Safeway Meets with Planning Commission at Study Session

Store expansion and a gas station at the corner

Safeway is proposing a 15,000 square foot store expansion directly to the east of the current building: new parking to the east, in front of the expanded area of up to 250 spaces total; and a gas station with nine pump islands and a canopy on the northwest corner across street from Wells Fargo bank.

Safeway gas would be up to 30 cents cheaper per gallon than local prices. As a marketing strategy, Safeway gas stations are a “loss leader” intended to draw regional shoppers who will buy gas and then shop at the store.

For the proposed expansion, Safeway proposes to address increased public thoroughfare impact issues with in-depth traffic and pedestrian safety studies. It proposes to spruce up the current landscape by planting trees and re-landscaping the parking lot, to be sensitive to the nearby residential areas, and to avoid impacting the Fryer Creek drainage area possibly designated as a wetland. Finally, it will seek a waiver of the required residential component (see below) that a project of this size triggers.

Waiver of the residential component

The project would be subject to a use permit review and in this review, a number of considerations and findings would have to be made to grant any waivers and to approve the project. Said City of Sonoma Planning Director David Goodison, “the Planning Commission will need to determine if the facts that allow for a waiver or reduction are applicable.”

Safeway intends to request a waiver for the residential component of the project. According to Goodison, “In applications for new development on commercially zoned properties over one-half acre in area, a residential component comprising at least 50% of the total proposed building area is normally required unless waived or reduced by the Planning Commission.” According to David’s staff report, “circumstances in which the residential component may be reduced or waived, include, but are not limited, to the following:

1. The replacement of a commercial use within an existing tenant space with another commercial use.
2. The presence of uses or conditions incompatible with residential development on or adjacent to the property for which a new development is proposed.
3. Property characteristics, including size limitations and environmental characteristics, that constrain opportunities for residential development or make it infeasible.
4. Limitations imposed by other regulatory requirements, such as the Growth Management Ordinance.”

In addition to addressing the residential component, the vacant land on the property is designated as a housing opportunity (HO) site, which means that this is land within the city that can be used to build affordable housing, i.e. housing affordable on a spectrum around the area median income (AMI) of $60,000 for an individual. According to planning parameters laid out by the Association of Bay Area Governments, RHNA, or the regional housing needs assessment, it is not mandatory that affordable housing be built on HO sites. Cities have to show only that HO sites exist, to allow for the possibility of affordable housing development.

There are less than a handful of HO sites in the city, and if a waiver for the residential component is granted here, and the First Street East proposed hotel/ market rate housing complex, which is an HO site, takes up another, there will be few sizable HO sites left, if any, within the city upon which to build affordable housing.

The wetland issue

Safeway has pointed out that on the currently open land at the southeast portion of the property, there is, variously called, a swale, a ditch, a wetland, a perennial stream, or a creek. David Goodison said “it’s status as a biological/wetland feature needs to be clearly defined before we can say how it should be treated. Safeway believes that it is a feature that will be subject to protection/preservation and that may well be true.” Safeway maintains that this area will preclude housing and justify a waiver on the basis of #3 above.

The housing waiver will also be asked for, using #3 above as justification, in that access to the southeast portion of the property is too difficult.  On the basis of #2 above, housing near the south loading dock area would be seen as incompatible with residential development and thereby justify a waiver. As shown by astute citizen researcher David Eichar, there is a lot line to the south of the whole property that would allow access to potential housing development.

Public and commissioner comments

The overwhelming sense from the public and the Planning Commission at this study session was that the gas station is not going to fly. As well, the bulk of the Planning Commission and the public strongly advocated that the residential component not be waived. Many spoke in support of building more affordable housing. Safeway was encouraged to be creative with addressing housing issues, as said Chair Felder, “especially for workforce housing.”

Commissioner Willers said this should be a redevelopment site, not a development site, i.e. that this project should be more than an expansion; it should be an intentional augmentation of the Sonoma community. Commissioner McDonald outlined many possibilities Safeway could undertake besides asking for a waiver. Commissioner Wellander said the project is “an opportunity to push the limits of creativity.” Commissioner Cribb called for building market rate affordable housing for mid-level professionals, such as school teachers at the Sassarini school. Commissioner Sek was concerned about traffic and safety impacts around the school. In wrapping up Planning Commission comments, Chair Felder said that the traffic study has to show mitigation (Studley Street intersection for example), that “safety has to be dealt with”, and that “a lot of things are non-starters.”

By Fred Allebach