SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL ITEM CONTINUED - Item 20 Rehearing-Third Party Appeal: Curtis Park Village Fuel Center (PDF-48727 KB) [Updated 1/04/2022 @ 11:10 a.m.] — Sacramento City Council, January 4, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

CITY COUNCIL
Darrell Steinberg, Mayor
Angelique Ashby, Mayor Pro Tem, District 1
Sean Loloee, District 2
Jeff Harris, District 3
Katie Valenzuela, District 4
Jay Schenirer, Vice Mayor, District 5
Eric Guerra, District 6
Rick Jennings, II, District 7
Mai Vang, District 8

CHARTER OFFICERS
Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk
Susana Alcala Wood, City Attorney
Jorge Oseguera, City Auditor
Howard Chan, City Manager
John Colville, City Treasurer

City Council
Financing Authority
Housing Authority
Public Financing Authority
Redevelopment Agency
Successor Agency
915 I Street, 1st Floor, Sacramento
Published by the Office of the City Clerk
(916) 808-5163

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

Description: Per City of Sacramento, Council Rules of Procedure, Chapter 6, Rule F 4(a)(i), the applicant has requested a continuance of Public Hearing Item 20, Rehearing-Third Party Appeal: Curtis Park Village Fuel Center (Noticed 11/24/2021 & 12/23/2021). The item is continued to January 18, 2022.

For the Meeting of: Tuesday, January 4, 2022, at 5:00 p.m.

Agenda Item: Public Hearing Item 20

20. Rehearing-Third Party Appeal: Curtis Park Village Fuel Center (Noticed 11/24/2021 & 12/23/2021)
File ID: 2021-01331
Location: 3640 Crocker Drive, District 7
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion adopt a Resolution adopting an addendum to the original Curtis Park Village EIR and approving the requested entitlements including: 1) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a new gas station in the Shopping Center (SC-PUD) Zone in the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development (PUD); and 2) Site Plan and Design Review to construct a new gas station.

Contact: Marcus Adams, Senior Planner, (916) 808-5044,
[email protected]
, Community Development Department

Susana Alcala Wood, City Attorney Jorge Oseguera, City Auditor Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk Howard Chan, City Manager John Colville, City Treasurer City Council Report
915 I Street, 1st Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org

File ID: 2021-01331 January 4, 2022 Public Hearing Item 20

Title: Rehearing-Third Party Appeal: Curtis Park Village Fuel Center (Noticed 11/24/2021 & 12/23/2021)

Location: 3640 Crocker Drive, District 7

Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion adopt a Resolution adopting an addendum to the original Curtis Park Village EIR and approving the requested entitlements including: 1) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a new gas station in the Shopping Center (SC-PUD) Zone in the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development (PUD); and 2) Site Plan and Design Review to construct a new gas station.

Contact: Marcus Adams, Senior Planner, (916) 808-5044, [email protected] ,
Community Development Department

Presenter: Stacia Cosgrove, Principal Planner, (916) 808-7110, [email protected] ,
Community Development Department

Attachments:
01-Description/Analysis
02-Background
03-Context Map
04- Land Use Map
05-Environmental Resolution
06-Mitigation Monitoring Program
07-Project Entitlements Resolution
08-Site Plan
09-Kiosk Plan
10-Kiosk Elevations
11-Fuel Canopy Elevations
12-Truck Route Exhibit
13-Project Appeal
14-Planning and Design Commission Record
15-November 17, 2015 City Council Staff Report
16-Public Comments

Page 1 of 396 ends

File ID: 2021-01331 Public Hearing Item 20
January 4, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento

Description/Analysis

Issue Detail: The applicant is seeking the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Site Plan and Design Review to construct and operate a new gas station in the Shopping Center (SC-PUD) Zone in the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development (PUD). The proposed gas station is located on approximately 0.45 acres of an 11.8 acre commercial site.

On June 11, 2015, the requested entitlements were heard by the Planning and Design Commission. The Planning and Design Commission voted to approve the project entitlements with an additional condition requiring the gas station to be developed and operated as a Safeway gas station (Attachment 14, Condition C11.). On June 19, 2015, a third-party appeal of the Planning and Design Commission’s decision was submitted. The appeal asserts that the proposed project will be detrimental to the welfare of persons residing, working, visiting, or recreating in the surrounding neighborhood; that the project is fundamentally inconsistent with the Curtis Park Village PUD Guidelines; that the project approval’s reliance on a CEQA Addendum is legally deficient; that the Addendum itself is legally deficient; and that approval of the project violates CEQA.

On September 16, 2015, an alternative gas station plan was submitted by the applicant moving the gas station south and west to the rear of the site between the proposed grocery anchor building and the embankment for the Sutterville Road rail overpass. The new gas station location occupies nearly the same acreage and maintains eight pumps with 16 fuel dispensing locations but is now approximately 400 feet to the west of Crocker Drive. The orientation is slightly altered as the new locations provides two rows of pumps with four through lanes.

Additionally, the request for the new location is for 24-hour operation whereas the Planning and Design Commission restricted operations to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The applicant has modified the site plan to address concerns that were raised at the Planning and Design Commission hearing including concerns related to the separation from residential uses, impacts to bicycle and pedestrian circulation, and aesthetic impacts to the Crocker Drive streetscape.

On November 17, 2015, the City Council granted the third-party appeal, thereby denying the application. The applicant filed Petrovich Development Company, LLC et al. v. City of Sacramento, et al., in Sacramento Superior Court challenging the City Council’s decision. In 2018, the Sacramento Superior Court ordered the City to rescind the City Council decision on the project and re-hear the appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the Sacramento Superior Court. Because the present hearing before City Council is a re-hearing of the 2015 matter, the staff report carries forward the analysis and staff recommendations from 2015 with only minor modifications where necessary to accurately reflect current conditions or environmental analysis.

Page 2 of 396 ends

File ID: 2021-01331 Public Hearing Item 20
January 4, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento

Policy Considerations:

General Plan

The 2035 Sacramento General Plan Update (SGPU) designates the subject site as Traditional Center. The General Plan describes a Traditional Center as an element of sustainable, walkable traditional neighborhoods that provides essential daily services within walking distance of surrounding residents.

The Traditional Center designation “provides for residential and non-residential, moderate intensity, single-use development” or mixed use development that includes retail, service, and office uses. (SGPU pg. 2-65) The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) range for development in Traditional Center is 0.3 to 3.0. The FAR for the site takes into consideration the previously approved design review as well as the current proposal. The 0.36 FAR is within the Traditional Center target FAR range.

The project is consistent with the following General Plan policies:

• The proposed gas station will be located in a commercial center within the larger Curtis Park Village PUD. The PUD schematic plan distributes a mix of uses throughout the development including residential uses at various densities; retail and service uses; and recreational uses.

• In its original adoption of the Curtis Park Village project, the City Council found the Shopping Center (SC) Zone and the Curtis Park Village PUD to be consistent with the General Plan and the Traditional Center designation. The proposed gas station consists of a service use that is allowed in the SC zone subject to a conditional use permit and is consistent with the allowed uses in the Traditional Center designation. Furthermore, the construction of a gas station does not preclude the balance of the 11.8-acre Curtis Park Village commercial site from providing neighborhood serving, walkable commercial uses.

Staff finds the proposed project to be consistent with this 2035 General Plan Policy.

Page 3 of 396 ends

File ID: 2021-01331 Public Hearing Item 20
January 4, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento

• The immediate land uses surrounding the existing light rail transit station are a higher- intensity, ridership generating mix of uses. Directly adjacent to the station on the west side of the train tracks is a community college and a stadium. The pedestrian bridge is completed, connecting the station to the existing Curtis Park neighborhood via the extension of 10th Avenue. The land uses surrounding the foot of the pedestrian bridge and the 10th Avenue street connection to the bridge include an multi-family project, the neighborhood/community shopping center, and single-family residential uses. The gas station, while in the general area of the pedestrian bridge, will not interfere with access to the bridge.

• The location of the gas station within the larger shopping center does not inhibit the ability of the surrounding community to access the transit station (see context map, Attachment 3). The gas station would be located adjacent to Buchannan Street/10th Avenue, which is not expected to be utilized by many pedestrians or bicyclists. The gas station is not expected to materially change the character of the access to the transit station, thereby supporting consistency with the General Plan policy.

•
The gas station represents a very small fraction of space out of the larger shopping center. The station is located on 0.45 acres within a larger 11.8 acre commercial center (representing approximately 4% of the area). The shopping center is an approved component of the Curtis Park Village PUD. When the project was approved by City Council in 2010, it was determined that the shopping center was an acceptable land use adjacent to the foot of the pedestrian bridge. Because there is a CUP required for the gas station as a regular component of a neighborhood/commercial shopping center, does not negate the viability of the overall use as a supportive use around the transit station. Similarly, there is a parking garage and surface parking lot as a component of the community college in order to provide a full range of services to college students; however, the overall community college use is considered consistent with the types of land uses expected to support the transit station.

• The traffic study has demonstrated that the number of vehicular trips to the site remains under the number of trips studied and contemplated with the adoption of the PUD in 2010.

In summary, staff believes that the proposed project is consistent with the Traditional Center designation and meets the intent of the General Plan policies.

Page 4 of 396 ends

File ID: 2021-01331 Public Hearing Item 20
January 4, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento

Curtis Park Village PUD

 Appeal assertion: The proposed project is fundamentally inconsistent with the Curtis Park Village Development Guidelines as it contradicts the goal of maximizing opportunities for efficient transit.

As part of the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development, the schematic plan establishes the distribution and intensity of land uses within the community. Of the total 72-acre project site, the schematic plan designates approximately 16.3 acres for commercial uses, including the

11.8 acre (net) southern commercial area between 10th Avenue and Sutterville Road, intended for a neighborhood shopping area, and the 4.7 acre northern commercial flex zone north of 10th Avenue that could potentially accommodate a wide variety of uses including residential, commercial (including recreational/entertainment uses) office and public/open spaces. The schematic plan depicts the 11.8-acre southern commercial area with general, non-specific building footprint locations noting that ultimate building/driveway locations shall be in general compliance with the locations shown on this plan.

The PUD Guidelines state that the southern commercial area “will strike a balance between serving the more intimate immediate local community with walkable destinations and welcoming the greater community and larger customer base required to nourish a viable environment for thriving businesses.” Thus, the PUD Guidelines anticipated that the commercial center would serve the needs of not only the immediate surrounding neighborhood, but also the larger surrounding community.

In its approval of the Curtis Park PUD in 2010, the City Council made the following findings:

1. PU
D conformed to the General Plan;

2. PUD Development Guidelines and Schematic Plan met the purposes and criteria stated in the City Zoning Ordinance in that the PUD facilitated mixed uses designated to assure that new development is healthy and of long-lasting benefit to the community and the City; and that

3. PUD development Guidelines and Schematic Plan would not be injurious to the public welfare, nor to other property in the vicinity of the development and would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance in that the PUD ensures that the development be well-designed, and that the uses will not create a negative impact on adjacent uses.

Page 5 of 396 ends

File ID: 2021-01331 Public Hearing Item 20
January 4, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento

Staff finds that the proposed project is consistent with the Curtis Park Village PUD Guidelines as the proposed gas station is located at the rear of the shopping center site, away from Crocker Drive which will serve as the main pedestrian bike thoroughfare through the neighborhood. Additionally, the gas station is located such that it will be screened from view from Crocker Drive by commercial buildings and by the Sutterville Road rail overpass.

Economic Impacts: Not Applicable

Environmental Considerations: In 2015, the City prepared an addendum to the Curtis Park Village EIR in connection with the fuel center application. The addendum concluded that none of the circumstances identified in Public Resources Code section 21166, or CEQA Guidelines section 15162, were present and that a subsequent EIR was not required. The Planning and Design Commission held a hearing on June 11, 2015, adopted the addendum, and approved the fuel center application.

The approval was appealed to the City Council, which heard the appeal and denied the application on November 17, 2015.

No changes have been made in the application for the fuel center that was heard by the City Council in 2015. The City has not approved any entitlements in the Curtis Park Village/Crocker Village project that have substantially deviated from the entitlements that were the subject of the environmental impact report for the original project.

The City has completed a revised addendum for the rehearing of the fuel station project. The City has posted documents related to review under the California Environmental Quality Act, including the Revised Addendum (2021) on its web site. These documents include the Curtis Park Village EIR, City Council resolutions certifying the EIR and adopting CEQA findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations, and the revised addendum for the fuel center project. These documents are located online at:

https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Community-Development/Planning/Environmental/Impact- Reports

The proposed use is consistent with the general plan and zoning designations for the site and falls within the types of uses that were considered in the impact analysis in the Draft EIR.

CEQA review proceeds under CEQA Guidelines section 15162, including an inquiry as to whether there are substantial changes in the project that would result in new significant effects on the environment that were not considered in the EIR. Staff concluded that none of the conditions set forth in section 15162 would occur, and that the EIR is adequate to evaluate any of the impacts that could occur as a result of project approval. An Addendum to the previously

Page 6 of 396 ends

File ID: 2021-01331 Public Hearing Item 20
January 4, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento

certified EIR was prepared. An addendum is appropriate in this case because only minor technical changes in the EIR were required and the project would not have new significant effects. CEQA Guidelines section 15164.

The Mitigation Monitoring Plan, adopted in Resolution No. 2010-572, applies to the construction and operation of the proposed fuel island.

The appeal raises the following issues relating to environmental review. The staff response follows each assertion.

 Appeal Assertion: The appeal asserts that the Air Resources Board has provided guidance to local agencies regarding the proper location of fuel centers.

The Air Resources Board, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and SMAQMD have each addressed concerns relating to the siting of residential uses in relative proximity to sources of toxic air contaminants. These concerns are related both to stationary sources (such as gas stations) as well as mobile sources (such as freeways). The project site is not located within 500 feet of a major roadway or freeway but would be located across the street from residential uses.

The agencies have emphasized that they are making recommendations only, and are not directing, or adopting thresholds of significance regarding proximity. CAPCOA is typical:

SMAQMD has adopted a threshold of significance for stationary sources: if a project would result in a cancer risk in excess of 10 in a million a significant effect would occur. As discussed in the Addendum and the Health Risk Assessment (HRA), this threshold was not exceeded by the project. The decision regarding approval of the proposed use, as noted by CAPCOA, lies within the sound discretion of the City.

The applicant has proposed a new location for the fuel center, located within the commercial center north of Sutterville Road and adjacent to Buchannan Street/10 th Avenue. Ramboll
Environ, the consultant that prepared the original health risk assessment, has reviewed the alternative location, and has concluded as follows:

Page 7 of 396 ends

File ID: 2021-01331 Public Hearing Item 20
January 4, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento

This revised location will very likely result in lower estimated health impacts. It is about 400 feet further from residents in the predominant wind direction, compared to the initial site location. (The wind rose (Figure 2) indicates that the predominant wind direction is from the south west.) This will result in lower cancer risk, chronic HI, and acute HI. Based on Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) scaling methodologies for gas stations, this additional distance could reduce impacts by as much as 90%. SMAQMD does not have similar guidance, but we believe the BAAQMD guidance can be used to provide a reasonable estimate of the reduction in impacts. The new proposed location is closer to the community college to the east, but the community college location is still 400 feet away, which is further than the original maximally impacted receptors, and is not a residential location, further lowering health impacts. In addition, the community college is not in the predominant wind direction and therefore we believe that risks would be lower in this location than at the original maximally exposed individual.

 Appeal Assertion: The fuel island project would result in significant effects and a supplemental EIR should be prepared.

The air district requires an HRA as part of the permit application. The HRA was completed in a manner consistent with the air district’s regulations and demonstrated that no significant effect would result with a throughput of 7.45 million gallons per year based on the original location of the gas station. As stated above, the revised location will very likely result in lower estimated health impacts. The air district requires regular reports from gasoline dispensing facilities and has trained staff that monitor and enforce the throughput conditions. The record demonstrates that no significant effect would occur and a supplemental EIR is not required.

 Appeal Assertion: The project would require the routine transport of gasoline, a hazardous substance.

The Addendum discusses the potential for exposure to hazardous substances. As noted there, the City’s general plan, and regulations imposed at the County, state and federal level include provisions that reduce risk from hazards. There are no unusual circumstances associated with the project that would result in a greater risk than is normally experienced by residents throughout the City.

 Appeal Assertion: The Addendum is deficient because its analysis of traffic does not take into account the proposed operation as part of the Safeway rewards program.

The traffic analysis prepared as part of the Addendum includes consideration of the presence of a rewards discount program.

Page 8 of 396 ends

File ID: 2021-01331 Public Hearing Item 20
January 4, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento

 Appeal Assertion: The Addendum utilized analyses of consultants employed by the applicant, and does not reflect the independent judgment of the City.

The traffic analysis and health risk assessment were prepared by qualified professionals.

SMAQMD confirmed the HRA was prepared consistent with its directions. The City’s Department of Public Works staff reviewed and approved the traffic analysis. Staff in the Community Development Department, Environmental Planning Services, prepared the Addendum and concluded that the analysis and reports complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These procedures are consistent with CEQA and provide a basis for independent judgment by the City’s decision-making body.

