Eighty percent of people who responded to an online poll in the Argus-Courier Nov. 22, 2006 say they believe police are not unfairly targeting Latinos and pulling them over while driving.

Two out of three people who responded to an online poll in the Argus-Courier Nov. 15, 2006 say they think the City Council should appoint someone to fill out the remaining two years of Pamela Torliatt. She was elected mayor Nov. 7 and will relinquish her council seat.

More than three out of four Petalumans who responded to an online poll Nov. 8, 2006 are concerned about the prospect of flooding this winter.

Asked if they are concerned about flooding in Petaluma this winter, 46 percent said "very concerned" and 29 percent said "somewhat concerned."

Respondents were also asked: Do you think the city is better prepared for flooding this year than it has been in the past? Twenty-five percent said "better prepared," 44 percent said "same as before" and 21 percent said "less prepared."

Fifty-six percent said "yes" when asked if they think the city should work more closely with the Sonoma County Water Agency to develop and implement a regional detention pond holding system to contain and control floodwaters.

Asked how much they believe existing buildings, roads and parking lots in the flood plain have or have not exacerbated flooding, 50 percent said "a lot" and 25 percent said "a significant amount."

Here some comments from those who participated in the poll:

1. "It's not a good thing to be building in any flood plain. Since a good part of downtown is in the flood plain, we should do what is needed to minimize the problem, but we should expect that damage will occur to some buildings sometimes. We should not be adding to the problem however."

2. "If we are dumb enough to build in a flood plain, we deserve everything we get. I don't understand the surprise as these places flood over and over again."

3. "I've lived here 50 years and yes, there were always those places that flooded, but they were country places. They were lowlands with pretty much nothing on them, except the Leisure Lake area, which happened to be built in the lowlands. These areas flooded and retained the water. Now they have been built on, blacktopped and cemented in. Anyone with half a brain can figure out what will happen. The city of Petaluma just wants the money they get from building. They don't go out to see how many buildings are already here that are empty that can be used. They just want more revenue. Well, when that costs people their homes, their business and their livelihood, there is a big problem. Building is the cause and it must be stopped."

4. "Total prevention may not be possible, but at the very least we should have a better notification system for those of us with homes or businesses in flood-prone areas. City officials knew the river would flood last New Year's, they just didn't bother to tell any of us on Industrial Avenue before we lost everything in our offices."

5. "Just listen to the people that have lived here for over 40 years. Get these people's input, don't waste money on engineers."

6. "Petaluma continues to concrete and asphalt fertile land for shopping centers and homes. What's being done about the runoff? Dredging the river won't solve this."

7. "Katrina destroyed New Orleans. You now have two choices. Rebuild and wait for the next Katrina or give the low-lying lands and delta back to nature, which will create a natural defense against flooding. We have the same two solutions here. Keep trying to fight the flood or fix the problem once and for all by giving more low-lying land and riverbanks back to nature. It will cost money up front to buy back the land, but in the long run it is cheaper and smarter. Measure F funds can be used to buy the floodplain property, creating a beautiful open space that is centrally located. New parks, nature trails, open space and flood control at the same time. A win-win."

8. "If you build it in the flood plain it will flood."

9. "Last year's flood wasn't that bad. It seems to me like everyone is over-reacting. Doesn't any one remember February 1986? Now that was a bad flood."

10. "Until we have a City Council less under the sway of developers, we are going to have to continually fight to keep development out of the flood plain."

11. "Building in the flood plain and development upstream have exacerbated flooding horribly. There is no question about this impact. Question No. 6 completely obfuscates the question. There is no way to get a clear answer to such a poorly worded question."

12. "The whole area of water is crucial to the health of the town. Ned Orrett and Grayson James know a lot that can help, as does David Keller."

13. "Flooding last year cost taxpayers over $50 million. We cannot afford to keep developing in the flood plain just to keep some developers happy."

