Safeway gas station needs more review: Petaluma council
After two delays due to last minute submissions of mountainous piles of technical documents, the Petaluma City Council finally discussed the appeal of a controversial Safeway gas station project Monday, ruling in favor of a local grassroots opposition group and sending the project back for more environmental review.
Following hours of testimony from dozens of No Gas Here advocates, as well as allies and representatives of the supermarket chain, the council, with Mayor David Glass absent, voted unanimously to commission an environmental impact report before the project can be approved.
“The community has been very clear as to what they want, and the issues that they’ve brought up are very, very valid,” said Councilman Gabe Kearney.
Completing an EIR will likely be time-consuming and costly for Safeway, administered by a neutral agency handpicked by city officials.
The report will explore the environmental dangers and the potential mitigations for a gas station with eight pumps and 16 dispensers at 335 South McDowell Blvd., approximately 50 feet from multiple schools and fields where children play outside each day.
But once those impacts have been accurately identified and addressed, refusing the project will be even more difficult for the next council, which means this week’s decision may have only stalled the gas station.
“We are disappointed that the city has deferred a vote and is requesting yet more environmental review,” Safeway spokesperson Wendy Gutshall said in an email. “However, we are confident that a seventh year and 16th study will confirm prior findings.”
Throughout the night, much of the discussion was focused on the council’s authority at this stage of the approval process.
The elected body was forced to hear the issue after No Gas Here co-founder JoAnn McEachin filed an appeal of the planning commission’s split vote to approve the project in June. It was Petaluma’s first appeal of a municipal decision since 2015.
The council could either “affirm, affirm in part, or reverse” the decision, according to the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. But a Sept. 17 letter from Soluri Meserve, the environmental law firm aligned with No Gas Here, introduced another option.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act and a precedent set by a recent case, Protect Niles v. City of Fremont, the council had a relatively low threshold for providing evidence that the project could create significant environmental impacts and, in turn, warranted an EIR.
It was an option that grew more appealing as time went on and experts on both sides of the project failed to find any sort of common ground or consensus, inundating city officials with opposing analysis.
“As the environmental impact report comes back, hopefully that will put one side or the other’s issues, fears, concerns at rest,” said Councilman Chris Albertson. “We’ll see where that goes.”
Before the council’s first scheduled hearing on Sept. 17, the No Gas Here group grew rapidly, at one point filing paperwork as a political action committee to ramp up fundraising and protect its members from potentially being targeted by Safeway, McEachin said.
Soluri Meserve and other organizations emerged to aid the opposition group, commissioning studies and battling Safeway’s well-funded retorts over the course of several months.
In addition to the unanimous vote, the council widely criticized both the appellant and applicant for what Albertson described as “document dumps” in the immediate hours and days before each of the three scheduled hearings, causing two continuations. Multiple members held up binders that were several inches thick to provide perspective.