 |
 |
By LORI A. CARTER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
The developers of what soon will be Petaluma’s largest shopping center say their major tenants are insisting on freeway-facing signs, something 
generally prohibited by city ordinance.
Tonight, the City Council will hear an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of Highway 101-oriented signs for the East Washington Place shopping center, which is to be anchored by a Target store.
The city sign ordinance prohibits signs or advertising structures designed to be viewed primarily from the freeway or ramps. But there are plenty of exceptions, including newer structures along the northern end of the city.
East Washington Place, at 34 acres and 378,000 square feet of retail space, will be the city’s largest shopping center. Construction is in its early stages now.
City planning staff acknowledge that the center, which runs along the western edge of Highway 101 at East Washington Street, is unique in that it has no direct frontage on East Washington — where customers will enter — but a lengthy back-side visibility from the highway.
In March, the developer, Regency Centers, sought a 60-foot landmark sign to guide potential customers to the center, which is also to include a TJ Maxx, a fresh produce store, a sporting goods store and several smaller shops. It also sought signs for businesses whose backsides face 101.
The Planning Commission approved only a 30-foot main sign, denied the freeway-facing signs and reduced the overall number and size of other markers Regency wanted.
In its appeal, Regency said “some of our anchor tenants are demanding rear-building signage. If they can’t get it, they won’t come to the project and there won’t be a project.”
While that may be hyperbole, Councilman Mike Healy wants to see the center succeed and said compromise may be part of that.
“There are a fair number of signs on buildings facing the freeway, and clearly the standards have changed in Petaluma over time,” he said.
Two nearby competing shopping centers, the Plaza north and south that include Kmart and Raley’s, have complained that they haven’t been allowed freeway-facing signs.
Until recently, much of the rear of those North McDowell Boulevard complexes has been obstructed by trees, which are being removed for the reconfiguration of the Highway 101 ramps at East Washington.
Healy said now may be an opportunity to allow other businesses to seek “tasteful” freeway-facing signs if they can improve the look of their highway frontage, often the style-challenged rear of buildings.
Tonight’ss discussion will take place without Councilman Gabe Kearney, who will be out of town, and Mayor David Glass, who cannot participate in the discussion because he owns a large amount of Target stock.
Councilwomen Teresa Barrett and Tiffany Renee have consistently opposed the project and modifications to approvals. Councilmen Chris Albertson and Mike Harris have supported Regency.
Kearney, the council liaison to the Planning Commission, said he felt the commission’s unanimous vote to limit Regency’s sign plan was reasonable.
“We thought we had a compromise,” he said.
A Regency spokesman didn’t return a message Friday seeking comment.
The council meets at 7 p.m. at City Hall, 11 English St.
Contact Staff Writer Lori A. Carter at 762-7297 or lori.carter@pressdemocrat.com.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
Your positions are all over the map Christian….and often seem to ignore basics. Did you actually watch the meeting?
1. The 30 foot sign was already agreed to – they wanted 60 feet. The only thing is question was location.
2. The city can’t simply undo that commitment – without facing a law suit from Regency, which, if you have been following this, was nearly threatened again.
3. The city could certainly opt not to change the sign ordinance, but given the council make-up (thanks to Renee for making Kearney’s appointment possible), it’s not likely.
4. Allowing one business to have freeway facing signage from the backs of buildings will make it nearly impossible to prohibit other from doing so.
So, Healy was able to steer this, with only two other Councilmembers, into a revision of the sign ordinance….meaning, unless it can be stopped, the corridor through our city will be littered with signage….not promoting the Petaluma brand, but instead, promoting TJ Maxx, Target, and whatever else the developer plans to stick there….making us appear like just another “any town USA”.
Back to some advice for you Christian:
1. Drop out of the race – you have zero chance and are just ending up looking like a side show clown.
2. Consider doing your homework more on issues and maybe even applying for a committee or commission at the city level to learn a bit more about the complexity of government – while helping to serve our city at no charge.
3. Think before you post. Just makes you look naive, silly, or nuts.
4. Observe sign ordinances. Not sure if you’ve been contacted yet, but several of your signs are on public right of ways….and I suspect many of them were posted without obtaining permission from the property owners.
5. Shorten the drawn out name/title – really bad marketing. First off, you aren’t a medical doctor, so why the pretense? Second, it’s way too hard to remember..might as well be “HR Puffin Stuff”….just go by Christian Gunderson and let people know they can call you Chris. More friendly, easier to remember, and less snooty. Even Howard Dean didn’t go by “Dr. Howard Dean” when he was running. Sure, he would mention it and at times it would read “Howard Dean, MD – could be “CD”, I suppose, but keeping it short is far easier for people to connect with. The “Dr.” and “H” are just speed bumps on the road to learning who you are – which is basically still an unknown. As well, your field is very controversial to many – not sure emphasizing it helps more than it hurts. http://www.skepdic.com/chiro.html
Finally, you are a bit funny to be supporting Jared Huffman for Congress while complaining about the leadership we’ve had in our district for so long and then bashing Michael Allen, who has only been in office (in another district) for two years.
