HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.A Late Document 03 01/04/2010__ ~
.. Y. ~~~
From: Crump, Katie
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 8:24 AM
To: -City Clerk
Subject: FW: SCCA Comments on E. Washington Place EIR document with correct spacing within
Attachments: SCCA E. Washington Place EIR Comments.doc
For the book
From: Dennis Rosatti [mailto:drosatti@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 3_:37 PM
To: daveglass@comcast.net; david@davidrabbitt.com; rnike4pet@aol.com; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; Ptortiatt@aol.com;
teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; tiff@designmotif.com
Cc: Gaebler, Bovine; edanly@meyersnave.com; Brown, John; Crump, Katie; paul.payne@pressdemocrat.com;
Icarter@pressdemocrat.com; loricarter@pressdemocrat.com; pgullixson@pressdemocrat.com;
paul.gullixson@pressdemocrat.com; cyoung@arguscourier.com; csarnson@arguscourier.com
Subject: SCCA Comments on E. Washington Place EIR document with correct spacing within
Hello Petaluma City Council,
The last email contained a spacing error that occurred when the email was
sent. Apologies for any inconvenience, the letter is attached here as a word
document.
i
Dennis Rosatti
Executive Director
Sonoma County Conservation Action
1
Mayor Pam Torliatt
Petaluma City Council
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
January 2, 2010
RE: East Washington Place EIR
Dear Mayor Torliatt and Members of the Petaluma City Council:
Sonoma County Conservation Action (SCCA) is the largest environmental organization
in Sonoma County, working on behalf of over 7,500 member households countywide for
abetter environment and open and responsible government.
We are writing to urge that you not accept and certify the EIR and site map for the
Regency Centers East Washington Place proposed Project, nor approve the Project as
proposed. The EIR and- site map do not provide the council with adequate information
necessary to determine if the project conforms to CEQA and the Petaluma General Plan
-for a series of important reasons.
1. The Project description is not consistent, stable, nor clear. CEQA requires a
consistent, stable and clear project description, from which the analysis of environmental
impacts can be clearly ascertained, and from which all parties, including the lead and
responsible agencies and interested public can provide guidance in addressing and
avoiding significant impacts to the environment. This must be done prior to making any
decision on the EIR and on the Project itself. The courts have ruled decisively that
consistent project description is the "sine qua non" of an EIR.
The Project proposed by Regency Centers now includes a serious proposal for the
Friedman's Home Improvement store with an outdoor lumber and materials yard, as has
been widely reported in the newspapers and in comments at the Planning Commission.
While the Project proponents may state that no firm .agreement.. has yet been reached with
Friedman's, if'has been widely stated that Friedman's is a highly desired and likely
tenant, as is similarly true for Regency's reported agreements with Target as an anchor
tenant. Staff s and.Regency's advice to the Planning Commission that future
environmental review would be required only in.the event that Friedman's were to
become a tenant is improper under CEQA.
By omitting any current consideration of the reasonably likely inclusion of Friedman's
within the Project. definition and the CEQA assessment of impacts, the FEIR is
improperly segmenting the Project and is'therefore significantly invalid and fatally
flawed. Both stores are regional and local draws, and the areas of significant concern
include traffic, air quality, circulation, and .likely duplication of garden and home
improvement and other product lines between Target and Friedman's, and the cumulative
impacts of these and other impacts throughout Petaluma and the region, including the
impacts on other businesses in the trade areas. .
2. Traffic impacts are improperly understated. The EIR does not adequately evaluate
the traffic and related air quality impacts on the nearby neighborhoods, particularly the
East D street, and the Payran neighborhoods. The EIR omits cumulative regional. impacts
on Hwy. 101 and its entrance/exit ramps, Lakeville Hwy, Adobe Road, D.~Street,
Petaluma Boulevard North and South, Stony Point Road, and other regionally serving
roads and their related intersections for the cumulative traffic generated by the Target and
Friedman's retail stores The .EIR omits the cumulative, worst case analysis for traffic
impacts required by CEQA. The reasonable likelihood of a Friedman's Home Center in
the East Washington Place has been omitted from. all traffic calculations and circulation
plans, thus incorrectly piecemealing the Project EIR and improperly understating the
results of any traffic and circulation analysis. The cumulative impacts of aIl' existing aril
reasonably foreseeable projects must be accounted for in the information presented to the
public and to the decisionmakers, hence the current EIR is fatally flawed.
