People who responded to the Dec. 17, 2009’s online survey were closely divided on the question of whether the city should approve the East Washington Place shopping center as proposed.
Also, nearly 88 percent of respondents also said that the design of the center is either “very important” or somewhat important to them. Asked if there should be a greater mix of uses, 47.6 percent said said retail only is OK and  46.1 percent said there should be a greater mix of uses. Nearly half of those who responded said the center should include residential use.
Here are some of the comments by those who participated in the survey:
——
“We have waited long enough for this shopping center. It is time to get the ball rolling. We have a no-growth city council majority and now a no-growth planning commission. They will continue to makes excuses to stall this project. Yes the design of the center is important, but you can’t nitpick it to death. I have seen the design and I believe it is aesthetically pleasing. Give the approval and tweak the smaller items later. Let Regency build. Otherwise we will go through yet another holiday season with all our sales tax dollars going to Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park.”
——
“As it stands now, the site plan has the characteristics of a crude, bunker style big-box shopping plaza, so it does not comply with the mixed-use zoning designation. In addition, I’ve not heard much regarding how the city plans to manage traffic in that area, which is already burdened with heavy traffic. The plan must be reconsidered.”
——
“We need to get Target and Friedman’s in this town so we can buy a stick of lumber. Stop driving out of town to shop. Let’s get some revenue back into this town.”
——
“I’ve been looking around the Bay Area to find out what would look good in Petaluma. I think I found it. There is a shopping center in Danville called BlackHawk Plaza. I’ve never been there, but from the pictures on the Web site this is something to strive for. Here is the URL: www.shopblackhawkplaza.com. The only thing missing is the residences on top of the commercial property. This would change this plaza into a thriving center and create stronger commercial properties with the added business. Danville has about 10,000 fewer folks than we do. If Danville can do it, why can’t Petaluma?”
——
“I’m much more interested in seeing a shopping center that’s more focused on small, local businesses. I could see maybe having a large appliance/electronics retailer, as I know that it’s difficult for small businesses to get into and be competitive in those markets. But I don’t think we need a Borders (we have Copperfields) or other large store that will put our great local businesspeople out of business.”
——
“I support retail only at Regency Center because we have too many vacant office buildings already in Petaluma, and as far as including residential, it doesn’t seem like a pleasant place for people to live, jammed in next to the freeway and a shopping center. We need shopping there, though, to keep our residents off the freeways and keep our tax money at home!”
——
“It’s important to have an attractive design and to have it pedestrian-oriented as much as possible.”
PULSE OVERSET

——
“I feel that the addition of Friedman’s, while a positive, will have a large impact on the traffic. As someone who is a regular user of the Petaluma swim center, I have concern about this issue, and feel that the EIR needs to take this impact into consideration.”
——
“Why do designers and builders have zero imagination these days? And why should we accept the lowest common denominator? Petaluma is unique, and we deserve better. I’d rather have a hole in the ground than an infrastructure-straining eyesore. This isn’t about Target, this is about blight. Back to the drawing board Regency, or just go away.”
——
“Thousands of dollars are leaving Petaluma every day this is not built. The community wants it. The city desparately needs to tax revenue. Build it.”
——
“After five years of community input, Regency has provided an economic solution to Petaluma, so we are supporting this development and shopping/job opportunities.”
——
“It’s time to get this thing moving. The ‘progressive’ obstructionists are dragging Petaluma into bankruptcy. We need jobs, and we desperately need to expand our tax base. The most vocal opponents are (understandably) from the Old East Petaluma neighborhood, near the site. The rest of Petaluma needs to be heard, too, and we want this to move forward!”
——
“Let’s hope the city can make the right decision to build a Target and give Petaluma residents what they want. The average Petaluma household is a family working and living on a budget. Petaluma has a major who doesn’t work, is supported by her parents and has no reality of what it’s like to shop in Petaluma on a budget. Target will never be built if the major continues to stall the project with backroom politics and not approve the East Washington Place shopping center as proposed.”
——
“We need a decent store like Target. I go to Rohnert Park once a week.”
——
“Most of us have lost faith that the city under current leadership will actually be able to get this project or any other approved and built. It is not only critically needed both for the shopping and the jobs but the city including small businesses can only profit by the completion of this project. I, for one, see the current Planning Commission and City Council as good at only stalling and doing nothing of importance under Torliatt’s mayorship. Take heed those of you running for office again. Not exactly a track record to inspire folks to want you back in any capacity.”
