In a pair of
recent posts, I introduced River Front, a proposed mixed-use
project within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, and wrote about the controversy that developed over whether the
athletic field proposed by the applicant should be natural grass or artificial
turf.
I closed the
second post with the questions I was pondering as the climactic City Council
session, reaffirming the decision in favor of grass, came to an end. Did we identify all the reasons for turf
versus grass? Does the community have
the right to require that a park be a community athletic field rather than a neighborhood
park? What should have been correct decision
for the community? And even if a turf
athletic field is the right answer, is it fair to require the applicant to cover
the cost?
In this
post, I’ll provide my personal answers to those questions.
On the
arguments for grass versus turf, I’ll add another pro-turf argument,
traffic. Turf fields are generally
available for use twice as many hours per year as grass fields, so are the
backbone of an athletic program.
And yet, when
the under-construction East Washington Park is complete, all three turf
athletic fields owned by the Petaluma Park and Recreation Department will be
east of Highway 101, requiring ever more trips on E. Washington Street from
west Petaluma. (As a Parks Commissioner,
I’m fully supportive of East Washington Park.
It was badly needed. But I still
regret the resulting geographic imbalance.)
Petaluma has
an election approaching in which funds for street improvements and repair will
be a major issue. Against that backdrop,
it seems odd to blithely accept the additional traffic generated by parks at
the urban fringe without trying to reduce the impact.
It’s also indicative
our approach to traffic and why we seem unable to manage traffic. We put new uses where the land is available
and/or the development costs are affordable, under the assumption that users
can drive to the site. But it’s
expensive to build a road system to keep up with that increasing demand. And the induced traffic phenomenon often makes
it impossible to keep up.
Some may
note that the improved high school fields, if they’re made accessible for
community use, will help balance the traffic.
They’d be correct. But none of
the high schools are particularly close to the River Front area, so that part
of town would remain under-served by athletic fields. Assuming judicious league creation and
scheduling, a turf athletic field at River Front could reduce traffic.
Adding the traffic
argument to the other arguments that were made for turf, the increased hours of
playability, safer surface, and reduced water requirements, I find that turf
was the better option for the community.
I turn next to
the question of whether the applicant, Basin Street, should have the right to
choose their park surface. Basin Street expressed
a preference for a natural surface on which residents in the small-lot
neighborhood could recreate. (I suspect that the lower cost of grass also
has a role in their decision.)
Unfortunately
for the applicant, I may be the least favorable judge of that argument in
Petaluma. Having carefully monitored a
handful of neighborhood that are in my purview as a Parks Commissioner, I
despair of neighborhoods ever again making effective casual use of their parks
and have suggested that we may wish to consider fundamental changes in how we configure
neighborhood parks.
Barring
those kinds of changes, I suggest that the image of fathers and sons throwing a
frisbee in a neighborhood park on a sunny afternoon is another of those self-myths
with which we delude ourselves and cause ourselves to make land use mistakes. Instead, organized leagues with scheduled
games is the predominant use of parks.
Besides,
much as Basin Street was required to configure their proposed buildings to
conform to the SmartCode that governs the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, I’d
argue that they’re required to accept the park surface that is directed by the
community, although with one large caveat that comes up next.
Even if turf
is the correct choice, does that mean that Basin Street should pay the
additional cost? Looking at the other
turf fields, existing, under construction, and proposed, all are either owned
by the City (Lucchesi and East Washington), the school district (Petaluma and
Casa Grande High Schools), or a church (St. Vincent High School). Although developer impact fees played in a
role in some of the turf field financing, River Front would be on the only
field funded solely by a developer, which should be a red flag.
The argument
was made that Basin Street should pay for the turf field because they would
make millions of dollars with River Front.
But if making money in Petaluma is the criterion, why not bill Safeway,
Clover-Stornetta, or a developer building homes at the urban fringe?
No, the
implicit reason for asking Basin Street to foot the bill was that it was their
project. But there are already rules in
place about how much developers should pay for the right to build new projects
in Petaluma. Those rules are called
impact fees and require developers to pay fees for impacts such as traffic,
schools, and parks. And if developers
build improvements that meet those needs, such as building a segment of a
roadway that will serve the entire community, then they can deduct that cost
from the impact fee that would otherwise be imposed.
Might it
make sense to ask Basin Street to fund the turf field in exchange for a credit
against impact fees? Absolutely. So, in the general mingling before the City
Council meeting, I asked a Basin Street representative for his thoughts on this
point. He responded that the other park
improvements required in the project has already exceeded the park impact
fee. Basin Street was already covering
the cost of some park improvements in excess of the impact fees. And any new exactions, such as the turf field,
would be funded solely by Basin Street.
