I’ve written
several times about the looming opportunities at Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds in
Petaluma.
Regular
readers can probably repeat the key facts by heart, so I’ll offer only a brief
recap. The current lease between the
City and Fair Board for the Fairgrounds will expire in nine years. The two parties are engaged in closed door
negotiations over the future of the site.
The Fairgrounds are located in the heart of Petaluma so the result of the
negotiations could change the course of the town’s future.
To be
prepared to comment effectively on the result of the negotiations, Petaluma
Urban Chat has been engaging in an independent consideration of site
options. Initially, the approach was
fairly unstructured. As a result, the
process didn’t move ahead as well as we might have hoped.
To remedy
the slow process, we rebooted the effort into a more rigorous and directed
format. The first meeting under the new
format was held on November 11 and seemed successful. (For those who want further background,
earlier posts about the Fairgrounds can be found here, here, here, here, and here.)
I’ve termed
the new process a “mini-charette”, with all the goals of a full charrette but with
a quarter of the hours that a full charrette might take.
To make the mini-charette
as broad-based as possible, we assembled a steering committee for the
effort. Joining me on the committee were
Ross Jones, an architect and downtown developer, and David Powers, a long-time
Urban Chat participant.
The goal for
the first mini-charette meeting structure was to take an initial cut at the
preferred land uses that might occupy a portion of the current Fairgrounds.
To conform
to a likely result of the City/Fair Board negotiations, we made the decision
that the re-use would occupy 30 acres of the current 63-acre Fairgrounds. I developed a form listing the possible site
uses, including a range of residential densities, possible retail uses, public
facilities, and recreational amenities. The
form also included rough estimates of how each option might affect the finances
of the City.
To help
people visualize the possibilities, Jones gave an introduction to the
flexibility and opportunities within each of the land-use possibilities.
Under the
structure of the meeting, I asked the participants to individually prioritize their
desires and to target a package of land uses that would total 30 acres. After they had made their first choices, groups
of three or four people met to discuss their individual wishes and visions,
with the steering committee helping to facilitate. Representatives of each group then conferred with
representatives of the other groups to argue for their visions. The result was an initial set of land-use
preferences. About 27 people attended
the meeting, which was a sufficient group to reach reasonable decisions.
At least a
few of the folks felt initially overwhelmed by the choices presented to them. And that was okay. The process was the urban planning equivalent
of immersion training for learning foreign languages. In effect, in order to teach people to swim, we
pushed them into the deep end of the pool.
But once folks realized that we weren’t going to let them sink, they
bought into the process, bringing insight and passion to their choices.
Powers acted
as scribe for the final discussion group.
The results as presented below are based on his report. Time ran short for the combined group to put
acreages to their choices, but their priorities were well-established. The acreages noted below are my estimates of
where they would have put the acreages if time had permitted.
Residential: The strong consensus was
for a mix of high density housing (14 to 25 units per acre in buildings of up
to three stories) and very high density housing (more than 25 units per acre in
buildings of up to six stories). I’ll assume
a total of seven acres of residential, which would imply perhaps 175 to 200 new
residences.
Retail: The strong consensus here was for
a public market, especially one that included a farmers’ market. The Ferry Building in San Francisco and the
Barlow in Sebastopol were noted as possible models. (I’ll suggest the Oxbow Public Market in Napa
as another possible model.) It was felt that
the regional farm to table model had to be represented. A hotel and more general retail were also
noted as possibilities, but with little enthusiasm. I’ll
assume four acres for a public/farmer’s market.
(Note: It is
also expected that some of the sidewalk frontage in the residential buildings would
be also occupied by storefront retail or offices.)
Office: There was only limited support for
office buildings, so that use was excluded for now.
Manufacturing: The strong consensus was
for small-scale agricultural processing/manufacturing, something more on the scale
of the Cowgirl Creamery rather that the Clover-Stornetta plant.
Also, people
were excited by the idea of a licensed and certified commercial kitchen that
could be used by upstart food producers to bring small batches of locally
sourced food products to market. The
concept of an incubator which would combine manufacturing opportunities and business
skills training for entrepreneurs in food production resonated strongly with
the group because of its fit with the needs of the community and its fit with the
historic role of the Sonoma Marin Fair. Powers
reported that this possible use elicited the strongest emotional response of
all the site uses.
I’ll assume
six acres for processing and manufacturing, including an incubator space.
Recreation: There a good consensus for a
public park or plaza, particularly because of the higher density housing, and
more moderate enthusiasm for a ballfield.
It was noted that a ballfield could also serve as an outdoor concert
venue, but enthusiasm was still limited, so I’ll exclude that option. Instead, I’ll assume three acres of park or
plaza.
Public Facilities: There was strong support
for a public arts center that would house a theater space (perhaps something
like the Cinnabar Theater), a venue for music, public art studios, and
accompanying exhibit space. There was
lesser support for connecting the public arts center to a convention center or
for moving City Hall. I’ll assume three
acres for a public arts center and exclude the latter two options.
The total is
twenty-three acres. Assuming that public
streets consume another seven acres, which is a typical ratio, that gives us
the target thirty acres.
Is this the
best possible combination of land uses?
Probably not. I can already see
decision points that I’d like to further explore. But it’s a fine starting point for our mini-charette
and sets the stage for our next meeting.
Before we conclude the mini-charette several months hence, we’ll circle
back to decide if we wish to revisit any of the decisions above.
Even more
importantly, the Urban Chat gathering was a good evening of public
involvement. To quote Powers, “The
evening revealed how much people are willing to buckle down and address a very
difficult issue, and how much the Fairgrounds issue captures the imaginations
of people from a wide range of community interests.” (This is an appropriate moment
to express my appreciation to both David Powers and Ross Jones for their
assistance with first meeting of the mini-charette. Their continued participation will be
essential as we move ahead.)
In the next
Urban Chat meeting, we’ll determine which 30 acres of the Fairgrounds would be
best suited for redevelopment. To make
that assessment, we’ll consider community issues, including existing uses and
facilities within the Fairgrounds and the adjacent land uses. Make plans to join us on Tuesday, December 9
for the discussion.
In my next
post, I’ll offer some updated thinking about the preservation of historic
buildings.
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