——
“We definitely don’t want another strip mall. I can go to Santa Rosa’s Costco if I want a strip mall. Strip malls are an outdated urban sprawl design. A mixed property use is the way to go. Only the foolish would vote for a strip mall. You need residential and offices that will help the restaurants and businesses. This design also keeps locals buying locally without the need to drive. Bike and walking paths and transportation are also needed. A pedestrian environment is needed. You can look to Windsor Town Green or Fruitvale Village in Oakland for inspiration. Mixed use works, creates stronger businesses, increases property values (a strip mall will decrease property values) and creates community. Don’t settle for anything less. Please call the City Council members and ask them for mixed use with a design that is good enough for your family to enjoy an ice cream while outdoors. Design. Mix Use. Prosperity.”
——
“We need an environment that people will routinely return to for more than just shopping purposes. We need time to relax, hang out and enjoy. There is a new style of urbanization called town centers. This is the design of today that requires mixed-use functionality. We need the anchor stores, service industry (bookstores, restaurants, salons, etc.) and residential to make this work. If we can make this area a place where people from outside our town will return to, then we will create strong businesses where we can draw tax dollars from outside of Petaluma. Anything that resembles a strip mall will not attract people outside of our town.”
——
“I think we have enough chain stores.”
——
“When this first was proposed, there was a residential mix included. But as soon as the economy slumped, Washington Place changed their tune and now want just retail and business offices. I feel we have an over abundance of office space for lease all over Petaluma and there is no need whatsoever for more. Let’s face it: our economy is in trouble and both additional residential and office space will not be needed for a long time. It is going to get worse before it gets better.”
——
“A community needs to know all of the information if they are to accurately answer any and all of these questions. How will the project affect traffic flow along an already crowded thoroughfare? How will pedestrians, strollers with kids, wheelchairs, and bicyclists safely navigate their way through a ocean of parked cars and sidewalks along the project’s edges? The design of this center is a throwback to the mid-1970s huge malls. Where is the mixed use? Where is the low-income and affordable urban housing with high density and 2-3 stories? It ought to be where the parking is proposed, and the parking made into a parking structure at the S-end of the project at Lindberg Lane. Where will the delivery trucks enter the project? Why is Petaluma building more retail space when there is already enough shopping in town (Kmart)? What happens to the Plaza North Shopping (Kmart) center in re: to urban decay? Why are certain people obsessed with being branded- or Targeted- by their corporate slave-owners in the guise of the Chinese economy? Why does it matter what ‘brand’ you wear? It’s all made by low-wage labor, sometimes chained to chairs, sometimes children making it all.”
——
“You forgot to ask Regency where they expect the rest of us to drive if they are successful, once the traffic from their project totally clogs up Washington, 101 and Lakeville streets. What happens then, when the fairgrounds wants to redevelop its property and become successful? The city planners are not even talking about that, no less giving us facts to decide with. And how about Regency taking $41 million dollars in retail sales from existing Petaluma businesses over the next 10 years (according to the fiscal report). That’s more than $4 million in lost sales per year! If you own or work in a locally owned business in Petaluma, it’s time to start looking for another line of work. Hey, how about minimum wage part-time jobs at Target? That also means that the city’s supposed sales tax income is overstated by millions of dollars — they are just shifted from one business to another. If big boxes were the answer to our problems, we’d all be in Rohnert Park enjoying the view.”
——
“No strip mall for Petaluma! If we don’t get this right the first time, than we and not the developer will get to ‘enjoy’ the negative secondary effects forever. Do we really need stores who sell ‘not made in America’? I think not! America should re-invent ‘made in America’; we can still engage in commerce with other countries. ‘Shop until you drop’ is killing our country. How about saving?
——
“If one read last week’s Argus-Courier, over 40 percent of retail space is empty in our community. That translates: “Fill up what we have already, not add to the waste: I don’t see why this is so difficult!”
——
“A redesign of the Kenilworth site is imperative to Petaluma’s future success. The present ‘big-box’ bunker style proposal does not comply with the objectives of Petaluma’s General Plan 2025 for redevelopment along the Washington street corridor. It also does not adhere to our community standards for sustainable development. The proposed site plan is clearly a ‘commercial retail’ design that is being jammed onto a parcel designated ‘mixed use’ zoning. The fact is, cities are simply not building these types of auto-centric projects any longer. Without a redesigned, we will be squandering away our chance to create a pedestrian/transit oriented viable plan for the future of our city. It’s a once in a life time opportunity during a significant time in our city’s development process. We need to get it right! If we don’t, we will suffer the ramifications for many years to come.”
