70° SUNNY,
Target center's impact on pool questioned
Council suggests Regency should re-evaluate route to proposed center
Last Modified: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 at 3:44 p.m.
The city and the developer of a Target-anchored shopping center should take another look at plans to build a road around two recreational facilities next to the site, some City Council members said Monday.
- Commission puts off Target decision
- Target shopping center, silk mill hotel on agenda
- Planners question traffic at Target center
- New report out on planned Target center
- Target center headed for summer showdown
- Council skeptical of Target's benefits
- Group blasts Target report
- Report: Target center could net city $1.5M each year
During a discussion of the draft environmental report for the East Washington Place project, some members of the council and the public said they were concerned about traffic and emissions along a three-lane street planned to wrap around the swim center and skate park.
The road, Johnson Drive, would direct traffic from the East Washington Street-Ellis Street intersection around the back of the swim center and up to Kenilworth Drive, which fronts the shopping center’s parking area.
But putting moving cars in close proximity to swimmers and skaters — particularly children — isn’t a good idea, some at the meeting suggested.
“I find it totally unacceptable how the swimming pool has been treated in every iteration of this project,” Vice Mayor Teresa Barrett said. Placing traffic nearby “is a total danger to people who use the swim center and the skate park.”
Shortly after developer Regency Centers purchased the former Kenilworth Junior High School site in 2004, the city granted an easement for the future Johnson Drive after carving the right-of-way out of the Sonoma-Marin Fairgrounds’ lease of the city-owned parking area behind the swim center.
At one point, Regency proposed buying the swim center and skate park site and paying to rebuild those facilities elsewhere, but the cost proved too high, the company said.
Under the current plan, the Johnson Drive access would include driveways to two parking areas on the west and south sides of the swim center, along with crosswalks linking pedestrians to additional parking areas closer to the fairgrounds.
However, that would put pedestrians headed to and from the pool in conflict with drivers trying to reach the shopping center, council members said.
“If there’s a different place for the road to go, we should explore that,” Councilmember David Glass said.
Councilmember David Rabbitt agreed that the developer and city “need to work out some kinks” regarding the swim center’s proximity to the road. He suggested that a pedestrian plaza in the center of the proposed project be extended toward the swim center site.
Mayor Pamela Torliatt offered several ideas for the final EIR to evaluate, including a ban on the inclusion of a garden center at the Target store to limit the project’s water use.
She also said the city should consider zoning the site for a lumber yard in an effort to attract a Friedman’s Home Improvement store as part of the project, which would prevent the opening of a similar store elsewhere. The city previously used the same type of zoning to specify that a movie theater could only open in the Theatre District.
Torliatt, Barrett and Councilmember Tiffany Renée also said the city should consider requiring a “demolition bond” or passing a “tear-down ordinance” to ensure that Petaluma would not be left with a “ghost mall” if stores at East Washington Place closed.
“Times will change and there are many examples of urban decay around the country where buildings have just gone dark,” Torliatt said. “I’m interested in trying to build something here that’s going to continue for a long time and gives us what we thought we were going to get.”
The council’s review of the draft EIR followed a Planning Commission review in August, during which commissioners said truck traffic at the project should be directed to use Lindberg Lane at the rear of the site, not East Washington Street.
Commissioners said additional bus stops in the interior of the shopping center, rather than a single stop on East Washington, should be included.
Comments from city officials and the public will be addressed as part of the final EIR, which will come back to the council for a vote along with a decision on the project itself in several months.
(Contact Corey Young at corey.young@arguscourier.com)
Next Article in Community-News
-
Petaluma’s water conservation efforts are paying off
Water-saving steps have reduced water demands far below levels thought possible 10 years ago....
search
Local Business Directory
post your stuff
Petaluma360.com is here for you to post your comments, photos, news and events with the community. Post it now!
Your Voice
Have something to say? Join the conversation!
Your Photos
Trying out photography? Show off your stuff here.
Your News Items
Want to report the news? Have an item to share with everyone? Send us your news so we can share it with the community.
Your Events
Submit your area events to encourage others in your community to attend.
For Your Mobile
Take us with you anywhere, anytime at http://m.petaluma360.comYou'll find a number of new technology features available from this site. With personalized news sent straight to your mobile device. SIGN UP
Email Newsletter
Sign up
for our e-mail services and receive your local news, sports, weather and more.
View Sample
Comments
Only moderator-approved comments are shown on this page. To see all comments, please visit the forum.Post a comment | View all comments on this topic.
September 17, 2009 4:37:16 am
RE: Link
R U serious? What the hell is this council smoking? These people have serious mental issues. You do know there's a freeway right next to it? What about the drive through coffee shop? No problem there? Unbelievable stupidity in our local government.
