Getting Seconded with Authority

A few posts back, while poking fun at my habit of tallying the states I’ve visited, I suggested that counting cities was a more appropriate measure of travel because cities have been more important to civilization.

The heart of my argument was “The history of civilization begins with Babylon, Athens, Sparta, Rome, and Carthage before continuing onward to Venice, Vienna, London, Paris, Philadelphia, and Boston.  Cities are where learning, government, and culture all took root.”

Thus, it was with delight that I came across an article by another writer starting with this phrase, “Although history is not usually taught this way, one could argue that cities have played a more important role in shaping the world than empires. From Athens and Rome to Paris and Venice to Baghdad and Beijing, urban ideas and innovators have left indelible marks on human life.”

We must have been working from the same syllabus.

The other writer was Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City, writing in Foreign Affairs magazine.  Wow, my motion was seconded with authority.  (Yeah, that may have a bit too much hubris.)

The Foreign Affairs article can perhaps be found here.  However, the link, no matter how many times I copy it, doesn’t seem to work for me, for reasons I can’t discern.  Foreign Affairs must use some kind of cloaking device.   But a Google search on “foreign affairs city century” seems to work just fine.  Free registration is required to access the article.  Going through the multi-step registration is worthwhile.  The article is that good.

Building on his great start, Bloomberg goes on to make assertion after assertion with which I bobbed my head in enthusiastic concurrence, so many solid assertions that I had to restrain myself from copying the entire article and smashing the “Fair Use” standard.  So I’ll limit myself to just a few points.

Bloomberg argues that some authority will move back toward cities in the future.  In his words, “Influence will shift gradually away from national governments and toward cities.”

And that’s a good thing because cities like to experiment, “Mayors are turning their city halls into policy labs, conducting experiments on a grand scale and implementing large-scale ideas to address problems, such as climate change, that often divide and paralyze national governments.”

And cities are also better at experimentation than nations, “cities tend to be more nimble than national governments, which are more likely to be captured or neutralized by special interest groups and which tend to view problems through an ideological, rather than a pragmatic, lens.”

Bloomberg goes on to offer a list of ways in which cities can tackle climate change, from bike sharing to better solar policies, that are beyond most national governments.

Seriously, it’s a great article.  Go through the hassle of the free registration and read with enthusiasm.  You’ll be rewarded.

Before closing, I should make a couple of observations about what the Bloomberg/Alden hypothesis about the coming power of cities (once again, too much hubris) means to the cities of the North Bay.

I foresee a future where San Francisco sets the tone for the Bay Area.  Sacramento would still have power; civilizations can’t function without nations and their subdivisions.  But here in the North Bay, we would be satellites of San Francisco, not Sacramento.  (Sorry, Oakland and San Jose.  Yes, you may have more people and land than San Francisco, but you lack the geographical authority of the city that guards the Golden Gate.)

But even though North Bay cities may look to San Francisco for guidance, we would also have our own urban power.  Much as Bloomberg write about the accumulation of intellectual power in large cities, North Bay cities would have their own local accumulations, committed to building vibrant local economies, to addressing local problems, and to formulating solutions that can be promulgated elsewhere.

And urbanism would be a key element of that power, both as a solution to local issues and as a way of creating intellectual ferment through daily interactions on the sidewalks that are the marketplace of ideas.

To illustrate the sea change, I predict that the mayor elected by Petaluma in 2052 will come not from a single-family neighborhood, but from a downtown mixed-use community, such as Haystack Landing.  And that will be a good thing.  (For the record, I’ll be 99 in 2052, so am not planning on running for mayor.  But I am planning on voting for the Haystack Landing candidate.)

Thanks again to Mayor Bloomberg for having my back.

A few posts back, in recounting some final moments of insight from the annual meeting of the Congress for the New Urbanism, I noted the creative tension between the structure required for the coherence of an urban plan and the anarchy in which creative fringe of urban concepts can be explored.  It’s a topic which I’ve long pondered.  I don’t have any grand conclusions to offer but, in my next post, I’ll expand on the question and on my evolving thoughts.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)

Why Haystack Landing Can’t Be Everything to Everybody

Last time, I wrote about the tentatively-named Haystack Landing, a proposed mixed-use project, with residential over retail, midway between downtown Petaluma and the coming SMART train station.  Although I demurred slightly on the architecture, I was mostly thrilled with the project, with my principal wish being that ground-breaking could occur soon.

But, as with most land development projects, it’s inevitable that other folks won’t be as content.  Some will be querulous and others merely curious, but there will always be some who wish that their particular issue could have addressed differently.