14. "I'm sure that the City Council members that "want more information" before making a decision on building in the flood plain were nice and comfy in their homes while our citizens' homes flooded along with businesses. They also stayed home when the residents of the flooded mobile home parks needed their assistance in cleaning up and taking care of the mold that came after the floods. These on the council that seek further information are the same ones that want to build a dam across the flood plain called the Rainier cross-town connector that will only exacerbate the flooding that took place early this year. The floods would have heavily damaged any cross-town connector off Rainier. If you can't find the money to build it, where are you going to find the money to re-build it?"

15. "The new Basin Street development above Kohl's by Redwood Highway will only make flooding in Youngstown Mobile Home Park and other areas worse than last year. So much for a real moratorium on building in the floodplain!"

16. "Glad to have Pam T as our new mayor. She is much more prepared to deal with the city's infrastructure to help prevent further flooding and not build on the flood plain. We need to slow down the 'over-building' of our town."

17. "The only way to stop the flooding is to tear down all of the buildings in the floodplain, remove the many tons of fill and return the land to nature (and ball fields)."

18. "The words 'or have not' should be removed from question 6. We need to stop building in the floodplain and gradually move existing structures out of it. The river needs to be given room to flood and meander."

19. "The Argus editorial on flooding got most of the picture right. But there are also some serious errors and omissions in the editorial.

The proposed terracing and channelization of tributary streams and the Willow Brook and Corona reach of the Petaluma River in the upper River basin (above the flood project weir) will dangerously reduce floodwater storage by draining the Denman Flats and Willow Brook floodplain overflow areas. This will increase the amount and height of water flowing downstream, leading to an extremely high risk of increased flooding downstream. It will increase the risk of overtopping the weir and flood walls in the Payran Reach, and increase flooding risks downtown. There is only so much water that can be carried within the river's banks and the flood project; the rest will always and repeatedly overflow its banks. Our responsibility as a community is to reduce flooding risks, not increase it.

The Corps of Engineers and FEMA have warned explicitly against building the proposed terracing and channelization, as has Phil Williams Associates. They warned us of the downstream impacts. The proposal for terracing and channelization is a huge mistake, and must be removed from the new draft General Plan and flood management planning strategies. Upstream channelization is not accomodated in the flood project's design, nor is upstream basin development beyond what was anticipated in the 1987 General Plan. Questions? Ask me for documentation, or Elizabeth Andrews at PWA, or read the Corps of Engineers Final EIS for the flood project.

It's time to be smart, reduce unnecessary risks to residents and businesses, and stop all building in the floodplain, unless we agree that we are willing to have these buildings flood . The floodplain Base Flood Elevations in Petaluma have increased 1-4 feet in the past 20 years, and the areal extent of the floodplain has also increased dramatically. All the upper River basin floodplain storage must be increased and protected - not drained - and existing buildings removed or floodproofed. New development in the floodplain is a disaster that WILL happen again and again, unless we chose to stop this self-destructive behavior.

Every engineering prediction for flood levels in Petaluma since 1970 has been understated and wrong. The only exception was the peer reviewed hydrology modeling done by PWA for the Outlet Mall expansion, which showed that the upper Petaluma River flood levels have increased 3-4 feet. The Outlet Mall flooded as predicted in 2005 as well as in 1998, yet the city has still not changed any requirements for building in flood-prone areas.

We must also implement a basin-wide (city and county) requirement for zero-net increment in stormwater runoff: if you develop a property, you may not discharge any more storm water runoff from the site than existed in pre-development conditions, both in volume and timing. All development should be modeled for this as part of project applications in GIS and parcel-specific based modeling as many other cities do. The proposed detention and retention basins are not sufficient to make up for floodplain storage already lost, no less for new development.

While clearing obstructions from streams to allow passage of flood flows, the City and SCWA must also allow for stream-side growth and habitat improvements which will provide shade needed to keep streams cool, clean and abundent, and provide necessary riparian corridors for our ..."

20. "The outlet should be able to expand with phase 2, just dredge around it and tier the next level foundation up like so many other cities have done. I'd like to see more tax dollars staying here for our local economy."

