In my last post, I wrote about the difficulties of
integrating new developments with existing land uses, especially when it
involves a paradigm shift. Such as the
shift between drivable suburban and walkable urban.
I used the unexpected
need for interim parking at a proposed downtown Petaluma transit-oriented
development (TOD) as an example. The TOD
location adjoins the site at which the SMART (Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit) station
will soon open. It was expected that
SMART parking would be located at another Petaluma SMART station, but that
station has been deferred, forcing a parking need on the downtown site.
I also described
the solution that had been developed by the planning consultant, Opticos Design
of Berkeley. Opticos proposed staged development
of the SMART-owned land immediately adjoining the station. The staging would allow much of the site to
be used for interim parking during the early years of SMART operation
Finally, I warned
that the solution, no matter how appropriate, could still come undone.
Today I’ll
note some of the potential pitfalls. Although
these particular issues may be unique to the Petaluma site, they will have their
close equivalents for many similar projects.
If you’re
not familiar with the site, you may want to open the final draft master plan. The
existing land ownership is shown on page 2.6.
The proposed overall site plan is shown on page 2.11. The SMART-owned building sites on which the
interim parking would be located are the two sites adjoining the station at the
northeast.
A key point
to remember when considering the potential pitfalls to the interim parking
solution is that the proposed master plan is only that. A master plan. It doesn’t result in any construction. Instead, construction will require a
commitment from a developer who may argue for an alternative land plan as a
condition of taking on the project risk.
Thus, no matter how well-conceived the master plan might be, it’s subject
to reconsideration at a later date.
The first
hurdle for the interim parking solution is the need for SMART to acquiesce to
the solution. As SMART’s goal is to have
train riders, the provision for interim parking to be supplanted by housing as
parking is built elsewhere would seem a fine solution. But SMART also needs to maximize the return
from their parcel to fund the rail construction. That goal may work at cross-purposes.
Next, the
potential developer of the SMART parcel, who will be identified by a future
selection process, will need to agree to the plan. This could be a sticking point.
A key
element of the proposed master plan is a new street that is tentatively named
Transverse Street and that will bisect the SMART and Haystack Landing parcels. This street will provide a linear park
approach to the train station. The
street is required to fulfill the traffic circulation plan for the site. It would also provide access to the interim
parking.
However, under
the interim parking concept, there would be no initial development along Transverse
Street. Building a street without also
building the fronting buildings is a financial burden that is difficult in good
times and worse when the economy is slow and money is tight. Many developers would balk at this condition.
Lastly, and
potentially most significantly, the Haystack Landing parcel has recently been
acquired out of bankruptcy by a San Diego development firm. There is a possibility that the firm will
decide that the proposed Transverse Street is incompatible with their
development goals. If that street is
eliminated, the master plan vision for the SMART parcel is undermined and the
interim parking plan may unwind.
Many would
argue that the developer should be morally bound to comply with the master
plan. But it’s not that easy. I’m not familiar with the new owner of the
Haystack Landing site. They may have a
remarkably high level of community concern.
But even the most community-dedicated developers have investors and
lenders to satisfy. The proposed street would
add cost and reduce building area. It
would be a burden on a financial pro forma.
Many times, a
developer will approach the city with a proposed development that excludes or modifies
key elements, such as a Transverse Street.
They will make the argument that they can’t afford to proceed with the
project without the changes. Sometimes,
their claims will be true. Other times,
the claim will be nothing more than an attempt to increase the financial return
from the project. And the city has no
way to know which the claim might be. It’s
effectively a multi-million dollar game of poker, with high value bluffing.
This is
where community input can become important.
Many citizens will argue that any development is good and that making
the requested concessions is a municipal necessity. Others will argue that holding to a
well-conceived master plan is the municipal imperative, even at the risk of a
developer opting out of the project. A
city council will listen to what the citizens say.
I may seem
to have wandered a long ways from an interim parking solution to the need for
citizens to encourage a city council to defend a master plan. But I’m only describing how land development
decisions are truly made. The parts are
all interconnected and public involvement does make a difference
As I noted
in my last post, the final meeting of the citizens’ advisory committee for the Petaluma
Station Area plan will be held this Thursday, February 21. The meeting will be at the Community Center
and will start at 6pm. Everyone is
welcome to attend. It’ll be a good
chance for you to become more familiar with the master plan and to decide if it
represents a vision of Petaluma’s future that you’re willing to support.
Moving from
today to TOD is a complex subject. Especially
when it imposes a walkable vision on a community that is largely
car-oriented. I’ll touch on other issues
in the coming weeks.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment