Lowe's center developers complain of delays

<p>In an echo of legal concerns over the Target shopping center, the developers of the proposed Lowe's shopping center in east Petaluma have hinted at legal action, claiming delays to the project have become costly and run afoul of state laws.</p><p>Deer Creek Village is a proposed 315,000-square-foot Lowe's-anchored shopping center just west of Petaluma Valley Hospital. In a letter sent Tuesday to City Manager John Brown, the developers of the project, San Francisco-based Merlone Geier, claimed that the city will miss a deadline for certifying the project that is required under California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. </p><p>Under the law, one year is allowed between the time that the project application was deemed complete and when environmental documents are certified and the project is approved. </p><p>The city declared the Deer Creek application complete on Nov. 12, 2009. But with the work left to be done, the city says that approval will not be considered before December or January.</p><p>“If the tiered EIR (Environmental Impact Report) for Deer Creek Village is not complete and certified by Nov. 12, 2010, the city of Petaluma can be held liable for monetary damages,” threatened the letter, authored by Merlone Geier vice president Mike Grehl.</p><p>“We are capitalized and ready to move forward with the construction of Deer Creek Village,” the letter went on to say. “Unfortunately, consistent delays have come at considerable cost to our firm and those in the community who are unemployed and looking for work.”</p><p>But the city, in a previous letter, contended that the one-year deadline is “not a mandatory time frame,” and cited a legal case in which homebuilders Schellinger Brothers sued the city of Sebastopol. In an Aug. 25 letter to the developers, City Manager John Brown said that the case allows for EIR certification to take more than one year.</p><p>Brown said that the city expected to meet the deadline, and that the case cited “isn't intended to tell them that we can take all the time we want.”</p><p>Brown said that city planners are “trying to do a thorough job,” but that “the point is that the city is taking this very seriously.” Brown said he plans to speak with Merlone Geier representatives directly to work out the issues raised.</p><p>Representatives from Merlone Geier declined to comment specifically on whether they intend to file a lawsuit, but that “given that further delay hurts those who are unemployed and seeking work, we are confident that the city will meet its legal obligations.”</p><p>Councilmember Mike Healy, an attorney, said that the legal precedent the city cited could not result in a court ordering the project to be approved, but could allow the developer to sue for damages or allow a court to order the city to finalize its review.</p><p>“Not complying with the one-year deadline is just unacceptable,” said Healy, who added that missing the deadline could add to the city's legal costs and create “a huge black eye for the city's reputation as a place to do business.”</p><p>According to a project timeline in Brown's Aug. 25 letter as well on the city's Web site, the project's draft EIR should be released for its 45-day public review period later this month or in October. After the final EIR is completed in November, the project would head to the Planning Commission before going to the City Council in December or January of 2011.</p><p>Merlone Geier earlier expressed dismay that the city's planning department decided to require a secondary “tiered” EIR for the project in June that focused on whether the center would create “urban blight.” A traffic study was also required in March.</p><p>Because the impacts of a large shopping center are anticipated at the site in the city's General Plan, a larger environmental study is not needed for the project. The developers were earlier aiming for an October 2011 opening date, and more recently were planning for June 2012.</p><p>The developers' letter also said that there has been “persistent speculation within the community that the project is being purposely delayed so that it will not have a public hearing prior to November election.”</p><p></p><p>Representatives from Merlone Geier declined to comment on whether there is specific evidence of a purposeful delay. Brown said that the documents simply still need to be finished.</p><p>“That's what's driving all of this,” he said.</p><p>(Contact Philip Riley at philip.riley@arguscourier.com)</p>