HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2018-180 N.C.S. 12/03/2018Resolution No. 2018-180 N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL
UPHOLDING THE APPEAL FILED BY JOANN McEACHIN AS TO THE
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPROVED BY THE PETALUMA
PLANNING COMMISSION ON JUNE 26, 2018 BY RESOLUTION NO, 2018-21A,
ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 15064, SUBDIVISIONS (C) AND (G) OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES, AND
STAYING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN
AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 2018-21
ADOPTED JUNE 26, 2018 FOR THE SAFEWAY FUEL CENTER PROJECT
LOCATED AT 335 SOUTH McDOWELL BOULEVARD, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 007-820-046, FILE NO. PLSR 13-0012, PENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE
FIR AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE PROJECT SITE PLAN
AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL
WHEREAS, Rutan & Tucker, LLP,, on behalf of property owner Washington Square
Associates, LLC., submitted an application for Site Plan and Architectural Review approval
("Application") to demolish an existing 13,770 square foot vacant building and construct a new
5,931 square foot fueling canopy, 16 fuel dispensers, a 697 -square foot convenience store, and
associated landscaping and appurtenant parking ("Project") located at 335 South McDowell
Boulevard at APN 007-820-046 ("Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and notice
of a public hearing on the Application before the Petaluma Planning Commission was published
in the Argus Courier on April 5, 2018 and mailed to residents and occupants within a 500 -foot
radius of the project site, in compliance with state and local law; and
WHEREAS, the public review period for the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration ran from April 5, 2018 to May 7, 2018 during which time the document was
available for review at the City's Planning Division and on the City's website; and
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance §24.010, to consider the Project; at which
time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2018, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date
certain of June 26, 2018 to allow interested parties an opportunity to review technical studies and
comments received about the Project; and
WHEREAS, public notice of the continued June 26, 2018 public hearing before the
Planning Commission was published in the Argus Courier on June 14, 2018 and mailed to all
occupants and property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the Project site and all public
commenters on the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project
on June 26, 2018, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and,
Resolution No. 2018-180 N.C.S. Page 1
WHEREAS, at the June 26, 2018 public hearing, the Planning Commission considered
the staff reports dated May 8, 2018 and June 26, 2018, analyzing the application, including the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") determination included therein, and all
comments received concerning the Project; and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2018, prior to acting on the Site Plan and Architectural Review
application, the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA") for the Project via Resolution 2018-21A; and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2018 following its action under CEQA the Planning
Commission approved Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Project pursuant to Resolution
2018-21B, subject to conditions of approval listed in Exhibit 1 to the Resolution; and
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2018, JoAnn McEachin ("Appellant") filed an appeal on behalf
of Appellant and McDowell Elementary School, Little League Children and East Petaluma
Residents of the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 2018-21A approving a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project and adoption of Resolution 2018-21B approving
Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Project ("Appeal"); and
WHEREAS, the Appeal included 15 additional signatures from members of the public;
and
WHEREAS, the grounds for appeal given in the Appeal letter included: questioning the
community need for the Project; the proximity of the Project to a day care, school and Little
League ball park; traffic increase; project emissions and health impacts, and public awareness of
the Project; and
WHEREAS, on September 6, 2018 public notice of an appeal hearing before the City
Council on September 17, 2018 was published in the Argus -Courier and mailed to all property
owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of the Property; and
WHEREAS, also on September 6, 2018 and again on September 11, 2018, counsel for
the Applicant, Matthew Francois, submitted supplemental Project information, addressing,
among other things, correspondence submitted regarding the Project on behalf of the Sierra Club
and distances between the Project site and nearby schools and residences; and
WHEREAS, by letter dated September 12, 2018, Chris Thomas, Chief Business Official
of Petaluma City Schools ("School District"), asserted that an Environmental Impact Report
(`BIR") is required for the Project based on comments from Meridian Consultants regarding the
approved Project Mitigated Negative Declaration addressing air quality, greenhouse gas
emissions, hazardous materials, noise, and traffic, which comments were transmitted with Ms.
