Big-box debate heats up

<p>Opponents in the debate over more big-box stores in Petaluma clashed again this week over a fiscal report that concluded a proposed shopping center anchored by a Lowe's home improvement store would be an economic boon to the city.</p><!-- Nothing to do. The paragraph has already been output --><p>Critics of Deer Creek Village on North McDowell Boulevard assailed the city consultant's report as lacking wage information and detail about the effects on existing businesses of the 315,000-square-foot shopping center.</p><p>Supporters, however, claimed the analysis showed the proposal would create jobs and tax revenue and accused political rivals of twisting the facts to thwart the project.</p><p>The tension provoked a testy exchange between City Councilman David Glass, a member of the slow-growth majority, and Jeff Mayne of the Chamber of Commerce over property rights at this week's council meeting.</p><p>Mayne suggested criticism of the fiscal and economic impact report was a delay tactic. Glass told Mayne the project was in an undesirable location for generating sales-tax revenue and his comments were delaying the meeting.</p><p>Mayor Pam Torliatt quickly intervened.</p><p>"Now, Mr. Mayne, I think we are all trying to analyze this issue to the best of each of our abilities and I want to be respectful of that," Torliatt said.</p><p>It was the second contentious meeting since the council last year adopted the fiscal analysis requirement for projects larger than 25,000 square feet.</p><p>About a month ago, the city received the results of its first analysis on the proposed Target-anchored shopping center on East Washington Street. The same consultant, Bay Area Economics, concluded the 377,000-square-foot proposal would bring more than 1,000 jobs and $1.5 million in tax revenue to the city, which is struggling with fiscal problems.</p><p>But advocates of the fiscal reporting policy, including some council members and the Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County, expressed skepticism.</p><p>They said wage levels were overstated and losses to existing retailers from competition with Target were minimized. Consultant Ray Kennedy defended the findings as accurate, given the limited scope of the report and lack of wage data from Target.</p><p>The same critique was leveled at Deer Creek Village.</p><p>Marty Bennett of the Living Wage Coalition said Lowe's employees would average about $10 an hour instead of the $14 an hour mentioned in the report and fewer than half would have medical benefits, putting pressure on local hospitals.</p><p>Also, Bennett said the report didn't consider the economic downturn, which has caused widespread vacancies in commercial real estate, and glossed over losses to existing clothing and other stores posed by the project.</p><p>Bennett called for changes to make the report more rigorous.</p><p>Some council members, including Torliatt, agreed.</p><p>"There is some legitimate dissatisfaction with the level of detail the policy requires," Councilman Mike Healy said Wednesday. "I do question how much is achievable as a practical matter."</p><p>In response, the city consultant, Kennedy, questioned Bennett's research. He said it relied upon a doctoral candidate's work that was filled with inaccuracies and ommissions, drawing conclusions about wages and economic impacts without regard to facts.</p><p>Kennedy expressed frustration with the council over what appeared to be changing goals for the studies. He said with more than 800 retail stores in Petaluma, it would be difficult to report on the impacts to every one of them.</p><p>"As noted in a comment from the Living Wage Coalition that I actually agree with, council might wish to clarify and review just what information it is seeking in its analyses," Kennedy said.</p><p>Under current policy, the council is not required to approve the report. It is informational only and economic concerns can not be used as a basis for rejecting the project as it goes through the approval process this year, the city attorney said.</p><p>But future projects could face more scrutiny. Torliatt said the council this fall could revisit what she called the "watered-down" requirement.</p><p>In the meantime, she said she hoped developers would heed concerns raised in the meetings and design their projects accordingly.</p><p>"This is our second cut," Torliatt said. "I think it's a basis for discussion, but it's certainly a policy that could be improved."</p><p>You can reach Staff Writer Paul Payne at 762-7297 or paul.payne@pressdemocrat.com.</p>