HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4.A 04/01/2019I85$
DATE: April 1, 2019
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager
FROM: Eric Danly, City Attorney
Heather Hines, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Continued Deliberation on Adoption on January 28, 2019 of City Council
Resolution No. 2019-015 N.C.S. which rescinded and replaced Resolution No.
2018-180 Adopted December 3, 2018 concerning the Safeway Fuel Center
Project Located at 335 South McDowell Boulevard, Assessor's Parcel No. 007-
820-046, File No. PLAP 18-0001 — City Council Consideration and Possible
Action to: 1) Adopt the attached Resolution Rescinding and Replacing Resolution
No. 2019-015 Adopted January 28, 2019 and Upholding the Appeal filed by
Joann McEachin as to the Mitigated Negative Declaration Approved by the
Petaluma Planning Commission on June 26, 2018 by Resolution No. 2018-21A;
Ordering the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, and Staying the
Planning Commission's Approval of Site Plan and Architectural Review pursuant
to Resolution No. 2018-21B Adopted June 26, 2018; or to 2) Adopt the attached
Resolution Rescinding and Replacing Resolution No. 2019-015 N.C.S. Adopted
January 28, 2019 Denying the Appeal filed by JoAnn McEachin as to the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Site Plan and Architectural Review Approved
by the Planning Commission Pursuant to Resolution Nos. 2018-21A and 2018-
21B Adopted June 26, 2018, and Affirming the Planning Commission's Approval
of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Site Plan and Architectural Review for
the Safeway Fuel Center
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council: deliberate on reconsideration. of the City Council's
Adoption on January 28, 2019 of City Council Resolution No. 2019-015 N.C.S. which rescinded
and replaced Resolution No, 2018-180 Adopted December 3, 2018 concerning the Safeway Fuel
Center Project, and, following City Council deliberation, either: 1) Adopt the attached
Resolution Rescinding and Replacing Resolution No. 2019-015 N.C.S. Adopted January 28,
2019 and Upholding the Appeal Filed by JoAnn McEachin as to the Mitigated Negative
Declaration Approved by the Petaluma Planning Commission on June 26, 2018 by Resolution
No. 2018-21A, Ordering the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and Staying the
Planning Commission's Approval of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Pursuant to
Resolution No. 2018-21B Adopted June 26, 2018; or 2) Adopt the attached Resolution
Rescinding and Replacing Resolution No. 2019-015 N.C.S. Adopted January 28, 2019 Denying
the Appeal filed by JoAnn McEachin as to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Site Plan and
Architectural Review Approved by the Planning Commission Pursuant to Resolution Nos. 2018-
21A and 2018-21B Adopted June 26, 2018, and Affirming the Planning Commission's Approval
of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Safeway
Fuel Center,
BACKGROUND
On June 26, 2018 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2018-21A approving the
MND and Resolution No. 2018-21B approving the Site Plan and Architectural Review
("SPAR") for the Safeway Fuel Center Project ("Project"). See Attachments 3 and 4 to
Attachment 6 at the following link:
htti)://i)etalunia.�4raiiicus.com/GenerateciAaendaViewer,phi)'?view icl=31&clip ic1=2646.
Consistent with the requirements of the City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance no.
2300 N.C.S. ("IZO") Section 24.070, JoAnn McEachin filed an appeal within 14 days of the
Planning Commission's approval ("Appeal"). The Appeal was filed on behalf of the Friends of
McDowell Elementary School, Little League Children, and East Petaluma Residents
("Appellants"), and included 15 additional signatures from members of the public. The grounds
for appeal are outlined in the Letter of Appeal. See Attachment 2 of Attachment 6 available at
the following link:
http://petaltrma. =ranicus.corn/GeneratedA�endaVietiver,ph��?vie r- id-31&elip id -2646
The grounds for appeal include: questioning the community need for the Project; the proximity
of the Project to a day care, school and Little League ball park; traffic increase; Project emissions
and health impacts; traffic safety; and public awareness of the Project. Initial responses to each
of the grounds for appeal are included in the City Council staff report dated September 17, 2018.
See Attachment 6 available at the following link:
http:/Ii)etaluma.granicus.coni/GeneratedAf4endaViewer.i)hi)?view id=31 &clip id=2646
After several continued hearings, on December 3, 2018, the City Council held a noticed public
hearing on the Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the IS and MND pursuant to
Resolution No. 2018-21A N.C.S. and SPAR pursuant to Resolution No. 2018-21B N.C.S for the
Project. Following the public hearing and Council deliberations, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 2018-180 upholding the Appeal, directing that an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) be prepared for the project, and staying consideration of the Site Plan and Architectural
Review until after certification of the EIR. See Attachment 5 available at the following link:
htty://petaluma.Rranicus.com/GeneratedA>;endaViewer.i)h-D?view id=31&clip id=2646
On January 2, 2019, Matthew Francois representing Safeway, the applicant submitted to the City
correspondence alleging that at the December 3 appeal hearing the City, had violated the Brown
Act. See Attachment 3 available at the following link:
2
http://petaluma.f4ranicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.i)hi)?view id=31&clip id=2646
By letter dated January 22, 2019, the City Attorney responded to Mr. Francois 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 had not violated the Brown Act at the
December 3 hearing on the Appeal. See Attachment 4.
On January 24, 2019, Mr. Francois on behalf of Safeway submitted correspondence arguing that
under McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena, filed on .December 18,
2018, the City Council could not order preparation of an EIR for the Project, notwithstanding the
citizen comments and conflicting expert opinion in the record on Appeal concerning Project
environmental impacts. See Attachment 5. Mr. Francois asserted that McCorkle prohibits
ordering an EIR for the Project because the court held in McCorkle that local agencies
conducting design review are limited under CEQA to analyzing only those environmental
impacts that the agency has the authority to mitigate under its design review regulations.
At the January 28, 2019 reconsideration hearing before the City Council under the Brown Act, in
response to the desire expressed by some Council members for additional time to consider the
McCorkle case and its impact, Safeway representatives indicated Safeway would not stipulate to
additional time for Council consideration and that the City Council should take action at the
January 28 City Council meeting in accordance with the cure and correct deadline that applies
under the Brown Act to Safeway's demand dated January 2, 2019. Accordingly, Council
Member Healy asked for confirmation whether Council action to cure or correct subject to the
Council's rules regarding motions for reconsideration would satisfy Brown Act requirements.
Upon receiving an answer that such action would satisfy Brown Act requirements, Council
Member Healy gave notice of his intent to later move reconsideration, in accordance with
Section VI(F) of the Council's rules, and moved to adopt Resolution No. 2019-015 N.C.S. which
upheld the appeal, directed preparation of an EIR, and stayed consideration of SPAR until after
certification of an EIR. See attachment 3.
In accordance with City Council Rule VI(F), an agenda item on reconsideration of Resolution
No. 2019-015 N.C.S. was agendized for the City Council's February 4 meeting. Following
consideration of the item (with Council Members Kearney and Miller recused), Council Member
Healy moved reconsideration and Council Member King seconded the motion. In accordance
with Rule VI(F), the vote on the reconsideration motion was agendized for the February 25 City
Council meeting. Following consideration of the item, Mayor Barrett called the reconsideration
vote and the vote passed 3 to 2, with Vice Mayor McDonnell and Council Members Healy and
King voting in favor, Mayor Barrett and Council Member Fischer opposed, and Council
Members Kearney and Miller recused. Under Rule VI(F), following passage of the
reconsideration motion, reconsideration must occur at the next regularly scheduled Council
meeting at least one week after the vote. Accordingly, a reconsideration hearing under Rule
VI(F) was agendized for the March 4, 2019 City Council meeting. On March 4, 2019 after
opening the public hearing and receiving comments from the public and interested parties,
Mayor Barrett closed the public hearing and the City Council unanimously voted to continue its
deliberation on the item to a date certain of April 1, 2019.
3
DISCUSSION
Given the filing of the decision McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena
(2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 80 on December 18, 2018 and its relationship to consideration of the
Project, staff has been researching the law associated with the City's ability to complete CEQA
review in the context of the SPAR review of the entitlements required for the Project. The
recent case of Georgetown Preservation Societe v. County of El Dorado, (2018) 30 Cal.App.3d
358, filed December 17, 2018 (one day before the McCorkle decision, held that lay opinions can
provide substantial evidence that a project may have a significant impact on the environment,
triggering the need to prepare an EIR. In Georgetown, which was a challenge to a negative
declaration El Dorado County had prepared for design review approval of a Dollar General Store
proposed for the historic Georgetown downtown, the evidence of aesthetic impacts of the
proposed development offered by Georgetown residents was sufficient to trigger the need for an
EIR. The County argued that its findings that the project satisfied its historic design review guide
and therefore the applicable zoning requirements was entitled to deference from the court. The
court agreed that the design review and zoning compliance findings were entitled to deference,
as to the issue of compliance with the zoning code, but held that the County's findings of
compliance with applicable zoning requirements could not substitute for compliance with
CEQA. Because the court held that residents' comments on project aesthetics amounted to
substantial evidence, it held that the fair argument standard was met and an EIR was required,
notwithstanding the County's findings the project satisfied applicable zoning requirements,
including design review requirements.
By contrast, the recent McCorkle case — filed December 18, 2018 - casts doubt on the City's
ability to order an EIR in response to fact -based comments of residents and workers in the
Project area, and even conflicting expert opinion regarding emissions and air quality impacts of
the Project. McCorkle involved a challenge brought by St. Helena residents to an in -fill
apartment project permitted in the zoning district without a use permit. The City Council, on an
appeal from the Planning Commission's decision, found that the project qualified for the CEQA
infill exemption, and that the scope of the Council's CEQA review was limited to the design
review issues over which the Council had discretion under its design review regulations.
Opponents of the project sued, arguing that the Council violated CEQA by failing to consider
aspects of the project other than design review and that an EIR was required. The court agreed
with the City and held that the scope of its review under CEQA was limited to the scope of its
design review authority. The rulings in Georgetown and McCorkle may be read to conflict. In
Georgetown, there is no mention of limiting the County's authority to review under CEQA only
project environmental impacts related to design review factors over which the County had
discretionary approval. Rather, the court concluded that the fair argument standard was met
based on residents' comments regarding aesthetic impacts of the project, and that an EIR was
therefore required. A primary focus of the Georgeto- tm court was that agency determinations
regarding zoning compliance and design review should not be permitted to supplant CEQA
analysis, because the two analyses are different. It follows that supporting the Georgetown
court's holding is the recognition that a project may satisfy zoning and design review guidelines
and still present environmental impacts that may be significant, requiring an EIR.
4
As a result of the holdings in McCorkle and Georgetown, filed only a day apart, the law
regarding requiring EIRs for design review projects appears unsettled. The Georgetown case has
important similarities to the Project and the related review proceedings. With regard to the
Project, the City ordered an MND prepared, as in Georgetown, (whereas McCorkle involved an
infill exemption and no CEQA review). There are also significant differences between the St.
Helena and Petaluma design review regulations. In the St. Helena ordinance, there is no
equivalent provision to the requirement in IZO Section 24.010(G) of achieving "harmony of the
development with its surroundings." Also, the St. Helena code significantly constrains the city's
authority to deny a project solely on design review grounds. It provides in subdivision (c) of
Section 17.164.040 entitled "Limitations of review" that "[o]nly the proponent's failure to take
reasonable account of the items discussed in Section 17.164.010 through 17.164.030 [the
Statement of policy, Purpose, and Design criteria sections of the St. Helena Design Review
chapter] shall justify the commission's disapproving a proposal solely on the basis of design."
There is no comparable provision in the Petaluma SPAR regulations.
Mr. Francois representing Safeway argues that the City Council's discretion on appeal of the
Project is consistent with that of the City of St. Helena in the McCorkle case, and that the City
Council may only consider environmental impacts of the Project that the City Council has the
authority to mitigate under the findings for SPAR as outlined in Chapter 24 of the IZO. Mr.
Francois has also argued that the Georgetown and McCorkle cases are reconcilable because the
County in Georgetown had broad discretion to deny the project due to the lot merger the project
required, whereas the court in McCorkle treated the project in that case as exempt under the in-
fill exemption or exempt from CEQA altogether. (However, notwithstanding Mr. Francois'
argument, the Georgetown court does not attribute its ruling to the needed lot merger, and
focuses instead on residents' comments on aesthetic impacts of the project, which the court ruled
constituted substantial evidence of a fair argument the project would have significant impacts.)
