Watching a Towering Surf of Common Sense Crash Against an Adamantine Cliff of Codes and Regulations

Crossing location

A few days ago, I wrote about an upcoming hearing on a proposed at-grade crossing in Santa Rosa.

The proposed crossing would confirm and reopen an existing pedestrian/bicycle connection between the two halves of Jennings Avenue, passing over railroad tracks that were recently returned to use.  It was a crossing that, although never official, had long served as a route between homes, businesses, and schools on both sides of the track.

During the many years that the tracks were unused, no one had taken notice of the crossing.  But with freight service and now SMART trains returning to the tracks, the crossing had become a concern for the California Public Utility Commission.  After considering options, including the possibility of an $8.2 million separated grade bridge, the City of Santa Rosa applied for approval of an at-grade crossing.

In the earlier post, I advocated for the at-grade crossing.  I also expressed concern that the rule-bound rigidity of the process was so time-consuming that many of the students who could have used the crossing to reach elementary school will have driver’s licenses before a decision is rendered.

I attended the hearing two evening ago.  Nothing in the process caused me to change either earlier assessment.  But I nonetheless came away feeling optimistic about people and about urbanism.

I felt energized because I watched a neighborhood of modest means and little influence rally together in large numbers and with enthusiasm to argue for an amenity that they found essential to the well-being of their lives.  And also because the amenity that the neighborhood wanted was walkable urbanism.  It was a naturally occurring, unselfconscious advocacy for a more walkable urban world.  And that makes me happy.

On my way to the hearing, I stopped by the location of the proposed crossing.  The sun and fence didn’t allow a good photo of the tracks, but the signage was clear enough to give a mirthless chuckle.

Detour sign

The City, responding to the closure by the PUC, suggested a walk-around of 0.6 miles and 15 to 20 minutes to replace the crossing, a length of walk that usually deters walking.  And that’s without noting that a segment of the recommended walk would be along a five-lane arterial without a sidewalk, for which the walking route is a narrow sliver of bare dirt behind a curb and perched above a steep slope declining to a creekbed.

Give a moment to ponder that.  The PUC is suggesting that students on their way to elementary school walk on a two-foot dirt path between quickly moving cars and sometimes quickly moving water.  And they make that suggestion for the sake of public safety.

It was with that absurdity still vibrating in my head that I arrived at the hearing.

The evening opened with the City summarizing the steps to date, the different alternatives that were considered, the environmental process that was followed, and the application to the Public Utility Commission for the at-grade crossing.  The location of the elementary school west of the tracks and the growing number of elementary school students living east of the tracks were also noted.  It was an unexciting, but factual and necessary, summary.

An engineer for the Safety and Enforcement Division of the PUC then made what was the most unhelpful presentation of the evening.  He noted that the PUC policy is to reduce the number of at-grade crossings, that many more deaths occur at at-grade crossings than at separated grade crossings, and that the City should have pursued the $8.2 million separated grade crossing when the funds might have been available.

It was a presentation which left a wealth of unanswered questions.  Would people actually use the separated grade crossing or would they revert to cars?  Would students cut the fences and continue crossing at grade, without the safety measures?  How would the City justify plopping an $8.2 million dollar concrete structure into the middle of a residential neighborhood, a physical juxtaposition that would much like plopping a tyrannosaurus rex into a petting zoo?  Were the fatality totals adjusted for the deaths that were ruled suicides?

It was a perfect example of a solution that looked at the problem through a pinhole rather in its entirety, which is the antithesis of good urbanism.  Luckily, the neighborhood effectively destroyed most of his arguments as the evening continued.

Acknowledgement: Due to my poor stenography skills, the following “quotes” are imprecise.  I’ve assuredly missed words and probably even combined the sentiments of multiple speakers.  But, regardless of attribution, all of the points below were made during the public comments, which began with City representatives and elected officials, and then continued with neighborhood residents.

“The crossing, although never approved, has been in use since the late 19th century, predating cars.  And not one single fatality has been experienced in that century plus.”

“Speaking as a wheelchair user, I could never climb the separated grade crossing and would be isolated unless an at-grade crossing is provided.”

“As a parent, I’d never let my child use the separated grade crossing because they couldn’t see around the corners and wouldn’t know what dangers might be waiting for them.”

“If we want to reduce greenhouse gases, we must provide useful walkable solutions.”

“As a researcher on the issues of a post-carbon world, we need to encourage pedestrians by providing facilities that meet their needs.”