21. "If development happens in the flood plain, then the developers who wish to build thereupon need to pay for permeable surfaces (building footprints, parking lots, and roads) that allow for water to reach its recharge area. This means more money needs to be spent by developers on these new materials, and that better designs need to be brought into the public process. Keeping our watershed healthy, clean and re-charged is imperative, and buildings need not impair the flow of waters, nor affect the flood plain below Rainier or above Rainier."

22. "The place has been flooding forever. Why is it so surprising it still does? All you are doing is moving the flooding problem to someone else. Up river will now flood."

Readers who responded to an Argus-Courier online survey Nov. 1, 2006 have mixed feelings about retail development in Petaluma.

Respondents were evenly divided on whether they feel Petaluma needs additional retail development, either to provide more shopping opportunities or to bolster the city's sales tax revenue. Fifty percent said "yes" and 41 percent said "no," while 9 percent were unsure.

There was a similar split on whether they would shop at a Lowe's home improvement center store proposed for a possible shopping center on North McDowell Boulevard -- 50 percent "yes," 38 percent "no."

Most (55 percent) said they would shop at a proposed Target store in the new East Washington Place shopping center, while a majority (48 percent) said they would not shop at a proposed Circuit City electronics store also proposed for East Washington Place.

Asked if they would like to see a Wal-Mart store built in Petaluma, the response was one-sided: 75 percent said "no," compared to 20 percent who said "yes."

Here are comments by those who took the survey:

1. Petaluma's value lies in its unique small-town characteristics, including community involvement and locally owned small-town shops and stores such as Rex Hardware, Petaluma Market and Jungle Vibes that contribute back to our community. Keep the proliferation of the anonymous big box stores from changing the small hometown character of our unique town. Big box shopping opportunities abound just a short drive north in Cotati and Rohnert Park " convenient enough to access if necessary while enabling us to preserve and support locally owned shops and businesses in town.

2. We also need a Costco or a Sam's Club.

3. The current Lowe's is too close to build another one in our city. On the other hand, I would appreciate a closer (maybe smaller?) Target store in Petaluma. Definitely no Wal-Mart. No, no, no!

4. I have lived in Petaluma for 25 years and am glad that finally we are going to have some shopping options that will keep us off the freeway! All that and movie theaters too! Now if the City Council could just approve the Rainier crosstown connector to deal with traffic, things would be perfect.

5. I like to support the local mom-and-pop places whenever I can " and I like doing that in the downtown area whenever possible. None of the stores listed in the survey are ones that I shop at. And Lowe's is just a short distance away! Petaluma has attracted retail that is very ordinary and run-of-the-mill. I would like to see some higher-end types of retail, such as Macys or Nordstrom's or something like that. Or, at least some interesting boutique-style stores that offer more interesting and engaging products.

6. For Sale: Petaluma, California.

7. Let them in or Petaluma will wither up and die.

8. The only planning error that I see is in Petaluma's Theatre District. First-floor shells should be reserved for retail/restaurant space only, not office space.

9. Instead of asking if we'd shop at an existing new store, why don't you ask if we think the new store is a good idea for Petaluma!

10. I would like to see a Costco here. Why give Rohnert Park all the sales tax revenue.

11. Come on, these stores are just a few miles away now! It's getting out of hand in Petaluma. After 25 years in Luma, it's time to move out of here!

12. I need to head out of town for so much of my shopping, because I can't find what I need in Petaluma. It will be great to keep the tax revenue local and to keep my car off the freeway.

13. Although Petaluma is already overcrowded I invite more retail development. The taxes are good for city, businesses provide jobs, and it sure beats driving to Santa Rosa. We just need to be careful about access to these places off the highway and how they affect local traffic. Bring on that Wal Mart!

14. I really, really hope they do not put a Wal-Mart in Petaluma!

15. Why are we continuing to ruin Petaluma's charm and character as well as pushing out small businesses like Deaf Dog coffee? We have plenty of places to shop in Petaluma and nearby cities. I am really disappointed in this city!

16. Retail development is important for the benefit of Petaluma. We need a good tax revenue if we are going to continue to fix stuff around the city. But if they don't fix the East Washington Street interchange, then I'm completely against more growth, especially at those locations. It will be a traffic nightmare!

