 |
 |
By LORI A. CARTER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
The organization that sought to stop the Target shopping center in Petaluma is asking the City Council to reject approvals for the Friedman’s-anchored Deer Creek Village project.
Lawyers for the Petaluma Neighborhood Association, headed by anti-big box activist Paul Francis, filed a six-page appeal last week with the city seeking a reversal of the Planning Commission’s Aug. 14 design approval.
In April, the City Council approved the major planning hurdle, the environmental impact report, over the group’s legal objections. The 36.5-acre, 344,000-square-foot project returned to the planning board last month for approvals of architecture and signage.
The appeal asks the council to reverse those approvals and revise the EIR to reevaluate impacts on traffic, air quality and wetlands.
“Unless and until the city undertakes such revision, any approvals made on the basis of the … environmental analysis will be unlawful,” the letter states.
A spokesman for developer Merlone Geier Partners interpreted the appeal as a thinly veiled threat of a lawsuit against the city in a last-ditch effort to obstruct the project.
It “is further evidence that he (Francis) intends on filing a frivolous lawsuit to prohibit Friedman’s return to Petaluma,” said Marko Mlikotin in a statement. “Unfortunately, the law allows just one individual to stop a project that enjoys overwhelming community support.”
In the past four years in several community meetings, he said, city planners have thoroughly evaluated the project’s impacts.
“We are confident that the City Council will reaffirm its past position that the Friedman’s shopping center was adequately studied and the economic benefits of 800 jobs can’t be ignored,” his statement said.
Francis said the complaints aren’t just about Deer Creek Village.
“It’s about the irresponsible attitude the council has taken toward planning in general,” he said in an email. “The majority on the council has not taken a ‘big picture’ approach to growth, and I’m not really sure how they’re going to fix this boondoggle they’ve created for us.”
The appeal contends that because funding is unclear for the Rainier Avenue extension, which would be at the northern border of the project, the underlying traffic studies are invalid.
The state-ordered elimination of redevelopment agencies, and the resulting loss in tax revenue, has vexed city officials who had earmarked $11 million of such funds toward Rainier over the past two years.
In 2010, the city agreed to plan and design a Rainier undercrossing of Highway 101 that would join Petaluma Boulevard North and North McDowell Boulevard. Cost estimates vary widely, from $28 million to more than $100 million. The city has no long-term funding in place.
Artist's rendering of proposed Friedman's Home Improvement store in Petaluma.
The appeal also argues that impacts to air quality, water supply, urban blight and wetlands weren’t properly studied and that the project is incompatible with the city’s long-term planning blueprint.
The council likely will consider the appeal at its Sept. 24 meeting.
The Petaluma Neighborhood Association sued Petaluma and developers of the Target-anchored East Washington Place shopping center to stop that project. The developer also sued the city because of delays.
In a three-way settlement in 2010 that allowed the project to proceed, developer Regency Centers agreed to pay the two PNA leaders $100,000 to drop their suit and provided an additional $50,000 for their legal fees. An additional $32,000 paid the city’s legal costs and $40,000 went toward traffic improvements on East Washington or in the nearby East D Street neighborhood.
PNA leaders Francis and Matt Maguire agreed in the settlement not to use the proceeds to oppose the Target center.
(Contact Staff Writer Lori A. Carter at 762-7297 or lori.carter@pressdemocrat.com.)
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
This appeal is…
* A stall
* The prelude to litigation
The greater Petaluma community should expect little better from the likes of Messrs. Francis and Maguire as the posture under the banner of community watchdog while pandering in the back room for a payoff.
We built a restaurant years and years ago in Petaluma, (it’s still in business but we sold it), and, trust me, had my engineer told me it would be prone to flooding we wouldn’t have built it.
No businessman is so stupid they’d build a project that could be devastated because of some easily foreseen event…and no insurance company would touch it.
And yes, we had to pay traffic mitigation fees and such so I’m guessing Friedman’s will have to as well.