“I’m now 46 years old, but remember being a student at this school and crossing the tracks with friends on a Saturday afternoon to see movies.”

“Listening to the speakers this evening, we’re hearing common sense swamping rules.”

“If we wish to encourage seniors to give up driving when they’re no longer safe behind the wheel, we must provide walkable alternatives.”

“The at-grade crossing has been in multiple City of Santa Rosa plans, from the General Plan down, for many years.”

“The concern with the railroad tracks is 32 trains per day.  But nearby Dutton Avenue, which students also cross while walking to school, has 32 cars every 110 seconds during morning peak.  And the cars will be traveling faster than the trains.  Are we even asking the right question?”

While none of the speakers may have been overly eloquent, the overall voice of the neighborhood was highly eloquent.

The remaining question is whether that eloquent voice will be heard.  After the now completed hearing, which was targeted toward collecting public comments, a more rigorous evidentiary hearing, complete with testimony and cross-examination, will be held in San Francisco in mid-April.  PUC staff will then draft an order for consideration by the full Commission during the summer.  Overall it seems a welter of decision-making in which the desires of the neighborhood might be lost.

Having little prior experience with the PUC process, I don’t know what to expect as a final result, but hope that a neighborhood arguing with a unified voice for an urbanist solution won’t be lost to a blind reliance on rules that shouldn’t apply to a changing world.

I’ll keep you advised.

I recently glanced at my notes from the recent StrongTowns/Urban3 visit to the North Bay.  I spotted a quote from Chuck Marohn of StrongTowns that I’d written down, but somehow still not really heard.  Coming across it again, it spoke to me in a whole new way, with deep implications about urbanism.  I’ll ruminate 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)

StrongTowns: The Message Is Still What Matters

Downtown Petaluma

A funny thing happened on the way to the publishing button.  And an extensive rewrite was required.

A couple of weeks ago, I was advised that Chuck Marohn of StrongTowns and Joe Minicozzi of Urban3 were coming to the North Bay in mid-January to talk about the StrongTowns message and urbanism in general.  The focus of the trip would be Santa Rosa, but I was asked about my willingness to host a Petaluma event.

I was puzzled by lateness of the request.  Between the frequent StrongTowns focus of this blog, the discussions at Petaluma Urban Chat, and the community activism of those who have been influenced by one or both, I would have expected to learn of the planned visit earlier in the planning process.

But the key point was the StrongTowns message, not the social niceties of who was told what and when, so I responded with enthusiasm about organizing a Petaluma event.  I also began contacting key local folks, asking them to reserve possible dates.

I received a good response.  Many people, looking at the history of Petaluma as the originator of the Urban Growth Boundary concept and as an early adopter of form-based codes and at the future of Petaluma with its looming land-use decisions such as downtown transit-oriented development, second SMART station location, and Fairgrounds reuse, were thrilled by the idea of a StrongTowns event in Petaluma and eagerly vowed to support it.

Last evening, I called a special meeting of Urban Chat to do further planning.  Although the holiday week attendance was less than I would have wished, there was further enthusiasm and promises of financial and tactical support.  Combined with communications received from those who couldn’t attend but who were enthusiastic about a Petaluma event, I felt that with hard work we could host a great event and perhaps nudge Petaluma closer to an urbanist future.

I awoke this morning to a mental list of meeting planning tasks that required my attention.  I also awoke to an email advising me that the Santa Rosa organizers had decided that there wasn’t room in the schedule for a Petaluma event, but that Petaluma was welcome to send a contingent to one of the meetings in Santa Rosa.

Honestly, I’m irritated and will be for awhile.  A quick response to StrongTowns resulted in an acknowledgment that something had gone awry in the planning process, that the lessons learned would be applied to future event planning, and that there was a good likelihood of further 2016 StrongTowns trips to the Bay Area, perhaps as early as February, with a Petaluma event high on the list of target destinations.

The StrongTowns response was appreciated, but the initial snub still stings.  However, after a few deep breaths, what remained was the reminder that it’s the StrongTowns message of financial sustainability that’s important, not organizational mishaps.  So I’ll write about StrongTowns often in the coming weeks to encourage folks to attend the Santa Rosa event.

Also, I’ll set two goals for Petaluma’s StrongTowns involvement in 2016.

First, I want to bring a contingent from Petaluma to Santa Rosa for one of the January public events that will outnumber the Santa Rosa folks in the room.  I don’t know which of the events will be the best to attend (I’ll likely attend all three), but will coordinate with local folks about what works for them.  If Petaluma folks can, to the extent possible, block out all three evenings of January 19, 20, and 21, it would be appreciated.  (I have previous commitments on all three nights.  I’ll begin canceling them later today.)