 Appeal Assertion: The City cannot rely on the Master EIR because Public Resources Code section 21157.1 requires preparation of an initial study as a condition of such reliance.

The Addendum prepared in 2015 included reference to the Master EIR as a general discussion of cumulative effects, and not as a streamlining mechanism. The preparation of an initial study was not required. See CEQA Guidelines section 15152. The Curtis Park Village EIR discussed cumulative effects relating to hazardous materials. See Impact 4.8-6, Draft EIR page 4.8-15.

 Appeal Assertion: The Addendum cannot rely on the HRA because the City has not limited the project to a throughput of 7.45 million gallons per year.

The proposed fuel island project is a “stationary source” that is subject to the regulatory authority of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD).

SMAQMD Rule 201 requires approval of an Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate for any gasoline station or gasoline dispensing facility in the County of Sacramento. See http://airquality.org/permits/
. The air district is a responsible agency under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines section 15096) and its permit to operate would include a throughput limit consistent with the HRA.

The health risk assessment prepared in connection with the Addendum was prepared according to the protocols established by SMAQMD. The threshold of significance utilized by the City with regard to stationary sources of toxic air contaminants, such as the fuel island facility, are based on consideration of the SMAQMD thresholds and evidence supporting such thresholds. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7(c).

Page 9 of 396 ends

File ID: 2021-01331 Public Hearing Item 20
January 4, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento

The health risk assessment evaluated the health risk of the proposed fuel facility in its original location based on throughput of 7.45 million gallons per year. This revised location will very likely result in lower estimated health impacts. It is about 400 feet further from residents in the predominant wind direction, compared to the initial site location. The City has appropriately considered the health risk assessment and throughput level as part of its environmental review.

The environmental documents are posted at
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Community-
Development/Planning/Environmental/Impact-Reports

Sustainability: Not Applicable

• Traffic – The impact of project related traffic on the surrounding neighborhood including Crocker Road and Sutterville Road

• Impediments to pedestrian and bicycle circulation – The proposed project will be an impediment to bicycle and pedestrian circulation within the Curtis Park PUD.

• Not supportive of transit – The proposed project is within ¼ mile of an existing light rail station and will negatively affect transit ridership.

• Health, Safety, and Welfare – The project will negatively affect the health of nearby residents.

With a vote of 8 ayes to 3 noes and 1 absent, the Planning and Design Commission voted to approve the Curtis Park Fuel Center CUP and Site Plan and Design Review. With the applicant’s agreement, a condition was added to the CUP requiring the gas station to be developed and operated by Safeway. The Planning and Design Commission action was later appealed to the City Council by a third party.

On November 17, 2015, the City Council heard the Curtis Park Village Fuel Center project and voted 7 ayes to 2 noes to deny the project.

Page 10 of 396 ends

File ID: 2021-01331 Public Hearing Item 20
January 4, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento

Subsequent to the Council action, the applicant filed Petrovich Development Company, LLC et al. v. City of Sacramento, et al., in Sacramento Superior Court challenging the City Council’s decision. In 2018, the Sacramento Superior Court ordered the City to rescind the City Council decision on the project and re-hear the appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the Sacramento Superior Court.

• Health, Safety, and Welfare – the new location is over 400 feet further from any residential use compared to the previous location
• Impediments to pedestrian and bicycle circulation - The gas station is located adjacent to Buchannan Street which is not expected to be utilized by many pedestrians or bicyclists
• Aesthetics - The new location greatly reduces the visibility of the gas station as it will be located behind future buildings and adjacent to the embankment to the Sutterville Road rail bridge.

Staff continues to support the project and its modified location request based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the Conditions of Approval as found in the attached project resolution (Attachment 7)

Financial Considerations: The applicant is incurring all costs for the proposed fuel center project.

Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not Applicable

Page 11 of 396 ends

1 Background
Existing Conditions
The subject site is located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Sutterville Road and Crocker Drive. The gas station is proposed to be located at the southwest corner of the shopping center site adjacent to Buchannan Street/10th Avenue and approximately 400 feet west of Crocker Drive. There are single-family homes on the east side of Crocker Drive and the Curtis Park Court senior housing to the north of 10th Avenue.

Prior Entitlements

On April 1, 2010, the City Council took the following actions (P04-109):

 Certified the Curtis Park Village Environmental Impact Report (EIR);  Adopted a Resolution providing policy direction for Curtis Park Village Neighborhood Park and Detention Basin and the Amendment to the 1995 Remedial Action Plan;
 Continued the remainder of entitlements to a later date.

On September 28, 2010, the City Council approved the 71.7-acre Curtis Park Village project which included adopting the following entitlements (P04-109):

 Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program;
 General Plan Amendment;
 Rezone;
 Inclusionary Housing Plan;
 Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development (PUD) Guidelines and Schematic Plan; and
 Master and Tentative Parcel Maps, including Subdivision Modifications.

On January 31, 2013, the Planning and Design Commission approved a modification Table 1: Project Information
General Plan designation: Traditional Center (0.3 - 3.0 FAR) Existing zoning of site: Shopping Center (SC-PUD)
PUD: Curtis Park Village
Property area: 0.45 Acre Gas Station Site, 11.8 acre Southern Commercial Site Proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 0.36 (total commercial center approved and requested with this application)

Page 12 of 396 ends

2 to the Planned Unit Development and the tentative map (P12-026).

On June 25, 2014, City staff approved the Curtis Park Village Commercial Center project with a staff level Site Plan and Design Review (DR14-110). Consistent with the approved PUD, the Curtis Park Village Commercial Center includes approximately 104,000 square feet of various commercial buildings on the lower 6.9 acres of the Southern Commercial Area (Attachment 3). The proposed gas station was not a part of this prior action.

On June 11, 2015 the Curtis Park Fuel Center was heard by the Planning and Design Commission. The Planning and Design Commission voted 8 to 3 with one absent to approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Site Plan and Design review to construct and operate a new 16-pump gas station on approximately 0.46 acres within the PUD’s Southern Commercial Area. On June 19, 2015, a third-party appeal of the Planning and Design Commission’s decision was submitted. The appeal asserts that the proposed project will be detrimental to the welfare of persons residing, working, visiting, or recreating in the surrounding neighborhood; that the project is fundamentally inconsistent with the Curtis Park Village PUD Guidelines; that the project approval’s reliance on a CEQA Addendum is legally deficient; that the Addendum itself is legally deficient; and that approval of the project violates CEQA.

On September 16, 2015 a new site plan was submitted relocating the gas station, including the 740 square foot kiosk, to the southwest corner of the shopping center site.

The proposed gas station retains eight pumps with 16 dispensing locations; the current request is for a 24-hour operation.

Public/Neighborhood Outreach and Comments

Prior to the June 11th Planning and Design Commission hearing, early project notifications were sent to the Sierra Curtis Neighborhood Association, Land Park Community Association, and the College Plaza Neighborhood Association and to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. Additionally, property owners in the vicinity of the project were invited to a January 28, 2015, community meeting which was attended by City staff, members of the development team, and over 300 members of the public interested in the project. Staff has received comments both in support of and in opposition to the proposed gas station. The key concerns of those who have stated opposition have been traffic, health and safety, land use, and aesthetics.

Traffic. Traffic has been a major concern of those who have submitted comments on the project. Those objecting to the gas station have stated their concerns related to:

 The project’s impact on traffic in the existing neighborhood;  The project’s impact to on-site circulation (on-site queueing);  Increased vehicle trips due to the gas station, characterizing it as regional draw; and

Page 13 of 396 ends

3  Increased vehicle trips due to shoppers taking advantage of a fuel rewards program.

In response to concerns related to traffic, a Transportation Analysis of the proposed gas station was completed by DKS Associates and has been included as an Attachment to the Addendum. The Planning and Development Code does not provide any special distinctions for discount fuel, or rewards programs, however, DKS Associates considered the effects of reduced price gasoline in its analysis. The analysis concluded that the total peak hour and daily traffic volumes would be lower than those utilized for the traffic analysis in the original Curtis Park Village (EIR). The relocation of the gas station to another location within the shopping center does not affect this conclusion.

Health and Safety. Health and safety has been another concern voiced by those opposed to the project. Commenters have cited health and safety concerns related to:

 Toxic air contaminants that would be released by the gas station; and  Residential exposure to hazardous substances amongst the nearby residential uses.

Responding to the health and safety concerns related to the proposed gas station, a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was conducted by ENVIRON which concluded that the estimated cancer risk would be within an acceptable range and would be below the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) thresholds of significance (Attachment D of the Addendum) and would not result in any additional significant impacts beyond those identified in the Curtis Park Village EIR. Furthermore, the estimated cancer risk would be in the range that the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) defines as “acceptable risk” with the provision of Toxic Best Available Control Technology (TBACT).

Responding to the change in location of the Gas Station, Ramboll Environ, the consultant that prepared the original health risk assessment, has concluded that:

Page 14 of 396 ends

4 proposed location is closer to the community college to the east, but the community college location is still 400 feet away, which is further than the original maximally impacted receptors, and is not a residential location, further lowering health impacts. In addition, the community college is not in the predominant wind direction and therefore we believe that risks would be lower in this location than at the original maximally exposed individuals.

 PUD Guidelines – Opponents of the project have argued that the gas station is a land use in conflict with the PUD’s goal to maximize opportunities for efficient transit provided by the public transportation and roadway corridors serving the site of the PUD. In addition to this concern, opponents have argued that the proposed gas station will negatively affect bicycle and pedestrian circulation through the PUD.

Goal 4 of the Curtis Park Village PUD Guidelines states a primary goal of the PUD is to “Maximize opportunities for efficient transit provided by the public transportation and roadway corridors serving the site of the PUD.” To further this goal, the PUD Guidelines; encourage the use of public transportation through site design that emphasizes convenient transit access and use and promote the development of appropriate linkages to surrounding neighborhoods including pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle and alternative transportation modes.

The proposed project will not hinder the ability for surrounding residents to access transit opportunities. The gas station is located in an area adjacent to Buchannan Street/10th Avenue which is not expected to be heavily utilized by pedestrians or bicyclists.

 Traditional Center General Plan Designation – Another concern is that the Traditional Center designation emphasizes walkable neighborhoods and the proposed gas station will degrade the pedestrian experience and contravene the goal of a walkable neighborhood.

The gas station is sited on 0.45 acres of the 11.8 acre Curtis Park Village southern commercial area, all of which is designated Traditional Center. The proposed gas station consists of a service use that is allowed in the SC zone subject to approval of a CUP. The gas station is considered to be consistent with the allowed uses in the Traditional Center designation. Additionally, the inclusion of a gas station at Curtis Park Village does not preclude the balance of the 11.8 acre commercial area from providing neighborhood-serving, walkable commercial uses.

Page 15 of 396 ends

5  Transit Oriented Development (TOD) - It has been argued that a gas station is not a proper use for a TOD.

The site is within a quarter mile of an existing transit station but is not designated as a TOD. Furthermore, the Transit Overlay (TO), meant to further TOD objectives, has not been applied to the zoning of this site. The subject site is zoned as Shopping Center, Planned Unit Development and does not include the TO overlay. All properties with a TO overlay would include the “TO” in the zoning of the site. The City Council’s adoption of the original PUD Schematic Plan and PUD Guidelines was based on the ability of Curtis Park Village to promote pedestrian friendly development, support alternative modes of transportation, and the establishment of a well-designed mixture of land uses for existing and future residents within the area. Approval of the original entitlements for the master planned, mixed-use community was not based on any TOD characteristics of the project. As previously discussed, the proposed project will not hinder the ability for those wishing to access transit to safely and directly reach their destination.

Aesthetics/Design. Staff has received comments challenging whether the design of the proposed gas station is consistent with the site and building design principles of the PUD Guidelines.

The purpose and intent of the Curtis Park PUD Guidelines state that “To achieve the goals and objectives of the Curtis Park Village PUD, the Guidelines are formulated in a flexible manner to provide for creative solutions to a variety of design situations.” To that effect, the guidelines include site design principles encouraging site features such as design for lively pedestrian use, spaces designed at a pedestrian scale, and consideration of view corridors. The guidelines also include building design principles encouraging attention to architectural building elements including building materials, types, and forms; proper massing and scale; and building articulation.

The aforementioned site and building design principles are meant to direct the development of the overall commercial center in a manner compatible with the surrounding neighborhood with an emphasis on providing an attractive pedestrian experience. The principles are meant to further the goals of the PUD as a whole and not intended to be a checklist for the strict adherence of each development project.

Staff believes that the southern commercial area development applications to date, including the prior commercial center Site Plan and Design Review approval and the current gas station request, constitute overall commercial development that is consistent with the intent of the PUD Guidelines. The proposed gas station is located such that it will be screened from view from Crocker Drive by future commercial buildings and by the Sutterville Road rail overpass. The location of the gas station is such that its appearance is minimized to the greatest extent possible, thereby enhancing the pedestrian experience of the commercial center.

Land Use/Entitlements

Page 16 of 396 ends

6 Land Use

The proposed 0.45 acre gas station project occupies a small portion of the 11.8 southern commercial area of the PUD; 6.9 acres of the commercial area has been approved through a prior design review action. The site includes over 100,000 square feet of commercial uses in retail buildings ranging from 5,600 square feet to approximately 57,000 square feet. With smaller commercial spaces located adjacent to Crocker Drive and larger anchor and major tenant spaces located at the rear of the site, the southern commercial area provides the opportunity for both neighborhood and community serving retail and commercial services.

Where it has been argued that a gas station is an improper land use for the subject site, it is not unusual for a gas station to locate within a shopping center larger than six (6) acres in size. Both the traffic analysis and the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) conclude that the gas station project will not have any environmental effects beyond those identified in the original project EIR. The traffic analysis also found that the gas station will not impact City streets or sidewalks.

Zoning

Shopping Center (SC-PUD): The Planning and Development Code defines the purpose of the Shopping Center (SC) zone as: “providing a wide range of goods and services to the community. However, general commercial uses that are incompatible with a retail shopping center are prohibited.” (City Code Section 17.216.500) A gas station is considered a typical use for a community serving shopping center and is determined to be compatible. “Gas Station” is defined by the Planning and Development Code (adopted by City Council in 2013) as follows: “Gas station” means any building, land area, or other premises used primarily for the retail dispensing or sales of gasoline or alternative fuel for vehicles. (City Code Section 17.108.080) The proposed gas station meets this definition.

The proposed gas station is allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, per section 17.216.510 of the Planning and Development Code. City Code Section states: “A CUP is a zoning instrument used primarily to review the location and conduct of certain land uses that are known to have a distinct impact on the area in which they are located or are capable of creating special problems for bordering properties, unless given special attention.” The Planning and Development Code does not provide any additional classification for gas stations. All commercial businesses involved in the retail sale of gasoline or alternative fuels qualify as a gas station and require the approval of a CUP.

Conditional Use Permit: The applicant’s request is to develop a 16-pump gas station with an associated 740 square foot convenience store in the Shopping Center (SC- PUD) Zone within the Curtis Park Village PUD. The Council’s action on the requested CUP shall be based on the following findings:

Page 17 of 396 ends

7 1. The proposed use and its operating characteristics are consistent with the General Plan;

In its original adoption of the Curtis Park Village, the City Council found the Shopping Center (SC) Zone and the Curtis Park Village PUD to be consistent with the General Plan and its Traditional Center designation. Approval of the requested CUP will not preclude the ability to provide neighborhood serving commercial uses across the balance of the 11.8 acres Southern Commercial Area. Additionally, staff finds that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan policy to provide a compatible and complimentary mix of uses and does not conflict with the General Plan policy discouraging low-intensity and auto-oriented uses around transit stations.

The proposed use is allowed in the Shopping Center zone subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. The proposed gas station is consistent with the Curtis Park Village PUD Guidelines and Schematic Plan with respect to land use, site layout, and building design.

3. The proposed use is situated on a parcel that is physically suitable in terms of location, size, topography, and access, and that is adequately served by public services and utilities;

The proposed gas station can be established on the site without deviating from the Planning and Development Code or the PUD Guidelines. Public services and utilities will be available to development on the site.

The proposed use and its operation characteristics will not be detrimental to public health, safety, convenience, or welfare and will not result in the creation of a nuisance in that:

a. The estimated cancer risk would be within an acceptable range and would be below the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) thresholds of significance;

b. The total peak hour and daily traffic volumes would be lower than those utilized for traffic analysis in the original Curtis Park Village (EIR) and all vehicle queuing will occur on-site;

Page 18 of 396 ends

8 c. Lighting is required to be designed so as not to produce hazardous and annoying glare to motorists, adjacent properties, or the general public.

Site/Building Plan

The proposed gas station project consists of eight (8) fuel islands with a total of 16 fuel pumps, a 6,500 square foot canopy, and a 740 square foot convenience store (kiosk).

Both the site and architectural design of the proposed facility are subject to the approval of Site Plan and Design Review.

