits, the Board has also promoted cleaner vehicle technologies. "California's fuel standards are clearly working, but clean gasoline is only part of the solution," said CARB Executive Officer Richard W. Corey. "Californians will see progressively cleaner air—and savings in fuel costs—as the number of electric and hydrogen powered vehicles increase." Researchers recommend a future study focused specifically on exposures in high traffic areas, especially in disadvantaged communities. Recently enacted legislation, AB 617 (C. Garcia, Chapter 136, Statutes of 2017), aims to reduce air pollution exposure in California's most burdened communities. CARB will consult with OEHHA on this new effort. The analysis—Gasoline-Related Air Pollutants in California: Trends in Exposure and Health Risk 1996 to 2014—can be found at http://oehha.ca.gov. OEHHA is the primary state entity for the assessment of risks posed by chemical contaminants in the environment. Its mission is to protect and enhance public health and the environment by scientific evaluation of risks posed by hazardous substances. D 2 E,> v�v� .�1 ' (� o: Natalie Mattei <Natalie.Mattei@albertsons.com>; Francois, Matthew <MFrancois@rutan.com> ubject: EXTERNAL: FW: Petaluma Safeway Gas Station From: Moira Sullivan <msullivan64@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 10:09 AM To: Aneesh Rana Subject: Re: Petaluma Safeway Gas Station Many thanks Aneesh! Cheers, Moira From: Aneesh Rana <arana@baagmd.gov> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 10:09 AM To: Moira Sullivan Subject: RE: Petaluma Safeway Gas Station Hi Moira, Thank you for sharing. I will share this information with the team we have set up to review this case. Bernie has shared with me the date ofthe City Council meeting and we are working to prepare our response. I will share their findings with you all as soon as they have concluded their review. <image002.jpg> Aneesh Rana Public Information Officer Community Health Protection Office day Area Air Quality Managernent Disfrict 375 Beale Street !San Francisco, CA 94105 Office: 415.749.4914 1. Mobile: 510.599-7668 arana�Q baagmd.gov � www.baagmd.gov From: Moira Sullivan <msullivan64@hotmail,com> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 9:48 AM To: Aneesh Rana <arana@baagmd.�ov> Subject: Re: Petaluma Safeway Gas Station Hi Aneesh, I checked with colleagues of mine at the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) who have backgrounds in industry (Cardno/Chemrisk) and developed modeling software for HRAs. • Safeway did not adequately characterize exposure to the the sensitive receptors (i,e., Safeway used sensitive points as opposed to a cartesian grid" which much more accurately weights exposures). A cartesian grid approach should be used. • Safeway's Health Risk Assessment (HRA) did not properly characterize wind (direction, calm, etc). In their HRA, Safeway just said wind was "variable" and/or 2.2. Please ask Safeway to do a wind rose (this software is free) • Also of note, when the cars turn on Maria Drive (a residential street and class III bike lane) to access the primary route of ingress to the fuel station (and Safeway's grocery store), those cars will be right next to the preschools -far less than 60 feet in distance. Safeway has said there will be 216 peak hour am trips and 276 peak hour Pm trips on week -days and 376 peak hour trips on week -ends. These are just the peak hour trips. The station will be open for 17 hrs (6 am- 11 pm) and all these vehicles - accessing the main ingress/egress on Maria Dr - will be RIGHT next to the preschools. These. represents a massive tailpipe emissions exposure for these tiny (babies to age 4) children. The exposure will be right in their breathing zone. The children at these 2 preschools 60 feet away, the children at the playing fields ata 60 foot distance, and the numerous residents at 80 feet, not to mention the elementary school at 150 feet, deserve much better consideration than this. Thank you kindly for asking that the HRA be reevaluated doing a much more in-depth evaluation - and accurately characterizing the real risk to these sensitive receptors. Sincerely, Moira Sullivan, M.S. Warning; All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the corporate e-mail system, and is subject to archival and review by someone other than the recipient. This e-mail may contain proprietary infoi�nation and is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. -3s ze, Samantha An From: Brown, John Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 3:59 PM To: Chris Albertson Subject: FW: Gas Station 01<, maybe you aren't the only one who got pissed off before he sent send. You could probably tell from the tone of the rest of the email, the word "Not" was missing in the second sentence in my original response to you, which should have read: "The need for delay is NOT being caused by the planners, or the city attorney's office, and both Safeway and the opponents have known that October 15" is not a decision making date for at least a week, if not two. Our people are not to blame for the delay, but I am responsible for moving the date to 12/3, because I understand the council wants 11/19 to remain light. Over and out. From: Brown, John Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 3:53 PM To: 'Chris Albertson' Subject: RE: Gas Station Chris, we got the document Safeway has been promising us, last night, after hours. The need for delay is being caused by the planners, or the city attorney's office, and both Safeway and the opponents have known that October 15th is not a decision making date for at least a week, if not two. The only issue that remains is the date continuation goes to, as I described to you in an early email. I also described the reasons for December 3rd and not November 19tH Anyone who wants to be pissed off about this delay, or criticize the process is entitled to their feelings. I'm following what I believe to be Council wishes regarding agenda management, but more to the point, we are doing good staff work here that brings the most finished product we can to the council for decision making. From: Chris Albertson[mailto:councilman.albertson@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 3:21 PM To: Brown, John Subject: Gas Station Hey John -- How's your day going? Well, here is another "gas station related" question Why is this discussion being bumped out another (al most) 2 months?? The topic was on the agenda in September and it was bumped then. -People showed up ready with their signs and red tee-shirts. Now, we plan to bump the topic out AGAIN?? Why?9 Hopefully, this delay is not the making of our legal or planning offices. I F .... we received a large "document dump" from one side or the other at this late hour, not allowing any reasonable amount of time for council to review the documents, then any delay is on them. That being said, when people arrive and hear of another delay, the pro & con parties to this discussion will not be there to accept blame .... the City Council will get hammered for a delay they did not cause. This is no way to run a railroad !! For the record, I could say that I'm pissed about this situation and I will say _ that I am disappointed about this situation. 24 rom: "Danly, Eric" <edanly@ci petaluma.ca.us> ubject: FW: Safeway Gas Station Appeal Date: October 3, 2018 at 5:45:13 PM PDT To:'Janice Cader Thompson'<janicecaderthompson@icloud.com> Cc: "Brown, John" <JBROWN @ci.petaluma.ca.us>, "Cooper, Claire" <ccooper ci.petaluma.ca.us>, "Hines, H" <HHines@m-group.us> Dear Janice, City Manager John Brown has forwarded me your correspondence, attached, for a reply. We are aware of no requirement that the materials and presentations regarding the Safeway Fuel Station SPAR Approval Appeal be translated. It appears that the applicant and appellants, as well as supporters and opponents of both have been able to fully participate in the proceedings without translation. Also, I don't believe any materials have been submitted requiring translation. Thank you. Eric W. Danly City Att orney, City of Petaluma 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 Phone: (707) 778-4362 Facsimile: (707) 206-6040 City Business Hours: M -Th 8am-5pm, closed Fridays The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subjectto the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated. addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT 707-778- 4362. Thank you. -----Original Message ----- From: Cader-Thompson Janice [mailto•ianicecader@email.coml Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 10:29 AM To: Brown, John; Glass Dave; CityCouncik - City Clerk Cc: Cader Thompson Janice; mbaddeley2petkl2.org; schlebowski@petkl2.org; pellis@petl<12.org f1vnch@petkl2.org; Ihirasa@petkl2.org; ewebster petl<12.org; catho_mas@petkl2.org; Ihirasa@petkl2,org; Mattei Natalie; Adriann Saslow, McEachin Joann; yousef.bai_g@arguscourier.com; Sweeney Jim Subject: Re: Safeway Gas Station Appeal Please see the att achment City of Petaluma records, including emails, are subject to the California Public Records Act. Unless exemptions apply, this email, any attachments and any replies are subject to disclosure on request, and neither the sender nor any recipients should have any expectation of privacy regarding the contents of such communications. From: Sent: To: Subject: Bernie and Tonya- Bill Wolpert <wolpert@sonic.net� Friday, August 10, 2018 4:58 PM 'Bernie Album'; 'tonya parnak' RE: Scope of Appeal Sorry, I have looked through all of my reference material and I do not have the previous General Plan. The closest I came was finding some committee submittals for the Historic Districts to be included in the 2008 GP update. Good luck with the appeal. -Bill GRCER ��IL�IHG ARCInIT[CTS William 6, Wolpert, Architect 7 Fourth Street, Studlo 61 Petaluma, CA 94952 707.789.0822 GreenBuildinoArchitects.com Check out our new website! From: Bernie Album <allbernie5@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 10, 20183:02 PM To: tonya parnak <tonyaparnak@yahoo.com> Cc: William Wolpert <wolpert@sonic.net> Subject: Re: Scope of Appeal Yes.for Bill Wolpert. We know each other well. I am very connected with Teresa Barret but not permitted to contact her with anything to do with the 16 -pumps because of my being a party of the appeal to come before City Council 9/17. Bill is looking for information we need from the 2013 Petaluma General�Plan. Bernie On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 12:09 PM, tonya parnak <tonyaparnak@yahoo.com> wrote: .But not in touch with Teresa Barrett, correct? Are you in touch with Bill Wolpert and his architect friend, just out of curiosity?7 Tonya On Fri, 8/10/18, Bernie Album <allbernie5@gmail.com> wrote; Subject: Re: Scope of Appeal To:."tonya parnak" <tonyaparnal<@yahoo.com> Date: Friday, August 10, 2018, 11:46 AM Got it. I am iri touch with everyone you noted. We will continue i � -3q focused on our goal using as much as we can to stop.the 16 pump monster.Thanks, Bernie. On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:33 AM, tonya parnal< <tonVaparnal<@yahoo.com> wrote: Hi Bernie, We all only have so much focus - I find myself making typos and reversals�so easily! (I have to remind myself to proofread and not be in a hurry, but that's so time consuming.) What you're doing, reading through the documents, is the "deepest weeds" I can think of when you're not familiar with the terminology and haven't done it as a career, etc,_. Ranks as one of my least favorite things to doi! Unfortunately, I don't have any contacts with BAAQMD. The CA state guidelines for new schools that I read through and sent potential sections for followup to JoAnn were from my contact with Bill Wolpert, a 350Petaluma member and one of the Planning Commissioners who voted against approval at the Planning Commission meeting. When I asked, he emailed to one of his fellow architects who works on school plans, who then emailed me the link to the CA state guidelines for new schools. Just as info, not worth much, I do know that Teresa Barrett has been on the "stationary" sources of poor air quality, on the BAAQMD, but then she's currently on the City Council and running for mayor, which makes her verboten/forbidden as a contact. It's the staff at the BAAQMD that would do the research anyway, not a member of the board. cheers and onward, Tonya On Fri, 8/10/18, Bernie Album <allbernie5@�mail.com> wrote; z � -'�D Subject; Re: Scope of Appeal To; "tonya parnak" <tonVaparnal<@yahoo.com_> Cc; "Adriann Saslow" <madamesaslow@Rmail.com>, "Frances Frazier" <ffrazier@petkl2,org>, "Glenn Rubenstein" <glenn.rubenstein@�mail.com>, "JoAnn McEachin" <joannmceachin@�mail.com>, "Richard Sachen" <richard@rsachen.net>, "Vicki Mayster" <vmayster2@�mail,com> Date; Friday, August 10,2018, 10:42 AM Tonya,Yil<es, I just noted I reversed EIR (Google for definition) to REI ori my reply to Glenn. So far I may be the only one losing it from reading all the documents, We are managing to review the materials we have and figuring out what we need for our presentation to our city council.Thanks for making suggestions and reading the emails.Our most important need that you may be able to help with, is getting the BAAQMD to review the documents) they provided Safeway in 2013 and provide us with new documents) based on their updated 2017 standards, You already did that with your BAAQMD contacts but it would be good for us to know what, if .anything, they are in the process of doing. I only had one K� �� reply.from Arneesh two weeks ago that their engineers we re researching the 2013 documents. Can you find our what is happening?Bernie On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 6:42 PM, tonya parnak <tonyaparnal<@yahoo.com> wrote: Hi Bernie, I have a lot of sympathy with how mind-boggling itis to read through all the material! It was hard for me to get through the Ca state new school.guidelines! I don't know if you saw my suggestion to divide it up and have different people take on a section? Or did you try that and get no volunteers? I'm in support, but don't have enough time to volunteer while I'm focusing on the 350 S.F. March on Sept, 8th. Onward, Tonya On Thu, 8/9/J.8, Bernie Album <allbernie5@�mail,com> wrote: Subject: Re: Scope of Appeal To: "Glenn Rubenstein" <glenn.rubenstein@email.com> Cc: "Adriann Saslow" <madamesaslovv@�mail.com>, "Frances Frazier" <ffrazier@petklZ.org>, "JoAnn McEachin" <joa'nnmceachin@Rmail,com>, "Moira Sullivan" <msullivan64C�hotmail.com>, "Richard Sachen" <richard@rsachen.net>, "Tonya Parnak" <tonyaparnal<@yahoo.com>, "Vicki Mayster" <vmaVster2@�mail.com> 5 Date: Thursday, August 9, 2018, 4:43 PM Glenn,lt is not an ERI which is an outside environment agency that does the study for a lot of money. What the city. has here is a checklist completed by the city and is not acceptable as a substitute for an official, legally defined EIR. I can get a professional opinion for us after we do a Google search for REI definition, if we still need o.ne.FYl &Scott Alfonso,The act of the city reaching out to Safeway constituted the act 3 called collusion. Not colluding would have been the city employing it's awn attorney for unbiased legal advise instead of the biased legal opinions of a biased attorney employed by Safeway. An EIR cost $�.000s and Safeway didn't wantto spend the money.scott needs to look up the definition for collusion. The City and Safeway worked together to change the zoning code, illegally in my opinion, and design mitigations to get around numerous other code requirements too numerous for me to decipher, That is why we would need F 7 '"f S lawyer should need to go to court.Good that you are reading through all this material, It has become mind boggling forme as well as very disturbing. I wonder how far will will get with this considering who we are up against. Discussion Tuesday needed for all of us to agree.Bernie On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Glenn Rubenstein <glenn.rubenstein@gmail.com> wrote: What 13 is the difference between an Environmental Impact Report and the 53 pages of "Effects of Environmental Impacts" that the City of Petaluma put together earlier this year in their Safeway Fuel Center report? http://citVofpetaluma.net/ cdd/ pdf/temp/ SafewayFuelCenterDraftl5-MND, pdf , There are other appendixes here, including the Health Risk Assessment, but no dedicated EIR: E http://citVofpetaluma.net/ cdd/major-projects.html Scott Alonso did say there was no collusion risk we reached out to the City Attorney for legal clarification and guidance on the scope of our appeal. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 7, 2018, at 2:17 PM, Bernie Album <allbernie5@gmail.com> wrote; I sent this earlier with attachments as a Google link. Here it is so it can be read without a Google Iink.Bernie After reviewing the recent documents from the 6/26/18 Petaluma Panning Commission Meeting the following appeal points occurred . [� me: (see attachments A,C,Q below) S. The city did not legally change the 2013 Zoning Code to include afueling/gas/service Station. . *there is a code for afueling station ii in a commercial zone directly next to Safeway and in same mall (Washington Square Plaza). The are currently . two fueling station in that zone, The project application is in a commercial zone that does not include a fueling station'and should have been denied 2013 and should be denied today in 2018. 12 The Safeway project is, notcompatible with other uses in the zone because it is listed as as allowed in another zone. (Application filed July 25,2018) 2. An EIR is required and there is no evidence that one has ever been eompleted.3. BAAQMD report does not clearly show that the project gas station meets CEQA 2018 standards so as not to cause adverse impacts on the environment hazardous air emissi-ons of the Health San Code Section 42301.6(a) F� 8 -SI and Section 44303 Public notice in 2013 was inadequate Attachment_C_ _ Project_Plans. pdf and not current in 2018. Shall include written prior notice 30 days Final Action. Public Notice to parents;school children residence and businesses 20184. The City improperly collated with Safeway in 2013 to amend a commercial zoning with no fueling station to include afueling/gas/service, 14 station. 5. The City failed to show that the economic impact of other related business would not negatively impacted. The mitigations listed in the event this occurs to monitor, are not enforceable with consequences. Cal Code Rig. &15064 and 15131 6. The Petaluma City Schools did not clearly sign -off or approve the Safeway Gas Station to be next to McDowell Elementary School. 15 QUESTION TO ASK:1. Is it permissible to change the zoning code after an application for a project is submitted? 2, Is it legal to' provisionally appove a permit for a fueling station when the provision process takes over !v ©itl the effected parents,students,residentssnd businesses could be or are different? OPPOSE SAFEWAY GA5 PLANNING COMMITTEE CAN 16 DO:Educate thU public that starting in 2013 the Petaluma City Council and Planning Commission voted to collude with Safeway to amend the 2013 zoning Code with no fueling station, to include a fueling/gas service station in orderto allowthe Petaluma City Council to approve a 16 pump fueling station in the McDowell Dlementary School and Little League location, It should also be noted that the City approved building permits for a large PDU(Artisan Homes) complex,and additional apartments to 17 the same neighborhood 2015-2018 increasing significant residential homes and traffic in the Maria Dr. & McDowell intersection with the future Safeway Fuel . Center project. The cost for possible cheaper gas is not worth the cost for the safety and health of our children and the increased traffic congestion in this area of Petaluma. E�3 Re: How?? How could you have voted for this? From: Michael Healy (mthealy@sbcglobal.net) To: rldt@aol.com Date. Monday, July 9, 2018 10:37 AM PDT Robert& Linda: The vote in favor of the Safeway gas station was probably the most disappointing vote to me in my years on the city council and planning commission. I did not like the proposal at all, but I voted for it because I had to. The City doesn't always have the discretion to reject proposals we don't like, and this was one of those situations. The zoning for the project .site allows gas stations as a principally permitted use, meaning that Safeway did not need a discretionary conditional use permit. The only two issues before the planning commission were (1) design review, (e,g., color schemes, landscaping, etc.) and (2) approving a mitigated negative declaration confirming no adverse environmental impacts. Within the MND, the 2 primary issues were air quality and traffic. There were detailed expert analyses on both, concluding no adverse impacts. The school district retained air quality experts to review the air quality analysis &concluded it was ; correct. ` !n response to your specific question, there are no California regulations specifying how close a gas station can be to a school. There probably should be, but there aren't. Under these circumstances, if the City had not approved the gas station, Safeway would have sued and won. And the City would likely have been ordered to pay Safeways attorney's fees. This- point wasn't in the recent Argus article, but when the Safeway gas station first surfaced a few years ago; Kathy Miller & I proposed an urgency moratorium to prevent new gas stations in town until the city council could amend the zoning ordinance to, for instance, require a CUP for any new gas station. That failed to gain support at the city council, & at that point it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that the Safeway gas station would eventually be approved. So if you want to blame someone, blame the counc!Imembers who refused to support the urgency moratorium. Regards, Mike Healy On Saturday, July 7, 2018 5:36 PM, "rtdt@aol.com" <rldt@aol.com wrote: Very disappointed!!!!! We are writing to express our EXTREME DISMAY at the potential Safeway Gas Station coming into Washington Square. I have nothing against the gas station --only the TERRIBLE congested corner location! This corner is DIRECTLY across from 4C's Preschool and playground, and McDowell Elementary School plus two other schools on the property. This corner faces residential homes on S. McDowell and_McKenzie Ave. This corner is on a small two-way road, Maria Drive. And the very congested S. McDowell. This corner is right next to a very busy bus stop. This corner is very close to the busy Little League fields and McDowell Park playground. Too many cars. Too many idling cars. Too many fumes! Not a healthy environment! SO MANY neighbors and teachers have spoken out AGAINST this location. Our questions: Is there anywhere .else to locate this within the center? Maybe move WestAmerica Bank?? Maybe buy out the already existing Chevron Station (the one that already gives a Safeway discount?) 2nd question: WHAT IS THE CALIFORNIA STATE REGULATION ON HOW FAR AWAY GAS PUMPS HAVE TO BE FROM SCHOOL AND RESIDENCES? Are you breaking a law here? The preschool is RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET! We would appreciate answers to each of these questions as soon as possible. Thank you. Robert and Linda Hartrich RLDT@aol.com �� i Front; Bernie Album <allbernie5 aC�catnail com} Subject; Re: Safeway Cas Station Date, July 7, 2018 at 3:49:14 PM PDT To: Teresa barrett <teresabarrettacomcast.izet} Teresa, FYI I am meeing with 2 others today and have had email contact with another activist parent resident representing a few others. We are meeting SUNDAY noon at Peete's (Wash.Sq. plaza) to finallze a letter ancJ collect $for the fee to submit an appear on Monday. My decision is based an the belief that itis better to fire an appeal then not. We realize what the issues are and how expensive this can become for petalurna but believe this is the good fight and should be taken on. Mike Nealy will have to be convinced cheap gas should not win overour children's safety and health. Safeway would be responsible for our having to use local tax funds to fight them In protracted litigation. The public will know and there will be wide negative publicity for Safeway. City Coucil will not be the blame, Safeway will be. This is not like other controversial -projects that the City approved to avoid expensive litigation or Shollenber Ranch. df course your attendance would be welcome but understand may not be politically permitted or advisable. Bernie gKLZUALW From: Dan Goalwin <dgoalwin@barghausen.com> Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 7:42 AM To: Hines, Heather; Ed Hale Cc: Josh Harlan; Mark Peterson; Marc Strauch Subject: RE: ARCO Preliminary Review Comments -- PLPR 18-0003 BCE #18042 Importance: High Thanks Heather. We will look at those videos. Is it possible for us to access the file for the Chevron across Petaluma Blvd Land Use approvals on line? We would like to look at those before our meeting if possible, Daniel B, Goalwin director of Architectural Services Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc 18215 72nd Ave South Kent, WA 98032 Phone 425-656-7441 Cell 206-396-8589 From: Hines, Heather <HHINES@ci.petaluma.ca.us> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2018 4:03 PM To; -Ed Hale <ehale@barghausen.com> Cc: Josh Harlan <jharlan@barghausen.com>; Dan Goalwin <dgoalwin@barghausen.com>; Mark Peterson <mpeterson@barghausen.com>; Marc Strauch <Marc.s@strauchcb.com> Subject: ARCO Preliminary Review Comments -- PLPR 18-0003 Ed; Attached please find the City's preliminary review comments for the proposed ARCO gas station, including convenience store and carwash on Industrial Avenue. I look forward to meeting with you next week to follow up on any questions you may have about the points touched on in the letter. I would encourage you and your team to review videos of the recent public hearings forthe Safeway Fuel Center that was before the Planning Commission in May and July. There was considerable concerns about the conflict between a new gas station and an adjacent school that you should closely consider given the proximity of your project site to a school. Have a great weekend. Heather 1 From: Heather Hines <hhines@III -group,us> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 7:41 AM To: Brown, John Subject: Checking in John, Sorry our paths didn't cross this week. will be back in City Hall on Monday of next week. However, I am available this morning if there is anything that we need to discuss. Additionally, I will be checking email the remainder of the week if there is anything that comes up. I returned our edits to the PSA for your consideration. If you would like me to review the staff report itself please let me know. I will also be working on outlining a staff report for the Water Street Public Art item and will have that to you by Monday morning for coordination on that front. Safeway Fuel Center was approved last night. It was a long and extremely painful hearing. Altura Apartment Trees Enforcement is being issued by Joe Garcia today. Adobe Road Winery was deemed complete and we are working toward a Planning Commission workshop on July 241h Eric seems to have a good handle on the Silkmill documents that need signed. The 76 gas station fees are in your email box for signature. You are in good hands with Milan to discuss the VMT item for the July 9t' PC/CC workshop. Anything I am forgetting? Heather HEATHER HINES � PRINCIPAL M -GROUP A NEW DESIGN ON URBAN PLANNING POLICY • DESIGN 4 ENVIRONMENTAL • HISTORIC • ENGAGEMENT & STAFFING SANTA ROSA I CAMPBELL I NAPA I HAYVVARD 499 HUMBOLDT STREET I SANTA ROSA I CA 1 95404 1 707.540.0723 ext. 206 M -LAB: A THINK TANK FOR CITIES: JOIN THE CONVERSATION! it 1/7/2019 Safeway gas station may be fast -tracked SIJn Up i7 IaCEive% om dsll4 riF_vislcMer, bm-[iIOIO net'/S � lams and rncsrG Safeway gas station may be fast -tracked )ANELLE WETZSTEIN, ARGUS-COURIER STAFF I January27, 2014 A proposed 16 -pump Safeway gas station in the Washington Square shopping center, which drew sharp criticism from several neighbors and businesses, may not require the city's approval since the property's zoning allows for gas stations to be built at that location. City officials and local gas station owners first raised concerns over Safeways plans to build the fueling station in town at an August city council meeting, The main concerns included the impact on traffic that a discount gas station could bring to the already busy South McDowell Boulevard and East Washington Street intersection, and the potential that Safeway could take business from other fuel stations by offering gas at below-market rates. But unlike other developments in town that required general plan amendments, environmental impact studies and other reports to the city council, Safeway's property is already designated as commercial land, meaning a gas stations is a permitted use. Mayor David Glass said that the city's zoning ordinances are crafted in a way that doesn't allow the council to review new development projects if they comply with zoning and land use laws. "Our city laws have been written under the guise of being'business friendly,' but what it really means is that we don't review projects that are permitted by the zoning ordinance of any given property," said Glass. "So we may not have discretionary power this time around." City staff said they are reviewing 5afeway's application to make sure itis complete. Senior Planner Heather Hines said that the project will be at the planning commission's discretion, but only in terms of the site's plan and architectural review. Developer Fulcrum Property has not renewed a handful of tenant leases to vacate space for the planned gas station. While proprietors of the shuttered Petaluma diner Pepper's Restaurant recently chastised Fulcrum for evicting them in order to build the gas station, not all the affected businesses agreed. Washington Square Veterinary Clinic owner Sharon Johnson said after Fulcrum told her she had to relocate her office becaLl se Safeway planned to put a gas station in the plaza, they made the move as easy as possible. "When I first heard that I had to move and Fulcrum said they would arrange a space in the center of equal size, I never thought it would workout," said Johnson. But, knock on wood, everything has gone well so far." Fulcrum built Johnson anew space, only asking her to pay for upgrades and any extra amenities she requested in her new location. Johnson said she plans to open her new office sometime next month near Peet's Coffee -Tea. Several other businesses have relocated as well. Sonoma Travel has relocated to a new off-site location at 725 E. Washington St., while Curves gym has leased space at 2000 Lakeville Highway. Optometrist Richard Aston has been unable to find a new spot, but said he is pursing options in the city, (ContactJanelle Wetzstein atjanelle.wetzstein@arguscourier,com) 'Pie use aiG!