——
“Once again, your ‘poll’ can only be answered if the reader approves the shopping center, which is the stance of the newspaper. Bias reporting, bias polls = no readership.
——
“We don’t need a trashy ’70s style waste of a mall. Bring on enlightened mixed use. Two-story Target like the one in Albany and a better use of green ways, bike paths and pedestrian friendly space!”
——
“The project as proposed is essentially unchanged from before and the developer is divulging even less of its tenants. Proposed office space on second floor will not be occupied in a market with 41 percent vacancy.”
——
“Petaluma deserves more than old-school big boxes that kill community. Something like this must have mixed use retail/residential/nightlife/offices. I cannot believe that people are that short-sighted. The way it is currently proposed is a disgrace and a slap in Petaluma’s face.”
——
“The East Washington Place project is inherently damaging to Petaluma. There is no water to support it, period. But wait, there’s more! The traffic design is a catastrophe in the making. The utter strangulation of the swim center is unconscionable. The murky relationship between the shopping center and the fairgrounds cries out for investigation. The installation of a Target, or any other big box entity, ensures the destruction of our downtown and is harebrained and economically benighted. Most of any profits generated will be exported out of state and leave Petaluma with deficits; if a real CIR and EIR were conducted, these eventualities would be patently clear to all. The fact that they are not clear, and that both the CIR and EIR arrived as inept and worthless documents, itself cries out for a thorough investigation. Petaluma loses with the East Washington debacle. What’s worse is that your newspaper is not helping the debate. The Argus has consistently glossed over obvious, protruding problems with the East Washington debacle, and treated error, mismanagement and irresponsible foolishness as creditable dialogue. American journalistic standards demand that news organs abjure enabling such drivel and instead speak plainly.”
——
“Jobs are needed. We must carefully examine what we want. Strip malls don’t create an environment where someone wants to go to. They lack walking paths, bike paths, residential and commercial, all of these things will make the projects a success. Do we want to build a strip mall, which are in decline across the U.S.? Do you actually go to the Safeway and Kmart centers to walk around with your families? I find myself heading to the Town Center in Corte Madera. This is a very nice walking mall, it lacks residential, but I guess it does well as it attracts many outsiders like myself. Design first if you want a robust shopping experience.”
——
“Hey, what’s this? Your poll is certainly biased towards the shopping center, but that’s no surprise since you’ve always been for big-box stores and major development no matter what the cost to Petaluma’s character or the wishes of most of the population. Why do we need this shopping center? Those who complain about not being able to buy their underpants forget about Kohl’s or Kmart. Let them move to Rohnert Park, there are plenty of shopping centers there! Retail ‘leakage’? You are using biased (again!) statistics from almost 10 years ago! Why not be responsible and do a current study to see if the citizens of Petaluma want to ruin our beautiful town by building centers for income for non-local businesses. Keep our shopping local or there won’t be any more local shopping!”
——
“Our community has in the past benefitted from a reputation for having ‘an award-winning General Plan.’ The General Plan for 2025 results from hundreds of local citizens collaborating and deliberating on what is good for Petaluma. This proposal does not meet with the General Plan and furthermore is based on an outdated economic model that is not sustainable for even the medium term. This proposal offers shock and awe in the amazement of procuring glittering goods that will then be looted to become a desolation row of big-box blight in our geographical center. Or maybe it will simply be more of the same old same old dulls our vitality and special character.”
——
“It should include playing fields (like Carter Field that is being eliminated) so that when parents drop their kids off for games, practice, etc., they can also get some shopping done. Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. I am not sure about office space since we already have quite of bit of vacant office space already in town. As for residential, it would depend on how it was done. And one thing about the whole project that still remains a mystery to me is where is the water coming from! I know it has been said that the general plan says there is enough water, but I don’t know if we can count on that.”
——
“The design of any new center in Petaluma should be strongly considered as part of the approval process. Big-box stores can be described in two words — ugly and cold. Big slabs of concrete with no charm. Also the traffic patterns need to be really looked at. There is already congestion at that area with 101 ramps.”
