Council: Target center needs work

<p>A decision on whether to build a Target-anchored shopping center may be made later this month after a split City Council said more answers are needed about the design and impacts of the project.</p><!-- Nothing to do. The paragraph has already been output --><p>The council voted 4-3 early Tuesday morning to table the discussion until Jan. 25 in order to have city staff evaluate what conditions could be added to Regency Centers' proposed East Washington Place at the former Kenilworth Junior High School site.</p><p>City officials said more time is needed to analyze comments from the public and local interest groups received this week, and to evaluate conditions proposed by the Planning Commission at a meeting last month.</p><p>But the postponement sparked concern by some council members that the center's projected October 2011 opening date could be in jeopardy.</p><p>According to the developer, Target and other large retailers in the project would likely delay their opening until the following March if the October 2011 date is missed.</p><p>Councilmember Mike Harris cited a 2009 economic study on the project that estimated the city could collect more than $1.1 million a year in sales tax revenue.</p><p>“If we miss that timeline, we could be losing upward of $400,000 in sales tax dollars,” said Harris, who joined council members Mike Healy and David Rabbitt in asking for a final vote Monday.</p><p>But other council members pointed out that Monday's was the first council hearing in the project's nearly six-year history and said the city needs to make sure the center is built right.</p><p>“This is the time to give comment and shape the project,” Mayor Pamela Torliatt said. “We need to make sure that what we do is good for the community, long-term.”</p><p>“The goal is to get it right, because it's going to be here for a long, long time,” Vice Mayor David Glass said.</p><p>Members of the City Council's slow-growth majority cited concerns that included vacant storefronts and lower-than-expected tax receipts at the shopping center.</p><p>Torliatt suggested the city regulate retail types at the center through the use-permit process, which would allow officials to review specific tenants before granting approval.</p><p>“One of the ways that we could actually have some control over who is in the center and who is not in the center could be through a conditional use permit process, which is required in other shopping centers that I used to manage,” said Torliatt, a former commercial real estate agent.</p><p>While the project — including a potential Friedman's home improvement store — could help plug sales tax “leakage” on items like general merchandise, electronics and building supplies, other products are less desirable, she said.</p><p>As an example, she cited the possible inclusion of grocery items in a Target store.</p><p>“I think we need to have some condition of approval that limits the gross square footage of grocery on this site, because we're maxed out according to our leakage study,” Torliatt said. “What we don't need here is a grocery use that we do not receive any sales tax dollars from.”</p><p>Other possible conditions of approval mentioned by council members included requirements that delivery trucks not access the site from East Washington Street, that a book store not be included that might compete with the downtown Copperfield's and a possible “vacancy tax” in case stores go dark.</p><p>Councilmember Tiffany Renée suggested that the developer pay the city a bond of three years' worth of projected sales tax in case stores go out of business.</p><p>“I think a vacancy tax would be a wise idea for Petaluma,” Renée said. “I think that's a necessity.”</p><p>City staff told the council that truck traffic could not be prohibited from using Johnson Street via East Washington Street to reach the center, but Councilmember Teresa Barrett said Lindberg Lane, at the rear of the project should be required for deliveries.</p><p>“For me, it is a dealbreaker if this project is going to go forward with commercial trucks going around the swim center,” Barrett said.</p><p>As the meeting went past midnight and stretched toward 1 a.m., Healy suggested the council take a vote on the environmental impact report, which if approved would trigger the Planning Commission's role in reviewing the design of the center.</p><p>“With all due respect to the folks who want to continue to kick the can down the road, I think we need to start making some decisions, and we're not doing the community or the applicant or anyone else any favors by continuing to bury this project in process,” Healy said.</p><p>He moved that the council take a vote on the EIR, and Harris seconded the motion. Glass then offered an amended motion that would continue the discussion to Jan. 25, and the city attorney said the council's rules require that the amended motion be decided first.</p><p>That motion passed 4-3 along political lines, with Barrett, Glass, Renée and Torliatt voting yes and Harris, Healy and Rabbitt voting no.</p><p>(Contact Corey Young at corey.young@arguscourier. com)</p>