The overall shopping center was approved with three driveways and the modified gas station project only includes one new exit-only driveway along Buchannan Street/10th Avenue at the rear of the site. With the unidirectional flow of traffic (east to west), queuing for the fuel pumps will occur on site and vehicle stacking is not expected to affect any of the adjacent public streets. None of the driveways provide direct, immediate access to the fuel pump queue.

Access to each of the pumps will be unidirectional with vehicle flow moving from east to west. The fueling islands are proposed to be located in two rows beneath the canopy, providing four fueling lanes.

The 740 square-foot kiosk building is proposed to be located at the east end of the gas station site. The 16-foot-tall building will be finished with brick consistent with the PUD guidelines and materials approved for the surrounding commercial center. The kiosk will house the cashier, a small sales area for convenience items, and a work room/office for the gas station.

A 20’-6” canopy will cover the fueling area. Similar to the kiosk building, the columns for the kiosk will be wrapped in brick. The overhead canopy structure will be finished with a cornice and dentil, detailing to match the kiosk structure and the architecture of the surrounding commercial center. The canopy structure and associated kiosk are consistent with the commercial center in both architectural style, and mass and scale.

The subject site is within ¼ mile of a light rail station. Section 17.600.160 of the Planning and Development code requires that such uses a) shall provide pedestrian amenities such as awnings, canopies, benches, and landscaping; b) shall avoid areas of blank walls that are viewable from the street at the ground level; c) shall provide continuous, direct, convenient transit and pedestrian linkages, including walkways between principal entrances of buildings and adjacent lots; d) locate vehicle parking to the rear or interior side of the building and not in front of the building; and e) the building’s primary entrance shall have direct access to public streets and sidewalks.

The proposed gas station complies with these development standards.

Page 19 of 396 ends

10th Avenue
Ped/Bike Bridge
Gas Station

Page 20 of 396 ends

P14-036
Vicinity Map
Curtis Park Village Fuel Center
!"#$
!"#$
(/
·|}þ!"#$
·|}þ ) *+ ,-
) *+ ,-
!"#$
·|}þ
·|}þ
!"#$
!"#$
!"#$
!"#$
80 80
50 5
5 5
80 80
80 80
160
99
C-2
R-1
SC-PUD
SC-PUD
M-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-2B-PUD
R-1
R-1
C-4
R-1
R-1
C-4-R
C-4-R
C-4
C-4-R
R-1
C-4
C-4-R
C-2
R-1
C-4-R C-4-RC-4-R
R-2B-PUD
C-2
R-4A-PUD
C-4-R
24TH ST

SUTTERVILLE RD
24TH ST
10TH AVE
24TH ST

CROCKER DR

JEFFREY AVE

W PACIFIC BYP

W PACIFIC AVE
11TH AVE

DEEBLE ST

COLEMAN WAY
0 340 680
Feet
A. Ablog | 11.9.15
Project Location
City of Sacramento, Community Development Department GIS

Page 21 of 396 ends

Page 1 of 3 ends

EIR Addendum – Findings – City Council Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. 2021-

Adopted by the Sacramento City Council

CERTIFYING THE ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REOPORT AND ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR THE CURTIS PARK VILLAGE FUEL ISLAND PROJECT (P14-036)

BACKGROUND

A. On June 11, 2015, the City Planning and Design Commission conducted a public hearing on and approved the Curtis Park Village Fuel Center Project.

B. On June 19, 2015, the Decision of the City Planning and Design commission was appealed by a third party.

C. On January 4 , 202 2, the City Council conducted a public hearing, for which notice was given pursuant Sacramento City Code Section

17.812.030(B) and received and considered evidence concerning the Curtis Park Village Fuel Center Project.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council finds as follows:

a. On April 1, 2010, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq. (“CEQA”), the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §15000 et seq.), and the City of Sacramento environmental guidelines, the City Council certified an environmental impact report (EIR) for the Curtis Park Village project. Having reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR, the City Council on September 28, 2010 adopted findings of fact and findings of overriding consideration, adopted a mitigation monitoring program, and approved the Curtis Park Village project (P04-109) (Project).

b. The Curtis Park Village Fuel Island project (P14-036) (Fuel Island Project) requests approval of a conditional use permit and site plan and design

Page 22 of 396 ends

Page 2 of 3 ends

review to install and operate a fuel island in the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development.

c. Staff has determined that the Fuel Island Project does not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. An Addendum to the previously certified Curtis Park Village EIR has been prepared to address the Fuel Island Project.

a. No substantial changes are proposed by the Fuel Island Project that will require major revisions of the previously certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

b. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Fuel Island Project will be undertaken which will require major revisions to the previously certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

c. No new information of substantial importance has been found that shows any of the following:

i. The Fuel Island Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previously certified EIR;

ii. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previously certified EIR;

iii. Mitigation measures previously found to be infeasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Fuel Island Project; or

iv. Mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previously certified EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment.

3. Based on its review of the previously certified EIR for the Curtis Park Village Project, the previously adopted findings of fact and findings of overriding

Page 23 of 396 ends

Page 3 of 3 ends

consideration, the addendum, and all oral and documentary evidence received during the hearing on the Fuel Island Project, the City Council finds that the EIR and Addendum reflect the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis, certifies the Curtis Park Village EIR and the Addendum for the Fuel Island Project, and readopts the findings of fact and findings of overriding consideration .

a. The mitigation monitoring program has been adopted and implemented as part of the Curtis Park Village Project;

b. The addendum to the EIR does not include any new mitigation measures, and has not eliminated or modified any of the mitigation measures included in the mitigation monitoring program;

c. The mitigation monitoring program meets the requirements of CEQA section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091.

5. Upon approval of the Project, the City Manager shall file or cause to be filed a Notice of Determination with the Sacramento County Clerk and, if the project requires a discretionary approval from any state agency, with the State Office of Planning and Research, pursuant to section 21152(a) of the Public Resources Code and the State EIR Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto.

6. Pursuant to Guidelines section 15091(e), the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council has based its decision, including the previously-certified EIR, are located in and may be obtained from, the Office of the City Clerk at 915 I Street, Sacramento, California. The City Clerk is the custodian of records for all matters before the City Council.

Table of Contents:

Exhibit A: Mitigation Monitoring Program

Page 24 of 396 ends

Exhibit A

Page 25 of 396 ends

Page 26 of 396 ends

Page 27 of 396 ends

Page 28 of 396 ends

Page 29 of 396 ends

Page 30 of 396 ends

Page 31 of 396 ends

Page 32 of 396 ends

Page 33 of 396 ends

Page 34 of 396 ends

Page 35 of 396 ends

Page 36 of 396 ends

Page 37 of 396 ends

Page 38 of 396 ends

Page 39 of 396 ends

Page 40 of 396 ends

Page 41 of 396 ends

Page 42 of 396 ends

Page 43 of 396 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

Adopted by the Sacramento City Council

ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING CURTIS PARK

VILLAGE FUEL CENTER
(P14-036) (APN: 013-0010-049)

BACKGROUND

A. On June 11, 2015, the City Planning and Design Commission conducted a public hearing on and approved the Curtis Park Village Fuel Center Project.

B. On June 19, 2015, the Decision of the City Planning and Design commission was appealed by a third party.

C. On January 4, 2022, the City Council conducted a public hearing, for which notice was given pursuant Sacramento City Code Section 17.812.030(B) and received and considered evidence concerning the Curtis Park Village Fuel Center Project.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Based on the verbal and documentary evidence received at the hearing on the Curtis Park Village Fuel Center Project, the City Council denies the appeal and approves the project entitlements based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions of approval as set forth below.

Section 2. The City Council approves the Project entitlements based on the following findings of fact:

A. & B Environmental Determination: The CEQA Addendum to a previously certified EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Project have been adopted by Resolution No. _________.

C. The Conditional Use Permit to establish a 16-pump gas station on 0.45 acres in the Shopping Center (SC-PUD) Zone in the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development based on the following findings of fact.

1. The proposed use and its operating characteristics are consistent with the General Plan, in that with the original adoption of the Curtis Park Village project, the City Council found the Shopping Center (SC) Zone and the Curtis Park Village PUD to be consistent with the General Plan and its Traditional Center designation. Approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit (CUP) will not preclude the ability to provide neighborhood serving commercial uses across the balance of the 11.8 acres Southern Commercial Area. The proposed project is consistent with General Plan

Page 44 of 396 ends

policy to provide a compatible and complimentary mix of uses and does not conflict with the General Plan policy discouraging low-intensity and auto-oriented uses around transit stations.

2. The proposed use and its operating characteristics are consistent with the applicable standards, requirements, and regulations of the zoning district in which it is located, and of all other provisions of the code, in that the proposed use is allowed in the Shopping Center Zone subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. The proposed gas station is consistent with the Curtis Park Village PUD Guidelines and Schematic Plan with respect to land use, site layout, and building design.

3. The proposed use is situated on a parcel that is physically suitable in terms of location, size, topography, and access, and that is adequately served by public services and utilities as the proposed gas station can be established on the site without deviating from the Planning and Development Code or the PUD Guidelines.

Public services and utilities will be available to development on the site.

a. The estimated cancer risk would be within an acceptable range and would be below the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) thresholds of significance;

b. The total peak hour and daily traffic volumes would be lower than those utilized for traffic analysis in the original Curtis Park Village (EIR) and all vehicle queuing will occur on-site; and

c. Lighting is required to be designed so as not to produce hazardous and annoying glare to motorists, adjacent properties, or the general public; and

C. The Site Plan and Design Review for a new gas station is approved based on the following findings of fact:

1. The design, layout, and physical characteristics of the proposed gas station are consistent with the General Plan and the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development.

2. The design, layout, and physical characteristics of the gas station are consistent with the Curtis Park Village PUD Guidelines and with all applicable development standards.

3. All streets and other public access ways and facilities, parking facilities, and utility infrastructure are adequate to serve the proposed gas station and comply with all applicable design guidelines and development standards.

Page 45 of 396 ends

4. The design, layout, and physical characteristics of the proposed gas station are visually and functionally compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

5. The design, layout, and physical characteristics of the proposed gas station ensure energy consumption is minimized as it allows individuals to reduce vehicle trips by providing a range of commercial services and retail uses in one commercial center.

6. The design, layout, and physical characteristics of the proposed gas station are not detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience, or welfare of persons residing, working, visiting, or recreating in the surrounding neighborhood and will not result in the creation of a nuisance in that the proposed gas station:
a. Is consistent with the Curtis Park Village Schematic Plan and PUD Guidelines; b. Is designed and will be operated so as to not cause vehicle queuing to affect any City streets or sidewalks;
c. Is finished with materials compatible with adjacent uses and the surrounding neighborhood;
d. Will provide lighting designed so as not to produce hazardous and annoying glare to motorists, adjacent properties, or the general public.

Conditions of Approval

C. The Conditional Use Permit to establish a 16-pump gas station on 0.45 acres in the Shopping Center (SC-PUD) Zone in the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development is approved subject to the following conditions:

Planning

C1. The developer/applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to issuance of building permits, including required approval from the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District to construct and authority to operate the proposed fuel station

C2. Development of the project site shall be in compliance with the attached site plan and elevation exhibits.

C3. Any modification to the project shall be subject to review and approval by Planning Staff prior to the issuance of building permits. Any significant modification to the project may require subsequent entitlements.

C4. The developer shall comply with all applicable requirements included in the Curtis Park Village Mitigation Monitoring Plan (P04-109).

C5. The proposal is required to meet the Sacramento City Code regulations regarding bicycle parking (Section 17.608.030). Bicycle parking shall be

Page 46 of 396 ends

located in a secure area located in close proximity to doors and/or windows.

C6. Trash receptacles shall be placed at the kiosk entry and at the fuel islands for use by customers.

C7. Final landscaping plans are subject to review by Planning Staff prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Low height landscaping, including shrubs, shall be maintained at a height of three feet to provide screening for vehicle headlights.

Lower tree canopies should be above six feet to increase natural surveillance.

Tree canopies should not interfere with or block overhead lighting.

C8. No mechanical auto repair or auto body repair shall take place on the premises.

C9. All signage for the site including, but not limited to, monument signs, entry signs, business identification and address signs, trash enclosure signs, and directional signage shall be subject to the issuance of sign permits. All signage shall comply with the Curtis Park Village PUD Guidelines.

C10. The gas station shall be developed and operated as a Safeway gas station.

Modifications to this condition shall be subject to modification by the Planning and Design Commission.

Public Works

C11. Construct standard public improvements as noted in these conditions pursuant to Title 18 of the City Code. Improvements shall b e designed to City Standards and assured as set forth in Section 18.04.130 of the City Code. All improvements shall be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. Any public improvements not specifically noted in these conditions shall be designed and constructed to City Standards. This shall include the repair or replacement/reconstruction of any existing deteriorated curb, gutter and sidewalk adjacent to the subject property (Buchannan Street) per City standards to th e satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

C12. All new and existing driveways shall be designed and constructed to City Standards to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. The applicant shall close the existing driveway along Buchannan Street and reconstruct the frontage to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

C13. Deliveries to the Curtis Park Village site shall be consistent with the truck route exhibit attached in the staff report. In general, trucks can use Sutterville Roa d, Crocker Drive, Buchannan Street and the loop Road to West Pacific Avenue in the project’s vicinity. Deliveries are prohibited from using the West Pacific Avenue Jeffery Avenue alley at the intersection of Sutterville Road and Crocker Drive”.

C14. The applic ant shall construct traffic calming measures in the form of additional

Page 47 of 396 ends

speed tables along Buchannan Street to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. The construction of the new speed tables shall be located approximately 350-feet north of the existing tables along that street segment and shall be to City standards.

C15. The design of walls fences and signage near intersections and driveways shall allow stopping sight distance per Caltrans standards and comply with City Code Section 12.28.010 (25' sight triangle). Walls shall be set back 3' behind the sight line needed for stopping sight distance to allow sufficient room for pilasters.

Landscaping in the area required for adequate stopping sight distance shall be limited 3.5' in height at maturity . The area of exclusion shall be determined by the Department of Public Works.

C16. The applicant shall provide a signage and markings package (signs, pavement striping, legends and arrows) for on-site circulation and fueling lane queuing to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

C17. The applicant shall be responsible to monitor the daily operations of the fueling facilities so that traffic does not queue back to either Crocker Drive or to the signalized shared access easement. In the case there is v ehicular queuing onto any City streets or the operations of the shared access easement as a result of on-site circulation associated with the project site, subject to a request of the City Traffic Engineer, the applicant shall be responsible to incorporate and implement additional measures to improve on -site circulation as to not back up onto City streets and the access easement to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works (refer to the traffic study recommendations dated April 10th , 2015).

C18. Fuel deliveries to the proposed fuel center shall occur outside of the weekday peak hours (7 -9 am and, 4-6 pm) or the mid-day weekend peak hours (11 am – 2 pm).

C19. The applicant shall have an attendant on -site during the fueling facility operational hours to d irect on -site traffic circulation, assist customers, and place on -site directional cones/ lane dividers and other related traffic control measures, etc.

Police

C20. Exterior lighting shall be white light (e.g. metal halide, LED, fluorescent, or induction) using cut off or full cut off fixtures to limit glare and light trespass (proposed ENTRANCE fixture does not meet these requirements). Exterior lighting shall be maintained and operational and shall meet IESNA standards.

C21. Proposed wall sconce fixtures or other full cut off fixtures shall be used to illuminate the East, South, and West sides of the kiosk.

Landscaping:

Page 48 of 396 ends

C22. Canopies should not interfere with or block lighting. This creates shadows and areas of concealment.

C23. The landscaping plan shall allow for proper illumination and visibility regarding lighting and surveillance cameras through the maturity of trees and shrubs.

Mechanical Security:

C24. Business shall be equipped with a monitored burglary alarm system with private security response.

C25. UL listed central station silent robbery alarm system shall be employed at the point of sale and near the safe(s). Cellular back-up is recommended.

C26. All solid core exterior doors shall be equipped with a 180 degree viewing device to screen persons before allowing entry, and shall remain locked at all times except for emergencies and deliveries.

C27. Height markers are required on the interior doorway.

Security Cameras

C28. Recorded Video Assessment and Surveillance System (VASS) shall be employed.

C29. Cameras and VASS storage shall be digital high definition or better.

C30. VASS storage shall be kept off-site or in a secured area accessible only to management.

C31. VASS shall support standard MPEG formats.

C32. VASS shall be capable of storing no less than 30 days’ worth of activity.

C33. Manager with access to VASS storage shall be able to respond within 30 minutes during business hours.

C34. Manager shall have the ability to transfer recorded data to another medium (e.g. DVD, thumb drive, etc.).

C35. VASS shall provide comprehensive coverage of:

 all points of sale
 fuel pumping and payment areas
 safe
 work room
 North and West doors

Page 49 of 396 ends

 alcohol placement areas
 areas not clearly visible from public streets
 coverage of all four (4) exterior sides of the property  adjacent public rights of way
 at least one camera shall be positioned to get a front face shot (e.g. height strip camera)

C36. Cameras shall be equipped with low light capability, auto iris and auto focus.