——
“This is a strip mall with a big-box store that will kill a number of local businesses. The EIR is inadequate in that it did not list all the environmental impacts, or possible real-world mitigations. The architecture is ugly and will look ridiculous in 10 years. If this lousy project with all it’s traffic impacts, air pollution, noise and other public problems is approved, it’ll be one more slam against our town, bringing us that much closer to being another Rohnert Park. And if you like Rohnert Park, then move there. They have lots of big-box stores!”
——
“As former chair of Petaluma’s Aquatics Advisory Committee, I have reviewed Regency Corporation’s EIR and studied the design of their proposed mall in detail. It does not meet the requirements of Petaluma’s General Plan and many of the EIR’s negatives simply cannot be mitigated. The time for giant ‘strip mall’ development is passed and a project done in a more human and ecologically sensitive manner must be our goal.”
——
“I live only five blocks from the proposed site and would rather not see a shopping center at all, but if we must have this in our town I’d like to see it done as a sustainable model for this area with a cutting-edge design that would bring attention to the shopping center for it’s innovation instead of it’s blight. If the traditional big-box model is approved, I am convinced this already congested area would be negatively impacted by the additional traffic and crime, the mass consumption of our city’s utilities, and the irreparable damage to our local small businesses. Make this project something to be proud of and not just for the massive amount of local products that can be had!”
——
“Northbound off-ramp is a good idea because it can distribute and decentralize traffic on the more populous east side of town. The underpass proposal is a complete waste of tax dollars. Building in a historic flood plain is folly. We’re just slow learners.”
——
“This project is way too big for the location. It does not comply with the city’s own General Plan. It is quite hideous, to say the least, it looks more like the ugly North McDowell shopping center that was built a few years ago where the Kohl’s and Michael’s are. Don’t we have enough super-ugly, mostly empty shopping centers in town already? Yes, we do.”
——
“Petaluma has a rich architectural heritage that is reflected in our downtown and surrounding historic residential districts. While it is unreasonable (and likely undesirable) to expect a big-box commercial center to imitate the classic architectural vernaculars found in Petaluma, it is not unreasonable to demand that new commercial developments like Regency present enduring architectural designs featuring quality materials and thoughtful details. I, for one, am tired of the concrete tilt-up boxes that abound throughout Petaluma (Club One, for example). Regency has a long way to go with the architectural design it has presented to the community. The current proposal is reminiscent of every other big-box development plopped along Interstate 80 through Solano County and Highway 99 through the San Joaquin Valley. Let us not accept the same value-engineered crap. As to land use, retail only or a retail/office mix is most appropriate at the Regency site due to its proximity to 101. Placing residential uses at the Regency site would be a terrible mistake, since living near a major freeway is not a pleasant experience. Let’s save the mixed-use residential developments for the urban core area as envisioned in the CPSP.”
——
“I don’t think that Petaluma needs another big-box store. There are plenty already.”
——
“We have enough empty retail/residences in this town! its a proven failure.”
——
“This city can’t find their way around their own personalities. So what makes you think those empowered can decide for the over all betterment of the residents when they have already closed their ears to the public’s comments at every council and planning meeting? It’s all a big joke to them when they waste time on the EIR reports, when they should be called the CIR (‘Cosmetic’ Impact Report.’) It has become all about what each individual likes, not the public as a whole. The city would be better run if we were to impeach them all, and let the citizens do as they please, as they have been already. Just walk up and down any neighborhood street, and see how much has been done without permits, of which now has become a joke too.”
——
“I oppose the project in one word: Traffic. Traffic is bad enough on Washington Street as it is. A quote from the East Washington Place Web page states, ‘Improving traffic congestion by fixing surrounding roads, improving freeway on-ramps, and widening East Washington Street.’ This seems counter-intuitive. It’s like they’re admitting that there will be traffic congestion, but that it’ll be ‘fixed.’ That makes no sense, as does this project. And let me remind Target: there’s an empty Mervyn’s store ready for use.”
——
“We should be discerning. We have a great town and we should hold our commercial investors to the standards laid out in our General Plan for that corridor.”
——
“Traffic on East Washington Street is already terrible. I can imagine what will happen with a major retail site exiting and entering on this crowded street.”
——
“I’d like to see the Mervyn’s store and the Shoe Pavilion be occupied before any more stores are built in Petaluma. Do we really need another shopping center with empty storefronts?”
——
“Make it serve the community! Get rid of stock car races and put in a velodrome for bicycle racing! It could be a real destination spot and cultural center for the North Bay.”