I would put a sign on the back of the building facing the freeway, forget the 30ft overhead sign. And if Regency doesn’t like it they can stop the building and lose millions of dollars in fees.
Get out and see the world old skippy, you have know idea what is out there!
There is another story of a town that clung jealously to the past, and watched the world pass it by until it became an irrelevant footnote.
Actually the movie hasn’t been made yet, but it will be filmed in Petaluma.
There is actually a movie that is about a small, beautiful, historic town. Families moved to this town for the opportunity to live and raise their children with its beautiful tree lined streets. People from everywhere in the world came to this town for its beauty and history and uniqueness – to spend a day, an afternoon or more strolling along its sidewalks, antique hunting or shopping at the unqie boutiques or having a quality meal in pristine resturants. Then a few self-serving people decided to let a big box developer come to the town. They allowed the builder to destroy the beautiful trees, and areas of the city where children could play in safety. They did this in spite of the fact that the big-box developer lied to the citizens of the community as to how it would “preserve” the integrity of the town, and substituted an “a” plan for an “f” plan. In time, people everywhere stopped coming to the town because it no longer was the beautiful, historic and unique town – it was just another town with ugly signs and ugly buildings. The local merchants moved elsewhere or just lost their business. The town “died” and with it the pride of community.
Well, so much for Maguire & Francis sticking to THEIR agreement. Evidently the $100k they got from the developer wasn’t enough to buy thier silence! I guess its OK for them to break thier agreement but not for the developer to try to get better sinage. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if the two previous comments were written by these two.
As for Kearney, I find it a bit humerous that the progessives thought they had another individual to rubber stamp the status quo and vote lock step with them. Alas, what they got was an individual and independent thinker. Best laid plans……..
We have already compromised plenty with this project.
First off, it was approved and many of the suggestions from our community and planning commission were ignored.
Months after Regency was dragging their feet, they then came back and asked for more large big box format stores (fewer, larger buildings). That was resisted, but a new majority featuring recently appointed Kearney, pushed it through. At the time, Regency said the same thing…”our prospective tenants need this and without it it, we don’t have a project”.
Now, after construction is already underway and we were assured that the developer had deals in the bags, we’re being told we have to allow for more signs, “or their won’t be a project”.
This is unbelievable….and I suspect it’s not unplanned. First push a project through with as few mitigations as possible and when community resistance swells, file a suit against the city for a Brown Act violation that they ultimately dropped and was never proven. Then, go back and have the long negotiated smaller store locations merged into larger bog box shops after the council has “developer friendly” members. Then, come back again on the heels of another victory for developers and ask for more concessions….”we need bigger signs or we don’t have a project”….
Do these people think we are stupid? Maybe we are (at least some of us anyway). This town is ours and there is historic precedent for allowing our community to pave our future (pardon the pun) NOT outside developers pushing outdated big box models with a tenuous lifespan (see recent articles one retail trends).
The idea that if you simply “build revenue will come” is absurd and we have a huge retail vacancy to prove it. Such an attitude is so entirely ignorant, it’s almost laughable. It completely ignores that sad state of retail everywhere (we currently capture more retail tax per capita than big box capital Rohnert Park) as well as the trend in online shop[ping….where until new legislation is enacted, out of state and online sales aren’t taxed in CA. That’s where the real leakage is.
C’mon council. Do your job and say no to more concessions for this developer. Not doing so will continue to set a bad precedent and deteriorate our aesthetics….way to turn off tourists who will just drive by figuring Petaluma is just another Rohnert Park.
It seems this is yet one more attempt to strong arm concessions. Let me get this straight.
1. Those who argued for this project claimed it was all about shopping local. Why now then do we need more signs along the freeway that aren’t aimed at those who live here?
2. Why is it that there seems to be zero sense of compromise from the developer and it’s always another concession our community is asked to make, or, we hear the veiled threats that the prospective tenants won’t come and we won’t have a project after all? Really. Regency risked the entire project on whether they would have more signage approval.
3. Why can’t developers play by the rules? If we make new concessions to Regency, then we have to offer it to everyone….pretty soon we have an ugly 101 corridor that looks just like the east bay or worse.
There is a reason we have rules regarding signage. And there’s a reason our community has consistently supporting such rules. The endless complains about how this or that restriction is “costing tax dollars” is a fallacy. I suspect t some in favor have never experienced what happens without sign ordinances. They simply support anything a developer wants. That’s not being patriotic for Petaluma, that’s being a sell out and we deserve better.