17. Would like to see some high end specialty stores - not a lot - but for example Williams Sonoma, also a healthy Chinese restaurant like Chin Chin in Brentwood in southern CA (West L.A.). I would be in heaven! A Lowe's so close to Cotati isn't sensible - NO on a Walmart. I might shop at Target - but we don't need any other big box stores other than that if that goes in.

18. I would need to be convinced that any of the Big Boxes would improve life in Petaluma. Walmart is a union resistant source of part time employment, forcing tax payers to pay the medical bills of their "working poor" employees.
I have no confidence in the developers, who put profit ahead of aesthetics or ease of entry and exit. Most of our shopping centers remain partially filled, Golden Eagle has never worked right for shopping. If we have a living wage and intelligent planning I could be convinced, not until.

19. We need more discount shopping in Petaluma. Everyone has to go to Rohnert Park to get to the big discount retailers.

20. I don't want Petaluma to turn into another San Jose or Concord. There is just not enough room for more big retail stores or malls and way too much traffic already.

21. Slow down the development

22 We have Target and Costco 10 minutes both north and south of us.An electronics store is needed but how about on the outskirts of our town not right in the middle where traffic is already very bad. Lets still try to keep Petaluma small and quaint like it was when we all grew up here!!

23. HOW ABOUT ONE GOOD SHOPPING DEPARTMENT STORE SUCH AS MACY'S.

24.The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency have got to drop the ridiculous notion that if they provide a 'big-box" store people will shop in town. We have too much low-end shopping in this area. Petaluma would be better served by having better quality products to buy versus the junk stores they are proposing. Yardbirds left a big hole in this community that OSH just can't fill. Yardbirds was the perfect size company as well as locally owned. That's what we need " not more corporate huge retailers. City Council, wake up! The town is starting to look like one big strip mall. If I didn't know better, I'd think you didn't live in town relative to the way you and 'redevelopment' are selling out our character to big box retailers. Give us a break!"

25. We must stop whoring out Petaluma! We are one of the few towns left in the county that has any semblance of individuality and quirkiness. To allow for the lowest common denominator retailing results in a future lack of tourism, charm, and way too much traffic! Keep Petaluma free from mediocrity!"

26. THE DRIVING SITUATION IN PETALUMA IS ALREADY TERRIBLE PLEASE DON'T MAKE IT ANY WORSE BY ADDING STORES TO CLOG UP MORE STREETS

27. It's great to have a few more basic stores like Target, Lowe's, Bed Bath & Beyond to keep people from driving out of town and having their money go to another community, but we need to be responsible about growth and not lose the uniqueness and charm of our town.

28. I would like to see all these go in so the beaners who hang out in front of the shell station have a job to go to.

29. Why do developers and the city planners want to turn Petaluma into Rohnert Park or Novato? Those towns seem defined by the big box stores that line the 101 as you drive past. Petaluma should differenciate itself from our big box neighbors. Yes retail leakage is causing us to lose out on tax revenues but could we compensate by providing good and services that are not available to much of the Northbay (ie Apple store, Elephant pharmacy, or smaller scale specialty items stores) instead of selling the charm and soul of our town to the highest big box bidder? These larger retailers will overlap too much with thier other pre-existing nearby locations and will not only drive locally owned (mom and pop) businesses to close but will evententually end in closures to thier own locations when revenues dwindle. Big box stores have a documented history of doing this and in the end we will have sacrificed the character of our town. Over a year ago, an environmental impact report for the East Washington development was supposed to available for public viewing at the library--- where is it? I live in Old East Petaluma and am absolutely terrified of the impact this development could have on my neighborhood. I'm surprised that people I talk to about this project are either unaware of it or looking forward to not driving 8 miles to the nearest Target.

30. The more strip malls, the more we look like San Jose. The fastest way to kill Petaluma's charm is to continue with the San Jose-ing of the city.