Thomas' letter; and
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2018, the City received from Patrick Soluri, legal counsel
for Appellant, correspondence challenging both the Planning Commission's adoption of
Resolution No. 2018-21A approving the Project Mitigated Negative Declaration and the
Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 2018-21B approving the Project Site Plan and
Architectural review; and
Resolution No. 2018-180 N.C.S. Page 2
WHEREAS, the Soluri September 14, 2018 correspondence asserted that the City
Council possesses the discretion to deny, and should deny, the Project Site Plan and
Architectural Review based on: considerations of the harmony of the development with its
surroundings; the siting of the structure on the property; authority in the City's Implementing
Zoning Ordinance ("IZO") permitting imposition of requirements more stringent than those of
the IZO for discretionary projects; City General Plan policies regarding locating new stationary
sources of air pollutants sufficient distances from residential facilities and facilities that serve
sensitive receptors; California Air Resources Board ("CARB") guidance to avoid siting new
sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gasoline dispensing facility; the proximity of the
Project to the 4CS Petaluma Child Development Center at 401 S. McDowell Boulevard; a health
risk analysis finding that the project would result in significant health risks to nearby sensitive
receptors; siting of the Project creating disharmony; and the Project being contrary to the public
health, safety and general welfare by exposing residents to health risks; and
WHEREAS, the Soluri September 14, 2018 correspondence also asserted that substantial
evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may have significant environmental impacts
because of conflicting expert analyses concerning: health risks, greenhouse gas emissions,
traffic impacts, and hazardous materials impacts, and that therefore CEQA requires the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"); and
WHEREAS, the Soluri September 14, 2018 correspondence included Project traffic
analysis prepared by Larry Wymer and Associates Traffic Engineering; and
WHEREAS, on September 17, 2018, the City received comments on the Project
Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by Fox and Kapahi on behalf of Appellant, which
analyzed Project health risks and concluded that significant health impacts from the Project
required that an EIR be prepared; and
WHEREAS, also on September 17, 2018, Mr. Francois representing the Applicant
submitted to the City correspondence responding to Mr. Soluri's correspondence from
September 14, 2018 asserting that Mr. Soluri misstates that standard of review applicable to the
City's approval of the Project Site Plan and Architectural Review, that there is no substantial
evidence of a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts, and
providing a technical memorandum from CHS Consulting Group responding to the traffic
analysis of Larry Wymer and Associates; and
WHEREAS, also on September 17, 2018, the City received comments on the Project
from Damien Breen, Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer, representing the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District ("BAAQMD") noting that if the Applicant's current Project
proposal differs from the equipment description contained in the Air District Authority to
Construct permit issued for the Project, a new permit application requesting authorization for a
change must be submitted, and
WHEREAS, the BAAQMD September 17, 2018 correspondence also commented
regarding the health risk assessment ("HRA") prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin on behalf of
the Applicant and recommended that the Applicant HRA use the AERMOD dispersion model
rather than ISCST3 and run the model with 2 volume sources, and commented regarding the
May 7, 2018 peer review of the HRA prepared by ESA Consultants for the District that the
Project HRA should run at the maximum permitted throughput limit, that off-site teacher/worker
maximum health impact should be addressed, suggesting that using full 2015 OEHHA HRA
procedures would likely be more conservative and acceptable for CEQA purposes, and
Resolution No. 2018-180 N.C.S. Page 3
concurred with Illingworth and Rodkin's May 8, 2018 response to the ESA peer review of the
HRA regarding receptor height for children; and
WHEREAS, a staff report dated September 17, 2018 was prepared as Item 6.13 of the
September 17, 2018 City Council Agenda which analyzed the appeal and included and
referenced numerous attachments comprising the record of decision before the Planning
Commission for its June 26, 2018 consideration of the Project, and numerous comments received
from members of the public after the Planning Commission approval, including public comments
opposing the Project based on the Project's proximity to the adjacent day care, school, fields and
perceived health effects, as well as traffic and congestion; and comments supporting the Project
based on lowered gas prices, need for access to fuel, and ability to conduct one-stop shopping;
and
WHEREAS, due to the extensive amount of information regarding the Project received
shortly before and the day of the September 17, 2018 City Council hearing, staff recommended
that the City Council continue the appeal to October 15, 2018 to permit staff to review and
provide the Council analysis of the project information received, and to permit interested parties
and members of the public to also review the information received prior to the appeal hearing;
and
WHEREAS, at the duly noticed public hearing on the Project on September 17, 2018 the
City Council continued the item to a date certain of October 15, 2018 without deliberation and
without opening the public hearing in order to allow sufficient time to adequately review the new
materials; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2018 the City received correspondence from Mr. Francois
representing the Applicant including a response prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin to Mr.
