Lowe’s may have abandoned its Rocklin project, but the Loomis lawsuit against Rocklin will go on.

“Our issues are all still there,” said Loomis Town Manager Perry Beck.

At issue is the traffic analysis, which Loomis states is flawed and uses outdated studies, along with Rocklin’s failure to adequately mitigate cumulative traffic impacts and pollution and failed to address the effects to Loomis businesses.

“The Rocklin council approved a 138,000-square-foot building on the site. The developer continues to look for a tenant. We have to assume that another business, conceivably like Lowe’s, will go on the site.”

The Loomis town council, at a special meeting held on Aug. 19, unanimously voted to continue with the lawsuit and to file a Petition for Writ of Mandate on the project.

Don Mooney, special counsel to the Town of Loomis, said that under a Writ of Mandate, the Superior Court would direct “the city of Rocklin to vacate and set aside the approvals of the Lowe’s project, because they had approved it in a violation of the law.”

Loomis Mayor Russ Kelley does not like lawsuits. He calls them “dysfunctional and counterproductive” and they “do not generate future working relationships with other agencies,” he said.

Unfortunately, Kelley said, the lawsuit was the only avenue the town could take. “We have no other choice.”

Council authorized the expenditure of an additional $75,000 in anticipated attorneys fees that could be recovered as part of the lawsuit.

In a memo to the Loomis council, Beck stated, “The Town had commented at the Rocklin Planning Commission on the Rocklin Lowe’s project and appealed that Commission’s approval to the Rocklin Council. The Rocklin Council approved the project, without addressing Loomis issues …”

The lawsuit was filed on May 30, after the Rocklin planning commission’s approval of a Lowe’s store on land abutting Loomis off of Sierra College Boulevard. The town claimed the Environmental Impact Report did not address issues affecting Loomis including traffic and air quality.

“Their traffic analysis was not done very well. This was confirmed because Rocklin recirculated their Rocklin Crossings EIR,” Beck said.

According to a recent article in the Rocklin Placer Herald, Mooney addressed the Rocklin council during the appeal hearing held on Aug. 12. He told the council that Loomis did not object to Rocklin’s right to develop the land, but rather, “The real concern is on the impacts to the town of Loomis being adequately mitigated.”

The article also quoted the site’s developer, Paul Petrovich, who said, “I’m talking to two other possible tenants.”

In addition, it stated Petrovich had appealed some of the Rocklin planning commission’s recommendations to the Rocklin council. Not all of his appeals were granted, but the Rocklin council did grant several that may affect Loomis residents who border the project. Two items dealt with the styling of the back wall and lighting fixtures.

Petrovich estimated that the modifications may reduce the cost of the project by as much as $500,000. Rocklin councilman Peter Hill said that a council must look at a project not just in terms of aesthetics, but also economic feasibility.

“Rocklin still has not addressed the cumulative effect of all the development they’re putting in along Sierra College Boulevard. The courts need to set aside approval of the project and make Rocklin do what they should under CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act),” said town manager Beck.

“I believe that there are several issues regarding air quality impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, and lack of mitigation,” Mooney, the special counsel, was quoted as saying in a town memo. The attorney expects the deadline to file a Petition for Writ of Mandate will be Sep. 12.