Additional Conditions:

C37. Trash receptacles shall be of a design to prevent unauthorized removal of articles from the trash bin.

C38. Windows shall remain uncluttered to allow for natural surveillance.

C39. The name of the store shall be printed on any receipts.

C40. No public pay phones/telephones shall be allowed on the premises.

C41. No coin operated games or video machines shall be allowed on the premises.

C42. The applicant shall post the property No Trespassing and No Loitering. The applicant shall designate a properly permitted and approved private patrol company as agent for trespass.

C43. The applicant is responsible for reasonably controlling the conduct of persons on the site and shall immediately disperse loiterers.

C44. All dumpsters shall be kept locked.

C45. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the applicant shall be removed or painted over within 72 hours of being applied.

C46. The applicant shall be responsible for the daily removal of all litter from the site and adjacent rights of way.

During Construction

C47. The applicant shall enclose the entire perimeter of the project with a chain link fence with necessary construction gates to be locked after normal construction hours.

C48. The location shall be monitored by security after normal construction hours during all phases of construction.

C49. Adequate security lighting shall be provided to illuminate vulnerable equipment

Page 50 of 396 ends

and materials. Lighting shall be white light with full cut off fixtures.

Advisory Notes

1. City of Sacramento permits must be obtained for private patrol and alarm and camera systems.

D. The Site Plan and Design Review for a new gas station is approved subject to the following conditions:

Planning

D1. Development of the project site shall be in compliance with the attached site plan and elevation exhibits.

D2. Any modification to the project shall be subject to review and approval by Planning Staff prior to the issuance of building permits. Any significant modification to the project may require subsequent entitlements.

D3. Stone veneer at building and canopy base shall be replaced with brick or suitable alternative material subject to approval by Design Review Staff.

D4. Signage shall be subject to review and approval through separate sign permit application.

D5. Lighting

a. Lighting shall be designed so as not to produce hazardous and annoying glare to motorists, adjacent properties, or the general public. All fixtures should be placed in a manner that avoids glare when observed from the street or other public areas.

b. All overhead lighting shall be shielded such that lighting is reflected away from residential areas and public streets.

c. Parking lot lighting shall be equipped with vandal-proof covers.

D6. All on-site crosswalks shall be striped, painted, or constructed with enhanced materials to emphasize areas shared by vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

D7. All mechanical equipment, including air and water dispensers, shall be screened from view from public streets with decorative materials and/or landscaping. All rooftop mechanical and communications equipment shall be completely screened from view from public streets at grade level by the building parapet, screen wall, and architectural projections which are integral to the

Page 51 of 396 ends

building design.

Utilities

D8. Prior to submittal of improvement plans, prepare a project specific drainage study for review and approval by the DOU. The drainage study shall be developed using the Master Drainage Study for the project area. Sufficient off- site and on-site spot elevations shall be provided in the drainage study to determine the direction of storm drain runoff. The drainage study shall include an overland flow release map for the proposed project.

D9. Per City Code, the Subdivider may not develop the project in any way that obstructs, impedes, or interferes with the natural flow of existing off-site drainage that crosses the property. Furthermore, all lots shall be graded so that drainage does not cross lot or property lines. The project shall construct the required public and/or private infrastructure to handle runoff to the satisfaction of the DOU. If private infrastructure is constructed to handle runoff, the applicant shall dedicate the required private easements and/or, at the discretion of the DOU, the applicant shall enter into and record an Agreement for Maintenance of Drainage with the City, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.

D10. An on-site surface drainage system is required and shall be connected to the street drainage system by means of a storm drain service tap. The storm drain service taps shall drain on-site shed areas which are in general conformance with the master drainage study and shed map for the area or (development). All on- site systems shall be designed to the standard for private storm drainage systems (per the latest edition of: Frontage and On-Site Improvement Procedures Manual, which may be obtained from the City’s Community Development Department at 300 Richards Blvd., 3rd floor).

D11. All water connections shall comply with the City of Sacramento’s Cross Connection Control Policy.

D12. Per City Code 13.04.070, except for separate irrigation service connections and fire service connections, each lot or parcel shall only have one (1) metered domestic water service. Requests for multiple domestic water service connections to single commercial lot or parcel, consistent with the DOU “Commercial Tap Policy”, may be approved on a case-by-case basis by the DOU. Contact the DOU at (916) 808-1400 for a copy of the tap policy. Excess services shall be abandoned to the satisfaction of the DOU.

D13. This project is served by the Combined Sewer System (CSS). Therefore, the developer/property owner will be required to pay the Combined Sewer System Development Fee prior to the issuance of building permit. The Combined Sewer System fee at time of building permit is estimated to be $3,161.79 plus any increases to the fee due to inflation. The fee will be used for improvements to the

Page 52 of 396 ends

CSS.

D14. A grading plan showing existing and proposed elevations is required. Adjacent off-site topography shall also be shown to the extent necessary to determine impacts to existing surface drainage paths. No grading shall occur until the grading plan has been reviewed and approved by the DOU.

D15. This project will disturb more than one acre of land or is part of large common development; therefore, the project is required to comply with the State’s “Construction General Permit” (Order 2009- 0009 DWQ or most current). To comply with the State Permit, the applicant must file a Notice of Intent (NOI) through the State’s Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS), located online at
http://smarts.waterboards.ca.gov/smarts/faces/SwSmartsLogin.jsp A valid WDID number must be obtained and provided to the DOU prior to the issuance of any grading permits.

D16. The applicant must comply with the City of Sacramento's Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. This ordinance requires the applicant to prepare erosion and sediment control plans for both during and after construction of the proposed project, prepare preliminary and final grading plans, and prepare plans to control urban runoff pollution from the project site during construction.

Fire

D17. Provide the required fire hydrants in accordance with CFC 507 and Appendix C, Section C105.

D19. Provide a water flow test. (Make arrangements at the Permit Center walk-in counter: 300 Richards Blvd,

SMUD

D22. Dedicate a 12.5-foot public utility easement for overhead/underground facilities and appurtenances adjacent to all streets except those areas adjacent to commercial development and multi-family development areas.

D23. Maintain existing overhead 21kV route.

Page 53 of 396 ends

D24. Setbacks of less than 14-feet may create clearance issues and should require the developer to meet with all utilities prior to acceptance of the tentative map. At a minimum the setback info should be placed on the tentative map for review.

D25. Building foundations must have a minimum clearance of 5-feet to a SMUD trench.

Developer to verify with other utilities (gas, telephone, etc.) for their specific clearance requirements.

D26. Future SMUD facilities located on the customer's property may require a dedicated SMUD easement. This will be determined prior to SMUD performing work on the customer's property.

D27. SMUD equipment shall be accessible to a 26,000-pound SMUD service vehicle in all weather conditions. SMUD equipment shall be no further than 15-feet from a drivable surface. The drivable surface shall have a minimum width of 20-feet.

D28. If proper clearances from the building cannot be maintained, the developer will need to work with SMUD to relocate or underground the facilities. This work would be billable to the customer.

Public Works

D29. Construct standard public improvements as noted in these conditions pursuant to Title 18 of the City Code. Improvements shall be designed to City Standards and assured as set forth in Section 18.04.130 of the City Code. All improvements shall be designed and cons tructed to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. Any public improvements not specifically noted in these conditions shall be designed and constructed to City Standards. This shall include the repair or replacement/reconstruction of any exist ing deteriorated curb, gutter and sidewalk adjacent to the subject property (Buchannan Street) per City standards to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

D30. All new and existing driveways shall be designed and constructed to City Standards to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. The applicant shall close the existing driveway along Buchannan Street and reconstruct the frontage to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

D31. Deliveries to the Curtis Park Village site shall be consistent with the truck route exhibit attached in the staff report. In general, trucks can use Sutterville Road, Crocker Drive, Buchannan Street and the loop Road to West Pacific Avenue in the project’s vicinity. Deliveries are prohibited from using the West Pacific Avenue Jeffery Avenue alley at the intersection of Sutterville Road and Crocker Drive”.

Page 54 of 396 ends

approximately 350-feet north of the existing tables along that street segment and shall be to City standards.

D33. The design of walls fences and signage near intersections and driveways shall allow stopping sight distance per Caltrans standards and comply with City Code Section 12.28.010 (25' sight triangle). Walls shall be set back 3' behind the sight line needed for stopping sight distance to allow sufficient room for pilaste rs.

Landscaping in the area required for adequate stopping sight distance shall be limited 3.5' in height at maturity. The area of exclusion shall be determined by the Department of Public Works.

D34. The applicant shall provide a signage and markings package (signs, pavement striping, legends and arrows) for on-site circulation and fueling lane queuing to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

D35. The applicant shall be responsible to monito r the daily operations of the fueling facilities so that traffic does not queue back to either Crocker Drive or to the signalized shared access easement. In the case there is vehicular queuing onto any City streets or the operations of the shared access ea sement as a result of on-site circulation associated with the project site, subject to a request of the City Traffic Engineer, the applicant shall be responsible to incorporate and implement additional measures to improve on -site circulation as to not back up onto City streets and the access easement to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works (refer to the traffic study recommendations dated April 10th , 2015).

D36. Fuel deliveries to the proposed fuel center shall occur outside of the weekday peak hours (7-9 am and, 4-6 pm) or the mid-day weekend peak hours (11 am – 2 pm).

D37. The applicant shall have an attendant on -site during the fueling facility operational hours to direct on -site traffic circulation, assist customers, and place on -site directional cones/ lane dividers and other related traffic control measures, etc.

Advisory Notes

1. The on-site storm water treatment control measures required may affect site design and site configuration and should be considered during early planning stages.

2. The proposed project is located in the Flood zone designated as an X zone on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) dated August 16th, 2012. Within the X zone, there are no requirements to elevate or flood proof.

Page 55 of 396 ends

Table of Contents:

Exhibit A – Overall Site Plan
Exhibit B – Site Plan Detail
Exhibit C – Kiosk Plan
Exhibit D – Kiosk Elevations
Exhibit E – Canopy Elevations
Exhibit F – Truck Route Exhibit

Page 56 of 396 ends

Page 57 of 396 ends

Page 58 of 396 ends

įĪīġĤĩġħĪĪĭ

įĪīīħĜįĠ

įĪīĭĪĪġīĠĜĦ

Z<Ͳϭ
^dEͲϭ
Z&Ͳϭ
WEdͲϭ
WEdͲϮ
^dEͲϮ
įĪīġĤĩġħĪĪĭ

įĪīīħĜįĠ

įĪīĭĪĪġ

Z&Ͳϭ
Z<Ͳϭ
^dEͲϭ
^dEͲϮ
įĪīġĤĩġħĪĪĭ

įĪīīħĜįĠ

įĪīĭĪĪġ

Z<Ͳϭ
^dEͲϮ
^dEͲϭ
WEdͲϭ
įĪīġĤĩġħĪĪĭ

įĪīīħĜįĠ

įĪīĭĪĪġīĠĜĦ

^dEͲϭ
Z<Ͳϭ
Z&Ͳϭ
WEdͲϭ
Dd>ͲϮ
^dEͲϮ
ğĭĜĲĩĝĴ

ğĜįĠ

ĭĠıĤĠĲĠğ
ĮįĪĭĠĩĪ

ĭĠıĤĮĤĪĩĮ
Įğ
ĞĽĺĸŀĺŇ

ĜĜ ĜĜ
ĦĤĪĮĦĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĮ ĦĤĪĮĦĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĮ ĦĤĪĮĦĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĮ ĦĤĪĮĦĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĮ
ġİĠħĞĠĩįĠĭ ġİĠħĞĠĩįĠĭ ġİĠħĞĠĩįĠĭ ġİĠħĞĠĩįĠĭ
ĞŊŇŉľňīĶŇŀıľŁŁĶļĺğŇ
ĮĶĸŇĶłĺŃŉńĞĜ
ϯͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϰ ĦĤĪĮĦĠĜĮįĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĦĤĪĮĦĠĜĮįĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĦĤĪĮĦĠĜĮįĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĦĤĪĮĦĠĜĮįĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩ ϯͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϮ ĦĤĪĮĦĲĠĮįĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĦĤĪĮĦĲĠĮįĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĦĤĪĮĦĲĠĮįĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĦĤĪĮĦĲĠĮįĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩ ϯͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϯ ĦĤĪĮĦĮĪİįģĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĦĤĪĮĦĮĪİįģĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĦĤĪĮĦĮĪİįģĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĦĤĪĮĦĮĪİįģĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩ ϯͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭ ĦĤĪĮĦĩĪĭįģĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĦĤĪĮĦĩĪĭįģĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĦĤĪĮĦĩĪĭįģĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĦĤĪĮĦĩĪĭįģĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩ ĨĜįĠĭĤĜħĦĠĴĩĪįĠĮĨĜįĠĭĤĜħĦĠĴĩĪįĠĮĨĜįĠĭĤĜħĦĠĴĩĪįĠĮĨĜįĠĭĤĜħĦĠĴĩĪįĠĮ BRK-1 MODULAR FACE BRICK IN RUNNING BOND. COLOR: RED, TBD MTL-2 ALUMINUM WINDOW FRAMES. COLOR: DARK BRONZE ANODIZED PNT-1 ROOF TRIM & DENTILS TO BE PAINTED. COLOR: WHITE RUSSIAN PNT-2 DOORS AND FRAMES TO BE PAINTED. COLOR TO MATCH ADJACENT BRICK.

RF-1 FAUX-SLATE ASPHALT SHINGLES OVER ROOF STRUCTURE. COLOR: SLATE STN-1 ASHLAR LIMESTONE BASE. MANUF: ELDORADO STONE. COLOR: YORK BLEND STN-2 CHISELED LIMESTONE SILL. MANUF: ELDORADO STONE. COLOR: BUCKSKIN ĩĪ ğĜįĠ ĝĴğĠĮĞĭĤīįĤĪĩ

Page 59 of 396 ends

R1
33

Page 60 of 396 ends

Page 61 of 396 ends

1 0 t h A V E N U E

C R O C K E R D R I V E
W
. P A C I F I C B Y P A S S
(F) FUEL

CENTER SHOPPING CENTER

CURTIS PARK VILLAGE

SHOPPING CENTER

CURTIS PARK VILLAGE

CURTIS PARK VILLAGE
VILLAGE 2B & 3

B U C H A N N A N S T R E E T

EAST BOUND

TRUCK ROUTE

WEST BOUND

TRUCK ROUTE

TRUCKS EXITING THE SITE

SHALL USE THE SAME ROUTE
AS ENTERING THE SITE.

Page 62 of 396 ends

Page 63 of 396 ends

Page 64 of 396 ends

Page 65 of 396 ends

Page 66 of 396 ends

Page 67 of 396 ends

Page 68 of 396 ends

Page 69 of 396 ends

Page 70 of 396 ends

Page 71 of 396 ends

Page 72 of 396 ends

Page 73 of 396 ends

Page 74 of 396 ends

Page 75 of 396 ends

Page 76 of 396 ends

Page 77 of 396 ends

Page 78 of 396 ends

Page 79 of 396 ends

Page 80 of 396 ends

Page 81 of 396 ends

Page 82 of 396 ends

Page 83 of 396 ends

Page 84 of 396 ends

Page 85 of 396 ends

Page 86 of 396 ends

Page 87 of 396 ends

Page 88 of 396 ends

Page 89 of 396 ends

Page 90 of 396 ends

Page 91 of 396 ends

Page 92 of 396 ends

Page 93 of 396 ends

Page 94 of 396 ends

Page 95 of 396 ends

Page 96 of 396 ends

Page 97 of 396 ends

Page 98 of 396 ends

Page 99 of 396 ends

Page 100 of 396 ends

Page 101 of 396 ends

Page 102 of 396 ends

Page 103 of 396 ends

Page 104 of 396 ends

Page 105 of 396 ends

Page 106 of 396 ends

Page 107 of 396 ends

Page 108 of 396 ends

Page 109 of 396 ends

Page 110 of 396 ends

Page 111 of 396 ends

Page 112 of 396 ends

Page 113 of 396 ends

Page 114 of 396 ends

Page 115 of 396 ends

Page 116 of 396 ends

Page 117 of 396 ends

Page 118 of 396 ends

Page 119 of 396 ends

Page 120 of 396 ends

Page 121 of 396 ends

Page 122 of 396 ends

Page 123 of 396 ends

Page 124 of 396 ends

Page 125 of 396 ends

Page 126 of 396 ends

Page 127 of 396 ends

Page 128 of 396 ends

Page 129 of 396 ends

Page 130 of 396 ends

Page 131 of 396 ends

Page 132 of 396 ends

Page 133 of 396 ends

Page 134 of 396 ends

Page 135 of 396 ends

Page 136 of 396 ends

Page 137 of 396 ends

Page 138 of 396 ends

Page 139 of 396 ends

Page 140 of 396 ends

Page 141 of 396 ends

Page 142 of 396 ends

Page 143 of 396 ends

Page 144 of 396 ends

Page 145 of 396 ends

Page 146 of 396 ends

Page 147 of 396 ends

Page 148 of 396 ends

November 29, 2021

SENT VIA HAND DELIVERY and EMAIL [[email protected]]

Mindy Cuppy
City Clerk
City of Sacramento
915 I Street, 5th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Crocker Village Fuel Station Appeal Rehearing P14-036 Appellants’ Request for Continuance

Dear Ms. Cuppy:

This letter, on behalf of appellants Eric Johnson, Andrea Rosen and the Sierra Curtis Neighborhood Association (collectively “Appellants”) responds to Deputy City Attorney Leslie Walker’s letter dated October 27, 2021, providing an update regarding the City’s rehearing of the proposed Curtis Park Village Fuel Center (“Fuel Center”).

