Corona Station Housing Project

+ Q: Was this project widely supported?

A: No. This project received strong community opposition starting in February of 2019 at its first public forum. By November of 2019 when the Planning Commission first saw the project, nothing had changed. Over the course of five months, the project went through seven public hearings and at each one there were numerous people – as many as 100 – in attendance opposing it. The planning commission rejected the project 6-1 and the city council overruled the planning commission, to approve it with a narrow 4-3 vote. At the September 24, 2020 Candidate Forum hosted by the Argus Courier and Chamber of Commerce, all five challengers opposed the project that was approved. Only the developer-backed city council members — including Healy, Kearney and Miller running for reelection — think this was a good project.

+ Q: What was illegal about the project?

A: The community lawsuit focuses on: (1) violating the Mitigation Fee Act, (2) violating our General Plan, and (3) failing to assess, mitigate and disclose safety issues. Each is discussed below. These three issues were compounded by an immoral action known as redlining, a practice that pushes lower income people to the edges of town away from jobs, transit and other public services.

+ Q: How did the City violate the Mitigation Fee Act?

A: The city council put $2,000,000 from our traffic impact fee fund into an escrow account to help the developer – who was also one of Mr. Healy’s 2016 campaign donors – buy land in our downtown. This violates the Mitigation Fee Act, which states that the money can only be used on activities that will improve safety or reduce traffic – both of which are already an issue in this area.

+ Q: What are the safety issues that were neglected?

A: Instead of helping the developer buy more land, the city council should have been spending that money to make the area safer. The intersection at North McDowell Boulevard and Corona Road is one of the most dangerous in Petaluma. Car speeds exceed 40 mph, the SMART train crosses through twice per hour, there are long traffic queues waiting for stoplights, more than 70 freight vehicles enter and exit the post office throughout the day, there is no continuous sidewalk connecting the site to closest services, and the Corona overpass is unsafe for both cyclists and pedestrians. Some of those features were not even mentioned in the project’s Transportation Impact Study (TIS). However, the TIS did find that the intersection “experienced substantial numbers of rear end crashes” and had 1.62 times more crashes per million vehicles entering than usual. There are hundreds of residents who live in the area—mostly senior citizens and families. In 2011, a man was killed trying to get from the bus stop to his home at this site. Within a few months of approving the project, a cyclist was killed on the Corona overpass, which is in the project’s sphere of influence. Simply put, this is not a safe area of our city. Building there needs to be well planned or people will get hurt. So for the safety of the 110 additional families that the City planned to put here, we sued to stall the project to demand more attention be paid to safety at this dangerous intersection.

Here is an op ed I wrote on their negligence regarding public safety.

+ Q: How did the project violate the General Plan?

A: The general plan calls for mixed use and this project was 100% single-family homes. Each home had a two-car garage and no yard in the front or back. The community was not asking for much commercial. Just a coffee shop and a convenient store could have enabled the people who live near the station to not need to drive for simple things (adding to the traffic and safety issues). Many train riders would surely appreciate a place to congregate while they wait for the train. Members of the community spoke with several Petaluma businesses who were interested in opening at this location, and we connected them with the developer, but the developer refused to make any alterations. As a result, the project did not comply with our General Plan.

+ Q: What impact has the lawsuit had?

A: The day after the community-backed plaintiffs delivered our settlement terms to the developer, Supervisor Rabbitt announced that the project was being sold to an affordable housing developer and the whole project would be affordable rental housing—which is the greatest need for our community. The Corona site has gone from having 11 to 116 affordable units with a much safer layout that will produce fewer vehicle trips and provide more open space for the residents. This is what our community lawsuit has achieved thus far, and we are encouraged by this progress.

+ Q: Has the lawsuit blown up our second SMART station?

A: NO. I look forward to having the second SMART station built at this location. In the same Facebook posting, Supervisor Rabbitt and Council Member McDonnell confirmed that the new developer would still be ceding the land needed to build the East side SMART station. We will get the second SMART station and we will not have to illegally give away $2,000,000 to get it.

+ Q: Could the council have made this affordable housing from the start?

A: Yes. The developer told the city council at a meeting that we had two options: market rate housing or affordable housing. The city council did not even try to make this project affordable housing despite that it would have addressed our community’s greatest housing need. To me, this is clear evidence that the council majority, including the three incumbents, were not looking out for the people of Petaluma in this process.

Watch this video about the development site here.

The city is currently at 125% of its market rate housing goals and only 15% of its affordable housing goals. By 2023, the City estimates that it will build 816% of its market rate housing targets. This shift toward affordable housing is exactly what we need to address our most pressing needs.

+ Q: What about the environmental justice aspects surrounding the downtown parcel?

A: The city council gave the developer $2,000,000 from our transportation mitigation fund to the developer to purchase land in downtown near the SMART station. Then they allowed the developer to push the affordable housing units that were supposed to be at the downtown station to the far south edge of town away from transit and services, under the freeway. This allowed the developer to build 400 luxury apartments near the downtown SMART station. This means that the lower income residents who stand to benefit from having good access to transit are forced to live at the edge of the community and spend more of their income on transportation. This is commonly referred to as “redlining” and is widely regarded as racist land use practice. I find it despicable that the city council majority would accept that in our town.

+ Q: Is the lawsuit costing the city a lot of money?

A: No. It costs the city nothing, the developer is responsible for all the defendant’s legal fees. These incumbents’ claims to the contrary are false.

+ Q: Brian has claimed that the developer was being advised by the city council members to violate our General Plan. What proof does he have?

A: Here is a video of the developer telling the planning commission that he showed his design to “city council members” and the incumbents said to include single family homes.

+ Q: Who is involved in the lawsuit?

A: As is the case with many community lawsuits, including the NoGasHere and Sids Commons lawsuits filed against the City recently, only one person is publicly known as a plaintiff. The negative responses and slander from opponents makes some people not want to expose their families to the attacks. The smear campaign against me is exactly why people do not want to be named. When the community members and I created the group to file the lawsuit, we signed an NDA saying that I was the only person who could be named. Thus, I legally cannot say who is involved and, with two out of three incumbents being lawyers, they should understand this and stop urging me to do something illegal. They are the ones who have broken the law here, not me.

The bottom line is: I’m proud we filed this lawsuit to stop this bad housing deal. The people of Petaluma stand to gain more affordable housing units, safer streets and less traffic. This is a win for our town.