Council to decide fate of Petaluma SMART station development

The Petaluma City Council will soon have an opportunity to weigh in on the Corona Road development linked to the future east Petaluma SMART station, following a resounding rejection from Planning Commissioners.

The project will return to city council chambers for the third time in four weeks at the Dec.16 council meeting. Council members will decide whether the development will move forward, considering Planning Commissioners’ advice to reject the project altogether.

The 6.5-acre residential development on the corner of Corona Road and North McDowell Boulevard borders a section of the SMART rail corridor where the agency plans on building the second Petaluma station.

Planning commissioners took issue with the development’s overall design, declaring its residential-only format incompatible with a “transit-oriented”?project alongside the future train station. Specifically, commissioners indicated they want to see a project that incorporates both residential and commercial opportunities and encourages less car-dependent travel.

“I don’t relish my non-support of this project, but I just think we can do better,” Commissioner Diana Gomez said, a phrase mirrored by two other commissioners at the Nov. 12 meeting. “I think we can have more housing here, more dense housing that is actually transit-oriented.”

In an attempt to salvage the project, developer Lomas Partners, LLC withdrew their request to change the zoning of the parcel from mixed use to single-family residential use in advance of the Nov. 19 Planning Commission meeting.

The change was an acknowledgment of commissioners’ discomfort with a zoning change that would bar mixed use developments on the parcel, in line with their desire to see a project they consider more transit-oriented.

Lomas Partners’ updated plan retains the current mixed-use zoning and proposes 116 attached townhomes instead of the previous plan’s 110-unit attached and detached single-family units. The update adds six additional units and circumvents any need to change the parcel’s current mixed-use zoning.

It will fall to council members to decide whether this change is adequate in addressing concerns voiced during the Nov. 12 and 19 Planning Commission meetings.

Another project element commissioners probed is its relationship with the future SMART train station.

Developer Lomas Partners and the rail agency recently forged an agreement that would carve out a slice of the Corona parcel for the construction of a parking lot to serve future station riders. In return, Lomas Partners is in line to purchase and develop the D Street lot behind the existing downtown station, a deal giving the rail agency $6 million to built the second station and needed parking space.

An additional $2 million to round out the expected $8 million station cost is to come from the city of Petaluma.

“There were some concerns about how we ensure that SMART will commit to the construction of the second station if the applicant (Lomas Partners) and the city follow through on their pieces of it,” said Planning Manager Heather Hines during the Nov. 19 Planning Commission meeting.

That financial contribution from the city will solidify SMART’s commitment to building the east Petaluma Station, Hines said.

Yet, the puzzle pieces that must be assembled in order for the station to go forward as currently outlined in the agreement between Lomas and SMART are delicate and leave little room for flexibility. Revenue for the station relies on Lomas Partners’ purchase of the D Street parcel, which in turn relies on the city approving a Lomas Partners’ development that includes parking space for the future station.

The decision reached by Lomas and SMART was rocky, and included a 16-month lawsuit between the two parties over the type of parking that would serve the east Petaluma station.

“I had a plan where there was retail on the corner of the station, but there were so many iterations of what needed to get done in order to get SMART to work with us, so that had to become part of the parking,” said Lomas Partners representative Todd Kurtin at the Nov. 12 Planning Commission meeting. “There’s a lot of dynamics that went in to make this happen, I’ve been working on this for five years, this has not been easy and it’s been a real challenge.”

Kurtin also said that SMART was uninterested in putting the station at the Corona location when he began to develop the parcel, suggesting that the development project is a significant incentive for the rail agency to build the station.

Commissioners and members of the public have questioned whether the Corona project is as much of a linchpin as Lomas Partners has declared it to be. Commissioners repeatedly questioned whether the development proposed by Lomas Partners is the only way to ensure the second station is built, regardless of its agreement with the rail agency.

During the Planning Commission’s second time hearing the proposal Nov. 19, Commissioner Scott Alonso said he appreciates the developer’s decision to drop the zoning text amendment, but challenged Kurtin’s statements concerning SMART’s relationship to the project.

“I think it’s important that the developer keeps publicly making statements that this is an ‘either-or’ proposition, and I think it does a disservice to the oversight that we’re supposed to have,” he said. “We want to be good partners but we also want to operate in good faith and this project as is clearly just doesn’t get the job done.”

Lomas Partners representative Todd Kurtin declined to comment on the project when contacted Monday, citing the ongoing revisions of the project in advance of the Dec. 16 city council meeting.

SMART’s Communications and Marketing Manager Julia Gonzalez said she could not comment at this time regarding SMART’s relationship to the Lomas Partners development, which will give the rail agency the parking lot it needs for the East Petaluma station.

Despite the rejection of the project by commissioners, the environmental review element was approved on the basis of its independent evaluation of environmental impacts on the parcel.

Councilman and council liaison on the Planning Commission Kevin McDonnell indicated support for the project during both Planning Commission meetings.

“We can’t always say no, we have to say yes to something and have a vision for something that we do want on this property,” McDonnell said.

(Contact Kathryn Palmer at kathryn.palmer@arguscourier.com. On Twitter @KathrynPlmr)