We understand that the City declined our earlier informal request to schedule the hearing for a later date. We therefore exercise herein our right to continue the hearing until the second regular Council meeting following December 7, 2021, pursuant to Council Rules of Procedure, Chapter 5, section F(4)(a)(i). Section F(a)(i) provides in relevant part:

Appellant “may obtain one continuance for a period not to exceed the second regular meeting after the original scheduled hearing date, as a matter of right. . . provided a written request for the continuance must be delivered to the city clerk by noon on the day prior to the scheduled public hearing.

A hard copy of this letter is being hand-delivered to the clerk’s office pursuant to Council Rules of Procedure, Chapter 5, Section F(a)(i).

This letter also addresses the relevant law that applies to that future rehearing.

With respect to the City’s review and approval of the proposed Fuel Center, the City has suggested that it must apply the law as it existed when the Council took its original action

Page 149 of 396 ends

Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk
City of Sacramento
November 29, 2021

Page 2 of 6 ends

in 2015. We understand this position is based on an interpretation of Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1177 fn. 26 (Clark). This position is incorrect.

While it is true that the City Council, and a subsequent reviewing court, may correctly not apply any subsequent City “enactment stemm[ing] from an attempt to frustrate a particular developer’s plans,” this rule represents a very narrow exception to the “prevailing rule” applying the law as it exists when the new decision is made. ( Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura (1973) 10 Cal.3d 110, 126, fn. 11 (Selby).) This is demonstrated with clarity in footnote 26 to Clark and the cases cited therein. First, footnote 26 in Clark provides in full:

In September 1992, five months after the Clarks’ permits were denied, the City Council enacted an ordinance imposing a 30–foot height limitation in R–3 zones. (See fn. 9, ante.) The question thus arises as to whether the new height restriction applies to the Clarks’ project. Significantly, the new limitation was formally proposed and adopted after the Council heard the appeal on the Clarks’ permits. To allow the City to invoke the new height limitation now would sanction the Council’s mishandling of the administrative appeal and would leave the Clarks without a remedy.

Accordingly, the height ordinance in effect at the time of the Council’s prior decision should apply to the future development of the Clarks’ project, absent some state statute dictating otherwise. (See Ross v. City of Yorba Linda (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 954, 968–970; Gabric v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, supra, 73 Cal.App.3d at pp. 202–203; Keizer v. Adams (1970) 2 Cal.3d 976, 980–981; see also Gov.Code, §§ 66474.2, 65961; Golden State Homebuilding Associates v. City of Modesto (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 601, 606–610.)

(Emphasis added.)

Footnote 26 makes clear that the only issue addressed is whether a subsequent city enactment should apply to the rehearing, and not a later-enacted state statute of general applicability. Drawing a distinction between the two, footnote 26 in Clark specifically noted that the later ordinance would not apply “absent some state statute dictating otherwise.” (Ibid.)

If Clark were the only relevant authority, then the issue might be debatable. But it is not. The cases referenced in footnote 26 to Clark make the point with greater clarity.

Ross v. City of Yorba Linda (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 954, 968–970 (Ross), in particular,

Page 150 of 396 ends

Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk
City of Sacramento
November 29, 2021

Page 3 of 6 ends

provided an extensive analysis of the issue based on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Selby, explaining in relevant part:

The Supreme Court then turned its attention to the issues the trial court would face on remand. The court said the amended code section would apply to the owner’s request for a building permit even though it came after the denial of the permit. (See 10 Cal.3d at p. 126.) As authority for its conclusion, the court cited a treatise on zoning law, 3 Anderson, American Law of Zoning (1968) page 599, for the following statement: “It is the prevailing rule that a reviewing court will apply the law in existence at the time of its decision rather than at the time the permit was denied.” (10 Cal.3d at p. 125, 109 Cal.Rptr. 799.) It is this rule the city relies on to establish the plan amendment applies to the Rosses.

But this is not all Selby Realty had to say on the subject. In a footnote, the court acknowledged the existence of two lines of seemingly inconsistent California cases concerning applications for building permits when the law changes before a decision on appeal. The court reconciled the two lines by noting the cases holding the new law “inapplicable” did so because the new “enactment stemmed from an attempt to frustrate a particular developer’s plans.” (10 Cal.3d at p. 126, fn. 11, 109 Cal.Rptr. 799, 514 P.2d 111; see also Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Board of Supervisors (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 1059, 1064, fn. 3.)

A similar idea is contained in the latest edition of the Anderson treatise, which acknowledges a “bad faith” exception to the general rule of applicability of the law as it exists at the time of the appellate decision:
“Courts that normally apply the law as it exists on the day of final decision will not apply an amendment adopted in bad faith or for the purpose of delay.” (4 Anderson, American Law of Zoning (3d ed. 1986) § 27.38, p. 595, fns. omitted, italics added.)

(Emphasis added).)

Thus, Ross unmistakably sets forth the “prevailing rule” that the law to be applied is the law in existence at the time, and the narrow exception for “bad faith” local agency enactments that are inapplicable on rehearing because they are designed to frustrate a developer’s plans. The Ross decision then finds this bad faith exception to be applicable in that case, explaining in relevant part:

Page 151 of 396 ends

Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk
City of Sacramento
November 29, 2021

Page 4 of 6 ends

Here, we cannot imagine a more obvious attempt to “frustrate a particular developer’s plans.” (See Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 126, fn. 11; accord, Gabric v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 183, 202–203, [refusing to apply new height limit ordinance enacted after owner’s request for building permit for two- story house].) The city’s own records reflect the plan amendment was precipitated by the very rezoning request now before this court. The plan amendment isolates the Rosses (and the two of their neighbors to whom the plan amendment might make a difference) as the special objects of legislative action. . . . It also attempts to retroactively justify a decision which was wrong in the first place, a gambit condemned in Gabric v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, supra, 73 Cal.App.3d at p. 203, 140 Cal.Rptr. 619:
“The new ordinance cannot be used as a rationale or means to affirm a wrong decision.”

The city incorrectly denied the Rosses’ request for rezoning. The plan amendment is nothing more than the city’s attempt to tie its own hands so it supposedly cannot be ordered to do now what it should have done in the first place. We untie the city’s hands by holding the plan amendment inapplicable to the Rosses’ rezoning request.

(Ibid.)

In summary, Clark, Ross and Selby squarely support the prevailing rule that the City and reviewing courts apply the law in existence at the time of decision. There is a narrow exception for “bad faith” agency actions, but that exception is inapplicable to agency actions not taken in bad faith 1, and certainly inapplicable to later-enacted state statutes.2

Thus, there is no reasonable debate that the law applicable to the City’s review and approval of the proposed Fuel Center is not frozen in time, but instead is based on law in

1 Indeed, as noted in Ross, the California Supreme Court in Selby specifically held that, for purposes of remand, “[T]he amended version of section 8323 is applicable to plaintiff’s request for a permit even though the ordinance was amended after the permit was denied.” (Selby, supra, 10 Cal.3d at 126 [emphasis added]; Ross, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at 968.) Selby therefore mandates that later-enacted City ordinances and resolutions apply to the City’s review and approval of the proposed Fuel Center unless such enactments were adopted specifically to frustrate PDC’s development plans. 2 Clark, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at 1177 fn. 26 [“absent some state statute dictating otherwise”].)

Page 152 of 396 ends

Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk
City of Sacramento
November 29, 2021

Page 5 of 6 ends

existence when the Council acts. This includes all updates and revisions to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the CEQA Guidelines and interpretive case law, and any other laws applicable to a proposed Fuel Station. Updates to CEQA with particular applicability to the proposed fuel station include the requirement to analyze greenhouse gas emissions (Golden Door Properties, LLC. v. County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 467, 518-525), vehicle miles traveled (Public Resources Code, § 21099 and CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.3), and energy impacts (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2, subd. (b)) to name just a few.

In 2015, City staff proposed adopting a CEQA Addendum to the Curtis Park Village EIR that was certified back in 2010. The October 27th letter indicates that the consultant’s current environmental work “confirmed the adequacy of the prior CEQA Addendum.” This scope of work is improper since Appellants successfully appealed the City’s reliance on that Addendum. Even if the Addendum was properly adopted (it was not), CEQA does not authorized supplemental review of a CEQA Addendum. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15162, subd. (a).)

Rather than “confirm[] the adequacy of” a CEQA Addendum that was never lawfully adopted, the consultants must instead perform supplemental review of the 2010 Curtis Park Village EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 16162, and base that supplemental review on new facts, available information and applicable law presently applicable, and not as of 2015. In light of the apparent stonewalling of project information by PDC as described in the October 27th letter, it is difficult to understand how the consultants can adequately understand the nature of project revisions and changes to surrounding circumstances as required for supplemental review under CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15162, subds. (a)(1), (2).) 3

* * *

We appreciate the guidance provided in Ms. Walker’s letter dated October 27, 2021. We hope this letter clarifies the law applicable to the City’s review and approval

3 Our very preliminary review of the “Revised Addendum,” first made available on November 23, 2021, confirms our concern in this regard. The “Revised Addendum” contains no reference to, much less analysis of, either greenhouse gas emissions or vehicle miles traveled.

Page 153 of 396 ends

Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk
City of Sacramento
November 29, 2021

Page 6 of 6 ends

of the proposed Fuel Station. Please confirm at your earliest convenience that the rehearing will be continued pursuant to this request.

Very truly yours,

SOLURI MESERVE
A Law Corporation

By:

Patrick M. Soluri

PMS/mre

Leslie Walker, Deputy City Attorney ([email protected])

Page 154 of 396 ends

Page 155 of 396 ends

Page 2 of 16 ends

Copy to Applicant
Original to File

Sacramento City Code as indicated: North Natomas Public Facilities Fee, Transit Fee, and Drainage Fee (SCC

18.24.160); North Natomas Land Acquisition Fee (SCC 18.24.340); North Natomas School Facilities Fee (SCC18.24.710); Jacinto Creek Planning Area Facilities Fee (SCC18.28.150); Willow Creek Project Area Development Fee (SCC 18.32.150); Development Impact Fees for the Railyards, Richards Boulevard, and Downtown Areas (SCC

18.36.150); Habitat Conservation Fee for the North and South Natomas Community Plan Areas (18.40.090); and Park Development Impact Fee (18.44.140).

The time within which to challenge a condition of approval of a tentative subdivision map, including the imposition of fees, dedication, reservation, or other exaction, is governed by Government Code section 66499.37

EXPIRATION
TENTATIVE MAP: Failure to record a final map within three years of the date of approval or conditional approval of a tentative map shall terminate all proceedings.

SPECIAL PERMIT: A use for which a Special Permit is granted must be established within t hree years after such permit is issued. If such use is not so established, the Special Permit shall be deemed to have expired.

VARIANCE: Any variance involving an action which requires a building permit shall expire at the end of three years unless a building permit is obtained within the variance term.

PLAN REVIEW: Any plan review shall expire at the end of three years unless a building permit is obtained within the plan review term.

NOTE: Violation of any of the foregoing conditions will constitute grounds for revocation of this permit. Building permits are required in the event any building construction is planned. The County Assessor is notified of actions taken on rezoning , special permits and variances.

APPEALS
Appeals of the Planning And Design Commission decision of this ite m to the City Council must be filed at 300 Richards Boulevard, 3rd Floor, within 10 calendar days of this meeti ng, on or before June 22, 2015. If the 10 th day falls on a Sunday or holiday, the appeal may be filed on the following business day.

Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval
Curtis Park Village Fuel Center (P14-036)
Northwest Corner of Crocker Road and Sutterville Road, Sacramento, CA

A&B. Environmental Impact Report Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring Program:

1. The Planning and Design Commission of the City of Sacramento finds as follows:

a. On April 1, 2010, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq. (“CEQA”), the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §15000 et seq.), and the City of Sacramento environmental guidelines, the City Council certified an environmental impact report (EIR). Having reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR, THE City Council on September 28, 2010 adopted findings of fact

Page 156 of 396 ends

Page 3 of 16 ends

Copy to Applicant
Original to File

and findings of overriding consideration, adopted a mitigation monitoring program, and approved the Curtis Park Village project (P04-109) (Project).

b. The Curtis Park Village Fuel Island project (P14-036) (Fuel Island Project) requests approval of a conditional use permit and site plan and design review to install and operate a fuel island in the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development.

2. The Planning and Design Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the previously certified EIR for the Curtis Park Village Project, the previously adopted findings of fact and findings of overriding consideration, the Addendum, and all oral and documentary evidence received during the hearing on the Fuel Island Project. The Planning and Design Commission has determined that the previously certified EIR and the Addendum constitute an adequate, accurate, objective, and complete review of the proposed Fuel Island Project and finds that no additional environmental review is required based on the reasons set forth below:

c. No new information of substantial importance has been found that shows any of the following:

i. The Fuel Island Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previously certified EIR;

ii. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previously certified EIR;

Page 157 of 396 ends

Page 4 of 16 ends

Copy to Applicant
Original to File

iii. Mitigation measures previously found to be infeasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Fuel Island Project; or

iv. Mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previously certified EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment.

3. Based on its review of the previously certified EIR for the Curtis Park Village Project, the previously adopted findings of fact and findings of overriding consideration, the Addendum, and all oral and documentary evidence received during the hearing on the Fuel Island Project, the Planning and Design Commission finds that the EIR and Addendum reflect the Planning and Design Commission’s independent judgment and analysis, certifies the Curtis Park Village EIR and the Addendum for the Fuel Island Project, and readopts the findings of fact and findings of overriding consideration .

a. The mitigation monitoring program has been adopted and implemented as part of the Curtis Park Village Project;

b. The Addendum to the EIR does not include any new mitigation measures, and has not eliminated or modified any of the mitigation measures included in the mitigation monitoring program;

c. The mitigation monitoring program meets the requirements of CEQA section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091.

6. The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning and Design Commission has based its decision are located in the City of Sacramento Community Development Department, Environmental Planning Services, 300 Richards Boulevard, Sacramento, CA 95811-0218. The custodian of these documents and other materials is the Community Development Department, Environmental Planning Services.

Page 158 of 396 ends

Page 5 of 16 ends

Copy to Applicant
Original to File

C. The Conditional Use Permit to establish a 16 pump gas station on 0.46 acres in the Shopping Center (SC-PUD) Zone in the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development is approved based on the following findings of fact:

1. The proposed use and its operating characteristics are consistent with the General Plan, in that with the original adoption of the Curtis Park Village, the City Council found the Shopping Center (SC) Zone and the Curtis Park Village PUD to be consistent with the General Plan and its Traditional Center designation. Approval of the requested CUP will not preclude the ability to provide neighborhood serving commercial uses across the balance of the 11.8 acres Southern Commercial Area.

Additionally, staff finds that the proposed project is consistent with General Plan policy to provide a compatible and complimentary mix of uses and does not conflict with the General Plan policy discouraging low-intensity and auto-oriented uses around transit stations.

Public services and utilities will be available to development on the site.

a. The estimated cancer risk would be within an acceptable range and would be below the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) thresholds of significance;

b. The total peak hour and daily traffic volumes would be lower than those utilized for traffic analysis in the original Curtis Park Village (EIR) and all vehicle queuing will occur on-site;

c. The hours of operation of the facility will be restricted to the hours between 6:00am and 10:00pm;

Page 159 of 396 ends

Page 6 of 16 ends

Copy to Applicant
Original to File

d. Lighting is required to be designed so as not to produce hazardous and annoying glare to motorists, adjacent properties, or the general public; and

e. No illuminated signage will be allowed to face residential properties and any illuminated signage will be dimmed or shut off at close of business.

D. The Site Plan and Design Review for a new gas station is approved based on the following findings of fact:

1. The design, layout, and physical characteristics of the proposed gas station are consistent with the General Plan and the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development.

2. The design, layout, and physical characteristics of the gas station are consistent with the Curtis Park Village PUD Guidelines and with all applicable development standards.

4. The design, layout, and physical characteristics of the proposed gas station are visually and functionally compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

6. The design, layout, and physical characteristics of the proposed gas station are not detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience, or welfare of persons residing, working, visiting, or recreating in the surrounding neighborhood and will not result in the creation of a nuisance in that the proposed gas station:
a. Is consistent with the Curtis Park Village Schematic Plan and PUD Guidelines.
b. Is designed and will be operated so as to not cause vehicle queuing to affect any City streets or sidewalks.
c. Is finished with materials compatible with adjacent uses and the surrounding neighborhood.
d. Will provide lighting designed so as not to produce hazardous and annoying glare to motorists, adjacent properties, or the general public.

e. Will not provide illuminated signage facing residential properties and any illuminated signage will be dimmed or shut off at close of business.

Page 160 of 396 ends

Page 7 of 16 ends

Copy to Applicant
Original to File

f. Landscaping will be provided around the gas station to diminish the effect of vehicle headlights on adjacent properties.

Conditions of Approval

C. The Conditional Use Permit to establish a 16 pump gas station on 0.46 acres in the Shopping Center (SC-PUD) Zone in the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development is approved subject to the following conditions:

Planning

C1. The developer shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction.

C2. Development of the project site shall be in compliance with the attached site plan and elevation exhibits.

C3. Hours of operation shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 am and 10:00 pm.

C4. Any modification to the project shall be subject to review and approval by Planning Staff prior to the issuance of building permits. Any significant modification to the project may require subsequent
entitlements.

C5. The developer shall comply with all applicable requirements included in the Curtis Park Village Mitigation Monitoring Plan (P04-109).

C6. The proposal is required to meet the Sacramento City Code regulations regarding bicycle parking (Section 17.608.030). Bicycle parking shall be
located in a secure area located in close proximity to doors and/or windows.

C7. Trash receptacles shall be placed at the kiosk entry and at the fuel islands for use by customers.

C8. Final landscaping plans are subject to review by Planning Staff prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Low height landscaping, including shrubs, shall be maintained at a height of three feet to provide screening for vehicle headlights.

Lower tree canopies should be above six feet to increase natural surveillance.

Tree canopies should not interfere with or block overhead lighting.

C9. No mechanical auto repair or auto body repair shall take place on the premises.

C10. All signage for the site including, but not limited to, monument signs, entry

Page 161 of 396 ends

Page 8 of 16 ends

Copy to Applicant
Original to File

signs, business identification and address signs, trash enclosure signs, and directional signage shall be subject to the issuance of sign permits. All signage shall comply with the Curtis Park Village PUD Guidelines.

C11. The gas station shall be developed and operated as a Safeway gas station.

Modifications to this condition shall be subject to modification by the Planning and Design Commission

Public Works

C12. Construct standard public improvements as noted in these conditions pursuant to Title 18 of the City Code. Improvements shall be designed to City Standards and assured as set forth in Section 18.04.130 of the City Code. All improvements shall be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. Any public improvement not specifically noted in these conditions shall be designed and constructed to City Standards. This shall include the repair or replacement/reconstruction of any existing deteriorated curb, gutter and sidewalk adjacent to the subject property (Crocker Drive) per City standards to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

C13. All new and existing driveways shall be designed and constructed to City Standards to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

C14. Reciprocal access easements are required for shared use of the driveways w/ the adjacent parcels, if not already in place.

C15. The site plan shall conform to A.D.A. requirements in all respects. This shall include the replacement of any curb ramp that does not meet current A.D.A. standards.

C16. The design of walls fences and signage near intersections and driveways shall allow stopping sight distance per Caltrans standards and comply with City Code Section 12.28.010 (25' sight triangle). Walls shall be set back 3' behind the sight line needed for stopping sight distance to allow sufficient room for pilasters.

Landscaping in the area required for adequate stopping sight distance shall be limited 3.5' in height at maturity. The area of exclusion shall be determined by the Department of Public Works.

C17. The applicant shall provide a signage and markings package (signs, pavement striping, legends and arrows) for on-site circulation and fueling lane queuing to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

C18. The applicant shall be responsible to monitor the daily operations of the fueling facilities so that traffic does not queue back to either Crocker Drive or to the signalized shared access easement. In the case there is vehicular queuing onto

Page 162 of 396 ends

Page 9 of 16 ends

Copy to Applicant
Original to File

any City streets or the operations of the shared access easement as a result of on-site circulation associated with the project site, subject to a request of the City Traffic Engineer, the applicant shall be responsible to incorporate and implement additional measures to improve on-site circulation as to not back up onto City streets and the access easement to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works (refer to the traffic study recommendations dated April 10th, 2015).

C19. Fuel deliveries to the proposed fuel center shall occur outside of the weekday peak hours (7-9 am and 4-6 pm) or the mid-day weekend peak hours (11 am – 2 pm).

C20. The applicant shall have an attendant on-site during the fueling facility operational hours to direct on-site traffic circulation, assist customers, and place on-site directional cones/ lane dividers and other related traffic control measures, etc.

Police

C21. Exterior lighting shall be white light (e.g. metal halide, LED, fluorescent, or induction) using cut off or full cut off fixtures to limit glare and light trespass (proposed ENTRANCE fixture does not meet these requirements). Exterior lighting shall be maintained and operational and shall meet IESNA standards.

C22. Proposed wall sconce fixtures or other full cut off fixtures shall be used to illuminate the East, South, and West sides of the kiosk.

Landscaping:

C23. Canopies should not interfere with or block lighting. This creates shadows and areas of concealment.

C24. The landscaping plan shall allow for proper illumination and visibility regarding lighting and surveillance cameras through the maturity of trees and shrubs.

Mechanical Security:

C25. Business shall be equipped with a monitored burglary alarm system with private security response.

C26. UL listed central station silent robbery alarm system shall be employed at the point of sale and near the safe(s). Cellular back-up is recommended.

C27. All solid core exterior doors shall be equipped with a 180 degree viewing device to screen persons before allowing entry, and shall remain locked at all times except for emergencies and deliveries.

Page 163 of 396 ends

Page 10 of 16 ends

Copy to Applicant
Original to File

C28. Height markers are required on the interior doorway.

Security Cameras

C29. Recorded Video Assessment and Surveillance System (VASS) shall be employed.

C30. Cameras and VASS storage shall be digital high definition or better.

C31. VASS storage shall be kept off-site or in a secured area accessible only to management.

C32. VASS shall support standard MPEG formats.

C33. VASS shall be capable of storing no less than 30 days’ worth of activity.

C34. Manager with access to VASS storage shall be able to respond within 30 minutes during business hours.

C35. Manager shall have the ability to transfer recorded data to another medium (e.g. DVD, thumb drive, etc.).

C36. VASS shall provide comprehensive coverage of:

• all points of sale
• fuel pumping and payment areas
• safe
• work room
• North and West doors
• alcohol placement areas
• areas not clearly visible from public streets
• coverage of all four (4) exterior sides of the property • adjacent public rights of way
• at least one camera shall be positioned to get a front face shot (e.g. height strip camera)

37. Cameras shall be equipped with low light capability, auto iris and auto focus.

Additional Conditions:

C38. Trash receptacles shall be of a design to prevent unauthorized removal of articles from the trash bin.

C39. Windows shall remain uncluttered to allow for natural surveillance.

Page 164 of 396 ends

Page 11 of 16 ends

Copy to Applicant
Original to File

C40. The name of the store shall be printed on any receipts.

C41. No public pay phones/telephones shall be allowed on the premises.

C42. No coin operated games or video machines shall be allowed on the premises.

C43. The applicant shall post the property No Trespassing and No Loitering. The applicant shall designate a properly permitted and approved private patrol company as agent for trespass.

C44. The applicant is responsible for reasonably controlling the conduct of persons on the site and shall immediately disperse loiterers.

C45. All dumpsters shall be kept locked.

C46. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the applicant shall be removed or painted over within 72 hours of being applied.

C47. The applicant shall be responsible for the daily removal of all litter from the site and adjacent rights of way. During Construction

C48. The applicant shall enclose the entire perimeter of the project with a chain link fence with necessary construction gates to be locked after normal construction hours.

C49. The location shall be monitored by security after normal construction hours during all phases of construction.

C50. Adequate security lighting shall be provided to illuminate vulnerable equipment and materials. Lighting shall be white light with full cut off fixtures.

Advisory Notes

1. City of Sacramento permits must be obtained for private patrol and alarm and camera systems.

D. The Site Plan and Design Review for a new gas station is approved subject to the following conditions:

Planning

D1. Development of the project site shall be in compliance with the attached site

Page 165 of 396 ends

Page 12 of 16 ends

Copy to Applicant
Original to File

plan and elevation exhibits.

D3. Stone veneer at building and canopy base shall be replaced with brick or suitable alternative material subject to approval by Design Review Staff.

D4. A minimum 5’ sidewalk shall be provided for access to the fuel kiosk from Crocker Road.

D5. Decorative tubular steel fencing shall be provided between the fuel kiosk and the adjacent building.

D6. Signage shall be subject to review and approval through separate sign permit application. Signs submitted for sign permit review shall ensure that east facing signage shall not be lit and that any lit signage shall be dimmed/and or shut off at close of business.

D7. Lighting

b. A ll overhead lighting shall be shielded such that lighting is reflected away from residential areas and public streets.

c. Parking lot lighting shall be equipped with vandal-proof covers.

D8. All on-site crosswalks shall be striped, painted, or constructed with enhanced materials to emphasize areas shared by vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

D9. All mechanical equipment, including air and water dispensers, shall be screened from view from public streets with decorative materials and/or landscaping. All rooftop mechanical and communications equipment shall be completely
screened from view from public streets at grade level by the building parapet, screen wall, and architectural projections which are integral to the building design.

Utilities

D10. Prior to submittal of improvement plans, prepare a project specific drainage

Page 166 of 396 ends

Page 13 of 16 ends

Copy to Applicant
Original to File

study for review and approval by the DOU. The drainage study shall be developed using the Master Drainage Study for the project area. Sufficient off- site and on-site spot elevations shall be provided in the drainage study to determine the direction of storm drain runoff. The drainage study shall include an overland flow release map for the proposed project.

D11. Per City Code, the Subdivider may not develop the project in any way that obstructs, impedes, or interferes with the natural flow of existing off-site drainage that crosses the property. Furthermore, all lots shall be graded so that drainage does not cross lot or property lines. The project shall construct the required public and/or private infrastructure to handle runoff to the satisfaction of the DOU. If private infrastructure is constructed to handle runoff, the applicant shall dedicate the required private easements and/or, at the discretion of the DOU, the applicant shall enter into and record an Agreement for Maintenance of Drainage with the City, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.

D12. An on-site surface drainage system is required and shall be connected to the street drainage system by means of a storm drain service tap. The storm drain service taps shall drain on-site shed areas which are in general conformance with the master drainage study and shed map for the area or (development).

All on-site systems shall be designed to the standard for private storm drainage systems (per the latest edition of: Frontage and On-Site Improvement Procedures Manual, which may be obtained from the City’s Community Development Department at 300 Richards Blvd., 3rd floor).

13. All water connections shall comply with the City of Sacramento’s Cross Connection Control Policy.

D14. Per City Code 13.04.070, except for separate irrigation service connections and fire service connections, each lot or parcel shall only have one (1) metered domestic water service. Requests for multiple domestic water service connections to a single commercial lot or parcel, consistent with the DOU “Commercial Tap Policy”, may be approved on a case-by-case basis by the DOU. Contact the DOU at (916) 808-1400 for a copy of the tap policy. Excess services shall be abandoned to the satisfaction of the DOU.

D15. This project is served by the Combined Sewer System (CSS). Therefore, the developer/property owner will be required to pay the Combined Sewer System Development Fee prior to the issuance of building permit. The Combined Sewer System fee at time of building permit is estimated to be $3,161.79 plus any increases to the fee due to inflation. The fee will be used for improvements to the CSS.

D16. A grading plan showing existing and proposed elevations is required. Adjacent

Page 167 of 396 ends

Page 14 of 16 ends

Copy to Applicant
Original to File

off-site topography shall also be shown to the extent necessary to determine impacts to existing surface drainage paths. No grading shall occur until the grading plan has been reviewed and approved by the DOU.

D17. This project will disturb more than one acre of land or is part of large common development; therefore, the project is required to comply with the State’s “Construction General Permit” (Order 2009- 0009 DWQ or most current). To comply with the State Permit, the applicant must file a Notice of Intent (NOI) through the State’s Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS), located online at
http://smarts.waterboards.ca.gov/smarts/faces/SwSmartsLogin.jsp A valid WDID number must be obtained and provided to the DOU prior to the issuance of any grading permits.

D18. The applicant must comply with the City of Sacramento's Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. This ordinance requires the applicant to prepare erosion and sediment control plans for both during and after construction of the proposed project, prepare preliminary and final grading plans, and prepare plans to control urban runoff pollution from the project site during construction.

Fire

D19. Provide the required fire hydrants in accordance with CFC 507 and Appendix C, Section C105.

D20. Timing and Installation. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection, is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. CFC 501.4

D21. Provide a water flow test. (Make arrangements at the Permit Center walk-in counter: 300 Richards Blvd,

SMUD

D23. Maintain existing overhead 21kV route.

Page 168 of 396 ends

Page 15 of 16 ends

Copy to Applicant
Original to File

D25. Building foundations must have a minimum clearance of 5-feet to a SMUD trench. Developer to verify with other utilities (gas, telephone, etc.) for their specific clearance requirements.

D26. Future SMUD facilities located on the customer's property may require a dedicated SMUD easement. This will be determined prior to SMUD performing work on the customer's property.

D28. If proper clearances from the building cannot be maintained, the developer will need to work with SMUD to relocate or underground the facilities. This work would be billable to the customer.

Public Works

D29. Construct standard public improvements as noted in these conditions pursuant to Title 18 of the City Code. Improvements shall be designed to City Standards and assured as set forth in Section 18.04.130 of the City Code. All improvements shall be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. Any public improvement not specifically noted in these conditions shall be designed and constructed to City Standards. This shall include the repair or replacement/reconstruction of any existing deteriorated curb, gutter and sidewalk adjacent to the subject property (Crocker Drive) per City standards to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

D30. All new and existing driveways shall be designed and constructed to City Standards to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

D31. Reciprocal access easements are required for shared use of the driveways w/ the adjacent parcels, if not already in place.

D32. The site plan shall conform to A.D.A. requirements in all respects. This shall include the replacement of any curb ramp that does not meet current A.D.A. standards.

Landscaping in the area required for adequate stopping sight distance shall be

Page 169 of 396 ends

Page 16 of 16 ends

Copy to Applicant
Original to File

limited 3.5' in height at maturity. The area of exclusion shall be determined by the Department of Public Works.

D35. The applicant shall be responsible to monitor the daily operations of the fueling facilities so that traffic does not queue back to either Crocker Drive or to the signalized shared access easement. In the case there is vehicular queuing onto any City streets or the operations of the shared access easement as a result of on-site circulation associated with the project site, subject to a request of the City Traffic Engineer, the applicant shall be responsible to incorporate and implement additional measures to improve on-site circulation as to not back up onto City streets and the access easement to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works (refer to the traffic study recommendations dated April 10th , 2015).

D36. Fuel deliveries to the proposed fuel center shall occur outside of the weekday peak hours (7-9 am and 4-6 pm) or the mid-day weekend peak hours (11 am – 2 pm).

D37. The applicant shall have an attendant on-site during the fueling facility operational hours to direct on-site traffic circulation, assist customers, and place on-site directional cones/ lane dividers and other related traffic control measures, etc.

Advisory Notes

1. The on-site storm water treatment control measures required may affect site design and site configuration and should be considered during early planning stages.