Second, I want the Petaluma StrongTowns event that may occur during 2016 to be among the best events in which the StrongTowns folks participate all year.  I’ll stay in coordination with StrongTowns about dates and will look for support from Petaluma folks as soon as a date is established.

And for my North Bay readers who aren’t from Petaluma, but have nonetheless stayed with me during my rant, I’ll encourage you to participate in the upcoming Santa Rosa events and to ready yourselves for a later Petaluma event.

Now, I’m going to spend the rest of my day grumbling at the world.

My next post will fall on New Year’s Day.  As if the goals laid out above aren’t enough, I’ll write about my urbanist resolutions for the New Year.

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

Block Parties: Emptying the Notebook

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been arguing for greater freedom to host block parties in Petaluma.  Having learned that block parties are restricted to cul-de-sacs, I advocated for fewer restrictions, and then toured Petaluma block parties (h), both legal and illegal, on the Fourth of July.

To repeat myself, block parties aren’t urbanism, but are one-day samplings of urbanism.  And sampling urbanism is a step in the right direction.

I have a scattering of final insights and data to share today in preparation for moving onto other topics.  But the block party issue won’t be forgotten.  I’ll continue to raise the issue in conversations with city officials and will advise readers whenever there’s a hint of progress.

Police responses: I know of four people who approached the Petaluma Police Department about block parties for the summer of 2014.  The range of responses was wide and instructive.

Party request #1: The police contact denied the request because the Municipal Code prohibits block parties except on cul-de-sacs.  The potential party organizer dropped the idea.

Party request #2: An officer told the potential organizer that, while the Municipal Code prohibits block parties on through streets, the officer thought that the provision could be ignored if the organizer provided an emergency access plan and proof of neighborhood concurrence.  But when the organizer provided both documents, the officer never called back.  The party proceeded without approval.

Party request #3: An officer told the organizer that, while the Municipal Code prohibited her proposed party, he suggested she proceed without a permit, although he cautioned her to leave an emergency access lane.

Party request #4: The organizer left multiple messages at the police station, none of which were returned, so she proceeded without approval.

The tally is four identical requests with four disparate responses.  And the list doesn’t include the numerous block parties that have been conducted, some of them for many years, without contacting the police department at all.

(Addendum: After this post was readied for publishing, I heard from yet another block party organizer.  Her party will be on a through street, but the Police Department issued her a permit regardless.  For those scoring at home, that’s five identical requests with five disparate responses.)

I don’t provide this tabulation to make fun of the police.  Instead, I consider that range of responses as an indication that the officers were trying to reconcile a flawed Municipal Code provision with their own common sense.  The lack of consistency is further proof that the Code should be modified.

Review of other cities: I checked the municipal codes for other North Bay cities regarding block parties.  My check wasn’t in depth.  It consisted solely of checking the on-line Municipal Codes for the phrases “block party” and “street party”.  If someone has further information, please share.  But I think my findings are significant.

The municipal codes of Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Cotati, San Rafael, Sonoma, and Napa are apparently silent on block parties.  It’s possible that local precedent has established block party rules, but the standards don’t rise to the level of the Municipal Codes.

It was only in Novato where I found a small hint of a block party standard.  The special event application form includes a block party as one of the possible events, which implies apparent approval of block parties without restriction to cul-de-sacs.

The consensus of North Bay cities seems clear.

The Santa Rosa example is particularly striking because of a story I was recently told.  A former neighbor moved to Santa Rosa within the past year.  With his wife and toddler, he moved into a neighborhood with a long block party tradition.  He tells me that this year’s party attracted hundreds of people, perhaps including the Santa Rosa mayor.  My friend was unable to confirm the mayor’s attendance because he was too busy emceeing for the bands that were playing.

And the entire event was conducted on streets where block parties aren’t legal in Petaluma.

Defending City Hall: I should address a misconception that has been mentioned to me.  The block party issue has apparently led some to believe that the City of Petaluma is actively opposed to block parties.  I don’t believe that to be the case.  I think some City folks are looking at the block party issue through spectacles with flawed prescriptions, but that’s different from actual opposition.

To begin, the offending phrase in the Municipal Code, the one that limits block parties to cul-de-sacs, was probably written decades ago.  The author was likely someone who has long left City employment or a consultant who was never employed by the City.  We can’t blame the current denizens of City Hall for the restriction.

