HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.A Late Document 07 01/04/2010~ 6~
From: Crump, Katie
Sent: Moriday, January 04, 2010 8:32 AM
To: -City Clerk
Subject: FW;" East Washington Place proposal and EIR
Attachments: response to East Washington Place EIR.pdf; ATT00001.htm
For the book
Firom: Barry bussewitz [mailto:barryalbert@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, January O1, 2010 10:25 AM
To: Pam"Torliatt; Teresa Barrett; dave glass; Mike Harris; Mike Healy; David Rabbitt; Tiffany Renee
Cc: citymgr; PDFARMER@ci.petaluma.ca.us
Subject: East Washington Place proposal and EIR
Mayor, Council Members, et al':
I have attached written testimony on the East Washington Place proposal for your consideration and for
submission. to the Administrative Record.
Thank you very much.
Barry
Barry Albert Bussewitz
315 Sixth Street
Petaluma, California 94952
707.763-9635
January 1, 2010
Mayor and Council Members
Petaluma City Council
Petaluma, California
Re: East Washington.Place Proposal -Please submit to Administrative record.
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I have been studying the Environmental Impact Report for the East Washington
Plnce proposal. I confess that I am no expert in understanding this complex
document and it is difficult for me to be certain of some points. Given that, I do
have several concerns which I hope you will alleviate or address regarding this
project if you are to certify the EIR or give other approvals to the application at
this stage.
It appears to me that meeting the City's objective of reducing retail leakage is key
in providing the rationale for this project despite numerous adverse impacts, both
mitigated and unmitigated, in air and water quality, to traffic, pedestrian and
bicycle circulation, infrastructure and our local businesses. The EIR cites the
following among the Project Objectives:
® To provide local retail opportunities and, thereby, to reduce excess traffic on Highway 101 that
currently is required for Petaluma residents to travel to other area communities such as Novato,
Rohnert Park, and Santa Rosa to satisfy local retail demands.
® To address the City-identified goal to alleviate retail leakage from the community at this
preferred location as identified in the City's Leakage & Sustairiable Retail Strategy Study June,
2004 pre-pared by Thomas Consultants Inc., and the General Plan's Key Issue for Economic
Health as cited on page i-6 of the General Plan.
Under "Reasons for Not Selecting This Alternative" the EIR several times uses the
failure to address this objective in comparing the existing proposal to "No Project
Alternative," "Mitigated Alternative," and the "Alternate Use Alternative."
However, the analysis seems to provide no reasoning and no data demonstrating
that the proposal itself would accomplish this objective. Furthermore the retail
leakage study is over f ive years out of date, and the information given regarding
the providers of retail. in the project is minimal at best. T found nothing in the EIR
giving either evidence or reasoning that this proposal would "reduce excess traffic
on Highway 101" or "reduce retail leakage."
Without information and data to make valid comparisons it is also not possible to
support f finding that the project would meet the following objective:
® To increase~the number of locally available jobs by increasing the number of professional and
re-tail sales venues for businesses.
From what I can tell, the East Washington Place development might simply
duplicate or supplant existing "professional and retail sales venues." Given the
current high vacancy rate in business sites locally and regionally, we have no way to
estimate the likelihood of successful occupancy in a vastly expanded supply.
I am concerned that the EIR does not seem to address the likelihood that this
project would be under-utilized and all-too-soon (if not already) outdated and
uncompetitive. What would be the environmental impacts of such a huge, largely-
vacant mall in the middle of our community?
This is also the time to take seriously our nagging responsibility to reduce climate-
changing impacts. I have been using ahuman-powered bicycle for a significant
amount of my local shopping, business and social activity here for twenty-five
years. I acknowledge that I haven't ever been run into, but Petaluma is less bike-.
and pedestrian-friendly for my purposes than are the large metropolises of
Albuquerque, Denver. and Boston. A key reason for this is the Washington Street
corridor, our main connector between downtown and the east side. I think this
project could and should serve as a way to make substantial improvement here. I
want to invite and welcome ore Petalumans to pedal through and about our
community by making biking and walking safer and more pleasant. (Think of the
reduced asphalt and parking demand alone!) As stated on 4.13-13:
East Washington Street the most heavily traveled route in the city. ...
In the project vicinity, East Washington Street has two travel lanes in each direction with separate
turn lanes at intersections. It has narrow sidewalks on the south side, discontinuous sidewalks on
the north side, and no bicycle lanes. On-street parking is not allowed along the north or south
sides of the street.
Traveling this is daunting even in a car! If we want school students and families to
circulate on bike or foot .between east and west Petaluma, the Washington corridor
should provide a safe, Class Ibike/ped pathway that does not require riding or
walking inches away from the increased crush of cars that this project needs to be
economically viable.