——
“Traffic impact should have been addressed in this poll. The question could have read, ‘Do you think the center’s proposed location could pose a negative impact on traffic in the area?’ because the center is to be built in one of the most backed-up traffic corridors in town. That is a concern of at least some opponents of the center and I believe there is merit to the question. I am not against big-box stores coming to Petaluma, within reason, but location should be an important part of the permit process and this is not a great location as far as traffic is concerned.”
——
“The inclusion of Friedman’s completely changes the parking and delivery truck requirements of the project. Unless Friedman’s replaces the proposed Target (who they don’t actually have a firm commitment from), the EIR has to have substantial reevisions in order to be viable.
——
“The plans need to be changed to allow for the traffic needs of Friedman’s. The existing plans are completely inadequate.
——
“We need to know more about what other stores Regency will include, plus a new economic impact report that includes Freidmans and the other stores.”
——
“I went to the last planning commision meeting. The new planning commisionors are arrogant, sarcastic and rude. The city has jacked these people around for years. Who wants to live in a shopping center?”
——
“Fill the retail leakage, but not at the expense of good design. It’s sad that so many people in this city are willing to settle for Rohnert Park strip mall-ness. The Regency design is almost there, but the walkability of the project is still very disconnected.”
——
“A summary of the proposal would
have been helpful, or at least a link to www.eastwashingtonplace.com.”
——
“Give me Target! Kmart is the worst.”
——
“I fear the commissions and council are spending to much time on micromanging the center. What Petaluma needs is to focus on is the appearance. Petaluma has some great buildings, they where built by developers long before the SPARC and the planning commission were created. The original uses of these great buildings are gone, but these beloved structures remain because of their appeal. Stop trying to get more shade, more solar, more walkable, and more expensive. Petaluma should challenge the developer to build the next great looking Petaluma building. That is something we can all support.”
——
“Please add a Target soon. I am sick of all my money going to Novato or Rohnert Park. Petaluma is really missing out.”
——
“The Planning Commission and City Council should approve all new retail building projects. Then people can stop complaining about no retail in Petaluma. And the traffic in all parts of town will be at a standstill and no one will be able to go anywhere. Do people really think that people from other cities in the Bay Area will drive to Petaluma to shop at a Target store when there are already enough Target stores in the area? If they do, when they get stuck in a mob of non-moving traffic the first time, they will never come back. So go ahead and build it; they will not come.”
——
“Lets get with it, Petaluma. All our tax money is going to Rohnert Park, Novato, and Santa Rosa. We need Target and Friedman Brothers. I voted for most of these people, but I am ready to change my mind.”
——
“Hey, the county supervisor election is in June next year, I’m sure candidate/mayor Torliat will drag this out till after the election!”
——
“This is getting real old now. We need the shopping and jobs. It seems the council just keeps on having studies and raising issues until it is what they want, not what the City needs. As long as it does not look like the Factory outlet joke. I have lived in Sonoma county for 35 years and I never saw a farm or country side that ‘they said’ it was going to look like. Take a ride to the old Agilent plant in Rohnert Park. Look what Codding did to those bare cement-faced buildings. That is what we need. One of the planning people made the comment, ‘It looks like a ’70s strip mall.’ So what? As I remember, in the ’70s the city of Petaluma was not laying off police officers. In the ’70s I never had to leave town. I did all my shopping here. I worked in town. Now I shop out of town and am out of work. I have to smile every time I pass that Theatre District sign that says, ‘Live here. Work here.’ Yeah, right. Do you really think there is one job in this “district” that pays enough to live there?”

——
“It’s apparent that the new Planning Commission is not in touch with reality. The city is in dire need of revenue (money) and jobs (there are many Petaluma residents who are unemployed.) The Petaluma housing market is terrible and should be classified as affordable housing. Adding inventory (residences) makes it worse. Let’s remember that affordable housing was a major contributor to our current depression — sorry, ‘recession.’”
——
“Went to Target in Santa Rosa last weekend as they had some great prices on some items. While there, I saw my next-door neighbor and another neighbor from down the street. No sales tax revenue for the coffers of Petaluma. As for residential use at East Washington Place, I wouldn’t want to live there and don’t know anyone who would.”
——
“Why are you suddenly calling this ‘East Washington Place’? Why not refer to this in the names that might make people understand what the poll is about? This is about the proposed Target center or the retail development where Kenilworth Junior High was located. Seems like you are trying to skew the results.”
——
“I think we should study this for the next 10 years like we talked about the waste treatment center there by driving up the cost of building it.”