It has been the City of Petaluma's consistent practice to treat applications for SPAR approval as
subject to the exercise of discretion of the approving body, up to and including, the authority of
the approving body to disapprove the project on SPAR grounds. The authority to disapprove
SPAR applications is expressly stated in IZO section 24.010(G). It has also been the City's
consistent practice to conduct full CEQA review of SPAR applications. That practice has
continued uninterrupted, including regarding the Safeway Project, resulting in the preparation of
an MND for the Project. Following the filing of the McCorkle decision, and notwithstanding the
Georgetown decision, counsel for Safeway argued in correspondence dated January 24, 2019 that
the City is prevented from ordering an EIR for the Project, despite residents' comments in the
record that may constitute substantial evidence of a fair argument, and despite competing expert
opinion regarding Project health risks. It is unfortunate that the rulings in the McCorkle and
Georgetown cases do not more clearly discuss the issue of approving body discretion to help in
resolving the apparent tension between the holdings. If counsel for Safeway is correct as to the
limiting effect of the McCorkle case on the ability of Petaluma approving bodies to require
mitigation of environmental impacts of projects seeking SPAR approval, that would represent a
major change regarding the City's environmental review and project approval practices.
5
PUBLIC COMMENT
Public comments received throughout the proceedings related to the application are included in
prior staff reports. Public comments received since publication of the September 17, 2018 staff
report (September 11, 2018) and up until publication of the December 3, 2018 staff report
(November 27, 2018) are included as Attachment 16 and available at the following link:
http://petaluma.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=31 &clip_id=2646
Public comments received since publication of the December 3, 2018 staff report and up until
publication of the January 28, 2019 staff report (January 22, 2019) are included at Attachment 26
and available at the following link:
http://petaluma.izranicus.com/GeneratedA�aendaViewer.php?view id=31&clip id=2646
Public comments received since publication of the January 28, 2019 staff report and up until
publication of the March 4, 2019 staff report. (February 28, 2019) are included at Attachment 16
to this report and available at the following link:
Public comments received since publication of the March 4, 2109 staff report are included at
Attachment X to this report.
Public notice for the March 4, 2019 City Council hearing was published in the Argus Courier
and mailed to all property owners and tenants within a 1,000 -foot radius of the site and to people
on the interested parties list. Additionally, two public hearing signs were posted on the site in
advance of the March 4, 2019 hearing. At the March 4, 2019 public hearing the City Council
received comments from members of the public and interested parties, closed the public hearing,
and continued the Council's deliberations on the item to a date certain of April 1, 2019.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The appeal is a cost recovery project. The initial $235.00 deposit was paid by the appellant upon
submittal of the appeal while all additional costs of processing the appeal are paid by the
applicant.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1
Draft City Council Resolution approving the appeal
Attachment 2
Draft City Council Resolution denying the appeal
Attachment 3
Project plan set
Attachment 4
Planning Conunission Resolution 2018-21A
Attaclunent 5
Planning Commission Resolution 2018-21B
Attachment 6
Rutan & Tucker Letter (March 3, 2019)
Attachment 7
Rutan & Tucker Email (March 4, 2019) with Declaration from Amanda
Monchamp
Attachment 8
Email from appellant Joann McEachin (March 6, 2019)
Attachment 9
Petition for Review submitted by Soluri Meserve (March 8, 2019)
Attachment 10
Amici Brief submitted by Soluri Meserve (March 25, 2019)
6
Attachment 11 Rutan & Tucker Letter (March 27, 2019)
Attachment 12 Email from appellant Joam1 McEachin (March 27, 2019)
Attachment 13 Public comment letters received February 26 to March 28, 2019
Attachments listed below were provided in hard copy with the March 4, 2019, City Council
packet distribution and available at the following link on the city's website:
httpJ/Petaluma.Rranicus.con-/GeneratedAi4endaViewer. ph-o?view id=31 &clip id=2659
Attachments listed below were provided in hard copy with the January 28, 2019 City
Council packet distribution and available at the following link on the city's website:
httt):Ilt)etaluma.uanicus.conr/Gener,jtedA�4endaVic�ver.r)lzl)?view--id=31&clip id=2646
Attachment 3 Rutan & Tucker Letter (January 2, 2019)
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
Exhibit G
Exhibit H
Attachment 4 Safeway Appeal City Council Staff Report December 3, 2018
Attachment 1 Draft City Council Resolution
0
Safeway Appeal City Council Staff Report, March 4, 2019
Attachment 1
Draft City Council Resolution approving the appeal
Attachment 2
Draft City Council Resolution denying the appeal
Attachment 3
City Council Resolution No. 2019-015
Attachment 4
City Attorney letter to applicant (January 22, 2019)
Attachment 5
Rutan & Tucker Letter (January 24, 2019)
Attachment 6
Soluri Meserve Letter (January 28, 2019)
Attachment 7
Rutan & Tucker Letter (January 28, 2019)
Attachment 8
Rutan & Tucker Letter (January 28, 2019)
Attachment 9
Rutan & Tucker Letter (February 1, 2019)
Attachment 10
Email from appellant Joann McEachin (February 4, 2019)
Attachment 11
Letter from applicant Natalie Mattei (February 4, 2019)
Attachment 12
Rutan & Tucker Letter (February 11, 2019)
Attachment 13
Email from appellant Joann McEachin (February 25, 2019)
Attachment 14
Email from appellant Joann McEachin (February 25, 2019)
Attachment 15
Email from appellant Joann McEachin (February 27, 2019)
Attachment 16
Public Comment Letters received January 22, 2019 to February 28,
2019
Attachments listed below were provided in hard copy with the January 28, 2019 City
Council packet distribution and available at the following link on the city's website:
httt):Ilt)etaluma.uanicus.conr/Gener,jtedA�4endaVic�ver.r)lzl)?view--id=31&clip id=2646
Attachment 3 Rutan & Tucker Letter (January 2, 2019)
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
Exhibit G
Exhibit H
Attachment 4 Safeway Appeal City Council Staff Report December 3, 2018
Attachment 1 Draft City Council Resolution
0
Attachment 2
Draft City Council Resolution (Replaced by revision Dec 3,
2018)
Draft City Council
Resolution REDLINE
Draft City Council
Resolution CLEAN
Attachment 5 City
Council Resolution No. 2018-180
Attachment 6 Safeway Appeal City Council Staff Report September 17, 2018
Attaclunent 1 Safeway Appeal Resolution (Superseded)
Attachment 2
Letter of Appeal
Attachment 3
Planning Commission Resolution No, 2018-21A
Attachment 4
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2018-21B,
Attachment 5
June 26, 2018 Planning Commission Staff Report
Attachment 6
May 8, 2018 Planning Commission Staff Report
Attachment 7
Public Draft IS/MND
Exhibit A Traffic Study, (online)
Exhibit B Traffic Study, (online)
Exhibit C Health Risk Assessment (online)
Attachment 8
Response to Comments
Attaclunent 9
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Attachment 10
Supplemental Analysis from Applicant (June 6, 2018 letter)
Attachment 11
Illingworth and Rodkin (May 8, 2018)
Attachment 12
Complete Plan Set
Attachment 13
Applicant Supplemental Information (September 6, 2018 letter)
Attachment 14
Public Correspondence prior to May. 8, 2018 Planning
Commission
Attachment 15
Public Correspondence after May 8, 2018 Planning Commission
through June 26, 2018 Planning Commission
Attachment 16
Public Correspondence after June 26, 2018 Packet Distribution
Attachment 17
Public Correspondence after Appeal Filed to September 11, 2018
Attachment 7 Rutan & Tucker Letter (September 11, 2018)
Attachment 8 Meridian Consultant's Conunents (September 12, 2018)
Attachment 9 Rutan & Tucker Response to Meridian Comments (September 14, 2018)
Attachment 10 Soluri Meserve Comments (September 14, 2018)
Exhibit A Comments on IS/MND + HRA prepared by Fox
and Kapahi (September 17, 2018)
Attachment 11 Rutan & Tucker Letter (September 17, 2018)
Attachment 12 BAAQMD Comment Letter (September 17, 2018)
Attachment 13 Rutan & Tucker Response to Comments (October 10, 2018)
Attachment 14 BAAQMD Comment Letter (November 14, 2018)
Attachment 15 Rutan & Tucker Letter (November 14, 2018)
Attachment 16 Public Comment Letters received September 11, 2018 to November 27, 2018
Attachment 17 Public Comment Letter (September 17, 2018)
Attachment 18 Comment Letter from Joann McEachin (November 29)
Attachment 19 Soluri Meserve Letter (November 30)
Attachment 20 Supplemental Health Risk Results from Fox and Kapahi (November 30)
Attachment 21 Rutan & Tucker Letter (December 1)
Attachment 22 Rutan & Tucker Letter (December 2)
Attachment 23 Solari Meserve Letter (December 3)
Attachment 24 Continents on IS/MND from Fox and Kapahi (December 3)
Attachment 25 Illingworth & Rodkin Letter (December 3, 2018)
Attachment 26 Public Comment Letters received November 27, 2018 to present
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL
RESCINDING AND REPLACING RESOLUTION NO. 2019-015 ADOPTED JANUARY
28, 2019 AND UPHOLDING THE APPEAL FILED BY JOANN MCEACHIN AS TO
THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPROVED BY THE PETALUMA
PLANNING COMMISSION ON JUNE 26, 2018 BY RESOLUTION NO. 2018-21A,
ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 15064, SUBDIVISIONS (C) AND (G) OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES, AND STAYING
THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND
ARCHITECUTRAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 2018-21B
ADOPTED JUNE 26, 2018 FOR THE SAFEWAY FUEL CENTER PROJECT
LOCATED AT 335 SOUTH McDOWELL BOULEVARD,
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 007-820-046, FILE NO. PLAP 18-0001,
PENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE
PROJECT SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL
WHEREAS, Stantec Architecture Inc., LLP., on behalf of Safeway ("Applicant") property
owner Washington Square Associates, LLC., submitted an application ("Application") for Site
Plan and Architectural Review ("SPAR") approval 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 referred to as
the Safeway Fuel Center Project ("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 ("MND")
and notice of a public hearing on the Application before the Petaluma Planning Commission was
published in the Argus Courier on April 5, 2018 and mailed to residents and occupants within a
500 -foot radius of the project site, in compliance with state and local law; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and
established the local public review period for the Initial Study ("IS")/MND starting April 5, 2018
and ending May 7, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the public review period for the IS/MND 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 the City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance no. 2300 N.C.S.
("IZO") §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
ATTACHMENT 1
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
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project
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
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2018, prior to acting on the SPAR application, the Planning
Commission adopted a 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 the SPAR for the Project pursuant to Resolution 2018-2113, subject to
conditions of approval listed in Exhibit 1 to the Resolution; and
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2018, JoAnn McEachin filed an appeal on behalf of herself and
McDowell Elementary School, Little League Children and East Petaluma Residents
("Appellants") of the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 2018-21A approving an
MND and adoption of Resolution 2018-21B approving SPAR for the Project ("Appeal"); and
WHEREAS, the Appeal included 16 additional signatures from 'members of the public;
and
WHEREAS, the grounds for appeal given in the Appeal letter included: questioning the
community need for the Project; the proximity of the Project 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 September 6, 2018 public notice of an appeal hearing before the City
Council on September 17, 2018 was published in the Argus Courier and mailed to all property
owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of the Property; in accordance with the requirements of
the City's IZO and City Council Resolution No. 2018-107, and to all those on the interested parties
list for the Project; and
WHEREAS, also on September 6, 2018 and again on September 11, 2018, counsel for the
Applicant, Matthew Francois, submitted supplemental Project information, addressing, among
other things, correspondence submitted regarding the Project on behalf of the Sierra Club and
distances between the Project site and nearby schools and residences; and
WHEREAS, by letter dated September 12, 2018, Chris Thomas, Chief Business Official
of Petaluma City Schools ("School District"), asserted that an Environmental Impact Report
(`BIR") is required for the Project based on comments from Meridian Consultants regarding the
2.2
ATTACHMENT 1
approved Project MND addressing air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hazardous materials,
noise, and traffic, which comments were transmitted with Ms. Thomas' letter; and
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2018, the City received from Patrick Soluri, legal counsel
for the Appellant, correspondence challenging both the Planning Commission's adoption of
Resolution No. 2018-21A approving the Project MND and the Commission's adoption of
Resolution No. 2018-21B approving the Project SPAR; and
WHEREAS, the Soluri September 14, 2018 correspondence asserted that the City Council
possesses the discretion to deny, and should deny, the Project SPAR based on: considerations of
the harmony of the development with its surroundings; the siting of the structure on the property;
authority in the City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance ("IZO") permitting imposition of
requirements more stringent than those of the IZO for discretionary projects; City General Plan
policies regarding locating new stationary sources of air pollutants sufficient distances from
residential facilities and facilities that serve sensitive receptors; California Air Resources Board
("CARB") guidance to avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gasoline
dispensing facility; the proximity of the Project to the 4CS Petaluma Child Development Center
at 401 S. McDowell Boulevard; a health risk analysis finding that the project would result in
significant health risks to nearby sensitive receptors; siting of the Project creating disharmony; and
the Project being contrary to the public health, safety and general welfare by exposing residents to
health risks; and
WHEREAS, the Soluri September 14, 2018 correspondence also asserted that substantial
evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may have significant environmental impacts
because of conflicting expert analyses concerning: health risks, greenhouse gas emissions, traffic
impacts, and hazardous materials impacts, and that therefore CEQA requires the preparation of an
EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Soluri September 14, 2018 correspondence included Project traffic
analysis prepared by Larry Wymer and Associates Traffic Engineering; and
WHEREAS, on September 17, 2018, the City received comments on the Project MND
prepared by Fox and Kapahi on behalf of Appellants, which analyzed Project health risks and
concluded that significant health impacts from the Project required that an EIR be prepared; and
WHEREAS, also on September 17, 2018, Mr. Francois representing the Applicant
submitted to the City correspondence responding to Mr. Soluri's correspondence from September
14, 2018 asserting that Mr. Soluri misstates the standard of review applicable to the City's approval
of the Project SPAR, that there is no substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may
result in significant environmental impacts, and providing a technical memorandum from CHS
Consulting Group responding to the traffic analysis of Larry Wymer and Associates; and
WHEREAS, also on September 17, 2018, the City received comments on the Project from
Damien Breen, Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer, representing the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District ("BAAQMD") noting that if the Applicant's current Project proposal differs
from the equipment description contained in the Air District Authority to Construct permit issued
ATTACHMENT 1
for the Project, a new permit application requesting authorization for a change must be submitted,
and
WHEREAS, the BAAQMD September 17, 2018 correspondence also commented
regarding the health risk assessment ("HRA") prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin on behalf of
the Applicant and recommended that the Applicant HRA use the AERMOD dispersion model
rather than ISCST3 and run the model with 2 volume sources, and commented regarding the May
7, 2018 peer review of the HRA prepared by ESA Consultants for the District that the Project HRA
should run at the maximum permitted throughput limit, that off-site teacher/worker maximum
health impacts should be addressed, suggesting that using full 2015 OEHHA HRA procedures
would likely be more conservative and acceptable for CEQA purposes, and concurred with
Illingworth and Rodkin's May 8, 2018 response to the ESA peer review of the HRA regarding
receptor height for children; and
WHEREAS, a staff report dated September 17, 2018 was prepared as Item 6.13 of the
September 17, 2018 City Council Agenda which analyzed the Appeal and included and referenced
numerous attachments comprising the record of decision before the Planning Commission for its
June 26, 2018 consideration of the Project, and numerous comments received from members of
the public after the Planning Commission approval, including public comments opposing the
Project based on the Project's proximity to the adjacent day care, school, ball fields and perceived
health effects, as well as traffic and congestion; and comments supporting the Project based on
lowered gas prices, need for access to fuel, and ability to conduct one-stop shopping; and
WHEREAS, due to the extensive amount of information regarding the Project received
shortly before and the day of the September 17, 2018 City Council hearing, staff recommended
that the City Council continue the Appeal to October 15, 2018 to permit staff to review and provide
the Council analysis of the Project information received, and to permit interested parties and
members of the public to also review the information received prior to the Appeal hearing; and
WHEREAS, at the duly noticed public hearing on the Project on September 17, 2018 the
City Council continued the item to a date certain of October 15, 2018 without deliberation and
without opening the public hearing in order to allow sufficient time to adequately review the new
materials; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2018 the City received correspondence from Mr. Francois
representing the Applicant including a response prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin to Mr.
Soluri's September 14, 2018 correspondence, to the September 17; 2018 HRA prepared by Fox
and Kapahi on behalf of Appellant, and to the September 17, 2018 BAAQMD letter; and
WHEREAS, the October 10, 2018 Illingworth and Rodkin response noted that the
AERMOD air quality dispersion model had not been used for modeling potential impacts from
any CEQA project in Petaluma due to the lack of local meteorological data required by AERMOD,
that BAAQMD modeling guidance recommends the use of either AERMOD or ISCST3 models
for CEQA related HRAs, and that Illingworth and Rodkin conducted a supplemental HRA using
the AERMOD model and that analysis, included in the October 10, 2018 correspondence, which
also concludes that the Project will not result in any significant health risk impacts; and
-4
ATTACHMENT 1
WHEREAS, in a staff report prepared for Agenda Item 5B for the October 15, 2018 City
Council meeting, staff 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 and Kapahi September 17, 2018 HRA, and recommended that the hearing on the Appeal
be continued to December 3, 2018, to permit review and consideration of the newly -submitted and
anticipated Project information by City staff, decisionmakers, interested parties and members of
the public; and
WHEREAS, at the October 15, 2018 City Council meeting the City Council continued the
public hearing on the Project to a date certain of December 3, 2018 without opening the public
hearing and without deliberation 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 updated Illingworth and Rodkin HRA dated October 10, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the November 8, 2018 BAAQMD correspondence notes several key
concerns regarding the Fox and Kapahi HRA, 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 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 noted that BAAQMD has no further
comments on the October 10, 2018 HRA, and that the Project includes a gas station configuration
that differs from that approved in the current BAAQMD Authority to Construct permit, and that
therefore the Applicant must apply for permit revisions; and
WHEREAS, on behalf of the Applicant, Rutan & Tucker issued a November 14, 2018
letter responding to the BAAQMD comment letter and asserting that the City is required to uphold
the Planning Commission's approval of the MND and SPAR because the record lacks substantial
evidence of a fair argument that the Project may have significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, Petaluma residents, neighbors, teachers and administrators of the McDowell
Elementary School, 4Cs Child Development Center, and North Bay Children's Center, parents of
students, and parents of children using the baseball fields have provided written and oral comments
expressing concern regarding safety of the McDowell Boulevard and Maria Drive intersection due
to traffic volumes and speeds, conflicts with pedestrians, and increased activity resulting from the
Safeway Fuel Center, including: two commenters noting they have observed pedestrian/vehicle
collisions and near -collisions in the Project area; another commenter observing that school -aged
children walk home by themselves, and the crosswalk is already a danger; a commenter expressing
concern about heavy traffic and foul balls getting hit next to a busy street; another commenter
observing cars run stop signs while working at the snack shack at Murphy Field, and noting Maria
Drive is heavily traveled and one of the main streets in that area; and
ATTACHMENT 1
WHEREAS, Petaluma residents, neighbors, teachers and administrators of the McDowell
Elementary School, 4Cs Child Development Center, and North Bay Children's Center, parents of
students, and parents of children using the baseball fields have provided written and oral comments
expressing concern that the Safeway Fuel Center would result in substantial changes to the
"neighborhood spirit" that would be detrimental to the neighborhood making it less desirable and
more dangerous; and
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2018 on behalf of Appellants, Mr. Soluri provided
correspondence to the City disputing Mr. Francois' characterization of the City's discretion
concerning approval of the Project and asserting that the City may overturn the Project SPAR
approval because the Project is disharmonious with its surroundings and inconsistent with the
public health safety and welfare, and providing supplemental health risk results from Fox and
Kapahi using Petaluma wind data with the AERMOD model; and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2018 on behalf of the Applicant, Mr. Francois provided
correspondence to the City arguing that the Appellant did not explicitly appeal the City's approval
of the Mitigated Negative Declaration within 30 -days of the filing of the Notice of Determination
with the Sonoma County Clerk, and therefore the approval of the MND was final and additionally,
arguing that no substantial evidence of a fair argument of a significant environmental impact had
been submitted and therefore the City cannot lawfully required the preparation of an FIR for the
Project; and
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2018 on behalf of the Applicant Mr. Francois provided
correspondence to the City asserting that the Project will not result in significant health risks and
that the City's discretion regarding approval of the Project is limited to design issues; and
WHEREAS, on December 3 2018, on behalf of the Appellant Mr. Sol -Uri submitted a letter
responding to Mr. Francois' December 1 and 2 letters and asserting that the Tahoe Vista case does
not apply to the City Council's de novo review of appeals of Planning Commission decisions, and
that the Friends of Davis case does not apply to the appeal; and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2018, on behalf of the Appellant Mr, Soluri's Legal Assistant
forwarded to the City responses to comments on the IS/MND for the Project dated December 3,
2018, which responses to comments assert that: independent scientific analyses support that gas
stations should not be located near housing or vulnerable populations; the meteorological data used
in the revised HRA submitted by Illingworth and Rodkin is not appropriate for predictions at a
range of less than 1 kilometer; the Applicant diesel particulate emissions estimates are understated;
BAAQMD guidance calls for using an exposure duration of 70 years for risk assessments for gas
stations; the BAAQMD November 8, 2018 letter notwithstanding, using Petaluma meteorological
data with the AERMOD model reveals significant health risks; use of the CAPCOA benzene
emission factor is appropriate; the Applicant and BAAQMD underestimate benzene emissions
from the Project; and that CARB recommended setbacks for gas stations might be inadequate; and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2018, on behalf of the Applicant, Illingworth 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
-6
ATTACHMENT
appropriate and it is improper to draw correlations between the resolution of the meteorological
data and the prediction accuracy of the 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
exposure risk; that the Fox Kapahi 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, Section 15064, subdivision (a), paragraph (1) of the CEQA Guidelines
provides that 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 15064, subdivision (c) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that in
determining whether an effect will be adverse or beneficial, the lead agency shall consider the
views held by members of the public in all areas affected as expressed in the whole record before
the lead agency, and that before requiring the preparation of an EIR, the lead agency must still
determine whether environmental change itself might be substantial; and
WHEREAS, under Protect Niles v. City of Fremont (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1129, residents'
personal observations of traffic conditions where they live and commute may constitute substantial
evidence even if they contradict the conclusions of a traffic study, and therefore, fact -based
comments of the community may constitute substantial evidence that a fair argument can be made
that a project may potentially result in adverse impacts related to circulation; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA, public testimony (or reasonable inferences from
it) should be considered to constitute substantial credible evidence supporting a fair argument
when the project may have a significant impact (Rominger v. -County of Colusa (2014) 229
Cal.App.4th 690); and
WHEREAS, Section 15064, subdivision (f) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that the
decision as to whether a project may have one or more significant effects shall be based on
substantial evidence in the record of the lead agency, and that if the lead agency determines there
is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR, and if a lead agency is presented with a fair
argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall
prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the
project will not have a significant effect; and
WHEREAS, Section 15064, Subdivision (g) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that after
application of the principles set forth in Section 15064, Subdivision (f) of the CEQA Guidelines,
in marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have
a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the principle that if
there is disagreement among expert opinions supported by facts of the significance of an effect on
the environment, the lead agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR; and
WHEREAS, the staff report dated December 3, 2018 responded to comments received
since publication of the September 17, 2018 staff report and together with findings and analysis
-7
ATTACHMENT I
contained in the September 17, 2018 staff report addressed the grounds for the appeal and are
incorporated herein by reference; 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 the information
submitted by City staff, the Applicant, the Appellant, interested parties and members of the public
concerning the Project and the Appeal, all of which information is hereby incorporated into and
made a part of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing held on the Appeal on December 3, 2018 and
City Council deliberations regarding the Record on Appeal, the City Council, by a unanimous vote
and consistent with staff's oral recommendation at the hearing, adopted Resolution No. 2018-180
entitled:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING
THE APPEAL FILED BY JOANN MCEACHIN AS TO THE MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPROVED BY THE PETALUMA PLANNING
COMMISSION ON JUNE 26, 2018 BY RESOLUTION NO. 2018-21A,
ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 15064, SUBDIVISIONS (C)
AND (G) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
GUIDELINES, AND STAYING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECUTRAL REVIEW PURSUANT
TO RESOLUTION NO, 2018-21 ADOPTED JUNE 26, 2018 FOR THE
SAFEWAY FUEL CENTER PROJECT LOCATED AT 335 SOUTH
McDOWELL BOULEVARD, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 007-820-046, FILE
NO. PLSR 13-0012 PENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR AND CITY
COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE PROJECT SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW APPROVAL; and
WHEREAS, as the title indicates Resolution No. 2018-180 as adopted by the City Council
had the effect of upholding the Appeal as to the Project MND, ordering preparation of an EIR
regarding Project environmental impacts, and staying the SPAR approved by the Planning
Commission on June 26, 2018 pending certification of an EIR for the project and City Council
review of the Project SPAR; 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 Appeal indicated that the City Council would take 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 54957.5 the revised resolution ordering preparation of an EIR that
staff prepared December 3, 2018, a September 17, 2018 email from project supporters and the
December 3 memo from Illingworth and Rodkin; and by failing to disclose the existing facts and
circumstances giving rise to significant exposure to litigation in accordance with Government
ATTACHMENT 1
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, by letter dated January 22, 2019, the City Attorney responded to Mr.
