Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1.A-Attch4 04/25/2011LATE DOCUMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 3 -22 -11 t 'f-1 Hines,. Heather _. From: mgfeshionart@cocricast.net sent: Thursday,, March 17, 2011 5:35 'PM To: citymgr; - City - Clerk; Bradley, Geoff; Hines ' Heather; councilman.albertson @gmail.com; a teres 4pefal,uma @comcast:net; daveglass @comcast net; mike4pet @aol.com; mthealy @sbcgiobal.net;:. coun'cilmemberkearney' @me cot; tiff @tiffanyrenee.com; oldeastpbialuma @yahoo.com; councilman.albertson @gmail.com; dstevenel as@yahoo corn; akherries @comcast.net;, Marianne. hurley @sbcglobal.net; jjeanpierrepetaluma @yahoo.com Subject: corrected. Unfair DER Hearing dates for Deer Creek Village. Dear Mayor; "Council members,, Planning Commission, City Manager., Planning Department Personnel, and City Clerk, I am.asking "for a continuance of the dates of the hearings of the DER of Deer Creek Village for the following reasons: -The 45 dayicomment period has .just started on March 3rd. This is quite a large volume of paperwork to wade through. Unless .people are willing to pay $94 for the DER and its large Appendix we are out here sharing the scant few copies available to the public.. It is hard to navigate on older computers so for many ofi'us, best studied in paper. It is too soon for anyone navigating this vast paperwork to be well versed in the Environmental impacts before the March 22nd date of the Planning Commission: if -The date oftApril 18th, whereby this Very controversial project is to come before the Council, is an insult to the religious community'of Petaluma. The eve. of Passover, the same week of good Friday . and Easter is, in our opinion, a guaranteed way to keep the public from weighing in with this project. Please continue both of these hearing" dates in an effort to give the Petaluma citizens a flair j attend the hearings.. Fair enough? opportunity f . Thank ou Mary Gl for your time and your kind consideration, f' n i i i Hines; Heatf ter From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Janice Cader- Thompson ganicecadeQgmail.com] Sunday, March,20, 20117.:17 PM Brown, John; Epic Danly, Hines, Neaten; Janice.Cader- Thompson CityOouncil; daveglass;,David Keller RE: D'eer'Creek DEIR John, It has just come to my attention that the public had only one option in reviewing the DEIR for Deer Creek; by paying ninety dollars for a copy. The Petaluma CommunityCenter had two copies, and.only one'aVailable, and the copy could not leave the community center; this limits public access and comments. The library has two.copies and only one available, the second copy was being cataloged. I am unclear if that °copy could leave the library. How may copies were made and how many were paid'for and how may were given away? I had to pay for mine and I've allowed people t borrow it. This process has started off on the`wrong footing. First; the Planning Commission and public has little time to review. the DEIR, the first council meeting to discuss the Deer-CreekDEI.Ris.scheduled on April 18th; the first night of Passover. I am requesting the,-45 day period for the Deer'Creek'DEIR process STOP until the city can make available copies of the Deer Creek DEIR for the public. Sincerely, I Janice and Jerry Janice Cader- Thompson, RDH 732 CarlsbadIGourt Petaluma, CA 94954 707 762 - 7279' 707 478- 588 1 1 Hines, Heather From: Subhashini, Marlene Sent: Monday, March 21,.2011 4 :47 PM To: Hines, Heather Subject: FW: March 22, 2011 Hearing MARLENE SUBHASHINI, .LEED AP Contract Associate Planner' T: 707.778.4401 E: msubhash'ni(@ci.petaluma.ca.us . City of Petaluma CDD I Planning Division For faster rresponse to Planning 4 Zoning.questions, please e-mail us at: petalumaplanning (@ci.petaluma.ca . us ----- Original Message----- From: Kathy!,.B [ mailto :'I<jbrandal @comcast.net] Sent Sunday March 20, 2011 9:50 AM ri To: petalum_aplanning Subject: March 22, 2011 Hearing To Whom Itl ay Concern: � We would strongly encourage the Petalluma Planning Commission to. support the Deer Creek village project anchored by the Lowe's Home Improvement store. As life Ion' residents of'Petaluma: and registered.voters we have seen Petaluma go from a self - contained town in the 60's and 70's where you could 'buy clothing and shoes for the family and building supplies for your home to a shell of a city where you have to leave town . to purchase('a 2 x 4. It is time to - welcome businesses to Petaluma. We need to expedite the planning process so they