One of the
themes voiced often during the City Council meeting was that Basin Street had
“reneged” on an obligation. Indeed, it
was the only point to which Basin Street chose to respond, making the point
that they had continually opposed the turf field and therefore hadn’t made a
commitment from which they could renege.
But I would
argue that there was reneging underway that evening. And that was in the community’s demand that
the agreement, implicit in the impact fee rules, about required park exactions be
set aside with additional exactions required.
(Admitted, many of those making the reneging argument were
insufficiently familiar with the impact fee mechanism to understand how their argument
could boomerang back at them.)
As much as I
would like the River Front field to be turf, I don’t agree with overturning the
logic behind the impact fees. If the
benefit is to the public and the developer has already paid more than their fair
share, then the additional cost should be borne by the public.
Indeed,
there is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that is on point. In Dolan vs. the City of Tigard, the Court
ruled that cities can’t arbitrarily impose developer exactions. Instead, there must be a reasonable “nexus”
between the development impact and the exactions. I’d argue that Dolan wouldn’t allow a
condition that the River Front athletic field be changed to turf for the
community good at Basin Street’s expense, especially when Basin Street had
already exceeded the park costs required under the adopted impact fees.
If I’d been
on the City Council, how would I have voted?
I would have voted to reopen the issue.
Clearly the public had strong emotions on the subject and deserved
another chance to make their case.
I would then
have used the weeks before the reconsideration to look for a way to fund the
field without imposing the burden on Basin Street. Failing that, I would have regretfully voted
to leave the park as grass.
But I would
have offered one final gambit. I would
have proposed a condition of approval that would have required Basin Street to
convert the field to turf if, at any time prior to approval of construction
documents, the community could assemble a plan to fund the incremental cost.
I consider
it highly unlikely that the incremental funds could have been gathered. At present, the community is working hard to
raise funds for a restroom at East Washington Park, a goal that is only a
fraction of the River Front turf expense.
But I would have left the door open.
And I would have happy to write a check toward the effort.
Completing
the loop back to urbanism, I’ll ask one more question. Should a land-use conundrum like this matter
to urbanists? I’ll respond with an
emphatic “Yes!”
Although I
believe that River Front will only slowly transform into a truly urban project,
it is nonetheless configured like an urban project. And urbanism means that the public space
receives a higher priority than in drivable suburban projects, which is a fine
thing. But if we try to expand those
public components, demanding improvements in excess of the impact fees, then we
create a market disincentive to urbanism.
In a world
where we should be encouraging urbanism to address our multitude of
environmental and financial issues, demanding additional park improvements from
urbanist developers would become one more impediment to urbanism. And we can’t let that happen.
Before
closing, I have one last point to make.
In the weeks since the final City Council decision on turf versus grass,
I’ve heard many negative comments about Basin Street. Those comments pain me. I’ve previously written about how the public
is often eager to condemn a developer for not being local, while also being unwilling
to support local developers.
Basin Street
is a local developer. I don’t fully
support every project they’ve done.
There are many elements that I wish they’d done differently, while also
acknowledging that I don’t have full information about the regulatory, funding,
and market demand issues that forced the design decisions.
(As much as many
of us would like perceive developers as omnipotent monoliths that can do whatever
they wish, they are more like small boats on a turbulent sea of capitalism, pushed
about by forces beyond their control and trying to turn enough of a profit to remain
afloat. After all, we’ll only a handful
of years removed from an economic crisis in which many developers perished.)
But, setting
my quibbles about their design decisions aside, Basin Street has done good
things for Petaluma. It’d be hard to
conceive of downtown Petaluma without Theatre Square. Basin Street made downtown Petaluma relevant
again. They deserve our respect and
appreciation. And to withhold that appreciation
because they refused to accede to an unfair demand for a turf athletic field makes
me sad.
(Acknowledgment:
I’ve never done any work for Basin Street.
However, as a member of the community, I know several of the principals. Indeed, it would be odd if I didn’t. Also, I’m currently engaged in a negotiation
with Basin Street on behalf of a client.
Lastly, I’ve often eaten in Theatre Square restaurants.)
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
P.S. The article
mentioned in the comments below can be found here.
My initial read indicates that your rundown on this is remarkably comprehensive in germs of perspectives and good info, Dave. For those interested in the specific arguments about grass v. turf, C.W. Nevius addressed them in the SFChronicle in the past several days, "Time to bury the artificial debate over synthetic turf ." It's online at .
ReplyDeleteBarry, good point. I also read the Nevius piece and thought it was well done. I thought about including it above, but thought I'd already written long enough.
DeleteShoot, it appears this site won't permit posting a link. At sfgate.com you can search the headline above to locate the story.
ReplyDeleteI didn't realize that Blogspot doesn't allow commenters to post links. I've included the link in a P.S. update to the post above.
Delete