Francois' letter indicating that the City Council would take action to cure and correct the alleged
Brown Act violations at a notice public hearing on January 28, 2019, even though the City had not
violated the Brown Act at the December 3 hearing on the Appeal, and
WHEREAS, the January 22 correspondence indicated that the City did not violate the
Brown Act at the December 3 appeal hearing because: the agenda description for the December 3
Appeal hearing specified that the City Council would consider resolutions for Council action on
both Planning Commission approvals on appeal - the MND and SPAR - in accordance with Section
54954.2 requirements; the revised resolution upholding the Appeal and ordering an EIR was
shared with the Applicant's and Appellants' representatives as soon as possible at the December
3 hearing, the same time it was first presented to the City Council, in accordance with Section
54957.5, and the September 17 email from Project supporters and the Illingworth and Rodkin
December 3 memo were not distributed to the Council members less than 72 hours before the
December 3 hearing, and were therefore not covered by Section 54957.5; and because the
December 3 closed session on the Appeal was based on Mr. Francois' public remarks at the June
26, 2018 Planning Commission hearing, and therefore the December 3 closed session description
satisfied Brown Act closed session description requirements in accordance with Section
54956.9(e)(4); and
WHEREAS, the January 22 correspondence from the City attorney indicated that the City
would cure or correct Brown Act violations alleged by Safeway by: indicating in the agenda
description for the January 28 cure and correct hearing that one of the resolutions offered for City
Council consideration and possible adoption would order the preparation of an EIR and stay the
Planning Commission's SPAR approval; including as exhibits to an updated version of the
resolution revised on December 3 to be offered to the Council for action on January 28 and
distributed as part of the agenda the September 17 email from Project supporters and the December
3 Illingworth and Rodkin memo; and that a closed session agenda item will be included on the
January 28 City Council agenda that will disclose the fact that the closed session is being held
based, on remarks of Mr. Francois representing Safeway at the June 26 Planning Commission
hearing and the January 2 cure and correct demand Mr. Francois submitted to the City; and
WHEREAS, on _January 17, 2019 the City published notice in the Petaluma Argus
Courier of a January 28, 2019 public hearing to cure or correct alleged violations of the Brown
Act at the December 3, 2018 hearing on the Appeal and mailed notice of the January 28 hearing
to all property owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of the Property in accordance with the
requirements of the City's IZO and City Council Resolution No. 2018-107, and to all members on
the interested parties list for the Project; and
WHEREAS, On January 24, 2019, Mr. Francois on behalf of Safeway submitted
correspondence arguing that under McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena,
filed on December 18, 2018, the City Council could not order that an EIR be prepared concerning
the Project, notwithstanding the conflicting expert opinion in the record on Appeal concerning
Project environmental impacts, because the court held in McCorkle that local agencies conducting
1-9
ATTACHMENT 1
design review are limited under CEQA to analyzing only those environmental impacts that the
agency has the authority to mitigate under its design review regulations; and.
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2019 on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Soluri submitted
correspondence to the City asserting that the McCorkle case does not limit the City's discretion to
require environmental review for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2019 on behalf of the Applicant, Mr. Francois submitted
correspondence to the City asserting that the City Attorney's letter of January 22, 2019 in response
to Mr. Francois' demand letter to cure or correct alleged violations of Brown Act dated January 2,
2019, was not supported by facts; and
WHEREAS, On January 28, 2019 on behalf of the Applicant, Mr. Francois submitted
correspondence to the Mayor and City Members to respond to public comments in the record
associated with the January 28 council consideration of the Appeal and the demand to cure and
correct alleged Brown Act violations; and
WHEREAS, at the January 28, 2018 City Council meeting, in accordance with the City's
January 22, 2019 correspondence to the Applicant, the City Council held a closed session
regarding anticipated litigation based on and citing comments and correspondence on behalf of
Safeway raising a threat of litigation; and
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 Appellant, 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 ("Record on Appeal"), all of which information comprises
part of the Record on Appeal is hereby incorporated into and made a part of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, -after the January 28 public hearing had been closed and during Council
deliberation on the item, some Council members expressed a desire for additional time to consider
the impact of the recent decision in McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena
on the City Council's options on the Appeal; and
WHEREAS, in response to the desire expressed by some Council members for additional
time to consider the McCorkle case, Safeway representatives indicated Safeway would not
stipulate to additional time for Council consideration and that the City Council should take action
at the January 28 City Council in accordance with the cure and correct deadline that applies under
the Brown Act to Safeway's demand dated January 2, 2019; and
WHEREAS, following the response from Safeway representatives, Council Member
Healy asked for confirmation whether Council action to cure or correct subject to the Council's
rules regarding motions for reconsideration would satisfy Brown Act requirements, and upon
receiving an answer that such action would satisfy Brown Act requirements, Council Member
Healy gave notice of his intent to later move reconsideration, in accordance with Section VI(F) of
the City Council's rules, and moved to adopt Resolution No. 2019-015 N.C.S. entitled
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL RESCINDING
AND REPLACING RESOLUTION NO. 2018-180 ADOPTED DECEMBER 3,
ATTACHMENT 1
2018 AND UPHOLDING THE APPEAL FILED BY JOANN MCEACHIN AS
TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPROVED BY THE
PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION ON JUNE 26, 2018 BY
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-21A, ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
15064, SUBDIVISIONS (C) AND (G) OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES, AND STAYING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND
ARCHITECUTRAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 2018-21B
ADOPTED JUNE 26, 2018 FOR THE SAFEWAY FUEL CENTER PROJECT
LOCATED AT 335 SOUTH McDOWELL BOULEVARD, ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 007-820-046, FILE NO. PLSR 13-0012 PENDING
CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE
PROJECT SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Barrett seconded Council Member Healy's motion to adopt
Resolution No. 2019-015 N.C.S, and the motion passed by a vote of four to one with Council
Member Fischer opposed and Council Members Kearney and Miller recused; and
WHEREAS, under Section VI(F) of the Council Rules, a motion to reconsider the
Council's adoption of Resolution No. 2019-015 N.C.S. on January 28, 2019 was required to occur
at the City Council meeting on February 4, 2019, and in accordance with Section VI(F), an agenda
item on reconsideration of Resolution No. 2019-015 N.C.S. was agendized for the City Council's
February 4 meeting; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2019 on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Francois submitted
correspondence to the Mayor and Council Members arguing that Rule IX(C) of the City Council's
Rules, Policies, and Procedures allows the City Council to move, second, and vote on
reconsideration at the February 4, 2019 in order to reconsider the Council's action in two meetings
instead of three; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2019 the appellant, JoAnn McEachin, emailed the City
Council reiterating two isopleths produced by Fox and Kapahi representing cancer risk from the
proposed project; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2019 Natalie Mattei on behalf of Safeway submitted a
response to Ms. McEachin's email of the same date and indicating that the Fox and Kapahi
isopleths had previously been argued as misrepresenting the cancer risks associated with the
project by Illingworth & Rodkin in their response on December 2, 2018; and
WHEREAS, On February 11, 2019 on behalf of the Applicant, Mr. Francois provided
correspondence to BAAQMD summarizing the record relating to health risk modeling for the
Project; and
WHEREAS, at the City Council's February 4 meeting, following consideration of the
reconsideration item (with Council Members Kearney and Miller recused), Council Member Healy
moved reconsideration of Resolution No. 2019-015 and Council Member King seconded the
motion; and
2-11
ATTACHMENT 1
WHEREAS, in accordance with Rule VI(F), the vote on the reconsideration motion was
agendized for the February 25 City Council meeting, and, at the February 25 meeting, following
consideration of the reconsideration item, Mayor Barrett called the reconsideration vote and the
vote passed 3 to 2, with Vice Mayor McDonnel and Council Members Healy and King voting in
favor, Mayor Barrett and Council Member Fischer opposed, and Council Members Kearney and
Miller recused; and
WHEREAS, under Council Rule VI(F), following passage of the reconsideration motion,
reconsideration must occur at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting at least one week after
the vote; and accordingly, a reconsideration hearing under Rule VI(F) has been agendized for the
March 4, 2019 City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2019, Appellant JoAnn McEachin emailed the City Clerk
providing a link to a report from scientists at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public
Health and highlighting quotes attributed to the report suggesting that actual emissions may
substantially exceed emissions estimated in setback regulations for school, park and playground
uses; and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2019, Appellant JoAnn McEachin emailed the City Clerk
stating annual vehicular collision data for 2013 through 2018 at and around the intersection of
McDowell and East Washington; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2019, Appellant JoAnn McEachin emailed the City Clerk
urging the City Council to uphold the appeal based on Proposition 65 and associated with the sale
of gasoline and diesel in proximity to sensitive receptors; and
WHEREAS, additional comment letters have been submitted from members of the public
since the' last packet distribution on January 22, 2019 and up until distribution of this staff report
on February 28, 2019, the majority of which express opposition to the Project on a number of
grounds including air quality/health risks, safety, and circulation/traffic, while a number express
support of the project; and
WHEREAS, to provide adequate public notice in the event the City Council voted in favor
of reconsideration at the February 25 City Council meeting, staff arranged to publish on February
20, 2019 notice in the Petaluma Argus Courier of a March 4, 2019 public hearing to reconsider the
adoption of Resolution No. 2019-015. Notices of the March 4 hearing were mailed to all property
owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of the Property and to all members on the interested parties
list for the Project, and two public hearing signs were posted on the site, in accordance with the
requirements of the City's IZO and City Council Resolution No. 2018-107; and
WHEREAS, at the noticed public hearing on March 4, 2019, at which time all interested
parties had the opportunity to be heard, the City Council reconsidered adoption of Resolution No.
2019-015, considered the Appeal and the information submitted by City staff, the Applicant, the
Appellants, interested parties and members of the public for all public hearings on the Application
and Appeal, including the information submitted for the December 3, 2018 City Council hearing,
and the January 28, 2019 City Council hearing, and after closing the public hearing voted to
continue the Council's deliberations on the Appeal to the April 1, 2019 City Council meeting; and
2-12
ATTACHMENT 1
WHEREAS, at the continued Council deliberations on the Appeal at the April 1, 2019
City Council meeting, the City Council reconsidered adoption of Resolution No. 2019-015,
considered the Appeal and the information submitted by City staff, the Applicant, the Appellants,
interested parties and members of the public for all public hearings on the Application and Appeal,
including the information submitted for the December 3, 2018 City Council hearing, the January
28, 2019 and March 4, 2019 City Council hearings, 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 No. 2019-015 adopted by the City Council on January 28, 2019, is hereby
rescinded in its entirety and is longer in effect.
3. On March 4, 2019 the City Council fully considered all evidence presented before and at
the duly noticed public hearings on December 3, 2018, January 28, 2019, and March 4, 2019
regarding Appeal of the Planning Commission approval of a Mitigated Declaration pursuant
to Resolution No. 2018-21 A and Site Plan and Architectural Review pursuant to Resolution
No. 2018-21B for the Safeway Fuel Station Project and comprising the Record on Appeal,
and closed the public hearing and continued the Council deliberations on the Appeal to the
April 1, 2019 City Council meeting.
4. On April 1, 2019, the City Council fully considered all evidence presented before and at the
duly noticed public hearing. on December 3, 2018, January 28, 2019, March 4, 2019 and
April 1, 2019 regarding Appeal of the Planning Commission approval of a Mitigated
Declaration pursuant to Resolution No. 2018-21A and Site Plan and Architectural Review
pursuant to Resolution No. 2018-21B for the Safeway Fuel Station Project and comprising
the Record on Appeal, 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 in
all areas affected as expressed in the whole Record on Appeal, the City Council hereby
affirms the appeal of JoAnn McEachin filed with the City Clerk on July 9, 2018 on behalf
of JoAnn McEachin and Friends of McDowell Elementary School, Little League Children
and East Petaluma Residents as to the Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the
Petaluma Planning Commission on June 26, 2017 by Resolution No. 2018-21A.
5. Petaluma residents, neighbors, teachers and administrators of the McDowell Elementary
School, 4Cs Child Development Center, and North Bay Children's Center, parents of
students, and parents of children using the baseball fields have provided written and oral
comments expressing concern regarding safety of the McDowell Boulevard and Maria
Drive intersection due to traffic volumes and speeds, conflicts with pedestrians, and
increased activity resulting from the Safeway Fuel Center, including: two commenters
noting they have observed pedestrian/vehicle collisions and near -collisions in the Project
area; another commenter observing that school -aged children walk home by themselves,
and the crosswalk is already a danger; a commenter expressing concern about heavy traffic
and foul balls getting hit next to a busy street; another commenter observing cars run stop
2-13
ATTACHMENT I
signs while working at the snack shack at Murphy Field, and noting Maria Drive is heavily
traveled and one of the main streets in that area. Petaluma residents, neighbors, teachers
and administrators of the McDowell Elementary School, 4Cs Child Development Center,
and North Bay Children's Center, parents of students, and parents of children using the
baseball fields have provided written and oral comments expressing concern that the
Safeway Fuel Center would result in substantial changes to the "neighborhood spirit" that
would be detrimental to the neighborhood making it less desirable and more dangerous.
6. Fox and Kapahi, in the responses to comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Safeway Fuel Center dated December 3, 2018 submitted on behalf of
Appellant, assert that: independent scientific analyses support that gas stations should not
be located near housing or vulnerable populations; the meteorological data used in the
revised Health Risk Analysis submitted by Illingworth and Rodkin is not appropriate for
predictions at a range of less than 1 kilometer; the Applicant diesel particulate emissions
estimates are understated; BAAQMD guidance calls for using an exposure duration of 70
years for risk assessments for gas stations; the BAAQMD November 8, 2018 letter
notwithstanding, using Petaluma meteorological data with the AERMOD model reveals
significant health risks; use of the CAPCOA benzene emission factor is appropriate; the
Applicant and BAAQMD underestimate benzene emissions from the Project; and CARB
recommended setbacks for gas stations may be inadequate.
7. Illingworth and Rodkin, in response to the December 3, 2018 submittal from Fox and
Kapahi on behalf of the Appellant, assert that: the Illingworth and Rodkin health risk
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 of the dispersion model; comparing 5 -mph travel emission factors used to compute
idling emissions to travel emission factors for diesel emission analysis is not appropriate;
BAAQMD recommends using 30 -year exposure duration for analyzing cancer exposure
risk; the Fox Kapahi benzene emission analyses are overstated due to California fueling
station vapor recovery standards; and BAAQMD uses benzene to compute health risks from
gasoline evaporation.
8. The City Council hereby finds in accordance with Section 15064, Subdivision (g) of the
CEQA Guidelines, after application of the principles set forth in Section 15064, Subdivision
(f) of the CEQA Guidelines, that it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that the
Project may have a significant effect on the environment, and that there is disagreement
among expert opinions supported by facts submitted on behalf of Applicant (the Illingworth
and Rodkin analyses), on behalf of Appellant (the Fox Kapahi analyses), and on behalf of
the BAAQMD, and therefore the City Council is guided by the principal that if there is
disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts of the significance of an effect on
the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an
EIR.
9. The City Council is also guided by the principles that residents' personal observations of
traffic conditions where they live and commute, such as those noted by commenters
concerning traffic volumes and speeds, and conflicts with pedestrians, may constitute
substantial evidence even if they contradict the conclusions of a traffic study, and that
-14
ATTACHMENT 1
therefore, fact -based comments of the community may constitute substantial evidence that
a fair argument can be made that a project may potentially result in adverse impacts related
to circulation, and that if there is disagreement between expert opinion and residents'
personal observations supported by facts of the significance of an effect on the environment,
the City Council shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR.
10. Accordingly, the City Council hereby orders the preparation of an EIR concerning the
Project, in accordance with Section 15064, Subdivisions (c) and (g) of the CEQA Guidelines
and all other applicable CEQA requirements, because there is disagreement among expert
opinions supported by facts submitted on behalf of Applicant (the Illingworth and Rodkin
analyses), on behalf of Appellant (the Fox Kapahi analyses), and on behalf of the
BAAQMD, and because residents' observations supported by facts of traffic conditions that
may result from the Project constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that
the Project may result in significant environmental impacts, and because residents' fact -
based observations regarding traffic and traffic safety conflict with the results of expert
traffic analyses that have been prepared concerning the Project, further supporting the need
for preparation of an EIR concerning the Project.
11. The City Council hereby stays the Planning Commission's approval of Site Plan and
Architectural Review for the Safeway Fuel Center project (PLSR 13-0012) located at 335
South McDowell Boulevard pursuant to Resolution No. 2018-21B adopted June 26, 2018,
pending certification of an EIR concerning the Project and City Council review of the
Project Site Plan and Architectural Review approval.
12. This resolution shall take immediate effect upon its adoption.
13. 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 of this
resolution are severable.
2-15
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL RESCINDING AND
REPLACING RESOLUTION NO. 2019-015 N.C.S. ADOPTED JANUARY 28, 2019,
DENYING THE APPEAL FILED BY JOANN MCEACHIN AS TO THE MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECUTRAL REVIEW
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION
NOS. 2018-21A AND 2018-21B ADOPTED JUNE 26, 2018, AND AFFIRMING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECUTRAL REVIEW FOR THE
SAFEWAY FUEL CENTER PROJECT LOCATED AT 335 SOUTH McDOWELL
BOULEVARD, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 007-820-046, FILE NO.
File No. PLAP 18-0001
WHEREAS, Stantec Architecture Inc., on behalf of Safeway ("Applicant") and property
owner Washington Square Associates, LLC., submitted an application ("Application") for Site
Plan and Architectural Review "(SPAR") approval 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 referred to as
the Safeway Fuel Center Project ("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 ("MND")
and notice of a public hearing on the application before the Petaluma Planning Commission was
published in the Argus Courier on April 5, 2018 and mailed to residents and occupants within a
500 foot radius of the Project site, in compliance with state and local law; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and
established the local public review period for the Initial Study ("IS")/MND starting April 5, 2018
and ending May 7, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the public review period for the IS/MND 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 The City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 2300 N.C.S.
("IZO"), §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
ATTACHMENT 2
WHEREAS, 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
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2018, prior to acting on SPAR Application, the Planning
Commission adopted an MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MM"")
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 Project pursuant to Resolution 2018-2113, subject to
conditions of approval listed in Exhibit 1 to the Resolution; and
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2018, JoAnn McEachin ("Appellant") filed an appeal on behalf of
appellants and Friends of McDowell Elementary School, Little League Children, and East
Petaluma Residents of the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 2018-21A approving
an MND for the Project and Resolution 2018-21B approving SPAR for the Project ("Appeal");
and
WHEREAS, the Appeal included 16 additional signatures from members of the public;
and
WHEREAS, the grounds for appeal given in the Appeal letter included: questioning the
community need for the Project; the proximity of the 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 September 6, 2018 a public notice of an appeal hearing before the City
Council on September 27, 2018 was published in the Argus Courier and mailed to all property
owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of the Property in accordance with the requirements of the
City's IZO and City Council Resolution No. 2018-107, and to all members on the interested parties
list for the Project; and
WHEREAS, also on September 6, 2018 and again on September 11, 2018, counsel for the
Applicant, Matthew Francois, submitted supplemental Project information, addressing, among
other things, correspondence submitted regarding the Project on behalf of the Sierra Club and
distances between the Project site and nearby schools and residences; and
WHEREAS, by letter dated September 12, 2018, Chris Thomas, Chief Business Official
of Petaluma City Schools ("School District"), asserted that an Environmental Impact Report
("EIR") is required for the Project based on comments from Meridian Consultants regarding the
approved Project MND addressing air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hazardous materials,
noise, and traffic, which comments were transmitted with Ms, Thomas' letter; and
1-2
ATTACHMENT 2
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2018, the City received from Patrick Soluri, legal counsel
for the Appellants, correspondence challenging both the Planning Commission's adoption of
Resolution No. 2018-21A approving the Project MND and the Commission's adoption of
Resolution No. 2018-21B approving the Project SPAR; and
WHEREAS, the Soluri September 14, 2018 correspondence asserted that the City Council
possesses the discretion to deny, and should deny, the Project SPAR based on: considerations of
the harmony of the development with its surroundings; the siting of the structure on the property;
authority in the City's Implementing Zoning Ordinance ("IZO") permitting imposition of
requirements more stringent than those of the IZO for discretionary projects; City General Plan
policies regarding locating new stationary sources of air pollutants sufficient distances from
residential facilities and facilities that serve sensitive receptors; California Air Resources Board
("CARB") guidance to avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gasoline
dispensing facility; the proximity of the Project to the 4CS Petaluma Child Development Center
at 401 S. McDowell Boulevard; a health risk analysis finding that the project would result in
significant health risks to nearby sensitive receptors; siting of the Project creating disharmony; and
the Project being contrary to the public health, safety and general welfare by exposing residents to
health risks; and
WHEREAS, the Soluri September 14, 2018 correspondence also asserted that substantial
evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may have significant environmental impacts
because of conflicting expert analyses concerning: health risks, greenhouse gas emissions, traffic
impacts, and hazardous materials impacts, and that therefore CEQA requires the preparation of an
EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Soluri September 14, 2018 correspondence included Project traffic
analysis prepared by Larry Wymer and Associates Traffic Engineering; and
WHEREAS, on September 17, 2018, the City received comments on the Project MND
prepared by Fox and Kapahi on behalf of Appellants, which analyzed Project health risks and
concluded that significant health impacts from the Project required that an EIR be prepared; and
WHEREAS, also on September 17, 2018, Mr. Francois representing the Applicant
submitted to the City correspondence responding to Mr. Soluri's correspondence from September
14, 2018 asserting that Mr. Soluri misstates that standard of review applicable to the City's
approval of the Project SPAR, that there is no substantial evidence of a fair argument that the
Project may result in significant environmental impacts, and providing a technical memorandum
from CHS Consulting Group responding to the traffic analysis of Larry Wymer and Associates;
and
WHEREAS, also on September 17, 2018, the City received comments on the Project from
Damien Breen, Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer, representing the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District ("BAAQMD") noting that if the Applicant's current Project proposal differs
from the equipment description contained in the Air District Authority to Construct permit issued
for the Project, a new permit application requesting authorization for a change must be submitted,
and
ATTACHMENT 2
WHEREAS, the BAAQMD September 17, 2018 correspondence also commented
regarding the health risk assessment ("HRA") prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin on behalf of
the Applicant and recommended that the Applicant HRA use the AERMOD dispersion model
rather than ISCST3 and run the model with 2 volume sources, and commented regarding the May
7, 2018 peer review of the HRA prepared by ESA Consultants for the District that the Project HRA
should run at the maximum permitted throughput limit, that off-site teacher/worker maximum
health impact should be addressed, suggesting that using full 2015 OEHHA HRA procedures
would likely be more conservative and acceptable for CEQA purposes, and concurred with
Illingworth and Rodkin's May 8, 2018 response to the ESA peer review of the HRA regarding
receptor height for children; and
WHEREAS, a staff report dated September 17, 2018 was prepared as Item 6.13 of the
September 17, 2018 City Council Agenda which analyzed the Appeal and included and referenced
numerous attachments comprising the record of decision before the Planning Commission for its
June 26, 2018 consideration of the Project, and numerous comments received from members of
the public after the Planning Commission approval, including. public comments opposing the
Project based on the Project's proximity to the adjacent day care, school, ball fields and perceived
health effects, as well as traffic and congestion; and comments supporting the Project based on
lowered gas prices, need for access to fuel, and ability to conduct one-stop shopping; and; and
WHEREAS, due to the extensive amount of information regarding the Project received
shortly before and the day of the September 17, 2018 City Council hearing, staff recommended
that the City Council continue the Appeal to October 15, 2018 to permit staff to review and provide
the Council analysis of the Project information received, and to permit interested parties and
members of the public to also review the information received prior to the Appeal hearing; and
WHEREAS, at the duly noticed public hearing on the Project on September 17, 2018 the
City Council continued the item to a date certain of October 15, 2018 without deliberation and
without opening the public hearing in order to allow sufficient time to adequately review the new
materials; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2018 the City received correspondence from Mr. Francois
representing the Applicant including a response prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin to Mr.
