Last Modified: Monday, January 25, 2010 at 10:50 p.m.
Rejecting arguments that further delay was costing the city millions in fees and sales tax revenues, the Petaluma City Council voted Monday night to delay a hearing on a long-planned shopping center along Highway 101.
“I think it’s imperative that we spend more time getting the answers that we need to make this decision,” said councilwoman Tiffany Renee.
The decision stoked more fires under an issue that has become a lightning rod in Petaluma for arguments over the size of new development, the merits of “big box” retail stores, sustainable development and environmental impacts.
City attorney Eric Danly recommended that the hearing on the East Washington Place project be resumed at a later date because, he said, city staff had had to spend too much time responding to a lawsuit filed by the developer against the city.
The lawsuit charges the city with subjecting the project — discussion of which began in 2004 — to unjustified delays. Regency Centers, a Florida-based development firm, also has charged the city with violating public meeting laws, alleging that the council majority had met and made up its mind about the project prior to a Jan. 4 hearing at which the council asked for more information about the project’s environmental impacts.
“This delay is of your own making,” Councilwoman Teresa Barrett told Regency representatives Monday, “so shame on you.”
Danly said the developer asked the city to “cure” the alleged violation of the Brown Act and that under the law that cure would mean overturning the council’s Jan. 4 action asking for more information.
On Monday, an attorney for Regency, JK Davidoff, of the San Francisco law firm Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, said the cure “would be to act on the item” – voting to approve the development’s environmental impact report — “not to continue it.”
Danly said, “I disagree.”
The proposed 364,000 square foot shopping center at East Washington Street would include a Target store, a Friedman’s home improvement store, smaller food and retail shops and office space.
Proponents, including a minority of the council, say the center would capture sales tax revenues that Petaluma is losing to other cities.
Others, whether or not they ultimately support a new shopping center, say that as the proposal stands its environmental impacts are too steep, that it will harm local businesses and generate overwhelming traffic.
“We’re not opposed to development .
.
. This is not about shopping options, this is about good planning,” said Paul Francis, of the Petaluma Neighborhood Association, a citizens group. “This project has obvious flaws that need to be addressed.”
Most of the audience Monday night, however, endorsed the project. People like Marilyn Muir, a resident who said she’s tired of shopping out of town and urged the council to act on the EIR.
“They’ll rebuild Haiti before they build Target,” Muir said to supportive laughter.
Petaluma Chamber of Commerce president Les Villanyi said he was ”disappointed by what’s gone on.”
The business people he speaks to, he said, want the project to get underway to bring in consumers and jobs to the city.
“Get off the dime, get this thing going,” he said.
A 2009 study required by the city and paid for by the developer said the East Washington Place project would bring in more than $1 million a year in sales tax revenue and create 721 full- and part-time jobs.
“All we’re doing is pushing that off in to the future,” councilman David Rabbitt said, adding that the project would bring in another $11 million in impact fees that the city would start to receive before the project was completed.
Several speakers said the Regency lawsuit had soured them on the developer and the project.
Jason Davies said he was a small business person who had been “leaning” toward supporting the project until the lawsuit.
He said he considers Petaluma, and the council, an “extension” of his family and that, “When my family is attacked with a lawsuit it irks me.”
<p>Rejecting arguments that further delay was costing the city millions in fees and sales tax revenues, the Petaluma City Council voted Monday night to delay a hearing on a long-planned shopping center along Highway 101.</p><p>“I think it's imperative that we spend more time getting the answers that we need to make this decision,” said councilwoman Tiffany Renee.</p><p>The decision stoked more fires under an issue that has become a lightning rod in Petaluma for arguments over the size of new development, the merits of “big box” retail stores, sustainable development and environmental impacts.</p><p>City attorney Eric Danly recommended that the hearing on the East Washington Place project be resumed at a later date because, he said, city staff had had to spend too much time responding to a lawsuit filed by the developer against the city.</p><p>The lawsuit charges the city with subjecting the project — discussion of which began in 2004 — to unjustified delays. Regency Centers, a Florida-based development firm, also has charged the city with violating public meeting laws, alleging that the council majority had met and made up its mind about the project prior to a Jan. 4 hearing at which the council asked for more information about the project's environmental impacts.</p><p>“This delay is of your own making,” Councilwoman Teresa Barrett told Regency representatives Monday, “so shame on you.”</p><p>Danly said the developer asked the city to “cure” the alleged violation of the Brown Act and that under the law that cure would mean overturning the council's Jan. 4 action asking for more information.</p><p>On Monday, an attorney for Regency, JK Davidoff, of the San Francisco law firm Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, said the cure “would be to act on the item” – voting to approve the development's environmental impact report — “not to continue it.”</p><p>Danly said, “I disagree.”</p><p>The proposed 364,000 square foot shopping center at East Washington Street would include a Target store, a Friedman's home improvement store, smaller food and retail shops and office space.</p><p>Proponents, including a minority of the council, say the center would capture sales tax revenues that Petaluma is losing to other cities.</p><p>Others, whether or not they ultimately support a new shopping center, say that as the proposal stands its environmental impacts are too steep, that it will harm local businesses and generate overwhelming traffic.</p><p>“We're not opposed to development .<TH>.<TH>. This is not about shopping options, this is about good planning,” said Paul Francis, of the Petaluma Neighborhood Association, a citizens group. “This project has obvious flaws that need to be addressed.”</p><p>Most of the audience Monday night, however, endorsed the project. People like Marilyn Muir, a resident who said she's tired of shopping out of town and urged the council to act on the EIR.</p><p>“They'll rebuild Haiti before they build Target,” Muir said to supportive laughter.</p><p>Petaluma Chamber of Commerce president Les Villanyi said he was ”disappointed by what's gone on.”</p><p>The business people he speaks to, he said, want the project to get underway to bring in consumers and jobs to the city.</p><p>“Get off the dime, get this thing going,” he said.</p><p>A 2009 study required by the city and paid for by the developer said the East Washington Place project would bring in more than $1 million a year in sales tax revenue and create 721 full- and part-time jobs.</p><p>“All we're doing is pushing that off in to the future,” councilman David Rabbitt said, adding that the project would bring in another $11 million in impact fees that the city would start to receive before the project was completed.</p><p>Several speakers said the Regency lawsuit had soured them on the developer and the project.</p><p>Jason Davies said he was a small business person who had been “leaning” toward supporting the project until the lawsuit.</p><p>He said he considers Petaluma, and the council, an “extension” of his family and that, “When my family is attacked with a lawsuit it irks me.”</p>