Before, during, and after the public meeting last week, some of those concerns reached my ears.  In my role as an advocate for urbanism, I’ll try to address those concerns.

To be clear, I have no role in the Haystack Landing project.  The responses below are based solely on conversations with the project team and on knowledge gained from past projects.  Perhaps I didn’t sit at the table for Haystack Landing, but I’ve sat at enough tables to understand how the realities of zoning codes, construction financing, and marketplace preferences play out.

Why do the buildings top out at four stories?  More stories would put more people downtown: There are a several approaches that can be taken to answering this question, but I’ll tackle it through parking balance.

Each use, whether market-rate residential, affordable residential, or retail, has a parking requirement. With each home or retail space added, more parking is required, reducing the land available for the building footprint.  It becomes a dance to find the balance point between parking and building uses such that the site is fully used, and fully parked, in a form will satisfy the marketplace.

For Haystack Landing, the project team found their balance point at 140 homes plus about 20,000 square-feet of retail in four-story buildings with 180 surface parking stalls.  From my review, I have no reason to disagree with their conclusion.  If they had pushed the buildings higher, they would have needed more parking, for which there wasn’t room without eliminating building footprints.

Some may point out that structured parking could have increased the parking count without increasing the land area dedicated to parking, thereby allowing more building stories.  They’d be right, but the problem is that structured parking is expensive, perhaps $20,000 per parking space compared to $2,000 for a ground space.

Adding structured parking would significantly bump the sales prices, or rental rates, on the units, perhaps pushing those prices beyond what the market will bear.  From the early days of the recession until now, developers have reported that they can’t find a way to make structured parking pay except in the densest urban settings.  If the Haystack Landing team says that they found the same, I have no reason to dispute them.

But what if additional stories were committed to affordable units without associated parking?: This is an interesting question that forces me to dig deeper into the project.  There are four arguments against the suggestion.

First, although I’d like to believe otherwise, there may not be a market for affordable units with no parking.

Second, the assigned transects for the site (transects being the form-based code equivalents of zones which are used within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan) allow only four stories on much of the site, with six stories allowed only along the E. Washington Street frontage.  So a variance or zone change would be required to go above four stories.

Third, there is also no provision in the SmartCode for residential units without parking, so another variance would be required.

Fourth, the building code changes above four stories, requiring a more expensive form of construction.

So the taller buildings would become more expensive in order to add affordable units with an uncertain market.  That’s not a workable proposition.

Personally, I’m intrigued by the idea of a fifth or even sixth story along E. Washington Street, liking the image it would create for Petaluma.  I’d suggest that fourth floor homes become multi-story units internally, which would get around the parking issue.  But it still wouldn’t overcome the building code constraint.

Why can’t the project look more like downtown?:  The easy answer is that construction codes and economics have changed over the last century, with the money that used to go into elaborate facades instead going into seismic code compliance, fire suppression systems, handicapped access, and union wages.

But there is also the problem that downtown Petaluma doesn’t have a single style to which Haystack Landing could conform.  I love downtown, but it has a broad diverse range of

architectural styles, leaving current-day architects at a loss when it comes to matching downtown.  Anyone who argues that downtown Petaluma has a style is confusing familiarity and fondness for coherence.

What should be done to mitigate for the increased traffic?: This is a multi-faceted question.  To begin, it’s likely that congestion won’t change.  In the obverse side of the theory of induced traffic, if more traffic is added to an already congested street, more drivers would defer or delay trips, so

congestion would remain the same, although there is still the impact of more deferred or delayed trips.

Also, there aren’t many traffic improvements that can be made in the vicinity of Haystack Landing.  There is no room for a third lane on E. Washington Street.  The D Street Bridge constricts D Street to its current one lane.  And Lakeville doesn’t offer any opportunities either.

However, Haystack Landing, with its location and its restricted parking, will generate fewer trips than other residential projects.  Because of the way that trip data is collected from other projects, we don’t know what the likely Haystack Landing trip generation would be, but with ten daily trips per home being typical for single-family homes, seven or so trips from Haystack Landing would seem likely.  And that number would decrease as the urbanism increases around the project, allowing more daily chores to be completed on foot or by transit.

Despite this lower trip generation, Haystack Landing will pay the same traffic impact fee per unit as for an apartment with unlimited parking on the urban fringe.  State law allows cities to impose lower traffic impact fees for projects in urban settings, but Petaluma has chosen not to do so.

But as there are few opportunities for traffic improvements near Haystack Landing, it is likely that the traffic impact fees would be spent on improvements in the more suburban parts of the community.