GAJ & bill me, there’s nothing wrong with bringing good businesses into Petaluma, but keep in mind, aside from the impacts of the project, development comes with a price tag. We the tax payers are expected to carry the costs of new development. Therefore, I think it’s only fair that we carefully consider what those costs will be – and if we can, try to defray some of those costs onto the those outside business interests who financially stand to benefit the most from their project.
This appeal is not about Friedman’s. It’s not about jobs. It’s not so much about the Target lawsuit.
“The appeal asks the council to reverse those approvals and revise the EIR to reevaluate impacts on traffic, air quality and wetlands.”
This appeal is about an EIR with holes big enough to drive a truck through period. Make the EIR legal and right THEN evaluate the project based on complete facts. What’s wrong with that?
The traffic impacts of neighborhood streets were completely ignored in the EIR. The fairy tale Rainier Ave. cross-town connector is the major component of traffic mitigation. This is in violation of Measure S passed by the voters of Petaluma in 2004. CalTrans even came out and informally said that they question the use of Rainier Ave as traffic mitigation. And where is CalTrans’ official input in this EIR. It’s required as a government agency directly affected by a project, you know. Oh so you didn’t know?
The issue of this site being wetlands and/or floodplain was completely dismissed by staff. In one of the EIR hearings, somebody said that the reason that this site was never developed is that it is low point on its side of the freeway. I think they used the term “drain at the bottom of the sink”. Anybody not worried about that is not paying attention.
Is the whole truth too much to ask for? Nobody should fault Maguire and Francis for that.
George Lucas decided to leave because of nutjobs like Francis making his proposed Grady Ranch development drag on for too long. We should make Francis leave and welcome Merlone Geier for wanting to do business in Petaluma.
Max, thanks for the chuckle.
Cities are broke so the answer is to turn your back on a successful business that wants to return home, employe people and add to City coffers?
Lets follow Marin’s lead who managed to get Lucas to get out of dodge.
I wonder if Keith, Kim, and Joseph actually read the settlement agreement documents from the Target center before they posted negative comments about it? I did and here’s what I found out… the agreement required that Regency Centers (the developer) drop their lawsuit against the City and to pay back the City for expenses incurred (remember that’s our tax money that the City uses to pay it’s attorney), it also required Regency to pay for traffic mitigation and traffic calming in the East D Street neighborhood, it required a earthen berm be built and trees be planted along the backside of the Target shopping center to hide the loading docks and general ugliness as people enter into Petaluma from HWY 101, also that skylights be installed in the roofs to cut down on the projects energy consumption. I think these improvements were pretty darn good for a neighborhood group. I called the groups attorney, and asked him who actually received the money, all he could say was that it wasn’t Maguire or Francis. It only seems logical, due to their efforts to make the Deer Creek project better for the community, that the organization received the remaining funds from the settlement, not the individuals. Again I commend their efforts to do the right thing in our community.
The developer’s comment is preposterous, “one individual to stop a project that enjoys overwhelming community support.” Is he serious? What about those who own homes adjacent to the site, I know for a fact that these people are not happy about the project. This is just another attempt by the developer to marginalize members of the community, and ignore the concerns of people who actually live here.
The reality is, these types of projects drive up costs for municipalities, and provide very little in return for the communities they occupy. As we’ve experienced; city workers all over the state laid off, cities all across the state broke or bankrupt, the state budget is a mess, Petaluma is scrapping the bottom financially. This project represents what is fundamentally wrong with the Landuse policies in CA and Petaluma. The Neighborhood organization should not need to do, what should be the City Council’s job, I commend Francis and the community group for their efforts
Just what are Francis & Maguire going to do for income when there are no more major projects in Petaluma?
Paul Francis should be sued by the city for all costs inflicted on the city by his activities, as well as any and all court costs. That should put an end to this nonsense once and for all. Of course he may lose his home in the process, but that is the american way.
PNA’s business model sounds like extortion to me. Francis and Maguire lost all credibility when they took a cash pay-off.