<irs to ootimizc your exn�riCnce, anal,>e Ci �(ii=, nd � 2�_.onaliz2 r.Or,terd_, Te laa� i� %��r_, ;_aea;r- viii u'r F'r;vacPGi.cv. Ey uslfig Gur ;i[:= �.,� ;�itilo!�C dl::ahlin coc.;ies, ,�, ��� corsar�t [u our us= of then. https://www.petaluma360.com/news/1854907-181/safeway-gas-station-may-be —wOk 1/2 1/28/2J19 Gas station ignites public controversy Gas station ignites public controversy JANELLE WETZSTEIN, ARGUS-COURIER STAFF I August 29, 2013 ..FolIatti this. St=pry 8 For most drivers, cheaper gas is a welcome offer. But city officials and local gas station owners have raised concerns about a 16 -pump Safeway gas station and convenience store proposed where Pepper's Restaurant is located on South McDowell Boulevard. After several local station owners brought up the matter at a recent City Council meeting, council members discussed the potential for added traffic congestion that could come with the project. Traffic on South McDowell Boulevard has become increasingly heavy over the past few years. The newly opened East Washington Place Shopping Center has likely contributed to longer commutes in the area. And the soon -to -open Deer Creek Shopping Center just up the road on North McDowell Boulevard is sure to add to the congestion. On top of the commercial developments, the Petaluma Planning Commission recently recommended approving a 144 -unit apartment complex on Maria Drive —just minutes from the proposed Washington Square Shopping Center gas station. Safeway has not yet submitted a traffic study, but several City Council members and station owners worried about the effects on the area. "You already have people who are so frustrated with the gridlock going on (Maria Drive)," said City Councilwoman Teresa Barrett. "Each effect is cumulative and together, it makes an already bad situation worse. Safeway, which is currently working on the traffic study, did not respond to several requests for comment. https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/2215325-181/gas-station-ignites-public-controversy# 1/3 1/28/2019 Gas station ignites public controversy As a county representative on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board, Barrett also worried about potential greenhouse gas emissions in an area with a nearby school, day care center and little league ball fields. "There's a similar station in Novato that I recently visited after hearing of this project," she said. "There were cars at every single pump, plus two additional cars idling and waiting to get in. We have a ban on drive-through businesses in our general plan and this business model certainly seems to: have'a drive-through quality. It's really not what we've intended for our city." Barrett wasn't the only council member who had looked into Novato's Safeway gas station. Councilmember Mike Healy said he has spoken with Novato's city staff, who he said had some regrets over allowing Safeway to open a gas station in their city. "Their feeling was that they hadn`t adequately estimated the traffic that would be going through it," said Healy. "They said it's always crowded and that major tanker trucks are always there." Healy added that he's heard from Petaluma city staff that the traffic concerns may not be a major issue, but that more details will be known after the pending traffic study is complete. Petaluma attorneyJim Dombroski is watching this proposed station with particular interest. A longtime anti-trust litigator, he has been suing Safeway since 2009 over what he calls the company's unfair business practices of selling gas below market cost. "We've been able to show lots of gas stations that went out of business because of a nearby Safeway station in Dixon, Concord, Livermore and San Jose," said Dombroski. "Once they've run competitors out of business, then they can up the price." Dombroski said that in his opinion, there's no question that a Safeway gas station in Petaluma would force several other stations out of business. Local station owners agreed. "What this really means is that four small gas station will close completely," said Petaluma https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/2215325-181/gas-station-ignites-public-controversy# 2/3 1/23/219 Gas station ignites public controversy According to Gutzman, Safeway is expecting to sell 700,000 gallons of gas per month. Since many of Petaluma's existing 16 gas stations only sell about 100,000 gallons of gasoline each month, Safeway's proposal means a large portion of Petaluma's gas needs could be met with at this one particular station — potentially putting several others out of business through lower prices, Gutzman said. Baywood Drive Valero station owner Bert Lathrop said that he understands customers wanting cheaper gas. "I get that completely," Lathrop said. "But ultimately we need to look at the long-term effects on Petaluma's lifestyle and the benefits for the community in general." City staff said that once the traffic study has been completed, the project application will go before the Planning Commission, most likely later this year or early in 2014. (Contact Janelle Wetzstein at janelle.wetzstein@arguscourier.corn) Trending Now Ads by Adblade https://www.pressdemocrat. com/news/2215325-181 /gas -station -ignites -pub lic-controversy# From: Hines, Heather Sent; Wednesday, May 29, 2013 6:06 PM To; Arash Salkhi; 'Steve von Raesfeld' Subject: RE: Discussion re Safeway Gas Station How about the following Wednesday, June 19th, same time? . From: Arash SAN [mailto:asalkhi@hotmail.comJ Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:26 PM To: Hines, Heathers 'Steve von Raesfeld' Subject, RE: Discussion re Safeway Gas Station Heather - That day I will be out of town. Can we make it for the following week, I will be available to meet anytii Thanks, Arash From: Hines, Heather �mailto HHINESC�ci petaluma.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:12 PM To: Steve von Raesfeld; asalkhi hotmail.com Subject: Discussion re Safeway Gas Station Arash, Does 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 121h work to discuss potential impacts of a Safeway gas station? Let me know. Heather HEATHER NINES Planning Manager T: 707.778.4316 E: hhines ci petaluma ca.us City of Petaluma ' Community Development -Planning Division 11 English St Petaluma, CA 94952 For faster response to planning and zoning questions, please e-mail us at petalumaplanning ci petaluma.ca.us i �S SCO% 1125/2019 MISSION CHEVRON -38010 Mission Boulevard - PLN2016-00262 - To consider a Conditional Use Permit and Discretionary Design Re... Fremont City California 7 Planning Commission Report _.o 3438 W f it 1 - ,r `., a . - r - '' 1 c 1 ;1, �. ' - • • c _ Conditional Use Permit and Discretionary Design Review Permit for a gasoline service i",tation and car wash facility consisting of six double�sided fuel pumps, a 2,,000=square� foot convenience store, a 2,,000�square400t retail space, two automated car wash tunnels, and associated site improvements in the Niles Community Plan Area, aind to :onsider a finding that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Infill Development Projects, Information Department: Category: Attachments Planning Sponsors: Conditional Use Permit Printout Exhibit A - Project Plans Exhibit B - Findings and Conditions Informational 1 - Site Information Informational 2 - HARB Minutes Informational 3 - Traffic Impact Analysis Item Discussion Location: 38010 Mission Boulevard in the Niles Community Pian Area; APN 507-0645-021-00 Area: 1.4 -acre lot People: Alan and Gary Laabs, BLT, LLC, Property Owner Jim Rubnitz, Applicant Muthana Ibrahim, MI Architects, Architect Fareed Siddiqui, Stukam Consulting Engineers, Civil Engineer Joel Pullen, Staff Planner, (510) 494-4436, jpullen@fremont.gov General Plan: General Commercial Zoning: C-G(HOD)(H-I), General Commercial with Historical Overlay and Hillside Combining Districts Body EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is proposing development of a new gasoline service station and car wash facility consisting of six double -sided fuel pumps, a 2,000 -square -foot convenience store, a 2,000 -square -foot retail space, two automated car wash tunnels, and associated site improvements located on a currently vacant site at http://fremontcityca.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile,aspx?MeetingID=1605&MediaPosition=&ID=3438&CssClass=&Print=Yes r�� 1/10 1 /25/2019 MISSION CHEVRON —38010 Mission Boulevard - PLN2016-00262 - To consider a Conditional Use Permit and Discretionary Design Re... 38010 Mission Boulevard. The proposed development required review by the Niles Canyon Scenic Corridor Liaison Committee on January 8, 2018, because the property is located adjacent to Niles Canyon Road/CA- 84, which is a scenic highway, and also required review by the Historical Architectural Review Board (HARE) on March 14, 2018, because the property is located within the Niles Historic Overlay District (HOD). The proposed project requires Planning Commission review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Discretionary Design Review Permit. Staff has reviewed the proposed project for conformance with all regulations, and recommends approval as shown in Exhibit "A," based upon the findings and subject to the conditions of approval contained in Exhibit "B." The 1.36 -acre property at the eastern corner of Mission Boulevard and Niles Canyon Road is currently vacant. It was most recently developed with a burger and barbeque restaurant—"Big Daddy"—within a non-descript one-story building that was demolished in the 1990s. A previous application for a gas station with a faux old western theme (multiple structures with false wooden storefronts, etc.) was denied by the City in 1991, and the site has remained vacant since closure of Big Daddy, See Informational Enclosure 1, for information about the property location and setting. Previoa�s Wearings On January 8, 2018, the Niles Canyon Scenic Corridor Liaison Committee reviewed the proposed project at a noticed meeting. The Committee discussed issues such as fuel tank safety, sustainability, site design and traffic, and appropriateness with respect to the gateway location. After discussion, the Committee recommended that the project move forward as designed. On March 14, 2018, HARE held a public hearing to consider the project and voted 4-0-1 (one Board Member absent) to recommend approval to Planning Commission. At the hearing, members of the public raised issues related to compatibility of the use on the site, traffic concerns, use of brick and architectural design, and safety of fuel tanks. In their recommendation, HARB asked that the project incorporate design elements that connect to the historical use of brick and tile in Niles, and to Jose de Jesus de Vallejo, who was important in the history of Niles, and owned a mill whose foundation remains nearby in the area near the railroad bridge over Mission Boulevard. See minutes of the HARE meeting attached as Informational Item 2. PROCEDURE FOR TONIGHT'S HEARING The Planning Commission is charged with considering the following: 1. A finding that no further environmental review is required to meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 as the project is consistent with the development intensity established in the General Plan for which a Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2010082060) was previously prepared and certified. 2. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow development of a gasoline service station and car wash facility as shown in Exhibit "A," based on findings specified in Fremont Municipal Code (FMC) Sections 18.230.060, and subject to conditions in Exhibit "B." 3. Approval of a Discretionary Design Review Permit for the project based upon findings specified in FMC Section 18.235.060, and subject to conditions in Exhibit "B," PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes development of a gasoline service station and car wash at 38010 Mission Boulevard. A new 4,000 -square -foot building with a convenience store and a retail suite would be located adjacent to the intersection of Mission Boulevard and Niles Canyon Road. Behind the corner building, a new canopy would cover six double -sided pumps. Two new automated car wash tunnels (attached side-by-side) would be located near the northerly corner of the site. The new retail and car wash structures would be primarily clad in brick. Storefront window systems underneath trellises would be recessed within individual bays between brick -clad columns. The exterior wall would have a mixture of parapet walls of modest height and a hipped roof with clay tileGs. /A _rhythm of http://fremontcityca.