Lowe's discussion draws quarrels

<p>Amid tense moments and charges of electioneering, the City Council late Monday night evaluated the possible threat posed by missing the deadline to process a Lowe's-anchored shopping center proposal in east Petaluma.</p><p>In a new timeline released by City Manager John Brown, the project will now likely come before the City Council in February 2011. But the developers of the project, Merlone Geier Partners, said in a letter last week that the city can be held liable if it misses the Nov. 12 deadline to certify environmental documents under state law. </p><p>The California Environmental Quality Act says that a city has one year after an application is deemed complete to certify environmental documents. </p><p>The city responded that previous case law supports the fact that the deadline is “not hard and fast.”</p><p>The discussion was placed on the agenda by council members Mike Harris, Mike Healy and David Rabbitt, who said that they wanted transparency in the process after unsubstantiated rumors that the project was being delayed on purpose until after the November election. They said that they wanted to evaluate the legal threat and avoid delays in the future if possible.</p><p>“We should be doing this out in the open,” said Healy.</p><p>Most council members said they were open to the discussion.</p><p>Brown then presented a newly revised timeline for the project, saying that two consultants working on studies assessing the impacts of the project should release the data by mid-October. A draft environmental impact report should be released by Oct. 18, when the document would start a 45-day public review period. The final EIR should be sent to the Planning Commission by January 2011, and reach the council for final approval by February.</p><p>Brown said that some of the delays were due to the fact that the project, called Deer Creek Village, is a “legacy project” that underwent a change in developers and in the configuration of the planning department. Brown said that city staff has been working “diligently” but that “I can't tell you that the flow of information has been the best.”</p><p>During public comment period, former council member Janice Cader-Thompson accused Harris, Healy and Rabbitt of adding the agenda item to make the council majority of Mayor Pam Torliatt and council members Teresa Barrett, David Glass, and Tiffany Renée look bad.</p><p>“Real transparency is that it is political season and they are bringing this forward,” said Cader-Thompson.</p><p>David Keller, another former council member, agreed, and said that Merlone Geier gave a “premature rosy picture” of the application timeline to get public opinion on their side when deadlines were missed.</p><p>Keller said that the developer's legal threat “distorts the public process” and prevents responsible vetting of the project.</p><p>Torliatt said that “the majority of this council” improved the application process when the Planning Commission and SPARC were merged, and Glass pointed out that the Silk Mill and Regency projects were recently approved, hinting that Keller was “reasonable” to assume that the agenda item was politically motivated.</p><p>Council members in the minority denied any gamesmanship, saying that they simply wanted to discuss how the missed deadline would impact the city.</p><p>“Everyone is on pins and needles because of the upcoming election,” said Healy. However, “it's not OK to not comply with the one-year statute,” he said.</p><p>City Attorney Eric Danly then weighed in, saying that there were areas where the council and the city could have exercised more “oversight” in processing the application.</p><p>Although the deadline will be missed, Danly said that legal precedent dictates that it “doesn't strip the council of the authority to exercise their discretion on a project.” However, a court can order the application to continue or allow the developer to sue for damages. Danly said that if the city wanted to completely avoid liability, it could deny the project.</p><p>“There are more opportunities for streamlining than have occurred under council direction,” said Danly, who added that there could have been better communication between the developer and the city about the timeline.</p><p>“When that dialogue is occurring, there is less need for this dialogue occurring,” he said about Monday's discussion of the legal threat.</p><p>Torliatt, however, said that the developers have been “adversarial” and uncooperative, downplaying public input and contributing to the missed deadlines.</p><p>(Contact Philip Riley at philip.riley@arguscourier.com)</p>