can open as soon as possible, I<eepi'ng shoppers and tax dollars in Petaluma. Sincerely, Thomas Brandal and Kathy Brandal 25 Douglas ,Street Petaluma,, CA 94952 4 707 - 763 -7495 i i Hines, Hea G l , From: Jensen, Deanna on behalf of CDD Sent: Montla Y , March 21, 2011 1:02 PM To: i Hines Heather;'Bradley, Geoff Subject: !FW Deer Creek Village DEIR' From: Jane Brown [mailto browncjane @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 11:56 AM i To: CUP Subject: Deed' Creek Village DEIR To all City Council Members. I am writing in support of approving the`Deer Creek Village project. I think it is vital to the health of our community. The added tax revenues and jobs it will provide will go a long Way 1c securing the financial Health of our community for a very long time, I do not understand the rational 'of forcing: people from Petaluma to shop in other communities and contributing to that communities financial health. Thank you fo considering my position. Jane Brown r, i Hi Sent' ; Monday, March 21, 2011 12:54 PM er @gmail:com] To Hines, Heather Subject; RE: 2011 DEIR Deer.Creek =pubic�comment July 27,'4009± US Army Corps of Engineers .Regulatory Branch 1455 Market Street, 16 Floor San Francisco CA94.103 -1398 By email: Brian. T .Matsunioto2Lusace:ariny.rriil Public Notice Project Deer Creek Village, Sonoma County Niunber: 2002 -2732N Permit Manager: Bryan Matsumoto Dear Bryan Matsumoto, As a former Petaluma City Council member'and resident of Petaluma I am intimately familiar with the property now,k o w as Deer CreekVillage. I have been taking photos, of this property and the restoration of Deer Creek well 004 555 North McDowell.or (Deer Creek Village) has been designated in the City of Petaluma's 1987 Ge'neral,Plari as "Office Space /Special Commercial, and its designation in the cities new General Plan 2025 ado to p .May 2008) as "Mixed use This land has not been designated Agricultural for at least 2 decades. The Petaluma River Watershed, .Master Drainage Plan;" byt i � " he Sonoma -County Water Agency, June 2003, map # 27 shows this seasonal watercourse, with 21- inch °concrete pipe under Nord ,.Mc Dowell Blvd and a 54- inch concrete pipe underneath highway 101 leading to the Petaluma River to .accommodate the flow of the creek. On Map 4A, ,this is'identified as ' Deer Creels," a named tributary to the Petaluma -- River. Attached are photos of both pipes '[See photos,# ..] In 2 00 ?� 004/ 5 „ ahe owners of 55-5 North McDowell; Downey Savings and Loan,_stopped`plowing "Deer - ;Creek'' and its from the tta hed photo how. ' y g g p , can see w u ck1 Mother Nature be an re toxin banks D r Creek to its natural habi at u including wetlands plants and birds. There is sufficient surface Ilbw 'to recreate tlus'morphology ; and sufficient subsurface flow and'groiindwatertoreestablish wetlands vegetation in a short period of time. It was -in "2008 and again in 2009'thata contractor with a- tractor was Hired to plow through Deer Creek. When Mr. David Geiser, er to based an , 3580 Carmel' Mountain Road,. Suite 260, San Diego, Ca 92130, (858) 350- he well aware that Deer Creek existed. It is ironically, i ement LLC p p � pp g �` �� the very source of the name P property . Y for the pro pp sho . m icenter, -Deer Creek. Mr. Geiser 'silgroup had a community, meeting:and clearly stated they,planned on restoring Deer Creek. Based ou'that commitment; it was my understating the Merlone Geiser Management'LLC would stop plowing Deer . i Creek. The ,. Ihared with the community a plan thatwidened and restored the Creek as part.of their project. As stated above, Deer Creek was again plowed under. c ail I had been iri ontact with Abigail l " g Smith of the SFRWQCB — North, Bay'Water Shed Division.. Petaluma Mayor Pamela Torild"tt, former Petaluma Mayor David Glass, Petaluma Planning department, former Petaluma City Manager Mike Bierman andtpresent City Manger John Brown, concerning the plowing of Deer Creek. Attachments: photos from 2004 -2009. If " ou have an questions, lease contactme. I will also attach ,�.p y Yq ,p correspondeiice between.Abigail Smith; City of Petaluma and Michael T. Grehl from Merlon Geier Partners. As you will see in one email from Ms. Smith, she was told that,;the land was designated Agricultural and that plowing the Creek was legal, Abigail Smith and the RWQCB were given false and materially misleading information as to the existing land use designation�of this property. I am re uesti q h� g that you deny Mr. David Geiser permit for 555 North McDowell also know as Deer Creek Village. Sincerely, Janice Cader 732 Carlsbad! Court Petaluma, . CA 94954 H 707 762 -7279 Hines, HeOther From: Janice Cbder-Thompson Uanicecader@gmaiLcorn] 2 . Sent: Monday, March 1, 2011 12:46 PM To: Hines; Heather Subject: RE: 2011 DEIR Deer Creek Responses to the Planning Commission Dee r Creek Village Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Janice Cader.-ThOm pson, RD.H Gerald A. Thompson 732 Carlsbad Court Petaluma, CA 94954 707 762-7279 City of Petaluma Co mmission Planning Attention: 'Heather Hines 11 En, g is. r Street Peta[Lfma,.� 94942 Re: 2011 Deer Creek Village Project DER Comments Petaluma Planning Coin Purpose ' EIR Page 1 - 1 o er(able the -City to consider the environmental consequences, of approving the proposed project. A Public Agency has pan obligation to balance the projects significant impacts on theenviroriment with other conditions, including economic, social, technological, legal and other 'benefits. A Pg.1-2: CEQA requires findings regarding each significant in the EIR CEQA requires a goodfalth effort at �fLfll disclosure, The draft EIR will focus on air qUal-ity., GHIG e missions, 'transportation, traffic impacts, and urban decay. (Fails to make good effort to disclose financial ch to achieVing infrastructure- that would meet challenges of mitigating impacts.) 'allenges I P g .1 =3: Case law= lea agency is not o'b'ligated to undertake every suggestion given the 'm . provided that the: agency. responds to significant environmental issues and makes a good faith effort at full disclosure.. (Casino- reasonably foreseeable.) The DEIR does not calculate the Rohnert Park Casino. This Casino; is reasonably foreseeable in the near future. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific a'Iternatives or mitigation that would' provide better ways to.avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. Executive Summary- Significant unavoidable impacts. Pg.11 - 12: '�JThe proposed project causes an increase in GHG emissions of 8,707 metric tons of cot annually. (thi's exceeds BAAQMD thresholds by nearly 8 times) In terms of assessing GHG .emissions efficiency it exceeds BAAQMD threshold by 3 times. (Vote o Overriding Consideration is not adequate ... a program must be provided that reduces this level to the greatest, extent possible.) Perhaps, traffic signaiization program could be provided 'in immediate area plus other portions of the city to offset traffic, with an ongoing A.D. Fee'to support'the ongoing costs of such a program. Perhaps a'Green Roof on the rnai,n building whereby the Garden Center might be rooftop. That would cut down the overall footp'ri'nt of the project. (The current mltigation;,calls for 20% energy reduction: This is inadequate legislation calls for 80% of buildings by 2 "015 to achieve 30 % energy reduction efficiencies.) Pg..11 -15: lN6ise Impact Executive Summary Page. The land use across North McDowell is residential. Analysis is inadequate. This neighborhood has an aging privacy fence in a state of disrepair; it should be a sound wall. It is known that current noise will be- changed when '101 is widened.; more cars and the road will be lifted chang.in.g the line of sound., It is referenced that'the new structures will lesson sound from freeway without acknowledging the changing C( � f Hwy. 101. P9:1.1 -17: ii Recognizes Significant and Unavoidable impacts would result from traffic related noise and�future railservice. (Rail service is beginning soon.) While the GP adopted signifitan. t and unavoidable noise impacts in a statement of overriding consideration, this project still has the responsibility to dead with this issue to the greatest degree ,possib.le. The proJeCtrl increases traffic on Hwy 101 to a degree of significance and exacerbates a number 'of intersections' in town that are already failing. The. mitigations to noise N reduction should include the installation of a sound wall on North McDowell to lessen the degree of :significant impact due to noise. Instead the EIR relies on a vote of Over Riding Considerations,with no mitigations proposed. This is inadequate. P9.11 -18 :� Traffic Impacts East Washington street North McDowell Impact traffic 3 z 14 Corona Rd /J North McDowell Impact traffic 5A Corona Rd /i Petaluma Blvd North Impact traffic 5B 'East Washington/ North. McDowell Blvd Impact traffic 5D �I Page 11 -19 Impact 6 Vehicle Queuing Impacts East Washington at US 101 Southbound Ramps where the storage capacity is exceeded with the addition of project