Page 170 of 396 ends

Curtis Park Village Fuel Center (P14-036)
June 11, 2015
29 Exhibit 1a - Site Plan

Page 171 of 396 ends

Curtis Park Village Fuel Center (P14-036)
June 11, 2015
30 Exhibit 1b - Commercial Center Site
Plan

Page 172 of 396 ends

Curtis Park Village Fuel Center (P14-036)
June 11, 2015
31 Exhibit 1c - Kiosk Floor
Plan

Page 173 of 396 ends

ğĜįĠ

ĭĠıĤĠĲĠğ
ĮįĪĭĠĩĪ

Page 174 of 396 ends

R1
Curtis Park Village Fuel Center (P14-036)
June 11, 2015
33

Page 175 of 396 ends

įĪīĞĜĩĪīĴ

ĝĪįĞĜĩĪīĴ

įĪīĢĭĜğĠ

^dEͲϭ
^dEͲϮ
Z<Ͳϭ
WEdͲϮ
WEdͲϭ
įĪīĞĜĩĪīĴ

ĝĪįĞĜĩĪīĴ

įĪīĢĭĜğĠ

^dEͲϭ
^dEͲϮ
Z<Ͳϭ
WEdͲϮ
WEdͲϭ
įĪīĞĜĩĪīĴ

ĝĪįĞĜĩĪīĴ

įĪīĢĭĜğĠ

Z<Ͳϭ
^dEͲϭ
WEdͲϮ
^dEͲϮ
WEdͲϭNON-ILLUMINATED
SIGN
įĪīĞĜĩĪīĴ

ĝĪįĞĜĩĪīĴ

įĪīĢĭĜğĠ

^dEͲϭ
^dEͲϮ
Z<Ͳϭ
WEdͲϮ
WEdͲϭ
ğĭĜĲĩĝĴ

ğĜįĠ

ĭĠıĤĠĲĠğ
ĮįĪĭĠĩĪ

ĭĠıĤĮĤĪĩĮ
Įğ
ĞĽĺĸŀĺŇ

ĜĜ ĜĜ
ĞĜĩĪīĴĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĮ ĞĜĩĪīĴĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĮ ĞĜĩĪīĴĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĮ ĞĜĩĪīĴĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĮ
ġİĠħĞĠĩįĠĭ ġİĠħĞĠĩįĠĭ ġİĠħĞĠĩįĠĭ ġİĠħĞĠĩįĠĭ
ĞŊŇŉľňīĶŇŀıľŁŁĶļĺğŇ
ĮĶĸŇĶłĺŃŉńĞĜ
ϯͬϭϲΗсϭΖͲϬΗϭ ĞĜĩĪīĴĲĠĮįĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĞĜĩĪīĴĲĠĮįĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĞĜĩĪīĴĲĠĮįĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĞĜĩĪīĴĲĠĮįĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩ ϯͬϭϲΗсϭΖͲϬΗϮ ĞĜĩĪīĴĩĪĭįģĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĞĜĩĪīĴĩĪĭįģĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĞĜĩĪīĴĩĪĭįģĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĞĜĩĪīĴĩĪĭįģĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩ ϯͬϭϲΗсϭΖͲϬΗϯ ĞĜĩĪīĴĠĜĮįĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĞĜĩĪīĴĠĜĮįĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĞĜĩĪīĴĠĜĮįĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĞĜĩĪīĴĠĜĮįĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩ ϯͬϭϲΗсϭΖͲϬΗϰ ĞĜĩĪīĴĮĪİįģĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĞĜĩĪīĴĮĪİįģĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĞĜĩĪīĴĮĪİįģĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩĞĜĩĪīĴĮĪİįģĠħĠıĜįĤĪĩ ĨĜįĠĭĤĜħĦĠĴĩĪįĠĮĨĜįĠĭĤĜħĦĠĴĩĪįĠĮĨĜįĠĭĤĜħĦĠĴĩĪįĠĮĨĜįĠĭĤĜħĦĠĴĩĪįĠĮ BRK-1 MODULAR FACE BRICK IN RUNNING BOND. COLOR: RED, TBD MTL-2 ALUMINUM WINDOW FRAMES. COLOR: DARK BRONZE ANODIZED PNT-1 ROOF TRIM & DENTILS TO BE PAINTED. COLOR: WHITE RUSSIAN PNT-2 DOORS AND FRAMES TO BE PAINTED. COLOR TO MATCH ADJACENT BRICK.

Page 176 of 396 ends

Curtis Park Village Fuel Center (P14-036)
June 11, 2015
35

Page 177 of 396 ends

Curtis Park Village Fuel Center (P14-036)
June 11, 2015
36 Exhibit 1f - Site Elevations

Page 178 of 396 ends

Curtis Park Village Fuel Center (P14-036)
June 11, 2015
37 Exhibit 1g - Landscape
Plan

Page 179 of 396 ends

James Sanchez, City Attorney Shirley Concolino, City Clerk Russell Fehr, City Treasurer John F. Shirey, City Manager
Meeting Date: 11/17/2015
Report Type: Public Hearing
Report ID: 2015-00623
Title: Third Party Appeal: Curtis Park Village Fuel Center (P14-036) [Noticed 11/06/2015] Location: District 5
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion pass 1) a Resolution Certifying the Addendum to a previously adopted EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Plan; and 2) a Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan and Design Review to construct and operate a gas station on approximately 0.46 acres in the Shopping Center (SC-PUD) Zone in the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development.

Contact: Antonio Ablog,
Acting Senior Planner, (916) 808-7702; Lindsey Alagozian, Senior Planner, (916) 808-2659, Community Development
Presenter: Antonio Ablog, Acting Senior Planner, (916) 808-7702, Community Development Department: Community Development Dept
Division: Planning
Dept ID: 21001221
Attachments:
01-Description/Analysis
02-Background
03-Land Use
Map
04-Context Map
05-Planning and Design Commission Record of Decision
06-Project Appeal
07-Environmental Resolution
08-Mitigation Monitoring Program
09-Project Entitlements Resolution
10-Site Plan
11-Kiosk Plan
12-Kiosk elevations
13-Fuel Canopy Elevations
14-Truck Route Exhibit
_______________________________________________________________ City Attorney Review
Approved
as to Form
Jeffrey Heeren
9/17/2015 10:21:34 AM
Approvals/Acknowledgements
Department Director or Designee: Ryan Devore - 7/17/2015 3:22:33 PM City Council Report
915
I Street, 1st Floor
www.CityofSacramento.org
18 1 of 208

Page 180 of 396 ends

Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: The applicant is seeking the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Site Plan and Design Review to construct and operate a new gas station in the Shopping Center (SC-PUD) Zone in the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development (PUD). The proposed gas station is located on approximately 0.45 acres of an 11.8 acre commercial site. To date, approximately seven (7) acres has been granted design review entitlements for the development of the commercial shopping center (prior approval DR14-110).

On June 11, 2015 the requested entitlements were heard by the Planning and Design Commission.

The
Planning and Design Commission voted to approve the project entitlements with an additional condition requiring the gas station to be developed and operated as a Safeway gas station (Attachment 9, Condition C11.). On June 19, 2015, a third-party appeal of the Planning and Design Commission’s decision was submitted. The appeal asserts that the proposed project will be detrimental to the welfare of persons residing, working, visiting, or recreating in the surrounding neighborhood; that the project is fundamentally inconsistent with the Curtis Park Village PUD Guidelines; that the project approval’s reliance on a CEQA Addendum is legally deficient; that the Addendum itself is legally deficient; and that approval of the project violates CEQA.

On September
16, 2015 an alternative gas station plan was submitted by the applicant moving the gas station south and west to the rear of the site between the proposed grocery anchor building and the embankment for the Sutterville Road rail overpass. The new gas station location occupies nearly the same acreage and maintains eight pumps with 16 fuel dispensing locations, but is now approximately 400 feet to the west of Crocker Drive. The orientation is slightly altered as the new locationprovides two rows of pumps with four through lanes. Additionally, the request for the new location is for 24-hour operation whereas the Planning and Design Commission restricted operations to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The applicant has modified the site plan to address concerns that were raised at the Planning and Design Commission hearing including concerns related to the separation from residential uses, impacts to bicycle and pedestrian circulation, and aesthetic impacts to the Crocker Drive streetscape.

Policy Considerations:

G
eneral Plan
The 2035 Sacramento General Plan Update (SGPU) designates the subject s ite as Traditional Center. The General Plan describes a Traditional Center as an element of sustainable, walkable traditional neighborhoods that provides essential daily services within walking distance of surrounding residents.

3.0. The FAR for the site takes into consideration the previously approved design review as well as the current proposal. The 0.36 FAR is within the Traditional Center target FAR range.

The project is consistent with the following General Plan policies:
2 of 208

Page 181 of 396 ends

Policy LU 4.1.1 Mixed-Use Neighborhoods st ates that the City shall require neighborhood design that incorporates a compatible and complementary mix of residential and nonresidential (e.g., retail, parks, schools) uses that address the basic daily needs of residents and employees. • The proposed gas station will be located in a commercial center within the larger Curtis Park Village PUD. The PUD schematic plan distributes a mix of uses throughout the development including residential uses at various densities; retail and service uses; and recreational uses.

Policy 5.3.1 stat es that the City shall continue to support development and operation of centers in traditional neighborhoods by providing flexibility in development standards, consistent with public health and safety, in response to constraints inherent in retrofitting older structures and in creating infill development in established neighborhoods.
• In its original adoption of the Curtis Park Village project, the City Council found the Shopping Center (SC) Zone and the Curtis Park Village PUD to be consistent with the General Plan and the Traditional Center designation. The proposed gas station consists of a service use that is allowed in the SC zone subject to a conditional use permit and is consistent with the allowed uses in the Traditional Center designation. Furthermore, the construction of a gas station does not preclude the balance of the 11.8 acre Curtis Park Village commercial site from providing neighborhood serving, walkable commercial uses. Staff finds the proposed project to be consistent with this 2035 General Plan Policy.

LU 5.1.5 states, “Vertical and Horizontal Mixed-Use. The City shall discourage low- intensity and auto-oriented uses around transit stations.” Staff analyzed the proposed project in light of this General Plan policy and finds that the project is consistent with the policy based upon the following:
 The immediate land uses surrounding the existing light rail transit station are a higher- intensity, ridership generating mix of uses. Directly adjacent to the station on the west side of the train tracks is a community college and a stadium. Once the pedestrian bridge is completed, the station will be connected to the existing Curtis Park neighborhood via the new extension of 10th Avenue. The land uses surrounding the foot of the pedestrian bridge and the 10th Avenue street connection to the bridge include an approved multi-family project, the neighborhood/community shopping center, and single-family residential uses.

The gas station, while in the general area of the pedestrian bridge, will not interfere with access to the bridge.
• The location of the gas station within the larger shopping center does not inhibit the ability of the surrounding community to access the transit station (see context map, Attachment 2).

The gas station is located adjacent to Buchannan Street which is not expected to be utilized by many pedestrians or bicyclists. The gas station is not expected to materially change the character of the access to the transit station, thereby supporting consistency with the General Plan policy.
• The gas st ation represents a very small fraction of space out of the larger shopping center.

The station is located on 0.45 acres within a larger 11.8 acre commercial center (representing approximately 4% of the area). The shopping center is an approved component of the Curtis Park Village PUD. When the project was approved by City Council in 2010, it was determined that the shopping center was an acceptable land use adjacent to the foot of the pedestrian bridge. Because there is a CUP requirement to locate a gas 3 of 208

Page 182 of 396 ends

station in a neighborhood/ commercial shopping center does not negate the viability of the overall use as a supportive use around the transit station. Similarly, there is a parking garage and surface parking lot as a component of the community college in order to provide a full range of services to college students; however the overall community college use is considered consistent with the types of land uses expected to support the transit station. • The t raffic study has demonstrated that the number of vehicular trips to the site remains under the number of trips studied and contemplated with the adoption of the PUD in 2010.

In summary, staff believes that t he proposed project is consistent with the Traditional Center designation and meets the intent of the General Plan policies.

Curtis Park Village PUD
 Appeal assertion: The proposed project is fundamentally inconsistent with the Curtis Park Village
Development Guidelines as it contradicts the goal of maximizing opportunities for efficient transit.

As part of the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development, the schematic plan establishes the distribution and intensity of land uses within the community (Attachment 5). Of the total 72 acre project site, the schematic plan designates approximately 16.3 acres for commercial uses, including the 11.8 acre (net) southern commercial area between 10th Avenue and Sutterville Road, intended for a neighborhood shopping area, and the 4.7 acre northern commercial flex zone north of 10th Avenue that could potentially accommodate a wide variety of uses including residential, commercial (including recreational/entertainment uses) office and public/open spaces. The Schematic Plan depicts the 11.8 acre southern commercial area with general, non-specific building footprint locations noting that ultimate building/driveway locations shall be in general compliance with the locations shown on this plan.

The PUD Guidelines state that the southern commercial area “will s trike a balance between serving the more intimate immediate local community with walkable destinations, and welcoming the greater community and larger customer base required to nourish a viable environment for thriving businesses.” Thus the PUD Guidelines anticipated that the commercial center would serve the needs of not only the immediate surrounding neighborhood, but also the larger surrounding community.

In its approval of the Curtis Park PUD, the City Council made the following findings:

1. PUD conformed to the General Plan;

Page 183 of 396 ends

Staff finds t hat the proposed project is consistent with the Curtis Park Village PUD Guidelines as the proposed gas station is located at the rear of the shopping center site, away from Crocker Drive which will serve as the main pedestrian bike thoroughfare through the neighborhood. Additionally the gas station is located such that it will be screened from view from Crocker Drive by future commercial buildings and by the Sutterville Road rail overpass.

Environmental Considerations: The
Curtis Park Village environmental impact report (EIR) was certified by the City Council in Resolution No. 2010-174, and the CEQA Findings and Mitigation Monitoring Plan were adopted in Resolution No. 2010-572. These actions were taken as part of the approval of the Curtis Park Village project on September 28, 2010.

The fuel island project requests approval of discretionary permits that are required by the Planned Unit
Development Guidelines that were approved as part of the Curtis Park Village project, and site plan and design review, which is required under the City’s Planning and Development Code. These actions are subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The proposed
use is consistent with the general plan and zoning designations for the site, and falls within the types of uses that were considered in the impact analysis in the Draft EIR. CEQA review proceeds under CEQA Guidelines section 15162, including an inquiry as to whether the proposed use would result in new significant effects on the environment that were not considered in the EIR. Staff concluded that none of the conditions set forth in section 15162 would occur, and that the EIR is adequate to evaluate any of the impacts that could occur as a result of project approval. An Addendum to the previously-certified EIR was prepared. An addendum is appropriate in this case because only minor technical changes in the EIR were required and the project would not have new significant effects. CEQA Guidelines section 15164.

The Mitigation Monitoring Plan,
adopted in Resolution No. 2010-572, applies to the construction and operation of the fuel island.

Operation of
the fuel island requires approval of a permit to operate by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). As part of the permit process, SMAQMD required completion of a health risk assessment (HRA) evaluating cancer and health risks due to potential exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TAC). In the case of a fuel island the TAC involved is benzene. The HRA was prepared consistent with the air district’s protocols for such studies. The HRA concluded that with a throughput of 7.45 million gallons per year the fuel island would not have a significant effect, and would not result in health risks above the district’s threshold.

The appeal raises
the following issues relating to environmental review. The staff response follows each assertion.
 Appeal Assertion: The appeal asserts that the Air Resources Board has provided guidance to local
agencies regarding the proper location of fuel centers.

The Air Resources Board, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and SMAQMD
have each addressed concerns relating to the siting of residential uses in relative proximity to sources of toxic air contaminants. These concerns are related both to stationary sources (such as gas stations) as well as mobile sources (such as freeways). The project site is not located within 500 feet of a major roadway or freeway, but would be located across the street from residential uses. 5 of 208

Page 184 of 396 ends

The agencies have emphasized that they are making recommendations only, and are not directing, or adopting thresholds of significance regarding proximity. CAPCOA is typical:

These recommendations are advisory. Land use agencies have to balance other considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues. (CAPCOA 2009, Table 2) SMAQMD has adopted a threshold of significance for stationary sources: if a project would result in a cancer risk in excess of 10 in a million a significant effect would occur. As discussed in the Addendum and the HRA, this threshold was not exceeded by the project. The decision regarding approval of the proposed use, as noted by CAPCOA, lies within the sound discretion of the City.

The applicant
has proposed a new location for the fuel center, located within the commercial center north of Sutterville Road and adjacent to Buchannan Street. Ramboll Environ, the consultant that prepared the original health risk assessment, has reviewed the alternative location, and has concluded as follows:

This revised location
will very likely result in lower estimated health impacts. It is about 400 feet further from residents in the predominant wind direction, compared to the initial site location. (The wind rose (Figure 2) indicates that the predominant wind direction is from the south west.) This will result in lower cancer risk, chronic HI, and acute HI. Based on Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) scaling methodologies for gas stations, this additional distance could reduce impacts by as much as 90%. SMAQMD does not have similar guidance, but we believe the BAAQMD guidance can be used to provide a reasonable estimate of the reduction in impacts. The new proposed location is closer to the community college to the east, but the community college location is still 400 feet away, which is further than the original maximally impacted receptors, and is not a residential location, further lowering health impacts. In addition, the community college is not in the predominant wind direction and therefore we believe that risks would be lower in this location than at the original maximally exposed individual.
 Appeal Assertion: The fuel island project would result in significant effects and a supplemental EIR
should be prepared.

The air district requires an HRA as part of the permit application. The HRA was completed in a manner
consistent with the air district’s regulations, and demonstrated that no significant effect would result with a throughput of 7.45 million gallons per year based on the original location of the gas station. As stated above, the revised location will very likely result in lower estimated health impacts The air district requires regular reports from gasoline dispensing facilities, and has trained staff that monitor, and enforce the throughput conditions. The record demonstrates that no significant effect would occur, and a supplemental EIR is not required.
 Appeal Assertion: The project would require the routine transport of gasoline, a hazardous substance.

The
Addendum discussed the potential for exposure to hazardous substances. As noted there, the City’s general plan, and regulations imposed at the County, state and federal level include provisions that reduce risk from hazards. There are no unusual circumstances associated with the project that would result in a greater risk than is normally experienced by residents throughout the City. 6 of 208

Page 185 of 396 ends

 Appeal Assertion: The Addendum is deficient because its analysis of traffic does not take into account
the proposed operation as part of the Safeway rewards program.

The traffic analysis attached to the Addendum included consideration of the presence of a rewards discount
program. See page 3. Traffic generated by other Safeway operations was identified and considered.
 Appeal Assertion: The Addendum utilized analyses of consultants employed by the applicant, and
does not reflect the independent judgment of the City.