Soluri's September 14, 2018 correspondence, to the September 17, 2018 HRA prepared by Fox
and Kapahi on behalf of Appellant, and to the September 17, 2018 BAAQMD letter; and
WHEREAS, the October 10, 2018 Illingworth and Rodkin response noted that the
AERMOD air quality dispersion model had not been used for modeling potential impacts from
any CEQA project in Petaluma due to the lack of local meteorological data required by
AERMOD, that BAAQMD modeling guidance recommends the use of either AERMOD or
ISCST3 models for CEQA related HRAs, and that Illingworth and Rodkin conducted a
supplemental HRA using the AERMOD model and that analysis, included in the October 10,
2018 correspondence, also concludes that the Project will not result in any significant health risk
impacts; and
WHEREAS, in a staff report prepared for Agenda Item 5B for the October 15, 2018 City
Council meeting, staff summarized the Project -related information received since the September
17, 2018 City Council meeting and noted that a written response was anticipated from
BAAQMD to the Fox and Kapahi September 17, 2018 HRA, and recommended that the hearing
on the Appeal be continued to December 3, 2018, to permit review and consideration of the
newly -submitted and anticipated Project information by City staff, decisionmakers, interested
parties and members of the public; and
WHEREAS, at the October 15, 2018 City Council meeting the City Council continued
the public hearing on the Project to a date certain of December 3, 2018 without opening the
public hearing and without deliberation to allow additional time to review new materials,
including new technical studies, and consult with responsible agencies for the project; and
Resolution No. 2018-180 N.C.S. Page 4
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2018, the City received from Mr. Breen on behalf of
BAAQMD correspondence dated November 8, 2018 responding to the September 17, 2018 Fox
Kapahi HRA and the updated Illingworth and Rodkin HRA dated October 10, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the November 8, 2018 BAAQMD correspondence notes several key
concerns regarding the Fox and Kapahi HRA, including its use of Santa Rosa meteorological
data as being inappropriate because of wind patterns inconsistent with the Project area, use of
benzene emission factors substantially higher than the BAAQMD standard benzene emission
factor, and residential exposure assumptions inconsistent with BAAQMD HRA risk calculation
procedures; and
WHEREAS, the November 8, 2018 BAAQMD correspondence found the October 10,
2018 Illingworth and Rodkin HRA to be acceptable and to have resolved BAAQMD's concerns
expressed in the September 17, 2018 BAAQMD letter, and noted that BAAQMD has no further
comments on the October 10, 2018 HRA, and that the Project includes a gas station
configuration that differs from that approved in the current BAAQMD Authority to Construct
permit, and that therefore the Applicant must apply for permit revisions; and
WHEREAS, Petaluma residents, neighbors, teachers and administrators of the
McDowell Elementary School, 4Cs Child Development Center, and North Bay Children's
Center, parents of students, and parents of children using the baseball fields have provided
written and oral comments expressing concern regarding safety of the McDowell Boulevard and
Maria Drive intersection due to traffic volumes and speeds, conflicts with pedestrians, and
increased activity resulting from the Safeway Fuel Center, including: two commenters noting
they have observed pedestrian/vehicle collisions and near -collisions in the Project area; another
commenter observing that school -aged children walk home by themselves, and the crosswalk is
already a danger; a commenter expressing concern about heavy traffic and foul balls getting hit
next to a busy street; another commenter observing cars run stop signs while working at the
snack shack at Murphy Field, and noting Maria Drive is heavily traveled and one of the main
streets in that area; and
WHEREAS, Petaluma residents, neighbors, teachers and administrators of the
McDowell Elementary School, 4Cs Child Development Center, and North Bay Children's
Center, parents of students, and parents of children using the baseball fields have provided
written and oral comments expressing concern that the Safeway Fuel Center would result in
substantial changes to the "neighborhood spirit" that would be detrimental to the neighborhood
making it less desirable and more dangerous; and
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2018 on behalf of Appellants, Mr. Soluri provided
