Council Approves Environmental Report for Lowe's Project, but Raises Many Concerns

The city council agreed to approve a key document in the proposed Lowe’s development Monday night, despite finding many problems with it, in an attempt to not slow down the project that has been in the works for more than six years.

After a meeting that stretched more than four hours, where tempers flared and the threat of a lawsuit was mentioned, the council approved the Draft Environmental Impact Report, which assesses the air, noise, traffic and other impacts of the proposed development at North McDowell Boulevard and Rainier Avenue.

“I don’t want to get in the same situation as we had with the East Washington Place where we had dueling lawsuits,” said Councilwoman Tiffany Renee. “I do not want to get there and I will be really, really unhappy if we do…if we have another lawsuit in our lap, we are not doing the public any service because that hits the taxpayers’ wallet.”

On April 18, developer Merlone Geier, which is behind the project, sent the city a letter saying it appeared to be “prejudicially singling out” Deer Creek Village after the council moved discussion of the controversial project from the originally scheduled date to last night because it coincided with the start of Passover. It also went on to say that the city was in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for failing to act upon the environmental impact report within the apprpriate timeframe and that it was continuing to take public comment on the project despite the cut off date of April 18.

Monday’s decision paves the way for city’s planning department and its consultants to prepare a final report, but still leaves the council wiggle room to demand changes or not approve the project at all down the road.

During the meeting, which packed the council chambers and spilled out into the hallway, many spoke passionately about why the proposed development, which would bring a Lowe’s or another home improvement store, offices and retail to the 35-acre parcel was a bad bet for the city’s future.

“This kind of project is simply not an economically sound decision to make,” said Paul Francis, president of the Petaluma Neighborhood Association, a community group which last Friday filed a letter with the city objecting to the environmental impact report and said that any approval of the project based on it would be “unlawful.” See attachment on right.

“After 20 years of rampant of big box development, this state and all of its cities is in the biggest economic freefall ever, yet some of you think these big shopping centers are the answers to all of our dreams,” said Francis, who, in conjunction with another resident, sued the city over its approval of the Target Regency development in 2010. “McDowell and the East Side already have serious issues and it’s simply not the community’s best interest to pile on more impacts from another giant, auto centric project.”

The developer has said the project would bring in some $400,000 in sales tax revenue for the city, up to 800 jobs and close to a $1 million in impact fees. Many residents have also written letters in support of the project saying a home improvement store is badly needed in Petaluma.

Councilman Chris Albertson was among several people Monday night who voiced their support for the project, saying it did not fall within a flood plain (which opponents contend) and that it fits in with guidelines for the property set out in Petaluma General Plan, a blueprint for city development through 2025.

“We need to stay on what’s a requirement for CEQA and not just ‘This is something I would like,’” Albertson said.

But Mayor Dave Glass and Councilwoman Teresa Barrett were sharply critical of the document, with Barrett at one point even calling the proposed shopping center nothing more than “a ‘70s strip mall.’ She said she was concerned about many issues including green house gases released during construction, finding money for the Rainier undercrossing that would connect Petaluma Boulevard with McDowell and the increase in traffic that is expected in the surrounding neighborhood.

“When you read this (report), you have no feel that this is any way cares about the actual people who this is affecting,” Barrett said. “Thirty percent increase in McDowell traffic is an unbelievable impact…We’re talking four lanes.”

Cindy Thomas, co-chair of the Sonoma County Living Wage Coalition came to Monday's meeting, but was prevented from speaking because the forum only allowed commentary on the environmental impact report. But Thomas said she was concerned that Lowe's would not bring the types of jobs needed to create what she called a sustainable economy.

"If you're going to pay them a minimum wage and no benefits, recognize that we, as a community, are going to pick up the rest of the tab," Thomas said. "We will be paying for food stamps because they won't be able to afford groceries, for Section 8 living allowance, Medicare and all that stuff that's going to come out of our taxes."

The city will now draft a final environmental impact report, which it will present to the council. The issue will also have to be heard by the planning commission, before being finally voted on by the council.