Council wants pared-down fiscal reports
Developers of large retail projects would need to provide narrower ‘fiscal analysis’ in place of community impact reports
Published: Thursday, Jun 19, 2008
By COREY YOUNG
ARGUS-COURIER STAFF
Backers of stronger economic reports on large retail projects in town and city officials agreed on a compromise proposal that won unanimous support from the City Council Monday.
Instead of full-scale “community impact reports,” first proposed as part of the city’s development review process back in January, a smaller range of projects will need to submit a “more focused” economic assessment as part of their plans.
The revised proposal was hammered out late last week in meetings between city staff, the Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County and other proponents of the initial CIR requirement.
The fiscal reports would be required as a policy of the City Council, in line with the economic goals of the new General Plan, but would not be written into the city’s municipal code.
The revised proposal calls for a “balance sheet” that the community and city officials can examine to see the financial costs and benefits of new development, said Martin Bennett, co-chair of the Living Wage Coalition.
The cost-benefit analysis will provide information on a project’s anticipated revenue to the city, any costs of public services for the site and whether existing businesses would be hurt financially if the project were built, among other areas.
In addition, the analysis would specify the types of jobs created by the project — during construction and after opening — and the wage and benefit packages those employees would receive.
The Living Wage Coalition is concerned about the creation of “junk jobs” that shift the burden of worker health-care costs to government instead of employees, said coordinator Ben Boyce.
The fiscal reports would be required for projects over 25,000 square feet, in four categories: General retail, grocery stores, home and garden stores and hotels.
It is expected that developers of two large shopping centers in Petaluma’s planning pipeline — at the former Kenilworth Junior High School site on East Washington Street and across from Petaluma Valley Hospital on North McDowell Boulevard — will be asked to provide the reports to the city.
Several members of the council said they saw the revised proposal as the “first step” toward creating a strategic economic plan for the city that includes data about jobs and businesses needed, opportunities to increase sales tax and ways to enhance and protect the downtown.
City leaders also said the fiscal reports would support language in the new General Plan that says the city must “ensure new development has a net positive impact on Petaluma’s economy” and existing businesses.
“Something focused and based on the General Plan policies is exactly what we need,” Vice Mayor David Rabbitt said, adding that the eventual creation of a citywide economic plan is “vital.”
Councilmember Mike Harris said the fiscal reports, coupled with a long-term economic plan, are a “natural extension of the General Plan.”
But Councilmember Teresa Barrett said while she supported the revised proposal, “it is really pared down from what a community impact report should be.”
The revision “is a good first step, but I hope it’s not the last step,” she said.
Unlike environmental impact reports, which are required by state law for most large projects, the fiscal studies won’t have to be voted upon in a formal hearing, city officials and proponents said.
However, the council is expected to hold public hearings on the reports as part of reviewing a development proposal, giving the public an opportunity to comment on the findings of the report.
(Contact Corey Young at corey.young@arguscourier.com)