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Meeting]D=1605&MediaPosition=&ID=3438&CssClass=&Print=Yes O �tY� 2/10 1/25/2019 MISSION CHEVRON —38010 Mission Boulevard - PLN2016-002G2 -To consider a Conditional Use Permit and Discretionary, Design Re... the insets and reveals would adorn certain recessed cement plaster areas. The pump island canopy would be supported by brick -clad columns matching the proposed building, See Informational Enclosure 2— Architectural Narrative, for a description of the design choices for the project, Vehicular access would be provided by way of three new driveways, one on Mission Boulevard and two on Niles Canyon Road. The driveway located on Mission Boulevard would be at the most southerly feasible location and the driveway on Niles Canyon Road nearest Mission Boulevard would allow right turns only in and out. The second driveway on Niles Canyon Road at northerly extent of the site near the car wash would have full access. A median would be installed within existing available space in the Niles Canyon Road right-of-way to enforce adherence to current traffic restrictions. The site would be landscaped heavily, with an overall 30 percent landscape coverage. New street trees would be provided along both frontages, and additional trees would be planted both within the site and along the wall to be installed on the eastern perimeter of the site. See Exhibit "A" for the site improvements. PROJECT ANALYSIS General Plan Conformance The General Plan land use designation for the project site is General Commercial, which applies to low - scale commercial, service and office uses located along the City's arterials and collector streets, As described in the General Plan, typical service commercial uses include gas stations. The following General Plan policies are applicable to the proposed project: Community Character Policy 4-1.9: City and Neighborhood Gateways -Improve entryways into Fremont, and into its individual neighborhoods and districts, to achieve a sense of transition and arrival. Analysis: The project site is located on a Landscape Corridor (Mission Boulevard and Niles Canyon Road) at a gateway location, and would enliven a long -vacant site with a site plan and architectural style compatible with Niles. A gateway sign and median would strengthen the sense of arrival in Fremont from Niles Canyon Road. Community Character Policy 4-3.2: Architecture and Identity Use architecture to reinforce desirable design characteristics of an area, consistent with its heritage and the vision for its future as defined in the General Plan or in an area plan. Use architecture and public space to establish defining qualities when an area does not have a clear identity or urban form. Analysis: The proposed project has been designed with a site plan and architecture that would function well in relationship to the site location on a prominent corner and evoke Niles' architecture and materials. Primary structures would be placed up against the street and clad in brick, while not creating a false sense of history where the immediate surroundings do not provide a replicable and desirable urban form. Community Character Policy 4-3.4; Drive-through and Gasoline Station Design -Where allowed, design drive-through restaurants and gasoline stations so that they will not interfere with vehicular and pedestrian circulation and adjacent uses. When reviewing proposals for future or altered drive-through uses, special attention should be given to landscaping, buffering of abutting residential uses, lighting and signage, and screening of utilities and mechanical equipment. Analysis: Gas stations and car washes are service uses envisioned in the General Plan for sites designated General Commercial. The gas station site plan and building layout were reconfigured and refined in coordination with planning staff following the initial application in order to accomplish the following objectives: To optimize vehicular and pedestrian circulation by placing driveways further from the street corner To add a more usable public sidewalk with street trees in grates on the frontage for improved connectivity on Niles Canyon Road • To provide landscaping in excess of the City standard To add a wall buffering site activities as well as existing road noise from the neighborhood to the southeast http:/Ifromontcityca,igm2.com/Citizens/Detail—LegiFile,aspx?MeetinglD=1605&MediaPosition=&ID=3438&CssClass=&Print=Yes — 0 3/10 1/25/2019 MISSION CHEVRON —38010 Mission Boulevard - PLN2016-00262 - To consider a Conditional Use Permit and Discretionary Design Re... Generally, to balance providing a needed service in the neighborhood that would be compatible with the adjacent use patterns and available for passers-by to use while commuting. Lighting and signage would be subject to review to prevent offsite glare while providing safety. Community Character Policy 4-3.5: f=ranchise Architecture - Require the architectural character of drive-through businesses, fast-food restaurants, chain stores, gas stations, and similar franchise businesses to be designed with sensitivity toward context, particularly in Town Centers and other areas with historic character. The materials, color treatment, roof lines, building mass and configuration, and other design elements should avoid corporate or formulaic architecture. Analysis: As noted, the proposed architectural materials (heavy use of brick, inclusion of recessed bays and projecting trellises, and tile insets combined with systems of reveals) and building placement (at the street) would be evocative of Niles' design styles while not creating a false sense of historic character in a location that is somewhat disconnected from the core of the Niles Town Center. While the intended user is a gas station with very functional purposes and with a common brand, the architecture has been carefully tailored to the site rather than the applicant using an off-the-shelf building and applying falsely -applied materials to attempt to blend in. Community Character Policy 4-6.2: Construction anti Alteration within Historic Areas - Require new construction ... located within a designated HOD to be subject to review and approval by the Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB). Community Character Policy 4-6.5: Design Compatibility -Preserve the architectural continuity and design integrity of historic districts and other areas of strong architectural character. New development in such areas does not need to replicate prevailing architectural styles exactly but should be complimentary in form, height, and bulk. Analysis: The project site is located within the Niles HOD, but is outside of the Niles Commercial Core Area. The design would be complimentary to the prevailing architectural style and materials, but does not attempt to replicate it. HARB reviewed the proposed project and recommended approval to the Planning Commission on March 14, 2018. Zoning Regulations The subject site is located within a General Commercial (C -G) zoning district, within which gasoline service stations and car washes are both conditionally permitted uses subject to Planning Commission review and approval. The table below outlines the project's consistency with applicable development standards in the C -G zoning district. Development Standard C -G District Requirements Proposed Project Complies? Yes/IVo Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.3 0.185 Yes Yard Widths Front 0 0 Yes Interior Sides/Rear 10 feet 15 feet Yes Building Height 1 35 feet maximum 25 feet, 9 inches Yes Parking,: Per FMC Chapter 18.183, commercial uses require 3.3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial space, or 13 spaces for the 4,000 square feet of convenience store and retail space. A gas station requires five parking spaces, and a car wash requires 2.5 parking spaces per bay, for a total of 10 additional parking spaces. The total required parking would, therefore, be 23 parking spaces. The proposed site plan includes 33 parking spaces, including 18 standard spaces, 12 fueling spaces, which count toward meeting the parking requirement, and miscellaneous accessible parking and electric vehicle charging spaces. The proposed parking would be in excess of standard parking requirements. Gasoline Service Station Regulations: In accordance with FMC Section 18.190.190, applications for gasoline service stations are required to meet additional development criteria applicable to this specific use. In addition to requiring that the use be permitted based upon underlying zoning, certain locational, minimum site area, and operational standards apply as follows: http://fr emontcityca.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?MeetinglD=1605&MediaPosition=&ID=3438&CssClass=&Print=Yes 4/10 1/25/2019 MISSION CHEVRON —38010 Mission Boulevard - PLN2016-00262 - To consider a Conditional Use Permit and Discretionary Design Re... • The site must not be immediately adjacent to public or quasi -public uses such as schools, childcare facilities, religious facilities, parks and libraries. • Minimum lot area is 22,000 square feet, with 120 feet of roadway frontage on at least one street. • Driveways must be coordinated as part of the total circulation system for the area. Gas stations at street intersections may be required to install call detectors for vehicles exiting the establishment. • Landscaping is required to cover at least 20 percent of the site. A masonry wall and six feet of landscaping is required when adjacent to residential uses. Auto service uses are required to be within a building. • No exterior sales are allowed. ® Siting and architectural character is required to be compatible with the visual character of the surrounding area in terms of material and color treatment, roofline, building mass and configuration, and other elements so the architectural continuity is achieved. • A Master Sign Program is required. • Other uses, which may include car washes, convenience and food stores, equipment rentals, and towing services must be compatible and specifically listed. The proposed gasoline service station and car wash, which are conditionally permitted uses in the underlying zoning, would comply in all respects with the above use -specific standards. At 1.36 acres, the proposed gas station site is approximately three times larger than the minimum site area. The site is not immediately adjacent to any public or quasi -public uses, and, while across the highway from a park, the service station canopy would be located at the rear of the site and at a lower height than the primary building. Driveways have been strategically located at the furthest extent from the street corner. The applicant has proposed to cover 30 percent of the site with landscaping, which would be well in excess of the 20 percent minimum standard. A masonry wall with perimeter landscaping in excess of six feet is proposed along the rear property line adjacent to residential uses. No onsite auto services are proposed, and a tow truck parking space is therefore not necessary. In addition to the gasoline service station, car wash and convenience store, the applicant proposes to permit commercial uses that are otherwise allowable in the G -C zoning district as long as their parking requirement is less than the available parking, which is planned at an average of five parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area. This may include certain banks and personal services in addition to retail shops. A Master Sign Program would be required prior to establishment of the facility. Architectural style and site design is further described below. Design Analysis The proposed project site is located within the Niles HOD. Per Fremont Municipal Code Section 18.135.050(x), new development within the HOD is subject to prior review and recommendation by HARB using generally applicable design guidelines and the specific Niles Design Guidelines and Regulations under FMC Section 18.135.080, The Niles Design Guidelines and Regulations govern in case of conflict with general guidelines. Therefore, the Discretionary Design Review Permit for this project uniquely relies on both the Citywide Design Guidelines and the Niles Design Guidelines and Regulations. It should be noted that the Niles Design Guidelines and Regulations explicitly apply to the commercial properties within the core area of the Niles Historic Overlay District." The subject property is located well outside of the Commercial Core Area at the easternmost edge of the HOD and, thus, the guidelines are not applicable to the project site. Nevertheless, the Niles Design Guidelines and Regulations provide suggestions for new construction outside the Commercial Core Area but within the HOD and are intended 'oto assist in conservation and revitalization of commercial properties located in the HOD." The discussion below addresses both the Citywide Design Guidelines and Niles Design Guidelines and Regulations. Site Development: The Citywide Design Guidelines require commercial space to be located to provide continuity of the commercial presence along a street frontage and to be oriented towards the street and major pedestrian or plaza areas. Additionally, parking areas should not be the dominant visual element of the site or streetscape. In response to this, the proposed development would locate the retail and convenience store component of the project along the frontage of Niles Canyon Road and Mission Boulevard creating a pedestrian oriented human scale environment along the street with access from the sidewalk to the retail spaces. The parking area as well as the fueling canopy would be located behind the building away from public views to minimize the prominence of the auto uses in the design. The site design features described herein would also be consistent with Niles Design Guidelines relating to front setbacks, which are encouraged to be located at the front property line, and location of parking, which is encouraged behind businesses so as not to intrude upon the historic townscape and pedestrian character of the HOD. http://fr emontciryca.igm2.comlCitizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?MeetinglD=1605&MediaPosition=&ID=3438&CssClass=&Print=Yes 5110 1/25/2019 - MISSION CHEVRON — 38010 Mission Boulevard - PLN2016-00262 - To consider a Conditional Use Permit and Discretionary Design Re... Building Design, Architectural Design, Materials, and Color: The three structures, which would be within the maximum height and within the setbacks prescribed by the C -G zoning district, would be oriented according to their purposes and appearance. The primary building would hold the street corner with a minimum setback, helping to screen the more functional fuel station canopy to the rear. The car wash would be set back and angled due to the necessity for vehicles to exit the site. All structures would contain similar design elements and would be sized according to their purposes. Use of brick, roof and wall tile, cement plaster, and window systems are well -thought out, with materials changing at logical corners and wall planes, Niles' heritage includes a history of brickmaking and use of decorative tile. The proposed brick color would be reviewed by staff to ensure that it is consistent with rich local brick colors specified in the Niles Design Guidelines and found within Niles. The generous use of appropriate brick on corner buildings would be consistent with the guidelines, as would be the decorative use of the within lightly troweled cement plaster, and substantial aluminum windows and doors. Landscape: Walkways have been well-designed to allow convenient passage of foot traffic throughout the site and to the street. A variety of trees, understory planting, and appropriate fencing would make the site aesthetically pleasing to the eye. Screening and softening of buildings would be accomplished by use of trellises on the wall over shrubs at the base. Gooseneck lighting on the buildings would provide charm and function, while the vehicular circulation areas would be sufficiently lit for a balance of safety and code conformance. The intent of the Niles Design Guidelines with respect to landscaping primarily is to retain existing mature trees and encourage consistent plantings, including specimen trees to define edges and focal areas. The project site does not have mature trees to preserve, though new street trees chosen for adaptability to tree grates, appropriate size, and maintainability have