correspondence to the City disputing Mr. Francois' characterization of the City's discretion
concerning approval of the Project and asserting that the City may overturn the Project SPAR
approval because the Project is disharmonious with its surroundings and inconsistent with the
public health safety and welfare, and providing supplemental health risk results from Fox and
Kapahi using Petaluma wind data with the AERMOD model; and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2018 on behalf of the Applicant, Mr. Francois provided
correspondence to the City arguing that the Appellant did not explicitly appeal the City's
approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration within 30 -days of the filing of the Notice of
Determination with the Sonoma County Clerk, and therefore the approval of the MND was final
and additionally, arguing that no substantial evidence of a fair argument of a significant
Resolution No. 2018-180 N.C.S. Page 5
environmental impact had been submitted and therefore the City cannot lawfully require the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2018 on behalf of the Applicant Mr. Francois provided
correspondence to the City asserting that the Project will not result in significant health risks and
that the City's discretion regarding approval of the Project is limited to design issues; and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2018, on behalf of the Appellant Mr, Soluri's Legal
Assistant forwarded to the City responses to comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Safeway Fuel Center dated December 3, 2018, which responses to comments
assert that: independent scientific analyses support that gas stations should not be located near
housing or vulnerable populations; the meteorological data used in the revised Health Risk
Analysis submitted by Illingworth and Rodkin is not appropriate for predications at a range of
less than 1 kilometer; the Applicant diesel particulate emissions estimates are understated;
BAAQMD guidance calls for using an exposure duration of 70 years for risk assessments for gas
stations; the BAAQMD November 8, 2018 letter notwithstanding, using Petaluma
meteorological data with the AERMOD model reveals significant health risks; use of the
CAPCOA benzene emission factor is appropriate; the Applicant and BAAQMD underestimate
benzene emissions from the Project; and that CARB recommended setbacks for gas stations
might be inadequate; and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2018, on behalf of the Appellant Mr. Soluri submitted a
letter responding to Mr. Francois' December 1 and 2 letters and asserting that the Tahoe Vista
case does not apply to the City Council's de novo review of appeals of Planning Commission
decisions, and that the Friends of Davis case does not apply to the appeal; and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2018, on behalf of the Applicant, Illingworth and Rodkin
submitted a response to the December 3, 2018 submittal from Fox and Kapahi asserting: that the
Illingworth and Rodkin health risk modeling using AERMOD and EPA -approved procedures is
appropriate and it is improper to draw correlations between the resolution of the meteorological
data and the prediction accuracy of the dispersion model; comparing 5 -mph travel emission
factors used to compute idling emissions to travel emission factors for diesel emission analysis is
not appropriate; that BAAQMD recommends using 30 -year exposure duration for analyzing
cancer exposure risk; that the Fox Kapahi benzene emission analyses are overstated due to
California fueling station vapor recovery standards; and that BAAQMD uses benzene to compute
health risks from gasoline evaporation; and
WHEREAS, Section 15064, subdivision (a), paragraph (1) of the CEQA Guidelines
provides that if there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency,
that a project may have significant effect on the environment, the agency shall prepare a draft
EIR; and
WHEREAS, Section 15064, subdivision (c) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that in
determining whether an effect will be adverse or beneficial, the lead agency shall consider the
views held by members of the public in all areas affected as expressed in the whole record before
the lead agency, and that before requiring the preparation of an EIR, the lead agency must still
determine whether environmental change itself might be substantial; and
WHEREAS, under Protect Niles v. City of Fremont (2018) 25 Cal.App.51h 1129,
residents' personal observations of traffic conditions where they live and commute may
constitute substantial evidence even if they contradict the conclusions of a traffic study, and
