In my last post, I introduced the proposed River
Front mixed-use project in Petaluma. My
initial intention was to describe the project, to introduce the element of the
project that became controversial, and to provide my perspective on the
controversy.
It was a
subject that I found fascinating. So I
kept writing and writing and writing. And
then writing a little more. By the time
I had finished my first draft, I’d written about three times the words of an average
post.
My readers seem
a tolerant lot. From readership numbers,
it appears that many are willing to follow me when I wander afield. I greatly appreciate that tolerance. But a 3,000 word post seemed an excessive
demand to put on even the most tolerant readers. So I edited the monster post into three
posts.
In my last
post, I limited myself to an overall perspective on River Front, including how it
fits into the urbanist universe. Today,
I’ll cover the issue that improbably became the core controversy during the
entitlement process. And when I next return
to the topic, which will be the post after next, I’ll offer my thoughts on the controversy. Sitting in the City Council meeting that
became the climax of the story, I found myself wandering through some
intriguing byways of land-use philosophy.
The River
Front developer, Petaluma-developer Basin Street, is proposing a number of
parks within the project. There will be
the central green, a park along the Petaluma River, a bicycle path around a
portion of the site, the set aside of a parcel on which others will build a
boat house for racing shells, and an athletic field a short block from the
central green.
Citing a
desire for a more natural setting to serve their buyers, but probably also with
an eye on the bottom line, Basin Street proposed that the athletic field have
natural grass. But when the project
reached the City of Petaluma Recreation, Music, and Park Commission (RMPC), that
body saw the situation differently. (In
my last post, I mentioned that I barely missed having a role in the controversy. This is where that happened. I sit on the RMPC, but was out of town for this
meeting.)
The RMPC,
noting the chronic lack of sports fields in Petaluma and with the knowledge
that sport turf provides a more consistently playable surface for the local
climate and soil conditions, raised the possibility of changing the field to
turf. Basin Street objected, probably
with the additional $500,000 cost in mind, but the proposal passed.
When the
project reached the Planning Commission, Basin Street again objected, but the
Planning Commission concurred with the RMPC and again required the field to be
turf.
It was only
when the project reached the City Council that Basin Street found more
sympathetic ears. After an extended
hearing on multiple issues regarding the entire project, the City Council
voted, sometime between midnight and 1am, to approve the project without the
turf, returning the field to grass.
Recreational
supporters were outraged, both with the elimination of the turf and with the
decision being made after midnight when few folks were in the Council
chambers. Under the onslaught, a
Councilmember moved at a subsequent meeting that the decision be reopened.
To keep the
project moving ahead, it was decided to hold a special meeting of the City
Council solely to consider the motion to reopen the issue. An affirmative vote would mean that turf
versus grass could be debated yet again at a future Council meeting.
The legal
context of the question made for an awkward public meeting. In theory, the public who spoke and the
Councilmembers who tried to explain their reasoning should have been limited to
the question of whether the issue should be revisited, not the merits of grass
versus turf. But most did well at hewing
to the subtle line. Some argued that
issue had sufficient public interest that the decision should have been made at
a more reasonable hour. Others argued
that sometimes the Council process requires late night decisions, which the
Council is capable of making with competence.
Nonetheless,
the question of grass versus turf hearing kept leaking into the
discussion. The chronic shortage of
athletic fields. The difficulty of
maintaining grass fields in a continually playable condition. The soccer field at Lucchesi Park being the
only current field with turf. The two
turf fields under construction at East Washington Park. The high school fields that have been or will
soon be converted to turf and may be made available for community use.
The
increased water demand for grass over turf.
The installation of pipes for reclaimed water to irrigate the new
field. The fact that those pipes,
although installed, won’t have water in them for a number of years. The argument that Basin Street owed it to the
community to put some of their anticipated profits back into a turf field.
Eventually,
on a 5-2 vote, the Council voted not to reopen the issue, effectively
reaffirming the earlier decision to allow the field to be grass.
But as I sat
in the Council Chambers, watching the debate and the vote, I had multiple
questions running around in my head. Did
we identify all of the reasons for turf versus grass? Does the community have the right to tell a
developer that a park should be primarily a community athletic field rather
than a large neighborhood park? And even
if a turf athletic field is the right answer, is it fair to ask Basin Street to
pick up the tab?
In my next
post, I’ll provide updates on several issues in Petaluma, including the
fairgrounds and block parties. But in
the post after that, I’ll return with my conclusions on the question of grass
or turf at River Front.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
I'm wondering what sort of history this developer has in terms of altering projects late in the game in ways that make them less, well, green sustainable and urbanist . . . Do they have a track record on this?
ReplyDeleteBarry, perhaps I'm over-interpreting your question, but I think your underlying concern is that the Basin Street "altered the project late in the game." I'd argue that the reverse is true in this case. The City tried to impose a new requirement late in the process. Basin Street contested the imposition, as is certainly their right, and eventually won.
DeleteOverall, I'm not enamored with every detail of every Basin Street project. But I think they're less likely to alter agreements late in the process than other developers I could name. And I think Petaluma is a better place that it would have been without Basin Street.