been included. Within the site, the landscape plan is conceptual in nature, and staff would continue to work with the developer to encourage a balance of water conservation and appropriate tree and plant selection. Context and Character: Overall, the Niles Design Guidelines call for contextual design, taking into account both their immediate and larger context, As noted above, the site upon which this development is proposed is located outside of the Commercial Core Area, in an area which does not contain structures worthy of emulating. Instead, the general guidelines have been used to inform architecture and site planning of this functional use that is evocative of Niles and complementary, while not attempting to convey a false sense of history. The Niles Design Guidelines outline major characteristics of the HOD, which include a variety of building types, distinctive roofline profiles, unified commercial frontage, and contextual design that provides for one -of -kind styles for corner buildings, The project site, while outside of the Commercial Core Area, provides an opportunity for a distinctive, unique, signature building that would improve the aesthetics at this corner. As an individual building within an island of C -G -zoning, there is no "unified commercial frontage" to create or tie into and, thusly, it is appropriate to design it alone in space with compatible architectural style to Niles proper. Outdoor Areas: The intent of the outdoor vision for Niles includes retaining panoramic views to the hills, and encouragement of outdoor dining. The proposed use would be located on ahigh-traffic street corner not conducive to outdoor dining, though dining could be located on interior walkways, depending upon future uses, Defensible space would be included via eyes on activity areas within the site, both from the canopy to the building entries, and from the street frontage to the building edges. Parking Facilities: The Niles Design Guidelines call for safe, clean, and adequate parking and also require generally that parking areas be located behind businesses. The project site is not within the Niles parking district and, thus, is required to provide its own parking, which it would do as required in a configuration primarily to the rear of the primary buildings on the site. Recycling containers are also encouraged in parking areas in addition to garbage containers. In addition, lights on buildings (gooseneck lights) and parking lot lights (decorative lamps compatible with the streetscape) would be included. Areas for Service, Loading, and Mechanical Equipment: There are no loading or service areas that would have an objectionable design within the project site. Consistent with Citywide Design Guidelines, loading, storage and service facilities must be consistent in design with the architecture of the main building, Delivery would be from the internal parking area on the site. A landscape area within the site would contain various service equipment, including the trash enclosure, a propane tank to its rear, and an http:l/fremontcityca.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?MeetinglD=1605&MediaPosition=&ID=3438&CssClass=&Print=Yes g . "1 2 sr10 1/25/2019 MISSION CHEVRON — 38010 Mission Boulevard - PLN2016-00262 - To consider a Conditional Use Permit and Discretionary Design Re... air/water and vacuum station and parking area for tire pressure, emergency fluid needs, and vehicle cleaning purposes. Design Styles: The intent of the design styles outlined in the Niles Design Guidelines is the identification, retention, and preservation of historic buildings, but not necessarily the repetition or reproduction of these styles outside of the Commercial Core Area. The guidelines note that building widths of the Commercial Core Area were dictated by narrow parcel sizes and the eclectic design styles were dictated by date of construction. These commercial building design styles range from mid -block commercial, false -front stand- alone, commercial block corner buildings, to low stucco vernacular buildings and small-scale industrial buildings. The corner location is not within the Commercial Core Area and it would, therefore, not be historically correct to create an artificial narrow block pattern within the site or to create an architectural style that attempts to forcefully recreate or mimic a style that is not in context with surrounding development at the subject site. Instead, the corner building would be responsive to its own site, but would adapt the franchise to the context and utilize a combination of complementary materials, including brick, tile inset into cement plaster, and recessed bays, that have been used on multiple sites within the Commercial Core Area over many decades of changing styles. Building Form and Height: While the intent of the Niles Design Guidelines is to retain existing building form and height relationships, and the profile along the street front, the site in question is not on that main street in the Commercial Core Area. Nevertheless, the buildings would contain a variety of interesting roof forms, with a parapet, sloped roof, and small tower on the corner building. At 25 feet maximum, the building would provide enough bulk to make a statement and hold the corner at a height similar to those found in Niles, while not being uniquely larger than is typical for a commercial building in the HOD. The roof design breaks would relate to the individual commercial suites and to the car wash tunnels, with the distinction that the corner roofline would be relatively lower than the sides in order to prioritize architectural character and visual prominence of the building from the most common and longer - duration views toward the site from the street sides, and to emphasize and maintain visibility to Niles Canyon beyond when arriving at the intersection. Walls would be well -decorated and visually interesting, Standard City regulations would require roof -top screening of any mechanical equipment. Facades and Storefronts: The Niles Design Guidelines for storefronts primarily dictate blending of new and existing storefronts, which would not apply in this case except that, within the project, the variety of forms would be harmonious. Storefront height would be appropriate. Storefronts would be recessed and indirect lighting in the form of goosenecks would be provided, Because the primary use of the property would be a gasoline service station and car wash, the primary entries would be located internally to the site rather than to require the primary demographic served—passenger vehicles to walk around the building to access services from entries facing the two adjacent streets. Nevertheless, the corner design is preferable to setting the building back off the street and creating an entry that would be viewed across the parking lot, In addition to the functional reason for the proposed building access, the site would also not be conducive to having a primarily pedestrian orientation due to its relative isolation from residential uses. This is also reflected in the relatively contemporary window systems that would serve the use in proximity to the glare and noise of the two state highways that traverse the site frontage. However, the inset combined with the softening effect of the trellises would reduce the importance of the windows and emphasize the brick surfaces. Awnings: The generous trellis work that is proposed within inset bays and along the corner radius would provide an appropriate alternative to mimicking awning styles in the Commercial Core Area, and would be a valid expression of more contemporary architecture, while being compatible with other materials in use within the design. Commercial Signs and Lighting: The City requires all new gasoline service stations and multi -tenant buildings to acquire a Master Sign Program subject to review for conformance with applicable standards. In this case, a Master Sign Program for the site, Including sign lighting proposals, would be subsequently reviewed. Any signs shown on the plans at this time should be considered diagrammatic in nature and subject to separate review. Circulation: The project would take access from three proposed driveways—two on Mission Boulevard, and one on Niles Canyon Road. Staff worked with the applicant to push these driveways away from the street corner in order to discourage cut -through traffic and to improve safety with respect to existing traffic patterns. Within the site, a system of driveways properly connects prospective patrons among the various uses and back to the public street. Because left turns would not be prudent in proximity to the left turn http:l/fremontcityca.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?MeetinglD=1605&MediaPosition=&ID=3438&CssClass=&Print=Yes 4 -19 7110 1/25/2019 MISSION CHEVRON —38010 Mission Boulevard - PLN2016-00262 -To consider a Conditional Use Permit and Discretionary Design Re... lane on westbound Niles Canyon Road, reinforcement of the existing traffic pattern is proposed in the form of a new median coordinated extensively with Caltrans personnel. Conditional L/se Kermit Findings Pursuant to FMC Section 18.230.060, in order to approve a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must make the following findings: {a) The proposed use is consistent with the general plan and any applicable community or specific plan; Analysis: The existing land use designation for the property is General Commercial and the zoning is General Commercial within the Hillside and Historical Overlay Districts, which would allow the proposed service uses subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Discretionary Design Review Permit as discussed herein. In addition, the site and building design is in conformance with General Plan goals and policies related to avoidance of franchise architecture, treatment of gateway, and other design policies as enumerated within the staff report. (b) The site is physically suitable for the type and density or intensity, as applicable, of the proposed use; Analysis: The site is physically suitable to the proposed use given that it would be located at the intersection of two major roadways in an area underserved by the proposed commercial use. Furthermore, the proposed project would meet development regulations as described in the staff report. (c) The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with development in the vicinity and in the zoning district; and Analysis: As enumerated in the staff report, the site design, architecture, and operation of the development of this corner site that would be separated from its neighbors with respect to access and buffered adequately, would be appropriate for the vicinity and the zoning district. (d) The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public hea/th, safety, or welfare of persons or property in the vicinity or the zoning district in which fhe use would be located. Analysis: A gas station on a corner site designed and developed in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements and consistent with ali other applicable regulations would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or the welfare of persons or property in the vicinity, or the C -G zoning district because, as described in the staff report, it has been well-designed, it will be required to comply with applicable design regulations for gas station tanks, the use is of an appropriate balance of intensity, and would be adequately buffered from neighboring properties. Discretionary Design Review Findings Pursuant to FMC Section 18.235.060, in order to approve a Discretionary Design Review Permit, the Planning Commission must make the following findings: (a) The proposed project is consistent with the general plan, any applicable community or specific plan, planning and zoning regulations, and any adopted design rules and guidelines. Analysis: The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan, zoning regulations, and design rules and guidelines as enumerated within the staff report. (b) The project's architectural, site, and landscape design will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of adjacent development nor be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. http://fremontcityea.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?MeetingID=1605&MediaPosition=&ID=3438&CssClass=&Print=Yes ^,.S 8/10 1/25/2019 MISSION CHEVRON —38010 Mission Boulevard - PLN2016-00262 - To consider a Conditional Use Permit and Discretionary Design Re.., Analysis: The proposed commercial facility with a gas station and car wash would be designed with due regard to the public health, safety, and welfare, and has been designed so as not to interfere with adjacent development in that the commercial uses are buffered adequately from residential uses to the southeast, safely provide connectivity to adjacent streets, and development would be required to follow established building and safety regulations. CITY FEES Development Impact Fees will be required for the project, and would be collected at the fee rates in effect A the time of building permit issuance. The project would be eligible for an impact fee credit for structures existing onsite after the implementation of the City's Impact Fee Ordinance effective May 1991, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Infill Development Projects, which exempts in -fill development when the project would be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; proposed development would occur on a site no greater than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; the site has no habitat value for endangered, rare or threatened species; approval would not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality and water quality; and the site is adequately served by utilities and public services. As documented in the staff report, the project would be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The 1.36 -acre site is surrounded by existing public streets and urban development, and does not provide habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. Standard development requirements for resource protection contained in FMC Section 18.218.050(b) (Biology, Special -Status Species) would be included as conditions of approval and implemented with project development. These standard requirements would ensure that there would be no impacts to burrowing owls and nesting birds. The proposed project would not have significant effects relating to traffic. Likewise, given the small size of the project at only 4,000 square feet of commercial use, two wash bays, and six double -sided gas pumps, the nature of the project and similar characteristics to the range of urban development permitted through the zoning, the project would not have noise, air quality or water quality impacts. Hours of construction would be regulated per FMC Section 18.160.010 to address short-term noise during construction, the standard development requirements contained in FMC Section 18.218.050(a) (Air Quality) would be included as conditions of approval and implemented during project construction to address short-term air quality impacts. The project would implement the City's stormwater runoff requirements. Finally, there are existing utilities and public services available to serve the site, including but not limited to: water, sanitary sewer, storm water facilities, electricity, natural gas, roadways, and transit Traffic Impact Analysis During project review, staff identified the need for the applicant to demonstrate that traffic associated with the proposed use would be consistent with the assumptions of the General Plan. A qualified traffic consultant (Hexagon Traffic Consultants) prepared a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) (See Informational Enclosure 3) that counted existing trips in the vicinity of the site, analyzed the General Plan traffic assumptions for the site and vicinity, and modeled the impact of the proposed project on nearby roadways compared to what the General Plan assumed. The TIA identified a significant project impact at the intersection of Mission Boulevard and Niles Canyon Road under Cumulative with Project Conditions, similar to the General Plan FEIR. The significant and unavoidable cumulative impact identified in the FEIR is for the same horizon year (2035) as analyzed in the TIA report. The TIA actually shows lower average vehicle delay than the General Plan FEIR, demonstrating that the project would not cause an impact not modeled and accepted. The TIA volumes for the 2035 Cumulative No Project conditions are identical to the 2035 General Plan FEIR volumes. However, the analysis in the General Plan FEIR did not include the westbound right -turn phase overlap that currently exists at the intersection while the TIA does include the overlap. That fact largely explains why the intersection actually shows less average vehicle delay in the TIA when compared to the FEIR. The project's traffic impact would be consistent with the General Plan FEIR. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT Public hearing notification is applicable. A total of 62 notices were mailed to owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the site on April 13, 2018. A Public Hearing Notice was also published by the hitp://fremontcityca.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile. aspx?MeetingID=1605&MediaPosition=&ID=3438&CssClass=&Print=Yes I 'MI (a 9/10 1/25/2019 MISSION CHEVRON —38010 Mission Boulevard - PLN2016-00262 , To consider a Conditional Use Permit and Discretionary Design Re... Tri -City Voice on April 10, 2018. 1. Hold public hearing. 2. Find that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Infill Development Projects, because the project would be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; proposed development would occur on a site no greater than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; the site has no habitat value for endangered, rare or threatened species; approval would not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality and water quality, and the site is adequately served by utilities and public services. Additionally, for reasons stated in the staff report, there are no anticipated project-speciflc significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. 3. Approve the Conditional Use Permit PLN2016-00262 as shown in Exhibit "A," based upon the findings and subject to the conditions in Exhibit "B." 4. Approve the Discretionary Design Review Permit PLN2016-00262 as shown in Exhibit "A," based upon the findings and subject to the conditions in Exhibit "B." Powered by Granicus http:/lfremontcityca.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile,aspx?MeetinglD=1605&MediaPosition=&ID=3438&CssClass=&Print=Yes $ � 1 � 10/10 D �. C I 'i 1' O F' MINUTES FREMONT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 26, 2018 CALL TO ORDER: PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: APPROVAL OF MINTJTES: DISCLOSURES: Chairperson Dorsey called the meeting to order at 7:00 pan. Chairperson Dorsey, Conunissioners Cavette, Karipineni, Leung, McDonald, Reed, Steckler None Wayne Morris, Assistant Planning Manager Erik Ramakrishnan, Deputy City Attorney Joel Pullen, Senior Planner Bill Roth, Associate Planner Kirn Salazar, Recording Clerk Chavez Company, Remote Stenocapiioning Napoleon Batalao, Video Technician Commissioner Leung moved to appxove minutes for the regular meetings of March 22 and April 12, 2018 and Commissioner McDonald seconded. Motion carried unanimously with Vice Chairperson Karipineni abstaining, due to her absence from both meetings. Commissioner Cavette drove around the sites of Items 1 and 2. Commissioner Leung drove around the sites of Item 1 and 2. Commissioner McDonald drove around the sites of Items 1 and 2, and met with the applicant of Item 1. Vice Chairperson Karipineni drove the sites of Items 1 and 2 Commissioner Steckler walked the properties of Items 1 and 2. Chairperson Dorsey drove by Items 1 and 2, and met with the applicant of Item 1. Timestamps from the video webcast are listed below each Public Hearing Item Number and are in hours format, as follows: (hours:minutes:seconds). Video webcasts of Planning Commission meetings can be found at: haps•//fremontca.viebit.conz/# CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC/ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None None Minutes Planning Commission — Apri126, 2018 PAGE 1 ��� PUBLIC IIEARIIlx ITEIV�TS Item 1. MISSION CHEVRON — 38010 Mission Boulevard - PLN2016-00262 — To (00:05:12) mconsider a Conditional Use Permit and Discretionary Design Review Permit for a gasoline service station and car wash facility consisting of six double -sided fuel pumps, a 2,000-square400t convenience store, a 2,000-square400t retail space, two automated car wash tunnels, and associated site improvements in the Niles Community Plan Area, and to consider a finding that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Infill Development Projects. Assistant Planning Manager Wayne Morris introduced the item. Senior Planner Joel Pullen gave a brief presentation and responded to questions from the Commission. Noe Veloso, Principal Transportation Engineer for the City of Fremont, responded to questions related to traffic in proximity to the project. Jim Rubnitz, representing the applicant/business owner, spoke briefly to the project, in addition to the following individuals: • Brett Walinski, Principal with Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. • Muthana Ibrahim, President and CEO of MI Architects, Inc. Chairperson Dorsey opened the public hearing. Joe Johnston, Fremont resident, asked about the sound wall and the hopeful removal of an existing tree, adjacent to his property on Sycamore Street. Jim Rubnitz responded that the sound wall would be a six-foot concrete masonry unit (CMU), and that. the dryers for the carwash would be at least 15 feet from the sound wall. He assured Mr. Johnston that they would adhere to the City's requirement with regards to decibel levels and would try to accommodate his request in the removal of the adjacent tree. Chairperson Dorsey closed the public hearing. Commissioner Cavette expressed concern over the proximity of the building to the corner of Mission Boulevard and Niles Canyon Road, saying she would prefer that the building be set back farther from Mission Boulevard. Commissioner Reed moved to approve staff recommendation, including the Gold Sheet (attached), and encourage the applicant to include a second electric vehicle charging station and to explore the possibility of repositioning the commercial/retail building farther back. Commissioner Steckler seconded. Minutes Planning Commission — Apri126, 2018 PAGE 2 Commissioner Cavette asked if Commissioner Reed would accept a friendly amendment, requiring Caltrans to approve the two left turn lanes on the north side of the property (one exiting the property and the other allowing entrance onto the property) prior to the issuing of a buildnig permit. Commissioner Reed declined, saying he was loath to make it a condition of approval, as the applicant indicated that Caltrans would not commit to the reconfiguration of lanes prior to approval of the plans. IT WAS MOVED (REED/STECKI,ER) AND CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE (64-0-0-0) THE PLANNING COMMISSION —HELD PUBLIC HEARING; AND FOUND THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332, INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, BECAUSE THE PROJECT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE; PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD OCCUR ON A SITE NO GREATER THAN FIVE ACRES SUBSTANTIALLY SURROUNDED BY URBAN USES; THE SITE HAS NO HABITAT VALUE FOR ENDANGERED, RARE OR THREATENED SPECIES; APPROVAL WOULD NOT RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS RELATING TO TRAFFIC, NOISE, AIR QUALITY AND WATER QUALITY; AND THE SITE IS ADEQUATELY SERVED BY UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES, ADDITIONALLY, FOR REASONS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THERE ARE NO ANTICIPATED PROJECT -SPECIFIC SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE PROJECT OR ITS SITE; AND APPROVED THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PLN2016-00262 AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT "A," BASED UPON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT `B;" AND APPROVED THE DISCRETIONARY DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT PLN2016- 00262 AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT "A," BASED UPON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT `B." The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: 6 —Dorsey, I�aripineni, Leung, McDonald, Reed, Steckler NOES: 1 — Cavette ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 0 RECUSE: 0 Chairperson Dorsey called for a brief recess at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:37 p.m. Item 2. BEARD COMMON — 33650 Beard Court - PLN2016-00392 - To consider a (01:37:25) Planned District Amendment, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 8333, and a Private Street to allow the development of five single-family detached houses on an approximately 0.6 -acre site at 33650 Beard Court in the North Fremont Planning Area, and to consider a categorical Minutes Planning Commission — Apri126, 2018 PAGE 3 Minutes exemption from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pex CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, InEll Development Projects. Assistant Planning Manager Wayne Morris introduced the item. Associate Planner Bill Roth gave a brief presentation and responded to questions from the Commission. Commissioner McDonald expressed concern over the proximity of Interstate 880 to the project site and its effects on air quality. Arvind Goel, applicant, gave a brief presentation and spoke specifically to the history of the project site. Chairperson Dorsey opened and closed the public hearing, as there were no requests from the public to speak. Commissioner Leung moved to approve staff recommendation and Commissioner ICaripineni seconded. Motion carried. IT WAS MOVED (LEUNG/I�ARIPINENI) AND CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE (6-1-0-0-0) THE PLANNING COMMISSION —HELD PUBLIC HEARING; AND RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL: FIND THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPTED FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIItONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332, INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS; AND DETERMINE THAT WHILE AN OUTDOOR LDN OF 60 DB(A) OR LOWER IN THE ACTIVE RECREATION AREAS AT THE REAR OR SIDE YARDS OF THE NEW HOUSES CANNOT BE ACHIEVED AFTER THE APPLICATION OF APPROPRIATE MITIGATIONS, AN LDN OF 65 DB(A) IS PERMITTED FOR THESE AREAS FOR THE REASONS DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT; AND INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PLANNED DISTRICT P-78-3 TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF FNE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOUSES ON SEPARATE LOTS WITHIN THE 0.6 -GROSS -ACRE PROJECT SITE, AS DEPICTED ON ENCLOSURE EXHIBIT "A" (PLANNED DISTRICT AMENDMENT MAP), BASED UPON THE FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT "D;" AND APPROVE VESTING TENTATNE TRACT MAP NO. 8333 AND PRIVATE STREET AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT "C," BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND Planning Commission - Apri126, 2018 PAGE 4 SUB7ECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT «D,,, AND APPROVE THE PROPOSED REMOVAL AND MITIGATION FOR SIX PROTECTED TREES PURSUANT TO THE CITY'S TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, BASED UPON FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH 1N EXHIBIT "D;" AND DIlZECT STAFF TO PREPARE AND THE CITY CLERIC TO PUBLISH. A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE. The motion carried U�the following vote: AYES: 6 —Dorsey, Cavette, ICaripineni, Leung, Reed, Steckler NOES: 1—McDonald ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 0 RECUSE: 0 DISCIJSSI®N ITEMS MISCELLANE®US ITEMS InfoiTnation fiom Conurussion and Staff: ® Information fiom staff: Assistant Planning Manager 'Wayne Morris stated that the newt Planning Commission meeting was scheduled for May 10, 2018. ® Actions fiom City Council Regular Meetings: None ® Information fiom Commission: Chairperson Dorsey expressed appreciation to the staff for providing hardcopies of the PowerPoint presentations and requested that to continue, Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m, SUBMITTED and APPROVED BY: ICim Salazar, Recording Clerlc Planning Commission Minutes j'� ��; fir//�� �. � t. Wayne Morris, Secretary Planning Commission Planning Commission —April 26, 2018 PAGE 5 • �re7,,onot NOTES/CORRECTIONS for the Apri126, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING *Modifications appear in italics, new text is acnderlined, and deleted text appears as �' �' ^'' ••^• ^ r . Item 1, MISSION CHEVRON — 38010 MISSION BLVD - (PLN2016-00262) Staff requests that the following inadvertently omitted technical conditions be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval: Conditions of Approval; Conditions to be satisfied prior to Building Permit issuance: 1. Improvement Agreement• The public improvements conditioned as part of this entitlement requires the execution of an Improvement Agreement that guarantees the completion of the public street improvements to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works The Improvement Agreement shall be fully executed prior to issuance of Building Permit This agreement includes engineered plans prepared by the applicant's consultant reviewed and approved by the City, surety (Faithfiil Performance, Labor and Material and Warranty) and insurance A separate encroachment permit is required for all work in the public right of way. 2. Street Improvements either to be constructed or included with the Improvement Agreement: a. Dedication and improvement of the public streets to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works Improvements shall include but are not limited to the following: curb &goiter, sidewallz, asphalt pavement streetlights fire hydrants street trees water, sewer and storm drainage facilities, joint trench facilities signing and striping and accessible ramps. b. Developer shall install median on Niles Canyon Road to .the satisfaction of Caltrans and the Director of Public Works. Co Developer shall be responsible to remove and replace curb gutter, and sidewalk damaged prior to or during construction of the proposed project. d. Repair, overlay, or reconstruction of asphalt pavement may be required. The existing pavement will be evaluated with the street improvement plans and any necessary pavement restoration will be included as part of the approved street improvement plans. 3. Right -of --Way Dedication: Developer shall dedicate the right -of --way needed to accommodate the ultimate street configuration along the�roject frontages on Mission Boulevard and Niles Cannon Road to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 4. Caltrans Encroachment Permit: The developer shall apply for and obtain a Caltr ans (State) encroachment permit for all improvements within the State right -of --way. Planning Commission Notes/Corrections — April 26, 2018 Page 1 5. Public Service Easement Developer shall dedicate a public service easement on Mission Boulevard and Niles Canyon Road to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works Project entry and monument signs, bioretention areas and walls shall not be located within the easement. 6. Fire Hydrants: Along the Mission Blvd & Niles Canyon R.O.W. fire hydrants) shall be spaced at 300 feet intervals The distance is measured as the fire engine travels on all-weather surfaces. Fire hydrant head assemblies shall be a Clow Model 860 or equivalent and painted Kelly Moore, Kelguard Safety Yellow, 7. Grading a. and (Geology: Coverage Under Statewide Construction General Permit: Projects involving land disturbance of one acre or more are required to obtain coverage under the "Construction General Permit" ( NMES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities) The applicant must file a Notice of Intent (NOD to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plar (SWPPP) and obtain a Waste Discharge Identification number (WDID). A copy of the NOI must be submitted to the City's Project Engineer prior to issuance of development permits (including demolition grading and building permits). b. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: The project plan set must include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) sheet showing the Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented to minimize pollutant discharges related to construction activity. The ESCP must show the development site at the stage of maximum land disturbance A copy of the ESCP and/or SWPPP Plan must be maintained on the project site at all times throughout the demolition/grading/construction process; the ESCP and/or SWPPP must be updated as necessary c. to show adequate BMPs appropriate for the current stage of the protect. report and increases in peak flows in The Project site is within the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone for Earthquake Induced Liquefaction A geotechnical investigation� report addressing the potential hazard shall be submitted and approved by the City's peer review consultant prior to issuance of the Building Permit The investigation shall be consistent with the guidelines published by the State of California (CGS Special Publication 117A) Plans shall be designed in conformance with the • 8. Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control Facilities: The Project is required to implement post - construction measures to minimize stormwaterZ: ollutant discharges and increases in peak flows in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). The Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan provided the developer as shown in Exhibit A is ap proved in concept only the Final Stormwater Management Plan must contain/address all elements of the Final Stormwater Management Plan Checklist (available at www.fremont.gov/sw=). Developer is required to submit engineered plans details and calculations that demonstrate compliance with Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit. 9. Stormwater Treatment Measures Maintenance Agreement: The project is required to submit a Stormwater Treatment Measures Maintenance Agreement (alta O&M Agreement) for review and approval concurrent with the application for building permits Template documents and instructions for completing the O&M Agreement may be found athttp://fi4emont.gov/stoi&mwaterdevelopmento Submittal of an pproved executed O&M Agreement is required prior to building permit issuance. 10. Storm• Developer is required to submit a ldrolo,gy map and hydraulic calculations prepared, stamped, and si ng ed by a licensed California Civil Eng_meer using a design storm of 15 -year recurrence in terval for primary facilities and 10 -year recurrence interval for secondary facilities in accordance with the Alameda County Public Works Agency Hydrology and Hydraulics Criteria to ensure adequate conveyance of storm Planning Commission Notes/Corrections — Apri126, 2018 Page 2 run-off from the project site Off-site construction of storm drainage facilities to mitigate projected flows may be required. Al • I2efer•rals • Prior to issuance of the End ding Permit the developer shall refer the project to the following agencies for approvals• Alameda County Water District (ACWD) Union Sanitation Dis%'ict (USD); and Calh%ans. 12. Traffic Stt x As re�c WL the Director of Public Works Department, the applicant shall implement recommendations identified in the traffic study dated September 26 2016, including measures to reduce likelihood of cut tlu•ough traffic. 13. Signing and Str�irrt; Plan• On-site and off site signing and striping plans shall be approved by the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of building permits. The signing and striping plans must include a general dote stating that all sing and striping shall conform to the latest CA MUTCD, Caltrans Standard Plans and Specifications and City of Fremont Standard Details. 14-. Site Distance• Intersection and driveway design must satisfy adequate sight distances. RESPECTFI;JLLYUBMITTED, !` 1 // ;? •i F WAYNE MORRIS, SECRETARY PLANNINU COMMISSION Planning Commission Notes/Corrections — April 26, 2018 Page 3 Gridley City Council - Regular City COuncil Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 16, 2018; 6:00 pm Gridley City Hall, 685 Kentucky Street, Gridley, CA 95948 Approved as submitted "Our purpose is to continuously enhance our community's vitality and overall quality of life. We are committed to providing high quality, cost-effective municipal services and forming productive partnerships with our residents and regional organizations. We collectively develop, share, and are guided by a clear vision, values, and meaningful objectives." CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hall called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Absent: Arriving post roll call Staff present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Borges, Johnson, Hall Davidson, Williams None Paul Eckert, City Administrator Tony Galyean, City Attorney Juan Solis, Finance Director Daryl Dye, Public Works/Electric Superintendent Dean Price, Police Chief Ross Pippitt, Public Works Supervisor Trin Campos, City Engineer Donna Decker, Planning Consultant Jamie Norton, Division Chief The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Hall INVOCATION The invocation was provided by Pastor Bill Hammond of the Lighthouse Tabernacle PROCLAMATIONS -None COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION FORUM Mayor Hall opened the forum and seeing no one present wishing to speak, the forum was closed. ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW EMPLOYEES AND PROMOTIONS a. Introduction of Gridley CalFire Fire Chief Jamie Norton Retired Division Chief Chris Haile introduced Gridley's new Division Chief to be working with Gridley, Jamie Norton. Administrator Eckert presented Chief Haile with a plaque of appreciation upon his retirement. b. Introduction of new Finance Director Juan Solis GRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: Regular Meeting of I4 6-18 Page 1 of 3 Administrator Eckert gave a brief bio of and introduced new Finance Director, Juan Solis. c. Oath of Office Finance Director Juan Solis Mayor Hall administered the Oath of Office to Juan Solis. d. Introduction of new Police Dispatcher and Police Officer Lieutenant Smallwood gave a brief bio and introduced new Officer Jared Cooley and new Dispatcher Jazzmine Espitia, administering the Oath of Office to both. e. Announcement of Police Lt. Promotion Scott Smallwood Chief Price announced the promotion of Scott Smallwood to Lieutenant and administered the Oath of Office. Council took a brief refreshment break before re -adjourning and taking up the Consent Agenda. CONSENT AGENDA 1. City Services Update 2. City Council minutes dated December 18, 2017 3. Resolution No. 2018-R-002 Appointing Primary and Alternate Representative to Northern California Cities Self Insurance Fund Board of Directors 4. Resolution No. 2018-R-001: A Resolution to Enter an Agreement with the State of California Department of Transportation for the Maintenance of Frontage Improvements, Lighting, Landscaping, Irrigation and any other Components within the State Right -Of -Way for the Parcel Located at 1513 Highway 99 (APN 010-200-050) and to Authorize the City Administrator to Execute the Agreement on Behalf of the City Council. Motion to approve the eonsent agenda by Vice Mayor Johnson, seconded by Couneilmember Borges. Motion passed, all in favor PUBLIC HEARING 5. Appeal of Site Development Plan Review No. 4-17, AM/PM, 1646 Hwy 99 Planning Consultant Donna Decker addressed Council, giving a history of the project to this point. She stated the approval issued by the Planning Commission is being appealed tonight, so the approval of the project is now the responsibility of the City Council. A review of the project was given and the items stated in the appeal were addressed. Staff recommended denying the appeal due to among other things, the proposed project has no conflict with its zoning land use designation or the Gridley Municipal Code: Many proponents for the appeal were in attendance and.stood to speak supporting it. These ineluded Gordon Jones, Judy Johnson -Pruitt, Butch Maeiel, Kal Bhullar, Colleen Bowden, Jeff Palmer, Steven Lally, Chad Morgan, Lynn Spencer, Jaswinder Kaur, Ricky Donahoe, and Zachary Torres. There were a few opposing the appeal that included Jack Bequette, JT Kullar and Ken Wold. The Mayor closed the publie hearing. After brief comments from Couneilmember Borges and Vice Mayor Johnson, motion to determine the projeet is eategorieally exempt per the California GRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: Regular Meeting of I-16-18 Page 2 of 3 ` • 1 Environmental Quality Act as an Infill Development Project and to deny the appeal and approve Site Development Plan Review 447 made by Vice Mayor Johnson, seconded by Councilmember ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: Borges, Hall, Johnson Motion passed, 3-0 CITY STAFF AND COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Vice Mayor Johnson reported on his meeting at the Butte County Mosquito and Vector Control District POTENTIAL FUTURE CITY COUNCIL ITEMS - (Appearing on the Agenda within 30-90 days): Annual Audit Report 2/20/2018 Sewer Pond Improvements and Policies 2/20/2018 General Fund fee study work session 3/5/2018 Mid -Year Budget Update 3/5/2018 CLOSED SESSION -None ADJOURNMENT With no further items for discussion, the Council adjourned at 7:55 to the next regular meeting on February 5, 2018 Paul Eckert, ity Clerk 6RIDLEY CIN COUNCIL MINUTES: RegularMeetingof1-16-18 Page 3 of 3 i From: Bill W0lpert <wolpert@sonic.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 2:51 PM To: 'Kallen, Christian' Subject: RE: Sonoma Safeway Thanks, Christian. GREG �1RILnING ARCI�IIECTS William 6, Wolpert, Architect 7 Fourth Street, Studio 61 Petaluma, CA 94952 707,789,0822 Green BuildingArchitects.com Check out our new website! From: Kallen, Christian <christian.kallen@sonomanews.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 2:48 PM To: Bill Wolpert <wolpert@sonic.net> Subject: RE: Sonoma Safeway Hi Bill Safeway didn't overtly pursue the proposed expansion, but I don't know that they dropped it either. It wasn't well- received.... They may have something cooking still, there was talk that the corner lot might not be a viable location given the public opposition — but the store is on a large property, they may well be looking at another corner of it. Christian From: Bill Wolpert fmailto:wolpert@sonic.netj . Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 2:43 PM To: Kallen, Christian <christian.kallen@sonomanews.com> Subject: Sonoma Safeway I read your article from August 22, 2016 regarding Safeway's proposed expansion with a 16 pump gas station. Was there a follow-up to that story? Did.the project happen? A similar proposal is pending in Petaluma, GREEN �RIL�INC ARCI[IIiEC1S William D. Wolpert, Architect 7 Fourth Street, Studlo 61 Petaluma, CA 94952 707.789,0822 Green BuildingArchitects.com Check out our new website! 