September 17, 2009 5:58:03 am
So, they have mental issues and are smoking "something" because they are doing their jobs so the citizens of Petaluma don't end up with a big wet kiss to the developer's every whim? I don't think so. Sounds to me like some very level-headed thinking going on and I am thankful they are looking closely at ALL of the issues.The demo bond is brilliant so that when the place goes belly up and the TOOLS store is their very last tenant (squatter), the city can legally bulldoze the place and turn it back into a field.
September 17, 2009 6:10:55 am
This town has more than enough people to support a Target store. This about tree huggers who are against ANYTHING being built. You ask any Petaluman where they spent most of their $$$'s and they'll tell you, other than groceries, it's in Santa Rosa and Rohnert park. It's time to wake up and stop this BS. Keep my sale tax $$$'s here! And furthermore no one was worried about fumes at the pool when Keniworth jr. high was there. There were throngs of cars going in and out of that place. This has been going on way too long and it's ridiculous. Target is what Kmart was, and we NEED it. No we DESERVE it!
September 17, 2009 6:49:22 am
You shouldn't get so upset over this or you will end up tipping over. Your post reads like you are slamming around the house throwing things. Obvious that you were a fume baby which is what we are trying to prevent from happening to future Petalumpians which in turn, explains taking a closer look at so many cars going so close to the swim center.
September 17, 2009 7:56:35 am
If you say anything about the crappy design of Regency's mall, you are an anti-growth tree hugger and you will be mobbed by the argus courier commenter mob.
September 17, 2009 9:25:16 am
Barrett's idea to prohibit a Garden Center at Target to save water is silly. It would be much smarter to negotiate a requirement to limit offerings to drought resistant materials. A garden center in town that specialized in that niche could be really successful and no one else is really going after it yet with anything more than signs on some of their plants. There are way too many dust bowls and fire hazards springing up around town during the peak of fire season as people use the water situation as an excuse to just stop watering. That was never the idea. A neighbor that's replanting with low water usage plants is inundated by his lazy neighbors weeds.I'm more concerned with that blight issue than the possibility that 40 years from now there might be an empty storefront or two with it's back facing the freeway and its front facing a race track. Demolition bond? Ridiculous. Just keep negotiating design improvements and empty shopping centers won't be an issue. More edicts won't transform Petaluma's biggest eyesore into anything useful any time soon.
September 17, 2009 9:47:02 am
"...40 years from now..."
Look at the lightning speed (less than a year) that it took so many businesses to go belly up. George Bush left this country in such a mess that once-in-a-century events of failure are now commonplace. Sloppy and greedy thinking by corporations got us into this mess and it will take forward, progressive thinking to get us out. Doing this at a local level is as good a place to start as any. Making Regency play by OUR rules is how this needs to be played out.
How much water would be saved? This is the time to ask all these "silly" questions and not AFTER it is built!
September 17, 2009 10:06:19 am
So, what are you proposing? A zoning restriction on garden shops? Another protectionist measure?
Just an FYI- Friedman's garden center is probably three times the size of Target's garden center... is it worth the supposed water saving to potentially lose a Friedman's store?
I personally have no problem having Regency 'play by our rules' and I personally believe Regency wants to 'play by our rules'. The problem is the rules keep changing. The problem is people are anything but consistent in telling Regency what they want, instead the political breeze of the day dictates a new direction. Is that progressive? To me, it's a lack of integrity and leadership.
Boop, if you put as much thought into offering an insightful opinion as you do in slandering and making fun of people, you might just add to the dialogue! By the way, I don't appreciate the 'short bus' line- when is it ever acceptable to make fun of the mentally challenged? Who raised you?
September 17, 2009 12:36:39 pm
I think the council brought up some very valid concerns. They are not saying no to everything; they seem as a group to be trying to get this development to be something useful and beneficial to the city, not just to Regency. I've wondered from the beginning how they were going to deal with the pool and skatepark. It is unacceptable to leave these places as islands in a sea of traffic, as they are primarily used by kids. What about a separate parking area and pedestrian buffer zone around them, with maybe some grass and picnic tables, like the city had originally planned for the skatepark?
September 17, 2009 1:06:43 pm
People really respond to boop? Boop can argue that the world is flat and you will never be able to prove to her it is actually round, commenting to her is truly a waste of time. As for Target, why is the council giving ideas like this is a project that is in its infancy, it's almost up for final approval? As for the garden center etc... if they use recycled water I'm sure the council will come up with another reason to ban the garden center. Regency even has registered this project for leed certification. This council is so decietful, they don't say what they really want or don't want, because they know the real reasons are both illegal (more lawsuits), and just wrong. We deserve better representation of all the citizens in this city.
This developer already has done much for this city, and saved the city millions in baseball and new kenilworth delays. I hope if the city continues this, regency lets their lawyers loose.
Link
Post a comment | View all comments