created trips. East UVashingtor/ North McDowellSouthbound Right Turn Mane. Impact traffic 7 The proposal project 'is expected to increase the traffic volumes on steady freeway segments expected to operate at levels Service F without the project by more then 1% (.PG 11 -20)! of the segments theoretical capacity. at Railroad Ave. Pepper Rd to Old Redwood Highway and East Washington Street to. Lakeville Highway (No casino) Northwest, US101 for Railroad Ave _ Pepper Rd to Old Redwood Highway & East Washington S to Lakeville Street segments would operate at LOST. (No Casino) Page 11 -24 Rainer Ave% North McDowell , .Blvd ? Sig nificant. & unavoidable Impact. Page 11 -25 Rainer Ave% Project Access ? Significant & unavoidable Page 1.1 -25 Corona Rd %° North McDowell ? Significant & unavoidable Page 11-26 East Washington/ North McDowell Southbound ,Queuing' ? Significant & unavo,idable (with queuing problems that would seem to make emergency vehicle signs inadequate mitigation) ? C i mulative Freeway operation impacts significant and unavoidable. 7 ) q r ,of `No Feasib'I Miti9 t ationse C mea u den fimitigation da a ,i aide the uate,. The consistent n action taken is a. Political, Solution of a, vote of overriding cons,,ideration. The, Planni f g Commission aril ultimately the City Council should be provided with. potential solutions. Perhaps the proposed mitigation fails to mitigate .to -a degree of less than significant but greater- amounts of unacceptable levels of noise greenhouse gas emission and an in 'of traffic with NO attempt to offer proposals which to some degree lessen the magnitude of the impacts is inadequate. Page 111 3 R nmenCare Facility is identified as an allowable use. (This .ties in with Option C the i tally preferred alternative). Note: from property standpoint this use allows economic enjoyment and or benefit of property ownership. Page 111 -16 Want to make sure the public recognizes that 5.44 acres set aside as Open Space is a Land bank for the entire. . aier p Rniroject including three protected mature oak trees. (Page 111 -f24) I suspect the oak trees will live a long and healthy Life). Pg. 111 -28: Among the most important sustainable features of the project would be the Preservation and enhancement of the Deer Creek swale. The creek is .p.roposed to be relocated? This is new to me? The creek was- to have 50 feet on either side to.protect the creek and habitat it brings: That seems tote inconsistent with sustainability.) This is new. to me. Abigail Smith of the Bay Area Water Quality Control Board, enforcing water quality was','clear in Fetters to the city. that the Pg. 111-34,! Project Objective Satisfy the substantial demand for regional and neighborhood retail,office and dining experiences. In the Petaluma trade area. (Studies would indicate over saturation of office space, some need of retail, some harm from retail" cannibalization, no shortages of fitness centers. The opinion in the EIR is not factual and�'inconclusive. Pg.111 -35,� Discretionary Actions Petaluma City Council should be added to the list of entities. Pg.IV A - 1::,' 'The Significant Environmental Impacts that require votes of over riding consideration are: 1.) Air Quality, 2.) GHG Emissions, 3.),'Curriulative, traffic noise,, transportation, and traffic) i The mitigations to lessen the impacts even if they are still at a level of significant needs to be identified funded and implemented. This EIR is inadequate as it consistently .instead relies on Over Riding Considerations. The. mitigations could include lessening the size of the project, garden roofs: on major structures, sound walls for impacted neighborhoocls, a fee 'and revenUei stream to - support city wide traffic coordinating ,signalization program to lessen GHG emissions, a tree plantingprogram along Hwy.10` and elsewhere to improve air quality, and lessening the scope of the project, less .Parking, and more open space; . all of these mitigations could at least be a starting point of lessening the significant and unavoidable impacts. Pg. IV B -19: Collision Analysis . Old Redwood Hwy. 1.13 (State Avg. .43) Industrial Drive / Stony Point Road Intersection. Professional Drive North McDowell.30Vs .14 State Avg East Washington /North McDowell Blvd. intersection collision rate 1.39 as to .43 - state avg. 4 �1 i I" Theexisting plus pipeline does not assume the current, coordinated signal system on North McDowell and East Washington is maintained in the future. Although these signal systems have been coordinated