Petaluma has suffered badly over the past decades for its failure to anticipate and build
roadway capacity increasing infrastructure, public transit and safe, convenient non-
motorized transportation options. There is currently no feasible financings and
environmental approvals for the proposed Rainier Freeway Interchange -arid Cross Town
Connector. Hence, it cannot be relied upon for provision of additional capacity on the
Washington corridor, one which this Project will rely upon and impact hedvily.~ Traffic
and circulation calculations must also include the proposed Deer Creek Village mall on
N. McDowell, as well as the proposed new sports fields on Washington (with safe
pedestrian and bicycle access), as well as any capacity required for the current and future
events and potential redevelopment of the Sonoma-Mann Fairgrounds.
The EIR must answer the critical question of whether there will be any remaining.
capacity for existing and future growth on the Washington corridor, and the
Washington/McDowell, N: McDowell/Petaluma Valley Hospital, Washngton/10.1,
Washington/Payran and Washington/Petaluma Blvd, N intersections. In addition,
cumulative circulation and traffic impacts at the southern access to the Project site must .
be reevaluated, at Lindberg Ln, Caulfield Ave. and Lakeville Hwy, including the
intersections with. and ramps for Hwy. 1 O1. The public and decisionmakers need to have
credible information in front of them prior to making any decisions approving:a project
with the magnitude of East Washington Place
3. Air quality impacts are understated. For the above reasons, the EIR does not
adequately analyze air quality impacts given increased vehicle and truck trips in the .site
area, and altered or intensified circulation routes. In addition, congestion increases on the
feeding arterials, city streets and Hwy 101 will produce additional slower speeds and
idling of car exhausts and truck diesel emissions, which are known health risks. The EIR
must be revised to account for this missing information. ~.
4. The EII2 does not adequately assess the. potential :for urban blight and decay at
the site. The previous -BAE Fiscal and Economic Impacts Report for the=E,ast Washington
Place project had substantial flaws, and was resoundingly~criticized not just by the public,
but by the City Coune-l. At the time it was presented to Council, staff presented it as?~an.
informational study only. Council was not given the opportunity to ask for changes, .ask
for more information, or determine whether or not it provided enough accurate, .complete
and valid information to establish consistency with the Petaluma General Plan, Chapter 9,
Economic Health and Sustainability. Hence, no conclusion. can be drawn from the BAE
economic analysis as Project consistency with the Petaluma General Plan in this critical
area of public policy and impacts.
Yet this EIR relies essentially upon the BAE work already rejected by Council members
and other business-. stakeholders and residents as inaccurate and incomplete. The potential
for business losses and closures is clear, even with the inflated projections developed by
BAE. No attempt was made to discuss impacts on smaller downtown businesses, while
the impacts upon other retail centers ,.and. anchors were also minimized. The BAE report
acknowledged that some $41 Million in sales -over 10 years; would be lost from existing
retail businesses in Petaluma, yet minimized the impacts of that loss to small and medium
size competitors. Not only are the City's sales tax revenues received from tenants of the
East Washington Place center merely a transfer of tax revenue from existing retailers in
Petaluma, the BAE report minimized the likely loss of those existing businesses in their
entirety.
The BAE report also understates the fiscal impacts to the City of this Project, creating a
balance sheet seenonlythrough rose-colored glasses. At a time of critical cuts in City
revenues, staff and programs, it.is irresponsible for the City Council to act without clear,
accurate, valid and current information regarding the Project's impacts on the City's
budget. This is one of the key intents of Chapter 9 of the General Plan.
While CEQA does not assess direct economic impacts,. the resulting indirect impacts are
subject to CEQA review. Business contraction and closure can result in displaced
employees, deferred maintenance of buildings and landscaping, increased risk of a
cascade of closures in acenter-upon loss of the anchor store, increase in crime and litter
and graffiti, run counter to the goals and policies of existing Redevelopment plans and
Petaluma General Plan, and altering assumptions regarding traffic flow, public transit
usage,. air quality, and other CEQA factors affected by a geographic shift in market share
and market. area.
5. Impacts of n'ew groundwater well not addressed adequately. The EIR does not
adequately evaluate the impacts of providing water to the Project by locating a new City
or private well site adjacent to a hazardous materials .zone and the likelihood that full
remediation will require demolishing or significantly altering a School District bus
service yard and storage depot. Nor is there any data providing evidence of impacts to
city wells in the aquifer, either long or short term.
6. Impacts to emergency services unclear. The EIR does not adequately address the
impacts of the Project on public services such as police and fire and emergency medical
services, relative to physical facilities, staffing and compliance with response time
targets.
7. The Project setting identifies and accounts for only the immediately adjacent uses.
This is contrary to the General Plan, which calls for integrated planning along the entire
East Washington corridor. This is a particularly significant omission given the
forthcoming SMART train service and depot in central Petaluma is at the western end of
this East Washington corridor, and the impacts ofpotential redevelopment of the
Sonoma-Marin Fairgrounds.
$. With certification. of the EIR, the City will.start a 180 day period within which the
City is required to act upon the Project itself, as provided in the Permit
Streamlining Act. If it is the Council's intent to provide significant design or
operational changes to the Project; the Council will constrain the time within which to
identify and get agreement on those modifications. By certifying the EIR, the Council in
essence provides the applicant with additional leverage (the procedural requirements
of the Permit Streamlining Act) to resist the changes sought by the City. And if the
Council intends to deny the Project as proposed (if no compromise can be found), then
the City cannot rely upon failings in the, EIR, since the Council will. have already
determined it is adequate. Therefore, premature certification of the EIR actually
constrains the City's later basis for denial if needed.
Failure to conform to the General Plan.
`~.
Based upon the information presented in the Draft and Final EIR, and the FEIA, we
believe the Project does not conform to the General Plan, and is fatally flawed, for the
following reasons:
1) There is not a robust combination of uses -- less than 4% of the project is office
space. The project is almost exclusively retail and does not conform to the accepted
Urban Land Institute definition of mixed use.
2)'The project is a suburban model of land use development in regards to the design
and siteplan of. mainly one story buildings and 1500 parking spaces. It is inappropriate
for a relatively :densely settled urban area .and does not encourage the use of mass transit.
It also ignores the firm recommendation from the Central Petaluma Specific Plan Citizens
Advisory Committeethat.the Kenilworth JHS and Fairgrounds sites be subject to
comprehensive planning~(if not a Specific Plan); in order to maximize the utility, value,
coherence and long-lasting benefits achievable by extending the CPSP Smart Code
design. provisions across the Washington Corridor before new projects are considered and
approved.
3) The project will created. hundreds of low-wage jobs without benefits. This will
aggravate the jobs-housing mismatch in the city and the region, and will impose
substantial costs on the public sector, particularly Petaluma Valley Hospital emergency
room services and public health clinics and social service providers.. There is no
comprehensive analysis of the housing needs, transportation dependencies and other
needs for aloes-wage, non-full time employment increase of this magnitude in the City.
4) 'T'here is substantial opportunity for residential and work force housing at the site
but none is included.. Some nine acres must be found somewhere: else for housing in the
city, along with transportation to and from the Project site. The number of low wage jobs
at the project will significantly increase the demand for very low and low-income
affordable housing.
Thus we feel that there. is sufficient reason to reject this draft EIR. There is a lack of
credible information in'the hands ofthe City Council and the public at this time to be able
to know the impacts of the proposed Project, to determine its consistency with the
General Plan, and to make findings of fact for Project approvals. The due diligence
needed for good and robust public policy decisions, and as required by law, remain
unachieved to date.
Thank you for your consideration,
,`
Dennis Rosatti ~
Executive Director