The criteria for bicycle and pedestrian impacts include:
44.13-47
Pedestrian and Bicycle Impact Criteria: A pedestrian impact is considered significant if the project
would:
17. Result in unsafe pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic flow patterns; .
18. Exacerbate a current unsafe pedestrian and/or bicycle condition within the area;
] 9. Restrict or compromise pedestrian and/or bicycle flows within the area;
4.13-48
20. Not provide good pedestrian and bicycle linkages internal to the project and connecting to
adjacent. facilities....
In 4.13-81 the EIR finds:
ii. Shopping Center Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
The following thresholds of significance, as identified above, are addressed in this response:
17. Result in unsafe pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic flow patterns;
20. Not provide good pedestrian and bicycle linkages internal to the project and connecting to
adjacent facilities.
The pedestrian path and bicycle route through the central Promenade lacks definition for well-
functioning, safe, combined pedestrian and bicycle access to and from Kenilworth Drive and the
Highway 101 pedestrian bridge. The pedestrian and bicycle route components require separation,
or sufficient space for bikes and pedestrians to separate. Concern exists for conflicts between
shoppers, pedestrians using the pathway for through access, and bicyclists.
This is safety concern that is a significant impact. [My emphasis.]
Certainly in this community in this new decade aquality-of-life issue of this
magnitude. should be addressed proactively with current methodology, not left to
you on the City Co.unci) to hassle out in the public glare. This proposal should offer
a bicycle and pedestrian circulation plan that is up-to-date and which enhances the
flow of people, vehicles and bicycles in its vicinity. Such infrastructure has been
implemented in other areas for decades.
Even within the project the circulation of pedestrians is analyzed in the EIR as
having significant impacts:
4.13-85
The proposed location of the Kenilworth crosswalk adjacent to East Washington Street creates an
unsafe condition as vehicles turning right from East Washington=Streetwould slow down for turn-
ing movement; bur"would then speed up on the straight section, which provides pedestrian and
bicycle connectivity between the swim center and the shopping center. Vehicle speeds could be
higher than safe (i:e. vehicles turning right from East Washington Street would slow on the turn,
but would need to immediately perceive the need to maintain a slow speed in order to maximize
safety'through his segment of the project area which is designed to accommodate pedestrian and
bicycle activity between the shopping center and the swim center). The mid-road crosswalk on
Kenilworth providing pedestrian access to and from the schoo] bus maintenance facility would
raise a similar issue, as vehicle speeds from Lindberg Lane could be higher Phan safe, traffic would
not be slowed by signal or sign controls, and visibility could'be reduced through the nearby
Kenilworth Drive curve.
Similarly, pedestrian safety at the mid-road crosswalks along Johnson Drive would also be unsafe
as through. traffic would not be slowed by signal or sign controls.
Additionally, pedestrians accessing the swim center or skate park from the nearby re-striped park-
ing spaces on the fairgrounds site (adjacent the Johnson Drive curve) would cross at the crosswalk,
then have no clear path to follow to access the swim center or skate park (proposed fencing and
lack of space appear to block access).
These would be significant impacts.
Is it acceptable to undertake such a huge marketing investment, creating hundreds
of thousands of square feet of pavement and concrete and then not make it
pleasing -let alone safe.- to move about in? I'd be pulling my hair out if I were in
your position. As I indicated earlier, this is not my area of expertise, but I wonder
why this was not planned better from the start or rectified before being passed to
Council.
The General Plan (1-P-6) calls for "opportunities for increased transit access," but
the applicant apparently neither incorporates Transit Oriented Design elements
into the plan nor worked with Petaluma's Transit Advisory Committee in this area.
We recently voted by a supermajority to develop rail service through Petaluma.
Did the applicant ignore this? Why doesn't the project eature its proximity to
the rail line and transit center as a selling point?I Did they not have access to the
Project Objectives in the EIR, to wit. "reduce excess traffic on Highway 101"?
Chapter 2 of the General Plan gives .guidance for the importance of the visual and
aesthetic character of Petaluma, especially regarding "strong entries" upon arrival,
active ground .level, uses (e.g., plazas and .open spaces) and an urban edge along
Washington that provides visual continuity and cohesiveness and safety. In
addition to my comments above regarding the lack of safe and pleasant circulation
of people in this vicinity, I am concerned that the many acres of massed vehicle
parking on the entrance side of the project site and the. massing of large building
backsides along Highway 101 will encourage the "excess traffic" along 101 to keep
moving by Petaluma, because it will look so much like alf those other cities that
failed to appreciate how important community design and character are to our
enjoyment of this community and to our socio-economic vibrancy and sustainability.
I wish all of you great strength and fortitude in doing your part in governance for
this significant proposal. Clearly your choices here will affect not only my ease and
enjoyment of Petaluma for the rest of my life but, as we know from previous
developments, for all Petalumans for many decades beyond. .
Thank you,
Barry Albert Bussewtz
315 Sixth Street
Petaluma, Calif"ornia 94952
CC: City Manager John Brown, City Project Planner