in the past, present resources are not adequate to support thisfunction now or into the foreseeable future. (If sign,alization coordination is not included because of financial reality, why is Rainier, and Caulfield extensions included? Aren't they equally challenged? Pg. IV B - 2o: All' of the study jbtersections are expected to continue operations at essentially ,the same levels of service as under existing, conditions, with exceptions of intersections,along Corona: (This is falsei assurance. This statement assumes no degradation of environment' within the same service.Ieve,f category. But not all F's are the same. l Pg. IV B -2` 101 /Rain'ie During, Analysis wi trips thru t Existing plus pi,pel'in .traffic volumes were derived form the final -US Ave. Intercha n;ge TrafficOpe ration, s Report: M. Peak Traffic, 161,0 standard trips generated thru this intersection. 1 400,000 sq.. ft. project and a 343,998 sq., ft. project adds 1330,more is intersection. (Less of a project, Option C would mean fewer trips.,) peak Pg. IV .B -26;: Th'e -interchange project (.Rainier) would be-locally funded with developer fees, rede�elopmenf fu'hds,, and assessments from. proposed bordering the roadway improvement project. (D'EIR is inadequate in financial .feasibility of Rainier, and the funding sources identified 'in GP may not be feasible. It to address such issues as state raid on redevelo p ment f..unds the effort to end redevelopment, declining real estate'�a,lues affecting future bonding capacity. Evan if RDA sur „vives, as we know them, the long history of failed attempts to fund this project is apparent. While the E IR recognizes a street signalization ,program is not financially viable, the, fails to list the. financial challenges of Rainier, in addition to, the last Cal Trans findings that the project was out of compliance with Cal Trans designstandards and violates the, primary purpose of 101 expansion; To Move Traffic. Pg. IV B -27, Rainier Ave /North McDowell unacceptable at LOS E Pg. IV B-39; : Under the Cumulative Scenario it is assumed that the Rainier Ave. extension , #;ill, be an option ,for distribution of traffic. Yet, there is no mention of 'Graton Rancheria Casino a reasonably foreseeable project. that would impactthis samefco'rridor of traffic. ,The resulting trip:.generation statistics for Hwy. 101 combined with the. additional ;inundation of local surface streets as 1,01 capacity. is exceeded. This is inadeq Pg.IV B47 East Wash./ North McDowell, existing condition LOS D, It will degrade to LOS E. Goes from 52 to 67.2 seconds delay at th one intersection. Add in traffic from the casino,; our situation worsens. LOS F i . w. ' ntersections: Corona Road/ North McDowell Corona Road/ Petaluma Blvd., Nth. 1 East Washington Str./ Nth. McDowell 4- ia- 101 Si pificant Impac as (significance is 1 %, additional traffic load in an already significant" impacted area.). Railroad Ave. - Pepper Road to Old Redwood Hwy., East Washington to Lakeville Hwy. Pg. IV 13-62: The addition of project generated trips is not expected to cause a reduction in travel speeds along this route sufficient to cause significant delays for emergency. vehicles "lights" override traffics controls sirens etc. There is nog analysis to substantiate this opinion. The opinion conflicts with many news reports anrd statements from public safety through the years to, say nothing of the political propaganda regarding reasons for the need of the Rainier cross -town connector. Thhe e statem ater g ent also fails to take into account Queuin.gissues on eh city streets and g 'that call for expansion in with of .queuing- lanes and with an ,over flow of cars the roadwa become a parking lot at which point .the siren etc. will effect response times. If this is not so I would like the fire department to justify the many comments they have r ade in the pastabout the need to build Rainier crow -town connector to move the traffic a matter of life and .death! The Hospital and Damon Doss the director of the Health Care District have made similar statements, in past. There is no accounting for the significant occurrence of accidents at the Washington and McDowell intersection which in the case of additional accidents would further degrade the mobil'ity at this crucial intersection even with sirens, light, etc.? Page IV C -8 GHG Emissions There is nc approach r CONSIDER challenge c cumulativE significant' project arE Mitigations ? Cc ? LE Gi ?' PI ? S ? i\ Page IV C- Local ,CO Ii ? C. thing in the terms of, mitigations