HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 1.A-Late02 04/25/2011-- ®'
Late
From: Ann Kemmer [arkemmer @hotmaii.coml
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 10:31 PM
To: Hines, .Heather; - City Clerk; tiff @tiffanyrenee.com; everettpina @att.net;
councilmemberkearney, @me:com; councilman.albertson @gmail.com;
teresa4petaluma@ comcast .net;:daveglass @comcast.net; mike4pet @aol.com;
mthealy @sbcglobal:net; Ann Kemmer
Subject: Deer Creek Draft EIR, Comments
April 24, 2011
Attn: City Council Members
City of Petaluma
I l English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952 - 26.10
Re: Deer Creek Draft EIR
Dear City Council Members,
First, I would like to thank Heather Hines for making available two additional copies of the Deer Creek EIR for
review by the neighbors. That gesture was very much appreciated:
My husband and I are long time residents of Muir Court, which is- directly across the street from the proposed
Deer Creek Plaza development: Our house backs up to Professional. Drive. We have read the draft EIR and have
the following concerns about the proposed development:
Traffic: It appears that the intersection at Professional and S. McDowell was a part of the study, but not
Professional Drive and Rushmore. , The main entrance to the shopping center will be located at Professional
Drive:and. S. McDowell, and we are concerned about.the'numlier of cars that will use both Professional and
Rushmore to avoid traffic on S. McDowell. We are especially concerned about the size and tonnage of trucks
using surface streets. We would like to request that the City impose ,,A. limit on the tonnage of trucks that can use
Professional and Rushmore, similar to the limits °that are now`,posted on Baywood Drive. Certainly the limit
should not preclude emergency vehicles or'trucks making deliveries to residents. We simply want to make sure
that we do not, have large trucks using surface streets, or parked behind our homes, which does happen on
occasion.
Air Quality: Increased car trips and traffic lights will mean an increase in idling cars and car fumes. Residents
of the neighborhood should be able to enjoy our yards and be able to open our windows.
Noise. Ditto the above comments. We" w 'll also be losing nine (9) full grown trees when the center divide along
McDowell is removed in order to 'make a left hand turning lane for the entry into the shopping center at
Professional. Those trees provide a natural sound barrier and block the, neighbor's view of the street and
proposed shopping center. We would like to request that those nine mature. trees be replaced along the
sidewalks on both sides of the S. McDowell. Replacing, the trees'is a simple,' small, and inexpensive gesture in
helping to abate the sights and sounds of traffic congestion.
Signage: The proposed development: includes a'30 -foot monument pylon sign, which means that neighbors will
be able to look out their windows and see a neon sign. We feel that signs of that size are simply unnecessary
and inappropriate for a neighborhood. I- have spoken to representatives of Merlone Geier about the signage and
they have commented that the signage will be similar to what is currently seen along S. McDowell Blvd. It is
unfortunate that the residents along McDowell have to look out at 30 -foot neon signs. Frankly, the homes and
neighborhoods along McDowell have.b'een marginalized by the,poor design of the existing shopping centers
and we see no reason to continue with that tradition. Signage' similar to the Factory Outlets is more appropriate
for a development facing homes.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety` The: McDowell corridor is busy with bicyclist, and pedestrians, especially along
Lynch Creek and near Luchessi Park. We do feel that the proposed bike path is a good design addition and we
are pleased to see that there will be greenery separating the bike(pedestrian. pathway along McDowell. We
would like to see the bike /pedestrian pathwayraised up from -the street level, similar to the pedestrian pathways
along Sonoma Mountain Parkway and along S. McDowe'lil .near Schollenburger Park. Ideally, similar
improvements to the pedestrian walkway along the east side of S. McDowell could be implemented.
Finally, we would like point out that the project site was zoned'light,industrial until the adoption of the new
General Plan in 2008. We, like so°niany of our neighbors, did' not`buy homes next to an empty lot expecting that
we would have a large retail complex across the street. , When the new General Plan was adopted, the
neighborhood, and the City Council ai that time, felt that the site's current `mixed use'. designation suited the
surrounding land uses which include Petaluma Valley Hospital, Lucchesi Park, the Community Center, medical
offices and the senior housing at Vintage Chateau. It was "the nei'ghborhood's hope that a mixed -use site
designation would mean that the development at the site would` be pedestrian and bicycle friendly and that it
would fit in well with the surrounding land uses.
In reading the draft EIR, it is:apparent that many of the traffic and noise impacts simply cannot be mitigated
based on the current project design. For that reason, we ask that the City Council consider reducing the size of
the commercial component of the, development: The proposed Lowe' &, the smaller stores and restaurants along
S. McDowell, the fitness center, offices, bank and the park are all amenities that the neighborhood could
conceivable walk or bike to- additionally we want ask that the City Council ensure that the proposed project
design retain the seasonal creek and the proposed development attributes' of outdoor seating, pedestrian
interoperability throughout the site and fitness trail.
We understand that the site will be developed, and'we are the City Council, and Planning Commission, to
make it the very best development possible. The east side of town deserves more than strip malls and sound
walls. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ann Kemmer
Everett Pina
12,1 Muir Court
Petaluma, CA
Cc: City Clerk
City Planning Cornmision'
Heather Hines