So, the complete traffic answer is that Haystack Landing will generate fewer trips that other residential projects, but will pay for more than its fair share for city traffic improvements.  However, the improvements will likely occur elsewhere other than around Haystack Landing because there are few improvement opportunities near the project.  It’s an answer that makes my head spin.

Is it best for one developer to design all 140 units?: Admittedly, this is my question, although I never asked it of anyone because I already knew the answer.

Regular readers will know that I’m a big fan of fine-grained urbanism, believing that many small projects serve cities better than a few large projects.  (Jane Jacobs made this argument in “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” and for me it remains true a half-century later.)

In a perfect world, I would prefer that different teams develop the two blocks that will result when the current block is divided by the new street.  Even though the massing of the two blocks would likely remain the similar given the constraints of the Station Area Master Plan and SmartCode, I think the different teams might generate solutions sufficiently different to meet Jacobs’ goal of a fine grain.

But I also understand the financial downside of having multiple development entities.  The costs of entitlement, including CEQA compliance, aren’t halved when the project area is halved.  Indeed, those costs may not change much at all.  So the total costs of entitlement, which can be a significant percentage of the overall development costs, could be doubled if the blocks were developed separately.

As much as I think that fine-grained urbanism would be better for our cities, our current methods of entitlement and environmental protection work against it.

Why is there is an old warehouse on the Copeland Street frontage?: the aerial photo at the beginning of this post shows two warehouses along Copeland Street.  Pacifica Companies has acquired one of those warehouses, will demolish it, and will replace it with new construction.

But no purchase agreement was reached on the other warehouse, so it will remain in place, with the Haystack Landing buildings constructed on both sides of it.

In January, I noted to the Petaluma City Council that this situation is why eminent domain exists and that the City should find a way to acquire the property and to resell it to Pacifica Companies so it could become part of Haystack Landing.

I still feel that way, but I also see the possibility that, when the warehouse finally goes away years from now, a creative development team will find a quirky way to use the odd parcel, resulting in a solution that future generations of Petalumans will find endearing.  Good urbanism sometimes works out that way.

So, I’m less bothered by the warehouse than I was six months ago.

Any other thoughts on Haystack Landing?  I suggest contacting the developer, but I also remain always willing to chat about urbanist projects.

HBO is currently airing an original program that will seemingly impart lessons relevant to urbanism.  I’m intrigued by the plot and by the learning opportunities.  I’ll share what I know in 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)

Haystack Landing by Any Other Name Would Fill the Need as Well

Long-time Petaluma residents may remember the proposed Haystack Landing project, sited midway between downtown and the future SMART station, bounded by E. Washington, Weller, D, and Copeland Streets.

Over a great many years, the former owner of the property put forth a great many alternative plans for the site, some of which would have supported Petaluma’s urbanist future and some of which are better forgotten.

Eventually, time and a weakening economy robbed the earlier efforts of their last shred of momentum and the property moved into different hands, eventually ending up owned by Pacifica Companies of San Diego.

Pacifica has now brought forth their plan, a plan that looks much like the final iteration under the previous owner, not surprising given that some team members remain the same, but with a sense of commitment and a level of credibility that gives hope that this time the project will finally move ahead.

Although Pacifica hasn’t yet submitted land-use applications to the Planning Department, they rolled out the preliminary plans for community review earlier this week.  There was much to like in the plans.  There was also room to chat about possible tweaks.

(One thing that Pacifica hasn’t brought forth is a new name for the project.  They seem committed to moving on from the previous Haystack Landing name, but are as yet undecided on a new name.  After offering the obligatory jest about PTBNL for project-to-be-named-later, a reference to a player-to-be-named-later in a baseball trade, I’ll continue calling the project Haystack Landing for now.)

To begin my comments, please understand that I would be happy if the project as now presented could go into construction tomorrow.  Indeed, happy would understate my emotions.  If I could get my wife to agree, I’d probably put our names on the reservation list for one of the units.  I hope to one day live in an urban setting near the heart of Petaluma, a hope that has twice been stalled when earlier projects failed.  Haystack Landing is now my newest great urban hope.

But construction isn’t going to start tomorrow.   So there’s a window to talk about the good, the possible areas of improvement, and the impractical suggestions put forth by others.

The Good: As a member of the citizens committee for the Station Area Master Plan, I may be overly committed to the vision that resulted from that process, but I’m pleased that the Haystack Landing conforms well to the master plan, with a new street dividing the parcel, multiple four-story buildings mostly ringing the resulting two blocks, and parking, at the minimum allowed under the SmartCode, in the center of the blocks, largely removed from the view of pedestrians.