that adequately address even an attempt to Litigations of this ;issue.. It simply can't be enough to say VOTE OVER RIDING kTION. Under red„ucti'on of emissions for the future that is pushing off today's n to tomorrow when it will be more difficult with the added. - additional; impacts of excessive GHG Emission. These emission are just as or more hat the emission from the. Dutra Plant. The emissions from the Deer Creek in the. middle of our community with a prevailing south wind. that could be employed: uld include but not limited to: s mass in the project E�en.Roofs, :or. garden or solar tinum or Leed Certified feet Signalization Coordinating Program i project ,until traffic mitigation are designed and funded and GH'G Emissions reduced pacts - bon monoxide emissions "from traffic... Congested intersections with a large ime of traffic have the greatest potential to cause high - localized centrations of carbon monoxide. This project is next to a hospital and 6 I residential homes, community center, boys and girls club, neighborhood schools, etc. . ? T is impact is considered less than significant- because no one intersection m i eets the threshold but cumulatively all of theimpacted intersection and 101 should be accounted for. . Page IV C -25 Table IV C =9 ? This table shows the inadequacy of the proposed mitigations. ? The threshold of significance for emissions Per Capita is 4.6. P Produces 13.5 and the mitigated Project Produces 13 th threshold of significance). Mitigation ;AQ4 PFIV C -26 ? This is totally inadequate. ,I Page IV C=28 Emissions The unmitigated .0 (Almost 3 times ? 83 %%f emis ons *come from traffic. Measure AQA reduces project emissions by 4, The Project is relying on Over Riding Considerations) Page V -I Significant Unavoidable Conditions ? Air Quality GHG Emissions Noise ? (a) Cumulative. Traffic Noise Levels (a sound wall should be added to protect those residence on North McDowell) ? Transportation and Traffic ? Urban Decay Analysis ? City retail market has performed relatively well. The city leaks sales in apparel, restaurants, service stations, building materials and, construction categories. ? Page V -4 ? D'e'er Creek 58.1 million net in new sales out of 94 million (The difference represents 4% capture from existing Petaluma businesses._ ? Development of the proposed Deer Creek Village project, as well as other proposed projects the City's pipeline including East Washington Place is likely to have a significant impact on the existing retail space performance and potentially create conditions that temporally (3 -5 years) could be conductive to urban decay. ?. New cumulative retail's capture of 12% of existing trade area retail sales in 20j15 would reduce by 9% by 2020 and 5.5% by 2025. (Note: In order for this to jbe true growth rates must be achieved andwhat impacts of Internet Sales Capture is Projected What impact of mitigation of recession from events related tai0il in Libya, or Tsunami and Nuclear Events in Japan? (Petaluma is not an island). 7 Page V -5 ? A u fi d ? B d a a sl tc 0 is 0 ti ? T hough Urban Decay Analysis states that temporary conditions conducive to pan decay will likely result from the` project due to the fact that anticipated ures exceed the .general threshold of 10 %, the report also states that "'urban tay is by no mean guaranteed u this scenario." gs the question: What mistakes could we make that would ensure urban cay? What if Lowes were to become a Wal -Mart instead? This is a building d a land entitlem Much of the squarefootage in the analysis is Signed to capture leakage. Substitute Wal-Mart for Lowes and much of the .care footage then achieves cannibalization rather than leakage. I would have deduce that scenario would virtually guarantee achieving urban blight. In ier words with the project as proposed blight is likely but it is possible the ±ntical square footage with. identical zoning are no way to prevent it's �urrence could result in a Wal -Mart which would move us' at least closer to guaranteed conditions of blight! e citizens have been promised a Target yet Regency does not have a signed itract with Target, it too, could become aWal - Mart! This is a building and id entitlement process only. ? V - 7 ' ? 