31. We need our own Macys, Nordstrum's, Williams Sonoma, Pottery Barn, Crate and Barrel and Restoration Hardware stores.

32 fix the traffic conjestion in Petaluma before you make it impossible to get anywhere

33 We have too much big retail now. We don't need more tax revenue - we need to use our existing revenue more wisely

34. We just recently left Petaluma due to the 'White effect,' i.e., too much development to benefit a few.

35. Popular retail stores are needed in Petaluma not only for tax dollars, but for time and convenience. By having these stores in town, we will reduce the number of cars on Highway 101 between Petaluma and Santa Rosa. Efforts have been made to get people to work within the community in which they live " how about shopping?

36. Target, Circuit City, Wal-Mart? How about developing a business environment that supports small business and retail establishments that are unique and not just more large box stores? What a novel idea, hey?

37. Petaluma's value lies in its unique small town characteristics including community involvement and locally-owned small-town shops and stores such as Rex Hardware, Petaluma Market and Jungle Vibes that contribute back to our community. Keep the proliferation of the annonymous Big-Box stores from changing the small home-town character of our unique town. Big-Box shopping opportunities abound just a short drive north in Cotati and Rohnert Park convenient enough to access if necessary while enabling us to preserve and support locally owned shops and businesses in town.

38. I want not one dime of the additional tax revenue spent on widening streets and roads or building new streets and roads. The benefits of new development must not be exploited to subsidize automobile use.

39. Petaluma has a unique opportunity to maintain and foster local businesses, we do not need more big box stores.

40 It is possible to develop big-box retail stores responsibly, and Petalumans deserve the opportunity to shop locally keeping much needed tax revenue in the community.
41 Bring it on! I hate driving out of town to go to Target, Lowes, Home Depot, Bed, Bath & Beyond, Chili's, Outback Steakhouse, etc... We have 56,000 residents and yet we are really lacking in many stores and restaurants!
42 I am a husband and father of four. My wife has to drive to Rohnert Park to go to Target and buy needs four our family.
It seems that the city would rather try to stop development to try to preserve what ever they are trying to preserve. Then to allow what every body needs. Close retail shopping. This also would bring sales taxes, less traffic on the freeways and local jobs. As far as Lowes in Petaluma, try and do a home project or anything else were you need a 2x4 or a sheet of plywood and have to try to Rohnert Park to get need supplies.
Why is so many people afraid of retail development. I think that we have enough antique stores and hair salons downtown to last us for a while...
Also a food max!!
43 In my humble opinion, PETALUMA NEEDS AN ALTERNATIVE TO WHOLE FOODS!!! Look to Berkeley's Elephant Pharmacy for an example of what would be a perfect addition to Petaluma. Insider information tells me this company is quite open to expanding to our city. (there is a new, San Rafel Elephant Pharmacy location now!) A retail opportunity like this speaks to the diverse demographic of Petaluma, and would certainly better our community.
Other thoughts:
More and better quality retail outlets either in downtown or at the existing Petaluma Outlet Mall. This is what our residents need and it will bring people from other towns to spend their dollars here as well.
Another sporting goods store (besides Big 5) would be appreciated by all of the people who participate in sports, young and old, in our community. We need another option. Especially for Soccer gear, etc.
I'd like to see MORE thrift shops in our town like Salvation Army as well as other charities. Re-use is a very important issue for our environment and will also help the less fortunate.
44 We have enough shopping opportunities in town, including the underused outlet. Why not find ways to fully utilize what we already have?
45 Petaluma for so long has turned their nose at retail development. All this has done created lost sales tax for the city, lost local jobs, congestion on the freeways, Come on Petaluma change is good. We dont need any more antique stores, salons or mexican restraunt we need retail development.....target...ect
46 Petaluma's small town feeling is one of it's major charms. I try to shop at the smaller local merchants. Almost everything I need I am able to find locally. The larger box stores are nearby if anyone is so inclined to shop at them.
47 We bought a house here 2 years ago and were attracted to Petaluma because there is a charming old downtown feeling. The Target project is directly opposed to that environment. I live in the vicenity of the Washington property and feel if it needs to be developed, it should be more appropriate in scale with the surounding community. Not another inevitably huge parking lot with the traffic problems, safety issues, pollution, and minimum wage jobs that will result from this ugly new mall and attached crowded residential housing.
Come on Petaluma, have a little pride! Drive a few exits south, or north, and visit another Target. Let's retain our uniqueness and develop something unique and interesting. Let's create a lovely entry to our town, not another asphalt field with fast food surround. Look at 4th Street in Berkeley. Come on, get creative and go to a little trouble!
48 I think that there is too much development going on now. We need to be very cautious of what we add. The trafic problems will only increase and the solutions to trafice are difficult and expensive
49 I do not want these stores in Petaluma, they are too big for this town...But we have to shop in them since they are here...
50 You also asked about a COSTCO in Petaluma. That is a DEFINITE YES! Every one I know shops at Costco, and we all spend a lot of money there. I would love a WALGREENS in town also.