In a detail that wasn’t foretold by the master plan, but is a welcome addition, much of the parking is covered by a roof that will support social activities and areas of greenery.

(The project architect pointed out that the strictures in the master plan and the related SmartCode gave relatively few options for the site plan, largely dictating the proposed plan.  Short of asking for a bundle of variances, the site plan had to look much as it has been designed.  One could argue from this that the master plan and SmartCode, even if they’re stifling innovation, are still leading to good results.)

Looking at one small site plan detail, I’m thrilled by the solution along D Street.  A long-ago realignment of D Street left an awkward triangle of pavement, comfortable for neither pedestrians walking between downtown and the future train station nor drivers unsure how to steer a right turn onto Weller Street.  The triangle can’t contain buildings because of overhead power lines, but the site plan converts that space into a landscape and sculpture garden, with outdoor dining for a proposed café.  It’s a fine solution to a vexing problem.

The Room for Improvements: I’m not an architect, don’t have the eye of an architect, and am impossibly far behind in my attempt at remedial architectural training, but I find that the Haystack Landing architecture, while well articulated and richly detailed, still screams early 21st century American development style.  I don’t intend at all to suggest that the architecture looks like a Walmart.  With its detailing and varied use of materials, it’s far from that architectural nadir.

But, to my untrained eye, it still looks too much like the same architectural solution that would be proposed for infill sites in Seattle, Denver, or Charlotte.  It’d be a good solution in any of those places, but nothing in the design says unique, Petaluma, or even California.

For corroboration of my impressions, I checked with an architect friend.  He used different words, but largely agreed with me.

I suspect that various constraints, from the site to the Station Area Master Plan to the construction economics in the second decade of the 21st century, restricted the architect such that this may been his legitimately best solution, but I can still chafe at the result.

In a situation for which an easier fix would seem to be available, Transverse Street, the interim and unpoetic name for the street that will subdivide the Haystack Landing site, will be the preferred route for most pedestrians walking from downtown to the coming SMART station.  But that route may not be obvious to first-time visitors.  Indeed, the route may seem unintuitive from downtown.  So wayfinding guidance at the Weller Street entrance into Transverse Street would be appropriate, perhaps a sculpture or signage that sends the unmistakable message that this be the way to the train.

Rounding out my thoughts on the preliminary plans are responses to some of the issues raised by the public for which there are no solutions and for which the developer should be given absolution.  But I’ve already claimed enough of your time for today, so I’ll defer those to 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)

Highlighting the Guideposts on the Path toward a Better Future

The Petaluma City Council holds an annual goal-setting session, a seven-hour Saturday marathon that was conducted a few days ago.

Several Councilmembers occasionally follow this blog, but I still thought it appropriate to remind the Council about some of the goals I’ve suggested for Petaluma over past few years, while also noting a couple of more recent opportunities.

Following is the text of the comments that I had intended to make at the goal-setting session a few days ago.  I write “intended” because the Mayor, in a justified effort to keep the day on schedule, reduced the time allotted to each speaker from the three minutes that I had expected to only two minutes.  It was a change that so flustered me that I dropped my notes on the head of the Economic Development Director.  Upon recovery, I was able to adjust my presentation on the fly, hitting all seven points below, but reducing my intention from advocacy of a solution to identification of the issue.

Nonetheless, I’ll share my entire intended presentation below.

“I appreciate the opportunity to offer some thoughts this morning.  I’ll try to make good use of my three minutes.

“#1 - The SMART train is now less than two years from arriving.  And yet the key parcel of land that should serve the station, providing homes for those who choose to use the train for a daily commute, sits filled with railroad construction materials.  Nor, based on the most recent information I’ve received, has SMART even begun seeking a developer for the site.  The only small concession that SMART has reportedly made is to plan a gravel parking lot for some of the hoped-for riders.

“Petaluma is a cool place.  SMART can make it cooler.   But for that to happen, the town must have the elements in place to facilitate the change, including transit-oriented development on the SMART parcel.

“I understand that the burden lies with SMART.  But I ask the City to push SMART in every way possible to let the train make Petaluma a cooler place.

“#2 – Moving a block further from the train station, I understand that the new project on the Haystack Landing site is moving nicely through the conceptual design process.  I ask the City to facilitate the project in every way possible.  A constructed project on the Haystack Landing site isn’t a substitute for development on the SMART parcel, but it’s a start.