407 general net revenue in sales tax to the. _ fu nd. Mpst per�or alternativ.et�depend ng on tenant, P tion C the environmentally su Page VI -4 !rnative C idential and commercial alternative. ? l No alternative: ? There is "No Alternative" option: This is the logical direction until the questions of interchange /crosstown connector is a, dequately addressed. If: the purpose of Rainier , in the cities General Plan is to mitigate traffic with. no intention of building the mitig ation then the city council needs to make changes intransportati,on and 10rid use in it's new General Plan. This sound like -a legal issue going back, to when Judge Sawyer favored the city in ----------- = - - - -- - - -- Page VI -1 ? F ? S ? A Transpo rnative B aced project alternative reduces potential traffic impacts by 25 %. However, iula'tive traffic noise- impacts the from both alternative 1 13 and the proposed ect'`would rern',ain significant and unavoidable. Itio No project fund wall''for.those homes backing McDowell needs to be incorporated with project due to unavoidable noise impact. ion: 8 �-- �5 Th ere is no analysis of Rushmore Ave is not calculated in the traffic There are No crosswalks proposed from Rainier Ave to Maria Drive. ? Rainier has a curve in the road making it dangerous for crossing this 4 -11ane arterial. No mention of the Smart Train and Freight train. Past concerns for the need to build Rainier was to get.across town to the hospital without being blocked by`a train. ? Page VI -1.2 Meets most of the projects goals Page VI -131 Commercial and Residential Care Project Alternative ? Major Anchor tenant ? Other retailor uses replaced with'50 bed residential care 'facility for elderly. ? Why only elderly? Ho. cated'near proposed medical offices and Petaluma Valley Hospital. Ho wever, impacts. associated with operational greenhouse gas emissions would � remain significant and unavoidable for both Alternative c and the proposed project. ? M'ore to come! 9 Hines, Heather Prom Jensen, Deanna on behalf of CDD Sent: Monday, March 21, 20116:51 AM To: Bradley, Geoff; Hines, Heather Subject: FW: Deer Creek Village DEIR From: Louis Rbse [mailto:tgdking@tbmcast.net] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 20114:59 PM To: CDD Cc: infoOdeeh'reekvillage.corn Subject: Deer Creek Village DEIR I am in favor 'i I )f the Deer Creek Village project on a number of levels, bUt two in particular. First, the economic benefits to the city including job creation are particularly noteworthy given the harsh reality many ofus have had to endure" these past few years. While I am retired and no longer need to be actively eryiplbyed, my heart goes out to th f e many men and women who despair over their inability to secure gainful This project won't1solve the employment-pr ' oblem but it Will certainly make a much needed dent. Second, as along term do-it-yourselfer, I am excited about the location of a Lowe's in our community. I travel frequently to Rhonert Park to visit the Lowe's located there. Wouldn't it be great if I could avoid those trips thereby saving gas, wear andjtear on my car, and help the environment at the same time. Let's build Deer Creek Village! 'Lou Rose, Petaluma Resident since 1986. I Hi From: Jensen, Deanna on behalf of CDD Sent: i 1 Monday, .March 21, 20116:51 AM To: i Bradley, Geoff; Hines,, Heather Subject: FW Request rescheduling of Deer Creek DEIR hearing From: David Keller [mailto :dkellerl@sonic::net] Sent: Thursday; March 17, 2011 722 PM To: David Glass; CityCouneil; CDD Cc: Brown, John; Eric Da Subject: Request rescheduling of Deer Creek DEIR hearing From: David`Keller Petaluma River Council 1327I St. Petaluma, CA 94952 To: =6 "f ve Glass the Petaluma City Council Members Iof the Petaluma Planning Commission City Manager John Brown 'RE: Public comments on the DEIR for Deer Creek Village Dear Mayor Glass, Members of the CityCouncil;and Members of the Planning Commission: I am requesting a rescheduling of the public "hearing at the City °Council for comments on the Deer Creels Village DEIR. It is currently calendared for Monday, April 18, 2011. Unforturnately, this is also the first.night of the celebration. of the Jewish holiday of Passover. Marry people, including myself, will not be available for a meeting on that evening. In the past, including when I was on City:Council, the eouincil's scheduling for important public hearings"was usually worked.a"round sign ficant-relig ous. holidays. All too frequently, staff was not cognizant of significant Jewish1holidays in contrast to their - awareness of the important Christian holidays:. Fortunately, ,when ,apprised of that conflict, agenda itd s: -were mostoften inoved to alternate.dates. It is a:confliet that continues to Happen at times and the lack,of awareness and potential disrespect should