Resolution No. 2018-180 N.C.S. Page 6
therefore, fact -based comments of the community may constitute substantial evidence that a fair
argument can be made that the project may potentially result in adverse impacts related to
circulation; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA, public testimony (or reasonable inferences from
it) should be considered to constitute substantial credible evidence supporting a fair argument
when the project may have a significant impact (Rominger v. County of Colusa (2014) 229
Cal.AppAth 690); and
WHEREAS, Section 15064, subdivision (f) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that the
decision as to whether a project may have one or more significant effects shall be based on
substantial evidence in the record of the lead agency, and that if the lead agency determines there
is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR, and if a lead agency is presented with a fair
argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall
prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the
project will not have a significant effect; and
WHEREAS, Section 15064, Subdivision (g) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that after
application of the principles set forth in Section 15064, Subdivision (f) of the CEQA Guidelines,
in marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may
have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the principle that
if there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts of the significance of an effect
on the environment, the lead agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR;
and
WHEREAS, at a noticed public hearing on December 3, 2018, at which time all
interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, the City Council considered the Appeal and all
information submitted by City staff, the Applicant, the Appellant, interested parties and members
of the public concerning the Project and the Appeal ("Record on Appeal"), all of which
information comprising the Record on Appeal is hereby incorporated into and made a part of this
resolution;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Petaluma
as follows;
1. The above recitals are hereby declared to be true and correct and are incorporated into
this resolution as findings of the City Council.
2. On December 3, 2018 the City Council fully considered all evidence presented before
and at the duly noticed public hearing regarding this matter and comprising the
Record on Appeal, and on the basis of the staff report, testimony and other evidence,
and the record of proceedings herein, including the views held by members of the
public in all areas affected as expressed in the whole Record on Appeal, the City
Council hereby affirms the appeal of JoAnn McEachin filed with the City Clerk on
July 9, 2018 on behalf of JoAnn McEachin and McDowell Elementary School, Little
League Children and East Petaluma Residents as to the Mitigated Negative
Declaration approved by the Petaluma Planning Commission on June 26, 2017 by
Resolution No. 2018-21A.
Resolution No, 2018-180 N.C.S, Page 7
3. Petaluma residents, neighbors, teachers and administrators of the McDowell
Elementary School, 4Cs Child Development Center, and North Bay Children's
Center, parents of students, and parents of children using the baseball fields have
provided written and oral comments expressing concern regarding safety of the
McDowell Boulevard and Maria Drive intersection due to traffic volumes and speeds,
conflicts with pedestrians, and increased activity resulting from the Safeway Fuel
Center, including: two commenters noting they have observed pedestrian/vehicle
collisions and near -collisions in the Project area; another commenter observing that
school -aged children walk home by themselves, and the crosswalk is already a
danger; a commenter expressing concern about heavy traffic and foul balls getting hit
next to a busy street; another commenter observing cars run stop signs while working
at the snack shack at Murphy Field, and noting Maria Drive is heavily traveled and
one of the main streets in that area. Petaluma residents, neighbors, teachers and
administrators of the McDowell Elementary School, 4Cs Child Development Center,
and North Bay Children's Center, parents of students, and parents of children using
the baseball fields have provided written and oral comments expressing concern that
the Safeway Fuel Center would result in substantial changes to the "neighborhood
spirit" that would be detrimental to the neighborhood making it less desirable and
more dangerous.