The traffic analysis and health risk assessment were prepared by qualified professionals. SMAQMD confirmed
the HRA was prepared consistent with its directions. The City’s Department of Public Works staff reviewed and approved the traffic analysis. Staff in the Community Development Department, Environmental Planning Services, prepared the Addendum and concluded that the analysis and reports complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These procedures are consistent with CEQA, and provide a basis for independent judgment by the City’s decision-making body.
 Appeal Assertion: The City cannot rely on the Master EIR because Public Resources Code section
21157.1 requires preparation of an initial study as a condition of such reliance.

The Addendum included reference to the Master EIR as a general discussion of cumulative effects, and not as a streamlining mechanism. The preparation of an initial study was not required. See CEQA Guidelines section 15152.
 Appeal Assertion: The Addendum cannot rely on the HRA because the City has not limited the project
to a throughput of 7.45 million gallons per year.

The proposed fuel island project is a “stationary source” that is subject to the regulatory authority of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). SMAQMD Rule 201 requires approval of an Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate for any gasoline station or gasoline dispensing facility in the County of Sacramento. See http://airquality.org/permits/. The health risk assessment that was attached to the Addendum was prepared at the direction and according to the protocols established by SMAQMD. The threshold of significance utilized by the City with regard to stationary sources of toxic air contaminants, such as the fuel island facility, are based on consideration of the SMAQMD thresholds and evidence supporting such thresholds. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7(c).

The health risk assessment evaluated the health risk of the proposed fuel facility in its original location
based on throughput of 7.45 million gallons per year. This revised location will very likely result in lower estimated health impacts. It is about 400 feet further from residents in the predominant wind direction, compared to the initial site location. The City has appropriately considered the health risk assessment and throughput level as part of its environmental review.

The environmental
documents are posted at http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/Community- Development/Planning/Environmental/Impact-Reports.aspx
7 of 208

Page 186 of 396 ends

Commission/Committee Action: On June 11, 2015 the requested entitlements were heard by the Planning and Design Commission. There were approximately 25 members of the public who spoke in opposition to the requested project entitlements. The main concerns of those who spoke were:
 Traffic – The impact of project related traffic on the surrounding neighborhood including Crocker
Road and Sutterville Road
 Impediments to pedestrian and bicycle circulation – The proposed project will be an impediment to bicycle and pedestrian circulation within the Curtis Park PUD.  Not supportive of transit – The proposed project is within ¼ mile of an existing light rail station and
will negatively affect transit ridership.
 Health, Safety, and Welfare – The project will negatively affect the health of nearby residents.

With
a vote of 8 ayes to 3 noes and 1 absent, the Planning and Design Commission voted to approve the
Curtis Park Fuel Center CUP and Site Plan and Design Review. With the applicant’s agreement, a condition was added to the CUP requiring the gas station to be developed and operated by Safeway. The Planning and Design Commission action was later appealed to the City Council by a third party.

Rationale for
Recommendation: The Curtis Park Village Fuel Center development has been reviewed objectively, in light of the proposed operations, comments received from public, and the proposed conditions of approval. The applicant has relocated the gas station as a direct response to concerns heard at the Planning and Design Commission hearing. Staff believes that the new location is an improvement to the approved location as it directly addresses several of the key concerns raised at the Planning and Design Commission hearing including:
 Health, Safety, and Welfare – the new location is over 400 feet further from any residential use compared to the previous location
 Impediments to pedestrian and bicycle circulation - The gas station is located adjacent
to Buchannan Street which is not expected to be utilized by many pedestrians or bicyclists
 Aesthetics - The new location greatly reduces the visibility of the gas station as it will be located behind future buildings and adjacent to the embankment to the Sutterville Road rail bridge.

Staff has analyzed the
project against the Curtis Park Village PUD and the Planning and Development Code and has determined that the proposed gas station is consistent with the intent of the PUD and will not negatively affect the ability of the PUD’s commercial center to provide neighborhood serving commercial uses and support multi-modal transit opportunities. Staff continues to support the project and its modified location request based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the Conditions of Approval as found in the attached project resolution (Attachment 9) Financial Considerations: The
applicant is incurring all costs for the proposed fuel center project Local Business Enterprise: Not applicable
8 of 208

Page 187 of 396 ends

1 Background
Existing Conditions
The subject site is located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Sutterville and Crocker Roads. The gas station is proposed to be located at the southwest corner of the shopping center site adjacent to Buchannan Street and approximately 400 feet west of Crocker Drive. There are currently single-family homes under construction on the east side of Crocker Road and the Curtis Park Court senior housing under construction to the north of 10th Avenue.

Prior Entitlements
On April 1, 2010, the City Council took t he following actions (P04-109):
 Certified the Curtis Park Village Environmental I mpact Report (EIR);  Adopted a Resolut ion providing policy direction for Curtis Park Village Neighborhood Park and Detention Basin and the Amendment to the 1995 Remedial Action Plan;
 Continued the remainder of entitlements to a later date.

On September 28, 2010, the City Council approved the 71.7 acre Curtis Park Village project which included adopting the following entitlements (P04-109):
 Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program;
 General Plan Amendment;
 Rezone;
 Inclusionary Housing Plan;
 Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development ( PUD) Guidelines and Schematic Plan; and
 Master and Tentative Parcel Maps, including Subdivision Modifications.

On January 31, 2013, t he Planning and Design Commission approved a modification Table 1: Project Information
G
eneral Plan designation: Traditional Center (0.3 - 3.0 FAR) E
xisting zoning of site: Shopping Center (SC-PUD)
P
UD: Curtis Park Village
P
roperty area: 0. 45 Acre Gas Station Site, 11.8 acre Southern Commercial Site P
roposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 0.36 (total commercial c enter approved and requested with this application)
9 of 208

Page 188 of 396 ends

2 to the P lanned Unit Development and the tentative map (P12-026).

On June 25, 2014, Cit y staff approved the Curtis Park Village Commercial Center project with a staff level Site Plan and Design Review (DR14-110). Consistent with the approved PUD, the Curtis Park Village Commercial Center includes approximately 104,000 square feet of various commercial buildings on the lower 6.9 acres of the Southern Commercial Area (Attachment 3). The proposed gas station was not a part of this prior action.

On June 11, 2015 the Curtis Park Fuel Center was heard by the Planning and Design Commission.

The Planning and Design Commission voted 8 to 3 with one absent to approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Site Plan and Design review to construct and operate a new 16-pump gas station on approximately 0.46 acres within the PUD’s Southern Commercial Area. On June 19, 2015, a third-party appeal of the Planning and Design Commission’s decision was submitted. The appeal asserts that the proposed project will be detrimental to the welfare of persons residing, working, visiting, or recreating in the surrounding neighborhood; that the project is fundamentally inconsistent with the Curtis Park Village PUD Guidelines; that the project approval’s reliance on a CEQA Addendum is legally deficient; that the Addendum itself is legally deficient; and that approval of the project violates CEQA.

On September
16, 2015 a new site plan was submitted relocating the gas station, including the 740 square foot kiosk, to the southwest corner of the shopping center site.

The proposed gas station retains eight pumps with 16 dispensing locations; the current request is for a 24-hour operation.

Public/Neighborhood Outreach and Comments
Prior to the July 11th Planning and Design Commission hearing, early project notifications were sent t
o the Sierra Curtis Neighborhood Association, Land Park Community Association, and the College Plaza Neighborhood Association and to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. Additionally, property owners in the vicinity of the project were invited to a January 28, 2015, community meeting which was attended by City staff, members of the development team, and over 300 members of the public interested in the project. Staff has received comments both in support of and in opposition to the proposed gas station. The key concerns of those who have stated opposition have been traffic, health and safety, land use, and aesthetics.

Traffic. Traffic has been a major concern of those who have submitted comments on the project. Those objecting to the gas station have stated their concerns related to:
 The project ’s impact on traffic in the existing neighborhood;  The project ’s impact to on-site circulation (on-site queueing);  Increased vehicle trips due to t he gas station, characterizing it as regional draw; and
10 of 208

Page 189 of 396 ends

3  Increased vehicle trips due to shoppers taking advantage of a fuel rewards program.

Health and Safety. Health and safety has been another concern voiced by those opposed to the project. Commenters have cited health and safety concerns related to:
 Toxic air contaminants that would be released by the gas station; and  Residential exposure to hazardous substances a mongst the nearby residential uses.

Responding to t he health and safety concerns related to the proposed gas station, a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was conducted by ENVIRON which concluded that the estimated cancer risk would be within an acceptable range and would be below the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) thresholds of significance (Attachment D of the Addendum) and would not result in any additional significant impacts beyond those identified in the Curtis Park Village EIR. Furthermore, the estimated cancer risk would be in the range that the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) defines as “acceptable risk” with the provision of Toxic Best Available Control Technology (TBACT).

Responding to the change in location of the Gas Station, Ramboll Environ, the consultant that prepared the original health risk assessment, has concluded that:

Page 190 of 396 ends

Land Use. Staff has received comments stating that the
proposed gas station is
inconsistent with the Curtis Park Village PUD Guidelines, the Traditional Center General Plan Designation, and that the gas station is an improper land use for “transit oriented development (TOD)”.
 PUD Guidelines – Opponents of the project h ave argued that the gas station is a land use in conflict with the PUD’s goal to maximize opportunities for efficient transit provided by the public transportation and roadway corridors serving the site of the PUD. In addition to this concern, opponents have argued that the proposed gas station will negatively affect bicycle and pedestrian circulation through the PUD.

Goal 4 of the Curtis Park Village PUD Guidelines states a primary goal of the PUD is to “Maximize opportunities for efficient transit provided by the public transportation and roadway corridors serving the site of the PUD.” To further this goal, the PUD Guidelines; encourage the use of public transportation through site design that emphasizes convenient transit access and use, and promote the development of appropriate linkages to surrounding neighborhoods including pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle and alternative transportation modes.

The proposed project will not hinder the ability for surrounding residents to access transit opportunities. The gas station is located in an area adjacent to Buchannan Street which is not expected to be utilized by many pedestrians or bicyclists.  Traditional Center General Plan Designation – Another concern is that t he Traditional Center designation emphasizes walkable neighborhoods and the proposed gas station will degrade the pedestrian experience and contravene the goal of a walkable neighborhood.

Page 191 of 396 ends

5  Transit O riented Development (TOD) - It has been argued that a gas station is not a proper use for a TOD.

The site is within a quarter mile of an existing transit s tation but is not designated as a TOD. Furthermore, the Transit Overlay (TO), meant to further TOD objectives, has not been applied to the zoning of this site. The subject site is zoned as Shopping Center, Planned Unit Development and does not include the TO overlay. All properties with a TO overlay would include the “TO” in the zoning of the site. The City Council’s adoption of the original PUD Schematic Plan and PUD Guidelines was based on the ability of Curtis Park Village to promote pedestrian friendly development, support alternative modes of transportation, and the establishment of a well-designed mixture of land uses for existing and future residents within the area. Approval of the original entitlements for the master planned, mixed-use community was not based on any TOD characteristics of the project. As previously discussed, the proposed project will not hinder the ability for those wishing to access transit to safely and directly reach their destination.

Aesthetics/Design. Staff has received comments challenging whether the design of the proposed gas station is consistent with the site and building design principles of the PUD Guidelines.

The purpose and intent of the Curtis Park PUD Guidelines state that “To achieve the goals and
objectives of the Curtis Park Village PUD, the Guidelines are formulated in a flexible manner to provide for creative solutions to a variety of design situations.” To that effect, the guidelines include site design principles encouraging site features such as design for lively pedestrian use, spaces designed at a pedestrian scale, and consideration of view corridors. The guidelines also include building design principles encouraging attention to architectural building elements including building materials, types, and forms; proper massing and scale; and building articulation.

These aforementioned site and building design principles are meant to direct the development of the overall commercial center in a manner compatible with the surrounding neighborhood with an emphasis on providing an attractive pedestrian experience. The principles are meant to further the goals of the PUD as a whole and not intended to be a checklist for the strict adherence of each development project.

Page 192 of 396 ends

6 Land Use/Entitlements
Land Use
The proposed 0.45 acre gas station project occupies a small portion of the 11.8 southern commercial area of the PUD; 6.9 acres of the commercial area has been approved through a prior design review action. The approved portion of the site includes over 100,000 square feet of commercial uses in retail buildings ranging from 5,600 square feet to approximately 57,000 square feet. With smaller commercial spaces located adjacent to Crocker Drive and larger anchor and major tenant spaces located at the rear of the site, the southern commercial area provides the opportunity for both neighborhood and community serving retail and commercial services.

Zoning
Shopping Center (SC-PUD): The Planning and Development Code defines the purpose of the Shopping Center (SC) zone as: “providing a wide range of goods and services to the community. However, general commercial uses that are incompatible with a retail shopping center are prohibited.” (City Code Section 17.216.500) A gas station is considered a typical use for a community serving shopping center and is determined to be compatible. “Gas Station” is defined by the Planning and Development Code (adopted by City Council in 2013) as follows: “Gas station” means any building, land area, or other premises used primarily for the retail dispensing or sales of gasoline or alternative fuel for vehicles. (City Code Section 17.108.080) The proposed gas station meets this definition.

The proposed gas station is allowed with the approval of a Condit ional Use Permit, per section 17.216.510 of the Planning and Development Code. City Code Section states: “A CUP is a zoning instrument used primarily to review the location and conduct of certain land uses that are known to have a distinct impact on the area in which they are located, or are capable of creating special problems for bordering properties, unless given special attention.” The Planning and Development Code does not provide any additional classification for gas stations. All commercial businesses involved in the retail sale of gasoline or alternative fuels qualify as a gas station and require the approval of a CUP.

Conditional Use Permit: The applicant’s request is t o develop a 16 pump gas station with an associat ed 740 square foot convenience store in the Shopping Center (SC-PUD) Zone within the Curtis Park Village PUD. The Council’s action on the requested CUP shall be based on the following findings:
14 of 208

Page 193 of 396 ends

7 1. The proposed use and its operating characteristics are consistent with the General Plan;
In its original adoption of the Curtis Park Village, the Cit y Council found the Shopping Center (SC) Zone and the Curtis Park Village PUD to be consistent with the General Plan and its Traditional Center designation. Approval of the requested CUP will not preclude the ability to provide neighborhood serving commercial uses across the balance of the 11.8 acres Southern Commercial Area. Additionally, staff finds that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan policy to provide a compatible and complimentary mix of uses and does not conflict with the General Plan policy discouraging low-intensity and auto-oriented uses around transit stations.

2. The proposed use and its operating characteristics are consistent with the applicable standards, requirements, and regulations of the zoning district in which it is located, and of all other provisions of the code; The proposed use is allowed in the Shopping Center zone subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. The proposed gas station is consistent with the Curtis Park Village PUD Guidelines and Schematic Plan with respect to land use, site layout, and building design.

3. The proposed use is situated on a parcel that is physically suitable in terms of location, size, topography, and access, and that is adequately served by public services and utilities;
The proposed gas station can be established on the site without deviating from the Planning and Development Code or the PUD Guidelines. Public services and utilities will be available to development on the site.

The proposed use and its operation characteristics will not be detrimental to public health, safety, convenience, or welfare and will not result in the creation of a nuisance in that:
a. The est imated cancer risk would be within an acceptable range and would be below the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) thresholds of significance;
b. The t otal peak hour and daily traffic volumes would be lower than those utilized for traffic analysis in the original Curtis Park Village (EIR) and all 15 of 208

Page 194 of 396 ends

8 vehicle queuing will occur on-site;
c. Lighting is required to be designed so as not to produce hazardous and annoying glare to motorists, adjacent properties, or the general public.

Site/Building Plan
The proposed gas station project consists of eight ( 8) fuel islands with a total of 16 fuel pumps, a 6,500 square foot canopy, and a 740 square foot convenience store (kiosk).

Both the site and architectural design of the proposed facility are subject to the approval of Site Plan and Design Review.

The overall shopping center was approved with three driveways and the modified gas station project only includes one new exit-only driveway along Buchannan Street at the rear of the site. With the unidirectional flow of traffic, queuing for the fuel pumps will occur on site and vehicle stacking is not expected to affect any of the adjacent public streets. None of the driveways provide direct, immediate access to the fuel pump queue.

The 740 square-foot kiosk building is proposed to be located at the east end of the gas station site. The 16-foot tall building will be finished with brick consistent with the PUD guidelines and materials approved for the surrounding commercial center. The kiosk will house the cashier, a small sales area for convenience items, and a work room/office for the gas station.

The proposed gas station complies with these development standards. 16 of 208

Page 195 of 396 ends

SUTTERVILLE RD
24TH ST
10TH AVE
24TH ST

CROCKER DR

JEFFREY AVE

W PACIFIC BYP

W PACIFIC AVE
11TH AVE

DEEBLE ST

COLEMAN WAY
0 340 680
Feet
A. Ablog | 11.9.15
Project Location
City of Sacramento, Community Development Department GIS 17 of 208

Page 196 of 396 ends

10th Avenue
Ped/Bike Bridge
Gas Station
18 of 208

Page 197 of 396 ends

19 of 208

Page 198 of 396 ends