51 Bring on the development!

More than three-fourths of those who responded to an Argus-Courier online survey Oct. 25, 2006 plan to vote "yes" on Measure H. This advisory measure on the Nov. 7 ballot asks voters if the Petaluma City Council should "take all lawful steps to oppose gaming" on land south of town owned by an Indian tribe.
Seventy-six percent said they plan to vote "yes" on Measure H. Seventy-two percent said they are concerned by potential effects of a casino such as crime, traffic, habitat damage, water usage, housing impacts and bright lights.
Seventy-six percent feel current Indian gaming laws are too permissive in allowing establishment of casinos in urban and suburban areas.
Here are some comments by those who took the survey:
1. In this time of struggling budgets, it will be good to get additional money into the city's budget. We already have card rooms without problems, so why not have Indian gaming?
2. There is a casino in Alexander Valley, one in Hopland, one coming in Rohnert Park, and two in Lake County. We need another one? Why?
3. I am against any gaming " not just Indian gaming " coming to Petaluma. I also voted against the lottery. It's an odd message: gamble and we'll give money to the schools?!
4. When is enough enough? Must we have a casino in every town? Do we have to have a casino every 50 miles? Do we have to make it easier for people who should not be in these places because they can't even afford food for their kids, but will waste every cent they have by believing maybe this time? This is something we do not need. There are too many already.
5. The casino here is a horrible idea. We must not let this happen to us.
6. "No more casinos! Instead, bring back Deaf Dog :-)
7. We have given them enough!
8. No to the casino! Yes to the ballpark!
9. I live in the county and we are not included in the ballot, unfortunately.
10. Let the gaming begin!
11. Native Americans are due a great deal of latitude in recovering the land and culture they have lost. However, who better than they to know the effects of legalizing and catering to such a debilitating addiction. The profit motive is big here, but there are more constructive and valuable uses for native land and resources.
12. I think that some people don't want the casino because the owners are American Indians. Nobody complains when all these big box stores are being built. Look at the bright lights they use on car dealerships when they aren't even open. We already have traffic. The traffic to the casino won't make a difference. We are building a lot of stuff here in Petaluma. Where is all the water going to come from? The casino isn't going to make a bit of difference. If you are going to stop the construction of the casino, then let's stop all new building.
13. No gaming in Petaluma! It is a blight on the community and we do not need it here.
14. I am voting no as a protest vote. This measure will pass with flying colors and everyone knows it. I can't see spending $20,000 of city money to put this asinine measure on the ballot. I couldn't see the measure about the Rainier crosstown connector either. Seems some of our City Council members are just free spenders, with no respect for taxpayer money. Between these two measures with known outcomes, that is $40,000 that could have gone to doing complete street repair on a small cul-de-sac on the west side of town.
15. The tribe in question already has a casino. This is blatant reservation hopping.
16. When I voted for Proposition 1A in 2000, I envisioned small casinos on existing Indian land, not huge Las Vegas-style hotel/casinos in my town. Also, why is the governor giving compacts for 5,000 slot machines? Why isn't the state reining in gambling by allowing tribal casinos only 200 or 300 slot machines? Casinos are out of control in California."
17. We don't need any of this garbage! And tax free like a church! For shame!
18. Dang Indians duped us all. We thought they wanted to build casinos in their back yards, not ours; nice little loopholes. We need to re-visit this.
19. Casinos are pure craziness.