Petaluma officials will continue to revise a proposal requiring stronger economic scrutiny of new stores proposed in town, after the City Council couldn?t agree Monday on the details of how such impact reports would be crafted.
The proposal failed on a 2-5 vote and the council members who voted against it said the language of the ?fiscal and economic impact assessment? requirement didn?t reflect their intent when they endorsed the concept of such studies three weeks ago.
But supporters of the fiscal reports accused the council majority of bowing to pressure from businesses and developers that raised concerns about the requirement in letters earlier this week.
Developers of some large projects that would have to submit the reports said their concerns were amplified only after getting a look at the specific resolution the council considered Monday, which was made public two days before the Fourth of July weekend.
Council members who voted against the requirement, meanwhile, said it needs more refinement and review and asked that it be brought forward again on Aug. 4.
A clause that requires the city to make ?findings of fact? about a project?s ?net positive impact on Petaluma?s economy? should be dropped, some council members said.
?We said this was informational only,? Councilmember Mike O?Brien said. ?This resolution looks very, very binding to me.?
?It?s the finding of fact in this latest version that really rubs me the wrong way,? Vice Mayor David Rabbitt said. That requirement puts the council in the position of having to certify potentially subjective data about a store?s impact on existing businesses, he said.
?Subjective fiscal analysis, I have a problem with,? said Rabbitt, who was joined by council members Samantha Freitas, Mike Harris, Karen Nau and O?Brien in voting against the resolution.
Mayor Pamela Torliatt and Councilmember Teresa Barrett supported the resolution. Torliatt said even if changes are made later to the fiscal report?s structure, it should be in place so key projects cannot be approved without having to submit such studies.
Pending shopping center proposals by Regency Centers, DSL Service Co. and Basin Street Properties, as well as a long-planned expansion of the outlet mall, would be subject to the requirements of the reports.
Community Development Director Mike Moore said approval is unlikely for any of those developments in the next month, but Torliatt said passage of the FEIA resolution would guarantee those projects would be subject to its requirements.
?If we don?t adopt the resolution, there is the potential for these large projects to slide through the process,? Torliatt said.
Numerous speakers from the Petaluma Community Coalition, including members of the Living Wage Coalition, Petaluma Neighborhood Association and Petaluma Independent Business Alliance, urged the council to pass the resolution as written.
Some criticized the timing of letters from developers and the Petaluma Area Chamber of Commerce?s government affairs committee that listed concerns about the FEIA requirement.
?Where was this opposition back in January? Where were they on June 16?? asked Melissa Abercrombie, Petaluma Neighborhood Association co-founder. ?No one can say they weren?t invited to the table.?
Bruce Qualls, vice president of Regency Centers, said his company was ?amiss? in not being more involved in the June 16 discussion, but asked the council to put off a decision to allow more time to review and comment on the details of the FEIA proposal.
Regency Centers is planning a shopping center and office space, anchored by a Target store, on the former Kenilworth Junior High site on East Washington Street. Qualls said the FEIA requirement, as written, ?would preclude us from finishing our project.?
Martin Bennett, co-chair of the Living Wage Coalition and a leading FEIA proponent, said his group would be willing to meet with representatives of the chamber and the development community before the Aug. 4 meeting to discuss the proposal.
?We want to retain this broad coalition that we have,? Bennett said.
(Contact Corey Young at corey.young@arguscourier.com)
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: