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: 2022-00344 February 8, 2022 Consent Item 15
Title: Resolution Adopting Written Findings of Fact Denying Curtis Park Village Fuel Center Project (P14-036)
Location: 3640 Crocker Drive, District 7
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution 1.) adopting written findings of fact, consistent with Council’s January 18, 2022, direction denying the Curtis Park Fuel Center Project and granting the Third-Party Appeal; and 2.) determining CEQA does not apply to the project denial (CEQA Guidelines, § 15270(a)).
Contact: Stacia Cosgrove, Principal Planner, 916-808-7110, [email protected]
, Community Development Department
Presenter: Stacia Cosgrove, Principal Planner, 916-808-7110, [email protected], Community Development Department
Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-Resolution to Deny the Project
File ID: 2022-00344 Consent Item 15
February 8, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento
Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: On January 18, 2022, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider an application to construct and operate a new gas station in the Shopping Center zone within the Curtis Park Village Planner Unit Development. After considering the evidence and testimony at the hearing and closing the public hearing, the Council approved a motion to deny the gas station project and to direct Staff to return with written findings of fact in support of the denial.
Consistent with Council’s direction, Staff has prepared a resolution with findings of fact in support of project denial based on the whole of the January 18, 2022, record.
Policy Considerations: As part of the motion, Council found that the project was not consistent with 2035 General Plan Land Use Policy 5.1.5, “The City shall discourage low- intensity and auto-oriented uses around transit stations,” as the site is located within a ¼ mile of the City College light rail transit station. Council further found the project was inconsistent with general plan policies supporting transit-oriented development, and that the proposed use would be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare of persons residing, working, visiting, or recreating in the surrounding neighborhood and would result in the creation of a nuisance.
Economic Impacts: Not applicable.
Environmental Considerations: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to this denial of the conditional use permit. (CEQA Guidelines § 15270 (a) [projects that are disapproved].)
Sustainability: Not applicable
Commission/Committee Action: On June 11, 2015, the requested project was heard by the Planning and Design Commission. 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. The decision was subsequently appealed to the City Council.
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.
Subsequent to the Council action, the applicant filed Petrovich Development Company, LLC et al. v. City of Sacramento, et al., in Sacramento County 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.
File ID: 2022-00344 Consent Item 15
February 8, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento
On January 18, 2022, the project was reheard by the City Council. The Council approved a motion to deny the project and direct Staff to return with written findings in support of the denial.
Rationale for Recommendation: The Council found the evidence did not support the findings necessary to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a new gas station in the Curtis Park Village shopping center. Therefore, Council denied the project and directed Staff to return with written findings in support of project denial.
Financial Considerations: Not applicable.
Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.
RESOLUTION NO.
Adopted by the Sacramento City Council
ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT DENYING CURTIS PARK
VILLAGE FUEL CENTER PROJECT
(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 (“Project”).
B. On June 19, 2015, the decision of the City Planning and Design commission on the Project was appealed by a third party.
C. On November 17, 2015, the City granted the third -party appeal, thereby denying the Project. The applicant filed Petrovich Development Company, LLC et al. v. City of Sacramento, et al ., in Sacramento County Superior Court challenging the City Council’s decision. In 2018, the Sacramento County 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 County Superior Court.
D. On October 27, 2021, the City scheduled the re-hearing for December 7, 2021. Both the Appellant and the Applicant requested continuances pursuant Council Rules of Procedure, Chapter 6, Rule F 4(a)(i). Accordingly, the City continued the hearing to January 4, 2022, and then to January 18, 2022.
E. On January 18, 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.
THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. On January 18, 2022, the City Council conducted a re-hearing of the appeal of the decision of the City Planning and Design Commission on the Project. After consideration of the whole of the record, including the record presented in the 2015 appeal, and written and oral testimony and presentations, the City Council denied the Project and grants the appeal. The City Council denies the Curtis Park Village Fuel Center Project based on the findings of fact as set forth below.
Section 2. The City Council denies the Curtis Park Fuel Center Project based on the following findings of fact, each of which is individually sufficient to support the denial:
1. To approve the conditional use permit, the City Council must find that the proposed use of the Project and its operating characteristics are consistent with the City’s general plan. (City Code §17.808.200.C.1.a.) The City Council finds that the conditional use permit is inconsistent with the general plan.
1.1. The City Council finds the evidence does not support staff’s conclusion that the proposed Curtis Park Fuel Center Project is consistent with the General Plan and therefore disagrees with that conclusion. The Council further finds the proposed Curtis Park Fuel Center Project is inconsistent with the General Plan Land Use Policy 5.1.5, which provides that the “City shall discourage low-intensity and auto-oriented uses around transit stations.” The Curtis Park Fuel Center Project is between ½ mile and ¼ mile of the City College light rail station. The City Council finds the Curtis Park Fuel Center Project is an auto-oriented use and would draw trips from the surrounding community. The City Council further disagrees with the staff conclusion that the Curtis Park Fuel Center Project does not interfere with the use of the transit station based on the site access exhibit shown at the hearing, among other evidence. The Curtis Park Fuel Center Project is therefore inconsistent with General Plan Policy 5.1.5.
1.2. The City Council further finds Curtis Park Fuel Center Project is inconsistent with general plan policies supporting transit-oriented development, which provide that the City shall promote compact development patterns, mixed use, and higher-development intensities that use land efficiently; reduce pollution and automobile dependence and the expenditure of energy and other resources; and facilitate walking, bicycling, and transit use (LU 2.6.1 [Sustainable Development Patterns]) and provide that the City shall actively support and facilitate mixed-use retail, employment, and residential development around existing and future transit stations (LU 2.6.2 Transit-Oriented Development). Based on the written evidence submitted by SACOG, transit-oriented development requires land uses that promote transit ridership. This fuel station is not a land use that promotes transit ridership, or reduces pollution and automobile dependence, the expenditure of energy or other resources, or facilitates walking or bicycling.
2. To approve the conditional use permit, the City Council must find the proposed use and its operating characteristics 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. (City Code §
17.808.200.C.1.c.) The City Council finds that the conditional use permit would be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience, or welfare of persons residing, working, visiting, or recreating in the surrounding neighborhood and will result in the creation of a nuisance.
2.1. The City Council finds the evidence does not support staff’s conclusion that the proposed Curtis Park Fuel Center Project is not detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience, or welfare and therefore disagrees with the conclusion. The City Council finds that location of a fuel center within the Curtis Park Village Pedestrian Oriented development is inconsistent with Senate Bill 375 which directed regions to
change land use patterns to reduce vehicle miles traveled to meet the state’s climate goals to protect human health.
2.2. The City Council further finds Curtis Park Fuel Center Project is detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare and will create a public nuisance by creating an overconcentration of fuel stations because two other fuel stations exist within 0.5 miles of the proposed fueling station, and approximately 16 other fuel stations exist within proximity to the project.
2.3. The City Council further finds Curtis Park Fuel Center Project is detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare and will create a public nuisance because the traffic flow in and around the Project will endanger or interfere pedestrians in the shopping center. Based on all of the evidence, queuing at other gas stations in the City and the site plan presented at the hearing, the City Council disagrees with staff’s conclusion that the traffic flow in and around the project will not endanger or interfere with pedestrians.
2.4. The City Council further finds Curtis Park Fuel Center Project is detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare and will create a public nuisance due to hours of operation, the volume of gasoline that would be dispensed, and the potential threat to human health posed by toxic air contaminants.
Section 3. The City Council finds that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to this denial of the conditional use permit. (CEQA Guidelines § 15270 (a) [projects that are disapproved].)