Within my
lifetime, land-use planning processes have been defined and refined to the
point that the results are expected to become nearly automatic. Insert the proposed project, turn the crank
through the various steps of expert studies, environmental analysis, neighborhood
meetings, and public hearings, and expect a result to pop out the far end that
best meets the public good, or at least is a moderately reasonable balance
between the competing objectives.
Of course,
the process sometimes chokes on the inputs and spits out a result that is a frustratingly
anomaly. And then no one seems to know
how to make the world right again.
A perfect
example recently arose in Petaluma. It
was a land-use process in which I should have played a role, but fate took me
out of the picture. Perhaps I should be
thankful.
Because of
an extended backstory, I’ll take several posts to get around to the point of
the story. But it’s a situation that I
find fascinating. I hope you to stay
around when I peel away the multiple shells surrounding the kernel. I’ll try to make it worth your time.
Looking back
through my archives, I find that I’ve written very little about River Front, a
mixed-use project proposed by Petaluma developer Basin Street. That’s probably because it’s a project that I
find hard to categorize. But it’s an
oversight I must correct to tell this story properly.
River Front
will occupy an oddly situated parcel bounded by the Petaluma River, Highway
101, Hopper Street, and a former concrete prefabrication yard. It’s a long block from Lakeville Highway, tucked
behind a string of auto-oriented retail.
It’s within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP), so must conform
to the SmartCode. But it’s at the far
boundary of the CPSP, which is much of the reason for my ambivalence toward it.
The site
plan is a classic urbanist approach, with a core near the north end of the site. The core contains a central green, hotel,
office building, retail, and multi-family housing. To the south of the core, extending toward
the river, are small-lot single-family homes, all within walking distance of
the core.
It’s an
urbanist plan that looks great on paper, but will likely fall short on the
ground, at least at first. The problem
is that it’s within the Petaluma community that offers multiple attractions, a
historic downtown about a mile in one direction, a new train station that will
be nearly as far away, pair of new shopping centers in another direction, and
schools that are too far way to reach on foot.
Also, the location will be difficult to serve by transit.
As a result,
despite an urbanist core that should be an attractive and pleasant place to
visit, it seems likely that most of the trips from River Front will continue to
be by car. I can foresee a better future,
perhaps thirty years from now, when the parcels between River Front and the
train station have all been redeveloped, when transit is stronger, when the
current generation of young adults that is less attached to their cars has
reached full maturity, and when River Front will be among the most desirable
addresses in town.
But for
today, I suspect that River Front will be a pleasant place to live, but not
truly a walkable urban place.
With my take
on the project now explained, I can continue onto the issue about which I want
to write, a thorny question of developer exactions. It’s where I will continue with my next
post.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
You have baited well your hook, Dave!
ReplyDeleteBarry
Barry, thanks for the comment. However, I wasn't trying to bait a hook. Instead, I just couldn't find a more word-efficient way to tell the story. You're complimenting me on a point where I think I failed.
Delete