2 RU . TAN RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP February 1, 2019 VIA E-MAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS Honorable Teresa Barrett, Mayor and Councilmembers Healy, King, Fischer, and McDonnell City of Petaluma 11 English Court Petaluma, CA 94952 Matthew D. Francois Direct Dial: (650) 798-5669 E-mail: mfrancois@rutan.com rutan.com ATTACHMENT 9 Re: Motion to Reconsider Resolution Upholding Appeal of Safeway Fuel Center Project; February 4, 2019 City Council Agenda, Item 4.A Dear Mayor Barrett and Councilmembers Healy, King, Fischer, and McDonnell: We write on behalf of our client, Safeway, Inc., regarding the proposed Safeway Fuel Center Project (the "Project") at 335 S. McDowell Boulevard in the City of Petaluma ("City"). We write to ask that you vote to approve the motion for reconsideration (the "Motion") at your February 4, 2019 meeting and schedule the hearing on reconsideration of the matter for February 25, 2019.1 As you know, on January 28, 2019, at a City Council hearing to cure or correct alleged violations of the Brown Act outlined in our January 2, 2019 letter, you voted on a 4-1 vote to uphold the appeal of the Project (the "Appeal") and require an environmental impact report ("EIR") for the Project. We had previously informed the City in our letters dated June 6, 2018, September 6, 2018, and September 17, 2018 that such an action would be unlawful under existing law, and this point was reinforced by the First District Court of Appeal's recent decision in McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena. City Staff concurred, recommending that the City Council deny the Appeal. Despite being under a 30 day deadline to cure or correct alleged Brown Act violations, when Safeway representatives were asked by Councilmember Healy to voluntarily consent to a continuance, but declined, Mr. Healy indicated that Safeway's unwillingness to grant a continuance would result in his voting to uphold the Appeal and require an EIR. He subsequently suggested that the Council uphold the Appeal, indicating that if they did so he would move for reconsideration of that action on February 4, 2019. On a 4-1 vote, the majority of the City Council followed Mr. Healy's lead and voted to uphold the Appeal and require an EIR. Action on the Motion has been scheduled for February 4, 2019. The public, press, and appellants all assume that the City Council will vote to approve the Motion on February 4, 2019 and 1 We have not addressed this letter to Councilmembers Kearney and Miller because they have recused themselves from further action related to the Project. Rutan & Tucker, LLP I Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94306-9814 1650-320-1500 I Fax 650-320-9905 2696/031700-0001 Orange County I Palo Alto I WWW.1'Lita11.com 13363087.3 a02/01/19 Honorable Teresa Barrett, Mayor and Members of the Petaluma City Council February 1, 2019 Page 2 reconsider its action to uphold the Appeal on February 25, 2019. (See, "Safeway pushes gas station over objections," Argus -Courier, January 31, 2019, and No Gas Here Facebook post, January 29, 2019, both attached hereto as Exhibit A.) That said, under the rules, it would be possible for the City Council to delay acting to reconsider the item for three or more meetings, thereby causing confusion, disruption, uncertainly, and delay. Such delay would not serve a valid policy objective nor would it comport with the Council majority's stated reason for "temporarily" upholding the Appeal so that it could better understand the revised Staff recommendation to deny it.2 While community members supporting and opposing the Appeal will no doubt continue to attend each and every hearing regardless of how many take place or their duration, as the Council's February 4, 2019 meeting will be the fifth meeting on the Project since May 2018, constituents would presumably be pleased to obtain a final vote on February 25, 2019 (the sixth meeting on the Project) instead of a seventh or eighth meeting in March 2019. Rule VI.F of the Petaluma City Council Rules, Policies and Procedures provides that any member who votes with the majority on an item (other than an ordinance) may move reconsideration of the action at the same or next succeeding meeting. "The motion may be seconded at the same meeting that the motion was made or the next succeeding meeting." (Rule VI.F.) The vote on such motion "shall be held ... at the next succeeding or regular meeting after the motion was made ...... (Rule VLF .)3 If the motion for reconsideration passes, "the actual reconsideration of the question shall be heard at the next regularly scheduled meeting not less than one week after the vote on the motion for reconsideration." (Id.) Even assuming the motion and second on the Motion were to occur on February 4, some may argue that the vote on the Motion cannot also take place that night. However, Rule XI.0 specifically states that the Council rules are "adopted to expedite and facilitate the transaction of the business of the City Council in an orderly fashion and shall be deemed to be procedural only." (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, "the failure to strictly observe any such Rules shall not affect the jurisdiction of, or invalidate any action taken by the Council." (Rule XI.C; accord, Rule IV.H [same].) Rule IX.B further allows the Council to temporarily amend the rules with a four-fifths vote z Nor would it comport with procedural fairness or any reasonable application of parliamentary procedures. (Cf., Petaluma City Council Rules, Policies and Procedures, Rule fV.E [prohibiting any member from "delay[ing] or interrupting] the proceedings or peace of the Council ...."].) 3 The language that the vote occur at the next meeting "after the motion" is made appears to supersede and preclude the ability to make a second and vote on the motion in separate subsequent meetings. 2696/031700-0001 13363087.3 a02/01/19 tJTAN Honorable Teresa Barrett, Mayor and Members of the Petaluma City Council February 1, 2019 Page 3 so as to approve the Motion at your February 4 meeting, which would place reconsideration of the Appeal on your February 25 agenda. The only reason not to reconsider its action in two meetings instead of three or more is to delay action on the Appeal. To the extent the delay is sought to distinguish or discredit the McCorkle decision, we would point out, as we have before, that McCorkle is declaratory of existing law and thus the Council's action to uphold the Appeal and require an EIR is unlawful even absent McCorkle. (See, e.g., my January 24, 2019 letter to the City Council, pp. 8-12, citing Public Resources Code § 21004; CEQA Guidelines § 15040; San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. City of San Diego (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 924; and Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004.) It is also important to note that the McCorkle opinion has been submitted into the record of proceedings for this matter and thus could be cited in any subsequent litigation were the City Council to persist in its action to uphold the Appeal and require an EIR. Instead of relying on procedural "loopholes," we ask that the City Council act in a transparent and predictable manner so as to "expedite and facilitate the transaction" of the City's business in an "orderly fashion," per the express stated purpose of its rules. Please vote to approve the Motion on February 4, 2019 and schedule a hearing on the reconsidered item on February 25, 2019. This will afford you four weeks to consider the basis of the Staff's revised recommendation. If the Council majority was sincere and acting in good faith in "temporarily" upholding the Appeal to better understand the Staff recommendation, it would do so. Representatives of Safeway, including the undersigned, will be in attendance at your February 4, 2019 City Council meeting. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this correspondence. Very truly yours, r RTAI TUC R, LLP 1 A7Al 21 Mtthew D. Francois MDF:mtr cc: Eric Danly, City Attorney, City of Petaluma Scott Brodhun, Interim City Manager, City of Petaluma Heather Hines, Planning Manager, City of Petaluma Olivia Ervin, Principal Environmental Planner, City of Petaluma Claire Cooper, City Clerk, City of Petaluma Natalie Maffei, Senior Real Estate Manager, Safeway, Inc. Mark Friedman, President, Fulcrum Property 2696/031700-0001 13363087.3 a02/01/19 a-N "2/112019 Safeway pushes Petaluma gas station over objections Safeway pushes Petaluma as station Over iections petaluma360.com/news/9225439-181/safeway-pushes-petaluma-gas-station January 30, 2019 The proposed Safeway gas station on McDowell Boulevard is opposed by many neighbors. It is situated across the street from the McDowell School. (CRISSY PASCUAL/ARCUS-COURIER STAFF) YOUSEF BAIL ARGUS-COURIER STAFF ( January 31, 2019, 8:45AM Updated 2 hours ago. A gas station project that first sparked a battle between concerned residents and a corporation and later gave way to dueling environmental consultants has now transformed into a slugfest between lawyers. But it was one of the attorneys on the city council dais at Petaluma City Hall on Monday that made the most unexpected legal maneuver of the night. Councilman Mike Healy uncovered a loophole in the city's parliamentary procedure that helped the council avoid overturning its Dec. 3 decision to require an environmental impact report for the controversial Safeway gas station on South McDowell Boulevard. A reversal seemed imminent after city staff made another late change to their recommendation this week. Instead, with a 4-1 vote to temporarily uphold the appeal of the planning commission's approval of the project last June, filed by local opposition group No Gas Here, the council was able to cure and correct alleged violations of California open meetings laws while creating some breathing room to take a look at a new legal precedent that could potentially constrict their authority. Councilwoman D'Lynda Fischer cast the Ione dissenting vote. On Feb. 4, Healy will make a "motion for reconsideration" that — if it passes — will allow the council to revisit the issue at the following meeting on Feb. 25, marking the third council action on the project since December. "I'm struck that we have a brand new staff recommendation as of today that's a 180 -degree turn from what we've been hearing," Healy said, referring to a last-minute change to deny the appeal. "My comfort level is not where I'd like it to be." The city council was forced to revisit the issue despite voting unanimously in favor of requiring an EIR at the previous hearing in December. A Jan. 2 letter from Safeway attorney Matthew Francois leveled a series of Brown Act violations, alleging that city officials failed to comply with several aspects of a 1953 statute designed to ensure that city business is done openly. https://www.petaluma360.com/news/9225439-181/safeway-pushes-petaluma-gas-station +T 1/3 211/2019 Safeway pushes Petaluma gas station over objections At the December hearing, Safeway representatives were notified about a late change in the city staff's recommendation that endorsed the requirement of an EIR and upholding the appeal. The supermarket chain also said multiple documents had not been made available to the public. City Attorney Eric Danly said Safeway's Brown Act allegations were unmerited, but opted to take the cautious route and allow the city a chance to correct any violations by essentially rehearing the project. However, due to a scathing 259 -page letter submitted by Safeway three days before Monday's meeting, the latest so-called "document dump" since the council was forced to hear the appeal, council members Gabe Kearney and Kathy Miller were suddenly forced to recuse themselves under the direction of Danly. In the letter, among several other claims, Francois accused six of the seven council members as well as city staff of being biased against the project, citing dozens of emails and published materials obtained through a Public Records Act request. Several council members had expressed opinions or concerns against the project during exchanges with citizens over the last six years. Dave King was the only council member to avoid the appearance of a conflict. So out of "an abundance of caution," Kearney, one of two council members that lives on the east side, reluctantly exited the chambers. Most Popular Stories "Never in the past have I ever had to do this in my eight years of serving the folks of Petaluma," he said. "It is not something I'm happy about having to do." Before exiting, Miller scolded Safeway representatives that made the allegations in another document dump that left little time for a proper review, describing the corporation as "a bad neighbor." "My opinions regarding this project are formed by the wishes of my constituents, and my personal knowledge of the area, which comes from living in the neighborhood," Miller said. "I'm not opposed to the project, I'm opposed to the location of the project.... There are two preschools across the street, an elementary school, a Little League field, residences and a park. Those are what I consider sensitive receptors." Council members appeared dejected throughout the four-hour discussion on Monday, shell- shocked by the latest dramatic swing of a project that has been delayed twice since No Gas Here appealed the planning commission's split, 4-3 decision last July. During this week's discussion, Safeway representatives held up a recent case, McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena, which determined St. Helena officials didn't have the authority to require an EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act. Instead, their scope was limited to the design aspects of a small housing development in the Napa Valley town, an interpretation that prompted city staff to change their recommendation. https://www.petaluma360.com/news/9225439-181/safeway-pushes-petaluma-gas-station eq ®/w 2/3 2/1/2019 Safeway pushes Petaluma gas station over objections If the new precedent holds firm, Petaluma officials would not be able to lean on a case decided earlier last year, Protect Niles v. City of Fremont, which established a relatively low threshold for requiring an EIR under CEQA, and allowed them to mandate the extensive review at last month's council meeting. "This is a complex area of the law, and 1, too, have some problems with how this has just swung back and forth in an area that I would assume had been a little more settled than it apparently is," said King. No Gas Here advocates turned out in large numbers once again, resisting a project that is welcomed by supporters that want a cheaper alternative to the city's high costs for fuel. The project, which would include eight pumps with 16 dispensers, and includes a 697 -square foot convenience store, one electric vehicle charging station, landscape improvements and renovations to the nearby bus transit center, was first proposed in 2013. To earn the planning commission's approval on June 26, Safeway provided adequate documentation and studies to receive the necessary authorizations from regional agencies with oversight. JoAnn McEachin, co-founder of No Gas Here, then appealed the decision on July 9, forcing the council to weigh in. "Safeway knows that if they are forced to do an EIR that this project will be dead in the water," said Oliver Steinfels, a member of No Gas Here. "Why else would they work so hard to prevent it from happening?" Natalie Mattei, a senior real estate manager with Albertsons, the parent company for Safeway, pushed back against multiple requests from council members throughout the night. She pointed to several concessions that had already been agreed upon, as well as the elongated process that the project has been subjected to. "I don't know what a continuance would possibly bring to this discussion," Mattei said. "There has never been substantial evidence, there has never been a fair argument. That's not going to change between now and some future council date." https://www. petaluma360.com/news/9225439-181/safeway-pushes-petaluma-gas-station 4 ®! 3/3 MMR IN Oppose Ihe. Petaluma Safeviay Gas Station. Iq for rippo-sa, th'` Nkahjrna Safeway Gas Cuf arra. #s Ljpr'e'd tis.:'-}`A-Teh Vic, I we a IL ::24-c 'v 2, 3 HE Orapar'' die Petaluma Siff -away GAS stab' -3'a J'ftA d€ %'r, to t'.-Mtey and ;� haveP-10 gr -I 101-11--4 10 WI kidA sntr% So, I'm to I -S