Soluri's September 14, 2018 correspondence, to the September 17, 2018 HRA prepared by Fox
and Kapahi on behalf of Appellant, and to the September 17, 2018 BAAQMD letter; and
WHEREAS, the October 10, 2018 Illingworth and Rodkin response noted that the
AERMOD air quality dispersion model had not been used for modeling potential impacts from
any CEQA project in Petaluma due to the lack of local meteorological data required by AERMOD,
that BAAQMD modeling guidance recommends the use of either AERMOD or ISCST3 models
for CEQA related HRAs, and that Illingworth and Rodkin conducted a supplemental HRA using
the AERMOD model and that analysis, included in the October 10, 2018 correspondence, which
also concludes that the Project will not result in any significant health risk impacts; and
WHEREAS, in a staff report prepared for Agenda Item 5B for the October 15, 2018 City
Council meeting, staff summarized the Project -related information received since the September
17, 2018 City Council meeting and noted that a written response was anticipated from BAAQMD
1-4
ATTACHMENT
to the Fox and Kapahi September 17, 2018 HRA, and recommended that the hearing on the Appeal
be continued to December 3, 2018, to permit review and consideration of the newly -submitted and
anticipated Project information by City staff, decisionmakers, interested parties and members of
the public; and
WHEREAS, at the October 15, 2018 City Council meeting the City Council continued the
public hearing on the Project to a date certain of December 3, 2018 without opening the public
hearing and without deliberation 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 updated Illingworth and Rodkin HRA dated October 10, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the November 8, 2018 BAAQMD correspondence notes several key
concerns regarding the Fox and Kapahi HRA, 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 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 noted that BAAQMD has no further
comments on the October 10, 2018 HRA, and that the Project includes a gas station configuration
that differs from that approved in the current BAAQMD Authority to Construct permit, and that
therefore the Applicant must apply for permit revisions; and
WHEREAS, Petaluma residents, neighbors, teachers and administrators of the McDowell
Elementary School, 4Cs Child Development Center, and North Bay Children's Center, parents of
students, and parents of children using the baseball fields have provided written and oral comments
expressing concern regarding safety of the McDowell Boulevard and Maria Drive intersection due
to traffic volumes and speeds, conflicts with pedestrians, and increased activity resulting from the
Safeway Fuel Center, including: two commenters noting they have observed pedestrian/vehicle
collisions and near -collisions in the Project area; another commenter observing that school -aged
children walk home by themselves, and the crosswalk is already a danger; a commenter expressing
concern about heavy traffic and foul balls getting hit next to a busy street; another commenter
observing cars run stop signs while working at the snack shack at Murphy Field, and noting Maria
Drive is heavily traveled and one of the main streets in that area; and
WHEREAS, Petaluma residents, neighbors, teachers and administrators of the McDowell
Elementary School, 4Cs Child Development Center, and North Bay Children's Center, parents of
students, and parents of children using the baseball fields have provided written, and oral comments
expressing concern that the Safeway Fuel Center would result in substantial changes to the
"neighborhood spirit" that would be detrimental to the neighborhood making it less desirable and
more dangerous; and
-5
ATTACHMENT 2
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2018 on behalf of Appellants, Mr. Soluri provided
correspondence to the City disputing Mr. Francois' characterization of the City's discretion
concerning approval of the Project and asserting that the City may overturn the Project SPAR
approval because the Project is disharmonious with its surroundings and inconsistent with the
public health safety and welfare, and providing supplemental health risk results from Fox and
Kapahi using Petaluma wind data with the AERMOD model; and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2018 on behalf of the Applicant, Mr. Francois provided
correspondence to the City arguing that the Appellant did not explicitly appeal the City's approval
of the Mitigated Negative Declaration within 30 -days of the filing of the Notice of Determination
with the Sonoma County Clerk, and therefore the approval of the MND was final, and additionally
arguing that no substantial evidence of a fair argument of a significant environmental impact had
been submitted and therefore the City cannot lawfully required the preparation of an EIR for the
Project; and
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2018 on behalf of the Applicant, Mr. Francois provided
correspondence to the City asserting that the Project will not result in significant health risks and
that the City's discretion regarding approval of the Project is limited to design issues; and
WHEREAS, on December 3 2018, on behalf of the Appellant, Mr. Soluri submitted a
letter responding to Mr. Francois' December 1 and 2 letters and asserting that the Tahoe Vista case
does not apply to the City Council's de novo review of appeals of Planning Commission decisions,
and that the Friends of Davis case does not apply to the appeal; and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2018, on behalf of the Appellant, Mr, Soluri's Legal
Assistant forwarded to the City responses to comments on the IS/MND for the Project dated
December 3, 2018, which responses to comments assert that: independent scientific analyses
support that gas stations should not be located near housing or vulnerable populations; the
meteorological data used in the revised HRA submitted by Illingworth and Rodkin is not
appropriate for predictions at a range of less than 1 kilometer; the Applicant diesel particulate
emissions estimates are understated; BAAQMD guidance calls for using an exposure duration of
70 years for risk assessments for gas stations; the BAAQMD November 8, 2018 letter
notwithstanding, using Petaluma meteorological data with the AERMOD model reveals
significant health risks; use of the CAPCOA benzene emission factor is appropriate; the Applicant
and BAAQMD underestimate benzene emissions from the Project; and that CARB recommended
setbacks for gas stations might be inadequate; and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2018, on behalf of the Applicant, Illingworth 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 of the 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
exposure risk; that the Fox Kapahi 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
1-6
ATTACHMENT
WHEREAS, Section 15064, subdivision (a), paragraph (1) of the CEQA Guidelines
provides that 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 15064, subdivision (c) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that in
determining whether an effect will be adverse or beneficial, the lead agency shall consider the
views held by members of the public in all areas affected as expressed in the whole record before
the lead agency, and that 'before requiring the preparation of an EIR, the lead agency must still
determine whether environmental change itself might be substantial; and
WHEREAS, under Protect Niles v. City of Fremont (2018) 25 Cal.App.5ih 1129, residents'
personal observations of traffic conditions where they live and commute may constitute substantial
evidence even if they contradict the conclusions of a traffic study, and therefore, fact -based
comments of the community may constitute substantial evidence that a fair argument can be made
that the project may potentially result in adverse impacts related to circulation; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA, public testimony (or reasonable inferences from
it) should be considered to constitute substantial credible evidence supporting a fair argument
when the project may have a significant impact (Rominger v. County of Colusa (2014) 229
Cal.App.4"' 690); and
WHEREAS, Section 15064, subdivision (f) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that the
decision as to whether a project may have one or more significant effects shall be based on
substantial evidence in the record of the lead agency, and that if the lead agency determines there
is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR, and if a lead agency is presented with a fair
argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall
prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the
project will not have a significant effect; and
WHEREAS, Section 15064, Subdivision (g) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that after
application of the principles set forth in Section 15064, Subdivision (f) of the CEQA Guidelines,
in marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may
have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the principle that
if there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts of the significance of an effect
on the environment, the lead agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR;
and
WHEREAS, the staff report dated December 3, 2018 responded to comments received
since publication of the September 17, 2018 staff report and together with findings and analysis
contained in the September 17, 2018 staff report addressed the grounds for the appeal and are
incorporated herein by reference; 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 the information
submitted by City staff, the Applicant, the Appellant, interested parties and members of the public
ATTACHMENT 2
concerning the Project and the Appeal, all of which information is hereby incorporated into and
made a part of this resolution;
WHEREAS, following the public hearing held on the Appeal on December 3, 2018 and
City Council deliberations regarding the Record on Appeal, the City Council, by a unanimous vote
and consistent with staff's oral recommendation at the hearing, adopted Resolution No. 2018-180
entitled:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING
THE APPEAL FILED BY JOANN MCEACHIN AS TO THE MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPROVED BY THE PETALUMA PLANNING
COMMISSION ON JUNE 26, 2018 BY RESOLUTION NO. 2018-21A,
ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 15064, SUBDIVISIONS (C)
AND (G) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
GUIDELINES, AND STAYING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECUTRAL REVIEW PURSUANT
TO RESOLUTION NO. 2018-21 ADOPTED JUNE 26, 2018 FOR THE
SAFEWAY FUEL CENTER PROJECT LOCATED AT 335 SOUTH
McDOWELL BOULEVARD, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 007-820-046, FILE
NO. PLSR 13-0012 PENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR AND CITY
COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE PROJECT SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW APPROVAL; and
WHEREAS, as the title indicates Resolution No. 2018-180 as adopted by the City Council
had the effect of upholding the Appeal as to the Project MND, ordering preparation of an EIR
regarding Project environmental impacts, and staying the SPAR approved by the Planning
Commission on June 26, 2018 pending certification of an EIR for the project and City Council
review of the Project SPAR; 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 Appeal indicated that the City Council would take 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 54957.5 the revised resolution ordering preparation of an EIR that
staff prepared December 3, 2018, a September 17, 2018 email from project supporters and the
December 3 memo from Illingworth and Rodkin; and 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, by letter dated January 22, 2019, the City Attorney responded to Mr.
Francois' 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 had
not violated the Brown Act at the December 3 hearing on the Appeal, and
1-8
ATTACHMENT 2
WHEREAS, the January 22 correspondence indicated that the City did not violate the
Brown Act at the December 3 appeal hearing because: the agenda description for the December 3
Appeal hearing specified that the City Council would consider resolutions for Council action on
both Planning Commission approvals on appeal - the MND and SPAR - in accordance with Section
54954.2 requirements; the revised resolution upholding the appeal and ordering an EIR was shared
with the Applicant's and Appellants' representatives as soon as possible at the December 3
hearing, the same time it was first presented to the City Council, in accordance with Section
54957.5, and the September 17 email from Project supporters and the Illingworth and Rodkin
December 3 memo were not distributed to the Council members less than 72 hours before the
December 3 hearing, and were therefore not covered by Section 54957.5; and because the
December 3 closed session on the Appeal was based on Mr. Francois' public remarks at the June
26, 2018 Planning Commission hearing, and therefore the December 3 closed session description
satisfied Brown Act closed session description requirements in accordance with Section
54956.9(e)(4); and
WHEREAS, the January 22 correspondence from the City attorney indicated that the City
would cure or correct Brown Act violations alleged by Safeway by: indicating in the agenda
description for the January 28 cure and correct hearing that one of the resolutions offered for City
Council consideration and possible adoption would order the preparation of an EIR and stay the
Planning Commission's SPAR approval; including as exhibits to an updated version of the
resolution revised on December 3 to be offered to the Council for action on January 28 and
distributed as part of the agenda the September 17 email from Project supporters and the December
3 Illingworth and Rodkin memo; and that a closed session agenda item will be included on the
January 28 City Council agenda that will disclose the fact that the closed session is being held
based on remarks of Mr. Francois representing Safeway at the June 26 Planning Commission
hearing and the January 2 cure and correct demand Mr. Francois submitted to the City; and
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2019 the City published notice in the Petaluma Argus Courier
of a January 28, 2019 public hearing to cure or correct alleged violations of the Brown Act at the
December 3, 2018 hearing on the Appeal and mailed notice of the January 28 hearing to all
property owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of the Property, in accordance with the
requirements of the City's IZO and City Council Resolution No. 2018-107, and to all members on
the interested parties list for the Project; and
WHEREAS, On January 24, 2019, Mr. Francois on behalf of Safeway submitted
correspondence arguing that under McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena,
filed on December 18, 2018, the City Council could not order that an EIR be prepared concerning
the Project, notwithstanding the conflicting expert opinion in the record on Appeal concerning
Project environmental impacts, because the court held in McCorkle that local agencies conducting
design review are limited under CEQA to analyzing only those environmental impacts that the
agency has the authority to mitigate under its design review regulations; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2019 on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Soluri submitted
correspondence to the City asserting that the McCorkle case does not limit the City's discretion to
require environmental review for the Project; and
WHEREAS, at the January 28, 2018 City Council meeting, in accordance with the City's
January 22, 2019 correspondence to the Applicant, the City Council held a closed session
1-9
ATTACHMENT 2
regarding anticipated litigation based on and citing comments and correspondence on behalf of
Safeway raising a threat of litigation; and
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 Appellant, 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 ("Record on Appeal"), all of which information comprises
part of the Record on Appeal is hereby incorporated into and made a part of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, after the January 28 public hearing had been closed and during Council
deliberation on the item, some Council members expressed a desire for additional time to consider
the impact of the recent decision in McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena
on the City Council's options on the Appeal; and
WHEREAS, in response to the desire expressed by some Council members for additional
time to consider the McCorkle case, Safeway representatives indicated Safeway would not
stipulate to additional time for Council consideration and that the City Council should take action
at the January 28 City Council in accordance with the cure and correct deadline that applies under
the Brown Act to Safeway's demand dated January 2, 2019; and
WHEREAS, following the response from Safeway representatives, Council Member
Healy asked for confirmation whether Council action to cure or correct subject to the Council's
rules regarding motions for reconsideration would satisfy Brown Act requirements, and upon
receiving an answer that such action would satisfy Brown Act requirements, Council Member
Healy gave notice of his intent to later move reconsideration, in accordance with Section VI(F) of
the City Council's rules, and moved to adopt Resolution No. 2019-015 N.C.S. entitled:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL RESCINDING
AND REPLACING RESOLUTION NO. 2018-180 ADOPTED DECEMBER 3,
2018 AND UPHOLDING THE APPEAL FILED BY JOANN MCEACHIN AS
TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPROVED BY THE
PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION ON JUNE 26, 2018 BY
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-21A, ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
15064, SUBDIVISIONS (C) AND (G) OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES, AND STAYING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND
ARCHITECUTRAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 2018-21B
ADOPTED JUNE 26, 2018 FOR THE SAFEWAY FUEL CENTER PROJECT
LOCATED AT 335 SOUTH McDOWELL BOULEVARD, ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 007-820-046, FILE NO. PLSR 13-0012 PENDING
CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE
PROJECT SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL; and
1-10
ATTACHMENT 2
WHEREAS, Mayor Barrett seconded Council Member Healy's motion to adopt
Resolution No. 2019-015 N.C.S, and the motion passed by a vote of four to one with Council
Member Fischer opposed and Council Members Kearney and Miller recused; and
WHEREAS, under Section VI(F) of the Council Rules, a motion to reconsider the
Council's adoption of Resolution No. 2019-015 N.C.S. on January 28, 2019 was required to occur
at the City Council meeting on February 4, 2019, and in accordance with Section VI(F), an agenda
item on reconsideration of Resolution No. 2019-015 N.C.S. was agendized for the City Council's
February 4 meeting; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2019 on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Francois submitted
correspondence to the Mayor and Council Members arguing that Rule IX(C) of the City Council's
Rules, Policies, and Procedures allows the City Council to move, second, and vote on
reconsideration at the February 4, 2019 in order to reconsider the Council's action in two meetings
instead of three; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2019 the appellant, JoAnn McEachin, emailed the City
Council reiterating two isopleths produced by Fox and Kapahi representing cancer risk from the
proposed project; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2019 Natalie Maffei on behalf of Safeway submitted a
response to Ms. McEachin's email of the same date and indicating that the Fox and Kapahi
isopleths had previously been argued as misrepresenting the cancer risks associated with the
project by Illingworth & Rodkin in their response on December 2, 2018; and
WHEREAS, at the City Council's February 4 meeting, following consideration of the
reconsideration item (with Council Members Kearney and Miller recused), Council Member Healy
moved reconsideration of Resolution No. 2019-015and Council Member King seconded the
motion; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Rule VI(F), the vote on the reconsideration motion was
agendized for the February 25 City Council meeting, and, at the February 25 meeting, following
consideration of the reconsideration item, Mayor Barrett called the reconsideration vote and the
vote passed 3 to 2, with Vice Mayor McConnel and Council Members Healy and King voting in
favor, Mayor Barrett and Council Member Fischer opposed, and Council Members Kearney and
Miller recused; and
WHEREAS, under Council Rule VI(F), following passage of the reconsideration motion,
reconsideration must occur at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting at least one week after
the vote; and accordingly, a reconsideration hearing under Rule VI(F) has been agendized for the
March 4, 2019 City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, On February 25, 2019, Appellant JoAnn McEachin emailed the City Clerk
providing a link to a report from scientists at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public
Health and highlighting quotes attributed to the report suggesting that actual emissions may
substantially exceed emissions estimated in setback regulations for school, park and playground
uses; and
ATTACHMENT 2
WHEREAS, On February 25, 2019, Appellant JoAnn McEachin emailed the City Clerk
stating annual vehicular collision data for 2013 through 2018 at and around the intersection of
McDowell and East Washington; and
WHEREAS, to provide adequate public notice in the event the City Council voted in favor
of reconsideration at the February 25 City Council meeting, staff arranged to publish on February
20, 2019 notice in the Petaluma Argus Courier of a March 4, 2019 public hearing to reconsider the
adoption of Resolution No. 2019-015. Notices of the March 4 hearing were mailed to all property
owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of the Property and to all members on the interested parties
list for the Project, and two public hearing signs were posted on the site, in accordance with the
requirements of the City's IZO and City Council Resolution No. 2018-107; and
WHEREAS, at the noticed public hearing on March 4, 2019, at which time all interested
parties had the opportunity to be heard, the City Council reconsidered adoption of Resolution No.