“Also, I understand that the Haystack Landing project currently excludes one of the warehouses at the D Street corner because the two parties have been unable to reach agreement on price.  But if the warehouse site is excluded from the project, the SMART Code may result in the site being forever under-utilized.

“I understand that City resources are limited, but this situation is why eminent domain exists.  Securing the warehouse site for the Haystack Landing project is a win-win-win opportunity.  The Haystack developer would have a better project.  The warehouse owners, even if they don’t see it today, would benefit.   And the community would have a more complete development to pass onto posterity.

“#3 – Moving just slightly further from the SMART station, only four short blocks away is the Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds.  I know the lease with the Fair Board doesn’t expire for another eight years, but eight years can pass awfully quickly in land use.

“I’m working with a citizens group that has been developing design concepts for the Fairgrounds.  We expect to have a plan to share publicly within six weeks.

“It’s time to open the Fairgrounds process to the public, both for those who have been studying the possibilities and for those eager to become educated about the opportunities.

“The Fairgrounds has the potential to transform Petaluma.  Let’s begin the public discussion.

“#4 – One of the best land-use efforts in the past year has been the progress of the Keller Court Commons community.  It’s not a footprint that I’d support throughout the community, but it’s a great adaption to a challenging site and will provide a fine living experience for the its residents.

“However, I’ve chatted with the developer and learned that the Petaluma entitlement process was more difficult and convoluted than in any other city where he’s done similar projects.

“We should remedy that.  A complete upgrade to the zoning code to facilitate new and creative land-use ideas should be undertaken.  Once again, I know dollars are tight, but this is a matter of preparing the community for the 21st century.

“#5 – It’s been over two years since the Transit Advisory Committee realized to its surprise that the East Washington Place shopping center was nearing completion without a new bus stop.  The TAC suggestion of a bus stop condition of approval had been waylaid because the committee lacked the official power to propose conditions of approval.

“The TAC, Transit Manager, City Engineer, and developer rolled up sleeves and found a solution.  It was an imperfect solution, one that required purchasing more buses and that continues to inconvenience riders to this day, but it was better than having no bus stop.

“The TAC then moved onto the next task, securing for themselves the authority to propose conditions of approval to avoid future missteps.  But after two years and numerous discussions, the topic still hasn’t reached the City Council.  This task must be completed in 2015.  Transit will be too much a part of Petaluma’s future not to give it a voice in land-use planning.

“#6 – To conclude with an easier challenge, block parties still occupy a fuzzy role within the Municipal Code, officially prohibited in most locations, but often proceeding anyway.  The responses that potential organizers receive when asking for party approval from City officials range from “No way” to “Well, okay, as long as you don’t tell anyone I said so”, depending on the official to whom the organizer speaks.

“The range of responses is unfortunate, but what’s even worse is that none of the responses serve the city.  The best response should be “As long as public safety in ensured, we strongly encourage block parties.”   Let’s make the changes to the Municipal Code to get to that best response.

“Thanks for your time and attention.

“P.S. (if time permits) #7 – Parking may be the biggest challenge in trying to reclaim our cities from the automobile.  The final report on the Station Area Plan notes the need for a parking management plan, an action that other cities have taken to great benefit.  It’s time for the City, whether through staff or with a committee of citizens, to begin thinking about long-term parking strategies.”

The remainder of the day was long and stultifying.  I was the only member of the public to remain the entire time.  As I explained to a Councilmember after the session, every time I grew tired of the warm room and the roar of the air conditioning system, I looked down the agenda, spotted something of interest perhaps 20 minutes away, and decided I could stay a bit longer.

Of the issues I raised, all were touched upon by the City Council during their discussions, although some references were more oblique than others.  There were a number of Fairgrounds comments, which I’ll share another time.  Although I suspect my positions of advocacy, both at the session and before, had helped shape the discussion, I felt that only one issue was discussed solely because I’d pushed it there.

And that issue was block parties.  I’m convinced that my repeated comments on the value of clarifying the block party rules, and the dogged efforts of one reader to keep the issue in front of the City Council, were the only reasons that block parties were discussed near the end of the day.

And the outcome was favorable, with the Police Chief and much of the City Council declaring their support for block parties.  However, the Council was uncertain about the best role for the City to take, so tossed the issue back to the City Manager for further staff consideration.  I’ll continue my involvement on the topic.

Similarly, I’ll continue my advocacy on the other issues I raised.  Saturday provided a few glimmers of hope for urbanism but, as always, further work remains to be done.

Next time, I’ll return to the “Intro to Urbanism”, exploring the role of buildings in urbanism.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)