4. Fox and Kapahi, in the responses to comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Safeway Fuel Center dated December 3, 2018 submitted
on behalf of Appellant, assert that: independent scientific analyses support that gas
stations should not be located near housing or vulnerable populations; the
meteorological data used in the revised Health Risk Analysis submitted by
Illingworth and Rodkin is not appropriate for predications at a range of less than 1
kilometer; the Applicant diesel particulate emissions estimates are understated;
BAAQMD guidance calls for using an exposure duration of 70 years for risk
assessments for gas stations; the BAAQMD November 8, 2018 letter
notwithstanding, using Petaluma meteorological data with the AERMOD model
reveals significant health risks; use of the CAPCOA benzene emission factor is
appropriate; the Applicant and BAAQMD underestimate benzene emissions from the
Project; and CARB recommended setbacks for gas stations maybe inadequate.
5. Illingworth and Rodkin, in response to the December 3, 2018 submittal from Fox and
Kapahi on behalf of the Appellant, assert that: the Illingworth and Rodkin health risk
modeling using AERMOD and EPA -approved procedures is appropriate, and it is
improper to draw correlations between the resolution of the meteorological data and
the prediction accuracy of the dispersion model; comparing 5 -mph travel emission
factors used to compute idling emissions to travel emission factors for diesel emission
analysis is not appropriate; BAAQMD recommends using 30 -year exposure duration
for analyzing cancer exposure risk; the Fox Kapahi benzene emission analyses are
overstated due to California fueling station vapor recovery standards; and BAAQMD
uses benzene to compute health risks from gasoline evaporation.
6. The City Council hereby finds that in accordance with Section 15064, Subdivision (g)
of the CEQA Guidelines, after application of the principles set forth in Section 15064,
Subdivision (f) of the CEQA Guidelines, that it is not clear whether there is
substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment,
and that there is disagreement among expert opinions supported by facts submitted on
Resolution No. 2018-180 N.C.S. Page 8
behalf of Applicant (the Illingworth and Rodkin analyses), on behalf of Appellant
(the Fox Kapahi analyses), and on behalf of the BAAQMD, and therefore the City
Council is guided by the principal that if there is disagreement among expert opinion
supported by facts of the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead
Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR.
7. The City Council is also guided by the principles that residents' personal observations
of traffic conditions where they live and commute may constitute substantial evidence
even if they contradict the conclusions of a traffic study, and that therefore, fact -based
comments of the community may constitute substantial evidence that a fair argument
can be made that a project may potentially result in adverse impacts related to
circulation, and that if there is disagreement among expert opinion residents' personal
observations supported by facts of the significance of an effect on the environment,
the City Council shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR.
8. Accordingly, the City Council hereby orders the preparation of an EIR concerning the
Project, in accordance with Section 15064, Subdivisions (c) and (g) of the CEQA
Guidelines and all other applicable CEQA requirements, because there is
disagreement among expert opinions supported by facts submitted on behalf of
Applicant (the Illingworth and Rodkin analyses), on behalf of Appellant (the Fox
Kapahi analyses), and on behalf of the BAAQMD, and because residents'
observations supported by facts of traffic conditions that may result from the Project
constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result
in significant environmental impacts, and because residents' fact -based observations
regarding traffic and traffic safety conflict with the results of expert traffic analyses
that have been prepared concerning the Project, further supporting the need for
preparation of an EIR concerning the Project.
9. The City Council hereby stays the Planning Commission's approval of Site Plan and
Architectural Review for the Safeway Fuel Center project (PLSR 13-0012) located at
335 South McDowell Boulevard pursuant to Resolution No. 2018-21B adopted June
26, 2018, pending certification of an EIR concerning the Project and City Council
review of the Project Site Plan and Architectural Review approval.
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Ap voted a$ to
Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on the V day of December �foi�m,
2018, by the following vote:
�ty tt ey
AYES: Albertson; Barrett; Vice Mayor Healy; Kearney; King; Miller
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Glass
ABSTAIN: None
Al
ATTEST:Lr
City Clerk Vice Mayor
Resolution No. 2018-180 N.C.S. Page 9