2019-015, considered the Appeal and the information submitted by City staff, the Applicant, the
Appellants, interested parties and members of the public for all public hearings on the Application
and Appeal, including the information submitted for the December 3, 2018 City Council hearing,
and the January 28, 2019 City Council hearing, and after closing the public hearing voted to
continue the Council's deliberations on the Appeal to the April 1, 2019 City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, at the continued Council deliberations on the Appeal at the April 1, 2019
City Council meeting, the City Council reconsidered adoption of Resolution No. 2019-015,
considered the Appeal and the information submitted by City staff, the Applicant, the Appellants,
interested parties and members of the public for all public hearings on the Application and Appeal,
including the information submitted for the December 3, 2018 City Council hearing, the January
28, 2019 and March 4, 2019 City Council hearings, all of which information comprising the Record
on Appeal is hereby incorporated into and made a part of this resolution;
follows:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Petaluma as
The above recitals are hereby declared to be true and correct and are incorporated herein
by reference.
2. Resolution No. 2019-015 adopted by the City Council on January 28, 2019, is hereby
rescinded in its entirety and is longer in effect.
On March 4, 2019 the City Council fully considered all evidence presented before and
at the duly noticed public hearing on December 3, 2018, January 28, 2019, and March
4, 2019 regarding Appeal of the Planning Commission approval of a Mitigated
Declaration pursuant to Resolution No. 2018-21A and Site Plan and Architectural
Review pursuant to Resolution No. 2018-21B for the Safeway Fuel Station Project and
comprising the Record on Appeal, and closed the public hearing and continued the
Council's deliberations on the Appeal to the April 1, 2019 City Council meeting.
4. On April 1, 2019, the City Council fully considered all evidence presented before and
at the duly noticed public hearing on December 3, 2018, January 28, 2019, March 4,
2019 and April 1, 2019 regarding Appeal of the Planning Commission approval of a
Mitigated Declaration pursuant to Resolution No. 2018-21A and Site Plan and
Architectural Review pursuant to Resolution No. 2018-21B for the Safeway Fuel
1-12
ATTACHMENT 2
Station Project and comprising the Record on Appeal, 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 in all areas affected as expressed in the whole
Record on Appeal, the City Council hereby denies the appeal of JoAnn McEachin filed
with the City Clerk on July 9, 2018 on behalf of JoAnn McEachin and Friends of
McDowell Elementary School, Little League Children, and East Petaluma Residents as
to the Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the Petaluma Planning Commission
on June 26, 2017 by Resolution No. 2018-21A, and as to the Site Plan and Architectural
Review approval of the Petaluma Planning Commission on June 26, 2018 by
Resolution No. 2018-2113, in accordance with the following findings for denial of the
appeal, as supported by the record of proceedings:
5. Based on its review of the entire record herein, the City Council makes the following
findings:
CEQA
A. Based on its review of the entire record herein, including the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, the Initial Study, Response to Comments, all supporting, referenced
and incorporated documents and all comments received, the City Council finds that
there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the
environment, that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's
independent judgment and analysis, and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Initial Study and supporting documents provide an adequate description of the
impacts of the Project and comply with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the
City of Petaluma Environmental Guidelines, as outlined in the record. The
comments received into the Project record regarding potentially significant impacts
resulting from the Project either address potential impacts already satisfactorily
analyzed in accordance with CEQA requirements as described in the staff report
accompanying this resolution and the Project record, and/or the comments received
constitute argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence
that is erroneous or inaccurate, and thus do not constitute substantial evidence
supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental
impacts.
General Plan
B. 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-P-42 (expand
bus transit), Policy 6-P-29 (Integrate Art), Policy 10-P-3 (Protect Public Health and
Welfare), and Policy 10-P-4 (Transport of Hazardous Materials).
C. The Project is consistent with the "Community Commercial" General Plan land use
]-U
ATTACHMENT 2
designation because the project contributes to the variety of commercial services
provided to the larger the region from this area of Community Commercial
property.
Implementin4 Zoning Ordinance
D. The Project is consistent with all development standards of the C2 Zoning District
including, but not limited to, those pertaining to building height, setbacks and off-
street parking requirements.
E. All the required findings for Site Plan and Architectural Review approval found at
Implementing Zoning Ordinance §24.010 (G)(1) can be made, as follows:
i. The Project 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 fagade 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 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 property 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 of the application. An application will be submitted in the future for signage
on the north and south elevations of the convenience store, on the east and west
edge of the fueling canopy, and for a monument signage on the site. Proposed
1-14
ATTACHMENT 2
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 of the application. An application will be submitted in the future for signage
on the north and south elevations of the 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 in terms of bulk, 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- to two stories in height. This building is
comprised of rectilinear features with strong square cut elements. Similar bulky
square cut features that are simple in design and form are used in the canopy
over the fuel pumps and portions of the fagade of the 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 from Maria Drive and 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 at the corner of South McDowell Boulevard and Maria Drive, and the trees
1-15
ATTACHMENT 2
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. This area will allow for queuing of vehicles so as to not impede the drive
aisle on the adjacent property. The project also provides a new egress to the
north to facilitate internal circulation in the shopping center.
6. This resolution shall take immediate effect upon its adoption.
7. 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 of this resolution are severable.
8. The 'City Council's denial of the Appeal and affirmation of the Planning
Commission's approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Site Plan and
Architectural Review for the Project pursuant to Planning Commission Resolutions
2018-21A and 2018-21B N.C.S. and this resolution is subject to the mitigation
measures and conditions of approval attached to and made a part of this resolution as
Exhibit A.
1-16
ATTACHMENT 2
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Safeway Fuel Center Project
335 South McDowell Boulevard (APN 007-820-046)
City File Number: PLSR 13-0012
Planning Division
Standard Conditions of Approval
The plans submitted for building permit review shall be in substantial conformance with the
plans on file in the Planning Division, date stamped August 13, 2014 and the color materials
board except as modified by the following conditions.
2. This approval is granted for and contingent upon construction of the project as a whole, in a
single phase, with the construction and/ or installation of all features approved and required
herein. Modifications to the project, including but not limited to a change in construction
phasing, shall require Site Plan and Architectural Review in accordance. with Implementing
Zoning Ordinance IZO) § 24. 010.
3. Prior to the issuance of any construction permits, these conditions of approval shall be included
with the plan set. A copy of the approved plans shall be maintained on- site when construction
activities are occurring.
4. The site shall be kept cleared at all times of garbage and debris. No outdoor storage shall be
permitted other than typical bulk materials, i.e., lumber, appliances, window systems, etc.,
temporarily stored through the normal course of construction.
5. All exterior lighting shall be hooded and directed downward and shall conform to
Implementing Zoning Ordinance § 21. 040(D), which specifies lighting standards for all new
exterior lighting, including the provision that the cone of direct illumination be sixty degrees
if the luminary is greater than 6 feet above the ground.
6. Construction activities shall comply with performance standards specified in Implementing
Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21 (Performance Standards).
7. In accordance with CEQA § 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5, if during the course of
ground disturbing activities, including, but not limited to excavation, grading and construction,
a potentially significant prehistoric or historic archeological resource is encountered, all work
within a 100 foot radius of the find shall be suspended for a time deemed sufficient for a
qualified and city approved cultural resource specialist to adequately evaluate and determine
significance of the discovered resource and provide treatment recommendations. Should a
significant archeological resource be identified a qualified archaeologist shall prepare a
resource mitigation plan and monitoring program to be carried out during all construction
activities.
8. In accordance with CEQA § 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines § 15064. 5, if paleontological
resources, including individual fossils or assemblages of fossils, are encountered during
1-17
ATTACHMENT 2
construction activities all ground disturbing activities shall halt and a qualified paleontologist
shall be procured to evaluate the discovery and make treatment recommendations.
9. The applicant/ developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and any of its
boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding
against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside,
void, or annul any of the approvals of the project, when such claim or action is brought within
the time period provided for in applicable State and/ or local statutes. The City shall promptly
notify the applicants/ developers of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall
coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from
participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding and if the City chooses to do so
applicant shall reimburse City for attorneys' fees incurred by the City.
10. If a construction permit has not been issued for the project within twelve (12) months of this
resolution, this approval shall become void. A twelve-month extension may be granted if
requested at least thirty (30) days prior to the initial twelve (t2) month expiration date.
11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all applicable development impact fees shall be paid
to the City of Petaluma.
Special Conditions
12. The maximum fuel throughput shall not exceed 8.5 million gallons per year as proposed and
analyzed as the project description. The applicant shall provide documentation demonstrating
actual annual throughput at the beginning of each calendar year for the previous year.
13. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Planning Manager that all rooftop equipment is screened from views from adjacent streets and
properties.
14. The Final Landscaping Plan shall provide sufficient screening by placement of grasses, shrubs
and other groundcover species to effectively screen out glare from headlights oriented towards
South McDowell Boulevard and towards Maria Drive. A variety of heights shall be introduced
through the landscaping plan including a dense 4 -foot high screen that blocks glare emanating
from headlights.
15. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised tanker circulation plan
Sheet A 1. 05 illustrating alternative access than Maria Drive.
16. Prior to the commencement of work on the site, a preconstruction meeting shall be organized
by the applicant team and held at the McDowell Elementary School site. All outreach for and
during the meeting shall include Spanish translation for all written oral communication.
17. Signs prohibiting idling shall be installed as indicated on Sheet Al .06 of the approved plan set.
18. Public Improvement Plans shall include vertical delineator on Maria Drive to create a barrier
to prevent left turning movements into the shopping center at the center access point.
19. The contractor(s) shall implement basic and additional air quality construction measures set
1-18
ATTACHMENT2
forth by BAAQMD, including the following:
a) Water all active construction areas (staging, parking, soil piles, graded areas, unpaved
driveways, etc.) at least twice daily.
b) Cover all haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose materials offsite.
c) Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas.
Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is deposited onto adjacent
roads.
d) Suspend construction activities that cause visible dust plumes that extend beyond the
construction site.
e) A certified mechanic shall verify that equipment is properly tuned and maintained in
accordance with manufacturer specifications.
f) Idling times shall be limited to 5 minutes or less pursuant to the "no idling" rule for in -use
off-road diesel -fueled vehicles. Signage shall be posted at the construction site indicating
the idle time limitation.
g) All diesel -powered off-road equipment larger than 50 horsepower and operating at the site
for more than two days continuously shall meet U. S. EPA particulate matter emissions
standards for Tier 3 engineer or the equivalent.
h) Diesel powered generators or air compressors shall not be used on-site for more than two
days continuously, unless under emergency conditions.
i) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number of designated person and person to
contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to
ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
20. The demolition and removal of asbestos -containing building materials shall be subject to
applicable California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CAL -OSHA) and
BAAQMD Regulations, and the applicant shall obtain a Job Number from the BAAQMD. The
applicant shall present the Job Number to the City Building Department and notify the
BAAQMD at least 10 working days before demolition commences. Federal and state
construction worker health and safety regulations shall be followed during demolition activities
due to the presence of asbestos containing material (ACM). All ACM shall be removed by a
qualified contractor and disposed of in accordance with existing hazardous waste regulations.
21. In order to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds covered by State and federal law (California
Department of Fish and Game Code and the MBTA), the applicant shall avoid the removal of
trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation between February 1 and August 31, during the bird nesting
period. If no vegetation or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys are
required. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a pre -construction survey for nesting
birds shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 14 days prior to the
removal of trees. Survey results shall be valid for the tree removals for 21 days following the
1-19
ATTACHMENT
survey. If the trees are not removed within the 21 -'day period, then a new survey shall be
conducted. In the event that an active nest for a protected species of bird is discovered
temporary protective breeding season buffers that avoid direct or indirect mortality of these
birds, nests or young shall be established. The appropriate buffer distance is dependent on the
species, surrounding vegetation and topography and shall be determined by a qualified
biologist to prevent nest abandonment and direct mortality during construction.
22. If during the course of ground disturbing activities, including, but not limited to excavation,
grading and construction, a potentially significant prehistoric, historic, or paleontological
resource is encountered, all work within a 100 foot radius of the find shall be suspended for a
time deemed sufficient for a qualified and city -approved cultural resource specialist to
adequately evaluate and determine the significance of the discovered resource and provide
treatment recommendations. Should a significant archeological or paleontological resource be
identified a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall prepare a resource mitigation plan
and monitoring program to be carried out during all construction activities.
23. In the event that human remains are uncovered during earthmoving activities, all construction
excavation activities shall be suspended, and the following measures shall be undertaken:
a) The Sonoma County Coroner shall be contacted to determine that no investigation of the
cause of death is required.
b) If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American the coroner shall contact the
Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours.
c) The project sponsor shall retain a City -approved qualified archaeologist to provide
adequate inspection, recommendations and retrieval, if appropriate.
d) The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes
to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American and shall contact such
descendant in accordance with state law.
e) The project sponsor shall be responsible for ensuring that human remains and associated
grave goods are reburied with appropriate dignity at a place and process suitable to the
most likely descendent.
24. Foundation and structural design for buildings (convenience store and canopy) shall meet the
California Building Code regulations for seismic safety (i.e., reinforcing perimeter and/ or load
bearing walls, bracing parapets, etc.).
25. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, an erosion control plan along with grading and drainage
plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review. All earthwork, grading, trenching,
backfilling, and compaction operations shall be conducted in accordance with the City of
Petaluma' s Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance # 1576, Title 17, Chapter 17. 31 of the
Petaluma Municipal Code. These plans shall detail erosion control measures such ,as site
watering, sediment capture, equipment staging and laydown pad, and other erosion control
measures to be implemented during construction activity on the project site.
1-20
ATTACHMENT 2
26. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a soils and geological report shall be submitted to the
City Engineer for review pursuant to the City of Petaluma's Ordinance #1576, Title 17, Chapter
17. 31. 180. The soils report shall detail the strength and characteristics of the soils onsite and
provide conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures and design criteria as
appropriate. Techniques used to correct expansive soils include controlled pre -watering prior
to the placement of foundations, removal of expansive matefial and replacement with non -
expansive fill, and/ or the use of soil stabilizers.
27. Prior to demolition activities, the applicant shall perform a point -count analysis on the Gypsum
Board and Joint Compound Samples determined to contain less than one percent asbestos.
Where the material is found to contain greater than 1 percent asbestos and is friable, the
material must be handled in accordance with BAAQMD Regulations Section 11- 2-303. Proper
handling and disposal procedures that promote safe working conditions and minimize release
of component materials into the environment shall be performed.
28. Due to the proximity of sensitive receptors, construction activities shall be required to comply
with the following and shall be noted accordingly on construction contracts:
a) Construction activities for all phases of construction, including servicing of construction
equipment shall only be permitted during the hours of 7:30 am and 7: 00 pm Monday
through Friday and between 9: 00 am to 7: 00 pm on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays
recognized by the City of Petaluma.
b) Delivery of materials or equipment to the site and truck traffic coming to and from the site
is restricted to the same construction hours specified above.
c) All internal combustion engine driven equipment shall be equipped with intake and exhaust
mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
d) Locate stationary noise generating equipment (e.g. compressors) as far as possible from
adjacent noise -sensitive receptors.
e) Acoustically shield stationary equipment located near noise sensitive receptors with
temporary noise barriers.
f) Utilize " quiet" air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
g) The contractor shall prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major
noise -generating construction activities. The construction plan shall identify a procedure
for coordination with the owner/ occupants of nearby noise -sensitive land uses so that
construction activities can be scheduled to minimize noise disturbance.
h) Designate a " disturbance coordinator" responsible for responding to any complaints about
construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise
complaint (e.g. bad muffler etc.,) and require that reasonable measures be implemented to
correct the problem.
29. In order to maintain queuing at acceptable levels during peak hours, the Safeway Fuel Center
shall dedicate a sufficient number of employee(s) to serve as fuel ambassadors during peak
1-21
ATTACHMENT 2
hours to facilitate efficient and safe fueling of vehicles and maintain consistent egress/ ingress
at internal access points onsite.
30. On ,plans submitted for building permit approval, the approved materials and colors for all
siding, windows, trim, doors, and roof, shall be clearly indicated on the plans.
31. Prior to building permit issuance, the required Public Art in -lieu fee shall be remitted to the
City.
32. Prior to building permit issuance, a " J Number" permit from the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) shall be obtained for the project.
33. Prior to building permit issuance, an " Authority to Construct" permit shall be issued by the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).
34. Prior to occupancy permit issuance, a " Permit to Operate" shall be issued from the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).
35. Pursuant to Regulation 8, Rule 7 of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) regulations, the Safeway Fuel Station facility shall employ California Air
Resources Board (CARB) certified vapor recovery systems. Rule 7 requires that stationary
source emitters such as the Safeway Fuel Station use enhanced vapor recovery (EVR) systems.
Nothing is this condition excuses compliance with BAAQMD regulations as they may be
modified in the future.
36. Pursuant to Regulation 2-2-301 of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
regulations, the Safeway Fuel Station facility shall employ Best Available Control Technology
BACT) to control emissions of District SACT pollutants. ,BACT technology includes
California Air Resources Board (CARB) certified CNI EVR Phase I equipment and VST
Balance EVR Phase II equipment (per CARB Executive Order VR -104 and VR -204) be
utilized. Nothing in this condition excuses compliance with BAAQMD regulations as they may
be modified in the future.
37. Prior to the issuance of demolition permit, the applicant shall prepare, submit and receive
approval for a Construction Phase Recycling plan in accordance with General Plan Policy 2-
P1.22 for disposal of materials from demolition and construction.
38. Prior to final inspection and opening, the applicant shall install signage to City standards
indicating a Class III bicycle route along Maria Drive,
39. This approval does not authorize the sale of beer, wine, or other alcoholic beverages from the
convenience store.
40. Prior to installation, a sign permit shall be obtained in conformance with IZO Chapter 20 and
in substantial conformance with this SPAR approval and applicable conditions.
41. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all outstanding cost recovery balances for the
Safeway Fuel Center and Safeway Fuel Center Appeal shall be paid in full.
1-22
ATTACHMENT 2
Building Division
41. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate the project's compliance
with CalGreen requirements at Modified Tier One.
Public Works and Utilities
42. Prior to final inspection/ operation of the fuel center, the project shall install frontage
improvements as shown on the approved project plans submitted for design review and as
modified in these conditions of approval. The exact design, location and radii of the proposed
curb cuts shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer on the construction drawings.
Reflective markings/ striping shall be placed on the curb returns/ bulb outs to warn drivers and
cyclists.
43. Prior to final inspection, the City' s Eastside Transit Center shall be modified by the applicant
as shown on the proposed plans including the following: Install new transit shelters and
benches per new City requirements with hard wired electrical service(s), relocate the existing
solar powered real-time route time indicator, install XX U- shaped bike racks, install a new
transit kiosk (information to be provided with the construction drawings). All Eastside Transit
Center improvements shall be shown on plans submitted for building and encroachment
permits and shall be subject to the review and approval by the City' s Transit Manager. The
applicant shall remove the existing shelters and benches and return them to the City' s transit
facility.
44. All portions of existing sidewalk, driveway approaches and curb ramps that are broken, cracked
or displaced'/ 2 inch or greater, along the Maria Drive and South McDowell project frontages,
shall be removed and replaced with new sidewalk, driveway approaches and curb ramps that
meets City of Petaluma and Caltrans standards.
45. A new, accessible and directional pedestrian ramp and shall be installed along the project
frontage at the intersection of South McDowell Boulevard and Maria Drive. The applicant
shall relocate existing signal poles, pedestrian push buttons, drain inlets, utility vaults and other
existing infrastructure as determined necessary by the City Engineer, to install the new
pedestrian ramp.
46. The applicant shall install a pedestrian crossing warning sign at the proposed driveway
entrances.
47. The proposed new driveway approaches shall meet the City' s commercial approach standard
and shall be designed and constructed to meet accessibility requirements.
48. The property owner shall dedicate the necessary right of way dedications and public utility/
public access easements for the project, including along the Eastside Transit Center. The
applicant shall prepare the necessary legal descriptions, grant deeds and plats, and submit with
the building permit application.
49. The westerly most driveway approach on Maria Drive shall be limited to right turns out only.
The necessary signage and pavement markings shall be installed.
I-23
ATTACHMENT 2
50. Stop bars and legends and crosswalks shall be installed at all project intersections. Keep Clear
stenciling shall be placed in Maria Drive at the driveway entrance. All striping shall be
thermoplastic per Caltrans standards.
51. All recommendations within the final traffic report prepared by CHS Consulting Group shall
be implemented as part of the project.
52. Final, construction level storm water design calculations shall be provided with the building
permit submittal to demonstrate compliance with E. 12 City of Petaluma post construction
stormwater treatment requirements.
53. The project shall submit preliminary joint trench plans with the encroachment permit set. The
project shall comply with the City's street cut and pavement restoration standards.
54. The project shall comply with the City' s water use and landscape efficiency standards and
shall provide the required calculations with the building permit submittal.
55. Provide proposed water and sewer utility connections and service/ meter locations on the
construction drawings. The existing sewer lateral may be re -used if it is deemed by the City
to be in acceptable condition for re -use. The applicant shall provide a video of the existing
sewer lateral for review and approval by City staff. All existing, unused services and laterals
shall be abandoned at the main, per City requirements.
56. Install two bike racks at the location shown on the proposed site plan.
57. Install pedestrian crossing warning signage at the proposed driveway entrances.
58. An encroachment permit is required for all work within the City right of way. A traffic control
plan, in accordance with MUTCD standards, shall be provided with the application.
Fire Department
59. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, pursuant to the City of Petaluma' s Certified Unified
Program Agency (CUPA) regulations regarding projects that intend to store, transport or
generate hazardous waste, an application shall be submitted, appropriate fees shall be paid, and
a CUPA permit shall be secured.
60. Pursuant to the City of Petaluma' s Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) regulations
regarding projects that intend to store, transport or generate hazardous waste, a Hazardous
Materials Release Response Plan and Inventory shall be submitted on an annual basis.
61. The fire Department standards require 12 -inch address numerals on the street facade of
commercial buildings. Numerals shall be shown on Building Permit plans.
62. The 697 sf. kiosk shall be protected with an automatic fire sprinkler system designed and
installed per NFPA 13 for Ordinary Hazard Protection. The canopy over the fuel pumps is not
required to be protected with fire sprinklers per CA Fire Code 903.2, 19, 1, Item 3, as adopted
by the City of Petaluma. The proposed kiosk will require a new combination service from the
eight -inch main in Maria Drive and a new fire hydrant within 50 -feet of the FDC. The fire
1-24
ATTACHMENT
hydrant and FDS shall be visible from Fire Department access roads and accessible via paving.
Police Department
63. The applicant shall install high definition security cameras with a minimum 15 -day storage
capability shall be installed and maintained. Security cameras shall cover and record all
publicly accessible areas throughout the property, as well as the rear and sides of the
structure(s).
64. The Petaluma Police Department encourages the use of down-facing lighting throughout the
property, eliminating dark areas that would normally invite trespassing or loitering.
65. Alcohol sales are prohibited.
1-25