be avoided here byrescheduling the public hearing on thi's rnportant DEIR. There are" manypeople who are entitled to provide oral testimony, and who would otherwise not have this opportunity to' address'the Council directly. Please reschedule this public hearing, to preserve the respect for all of the religious participants in our community. Thank you very much for this consideration. ii 1 Sincerely, David Keller i! 12 z y -� Sharon 5 Steven Dr Petaluma, CA 94952 -5235 Dear Petaluma Resident, There is an importantpublic hearing coming up for the proposed Deer Creek Village project, a shopping center anchored by a Lowe's home Improvement Warehouse. It has been quite some time since we first Petaluma to.a lifestyle development project that will provide a unique combination of shopping, dining, fitness, office and recreational opportunities for the entire community to enjoy. Its amenities will include first class architectural and landscape designs, and outdoor dining and seating areas overlooking walking and jogging trails that meander a long: a; restored wetland and creek. i , During I these tough economic times, the project also promises over 800:jobs and new sales tax revenue that can help fund critical City services such as police and fire protection, and traffic improvements. All these benefits are possible only with the support of the City of Petaluma and we hope that we can count on you during a planning process that invites public participation: r PleaseJoin Us at an. Important Hearin_ What: ' City of Petaluma,Planning Commission When. March 22, 2011, 7:OOpm Where: City Hall, City °Council Chambers, 11 English Street Only with your support canwe bring you the benefits of a Lowe's shopping center Thank you for considering ourrequest'and voicing your support. Sincerely, Greg Geertsen Development Manager PS: Visit www.DeerCreekP:roiect:corn for what more you can do to help bring Lowe's to Petaluma, project informationand much more: Barbara Padgett 15 Haven Drive Petaluma, CA 94952 Dear Petaluma Resident, There isan important public l earing.coming up for the proposed Deer Creek Village project, a shopping center anchored by a Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse: It has been.quitesome time since we first introduced Petaluma ma lifestyle development project that will proyide a unique combination of shopping, dining,.fitness, office and recreational opportunities for the entire community to enjoy. Its amenities will include first class architectural and landscape designs, and outdoor dining:and seating areas overlooking walking and jogging trails that meander along 'a ' wetland and creek. �I During {these tough economictimes, the eroiect also promises over 800 and new sales tax revenue that can help fund critical City services such as'police and fire protection, and traffic improvements. All these benefits are possible only with the supportof the City of',Petaluma and we hope that we can count�on you during a planning process that invites public participation. lv Please!Join Us at an Important Hearing What: City City of Petaluma Planning Commission When.' '2 2, 2011, 7:00pm Where-, Hall, City Council Chambers, 1`1 English Street Only with your support can we bring you the benefits of a Lowe's shopping center Thank you for considering our request and voicing your support. Sincerely, Greg Geertsen Development Manager RECEP APED MAR Z 2 2011 PLANNING 'D'IVISION PS: Visit www.beerCreekProiect.com for what more you can do to help bring Lowe's to Petaluma, projectinformation and much more. From i Jensen, Deanna on behalf of CDD sent Tuesday, March°22, 2011 1:08 PM To: i Hines, Heather; Bradley, Geoff Subject: FW: Deer Creek Village - in favor From: Francesca Smith [mailto:fvspetalu Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011,12:10 PM To: CDD Cc: McKenzie 'Smith Subject: Deer Creek Village - in favor TUs message is to add my support for the Deer Creek Village project. As small business owners and residents living just a few blocks from the site, we need to see the City Council not only support oft but seek out commercial development to bring jobs and keep sales tax revenue in our community. We cannot remain "as we are." and expect to. Rind city services and infrastructure improvements that our town sorely needs.; Young adults will especially benefit from retail jobs as they try to develop skills at our local JC. and become I independent. Please move ibis project forward. Sincerely, Francesca Smith 160 Banff Way Petaluma, CA 94954 1 �J