Also, when City Hall looks at changing the provision, they’re doing a benefit-cost assessment, which is reasonable.  However, they project few benefits from allowing more block parties.  Not a complete absence of benefits, but few benefits.  At the same time, they fear significant costs from the use of City staff to make the Municipal Code change and from the commitment of the police to enforce a new standard.  As a result, they calculate a benefit-cost ratio of less than one.

I believe they underestimate the benefits and overestimate the costs, so disagree with their calculation.  But I’ll defend them from the accusation that they see no benefits.

Good enough?:  Another response I hear is that the current situation is good enough and that we needn’t spend time worrying when most block parties are proceeding just fine.

If I squint, I can see that logic.  But when I fully open my eyes, the reasoning disappears like a puff of smoke.

How can the current situation are acceptable if newcomers to Petaluma, eager to bond with their neighbors, are directed by the police department not to hold block parties?  How is it acceptable if other organizers proceed with their plans, but are constantly looking over their shoulders in trepidation, wondering if they’re about to be fined for not getting a permit? 

By any measure that I find reasonable, the current status isn’t “good enough”.

I’ll admit that block parties are a fairly small issue.  If someone gave me a magic lamp with the power to fix ten things in Petaluma, I doubt block parties would make my list.  But if we can’t fix the little solvable problems, how do we think we can fix the big, more intractable problems?

Okay, I’ve spent enough time on block parties.  Probably more than I should have.  Thanks for hanging around while I ranted.

It’s now time to move along.  In my next post, I’ll take a look at neighborhood meeting places.

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

Balancing Vision and Expediency

A pundit in a local newspaper recently penned an opinion piece about the pending Petaluma Station Area Plan.  In it, he called for “flexibility” in the implementation of the plan, suggesting that earlier land-use plans had languished in the absence of flexibility.

I wrote a response that acknowledged common ground and areas of possible disagreement.  I concurred that flexibility in looking at alternative ways of meeting the community goals was to be encouraged.  But using flexibility to disregard community goals was a poor idea.  Regarding the latter, I noted that “After decades of that kind of flexibility, we’re largely locked into land uses that are car-dependent, that have increasingly ominous environmental consequences, and that we can’t afford to maintain.”

My concluding paragraph was “Flexibility to draw on the creative ideas of multiple people to implement the core values of the community?  That’s a fine idea.  Flexibility as an excuse to again bypass those core values?  That idea should be a non-starter.”

The timing of the exchange was prescient.  Within days, the City of Santa Rosa was faced with a pair of decisions for which they had to balance immediate development versus long-term community goals.

The first decision was about the future of the New Railroad Square mixed-use project, once a highly-touted transit-oriented development adjoining the Railroad Square SMART station that will be in operation by 2015.  Due to a weak economy, the loss of California redevelopment, and other changing conditions, the proposed project had been greatly scaled back and now included only a small portion of the units initially intended.

By a 4-3 vote, the Santa Rosa City Council decided that what little remained of the New Railroad Square project wasn’t worth continuing.  Instead, they felt it was better to await better economic conditions when a more comprehensive project might again be feasible.

Barely had that decision been made before a similar conundrum was posed in downtown Santa Rosa.  A developer had proposed to reconfigure the former AT&T building into ground floor public space, with office and residential on the floors above.  Now, faced with a looming deadline and an increasingly convoluted financing package, he was proposing to eliminate the floors that would have included the residential.

The two decisions posed the same question of balance.  Given a long-term vision of what the community wants to become, the short-term economic issues that delay that vision, and the desire for economic activity to keep the local work force employed and cash registers clicking, what are the best decisions for public bodies?

Before offering my thoughts, let me say that I sympathize with the public bodies that must make these decisions.  The choices are impossibly multi-faceted.  It’s hard to believe that people actually compete to occupy the hot seats.

With that said, I think a key factor in the decision must be one’s belief in how land-use patterns will evolve over the next ten or twenty years.  If one believes that the status quo will be maintained indefinitely, then going for the immediate development makes sense.  Why delay the inevitable?

But if that is what someone believes, they haven’t been paying attention for the past decade.

I visited about urbanism with a number of engineering professionals in 2001 and 2002.  They felt urbanism was a fad that would make a few inroads, but not dramatically change the faces of our cities.  They were wrong.  Urbanism is the now the predominant form of growth in metropolises and is gaining on drivable suburbia elsewhere.

And those successes have been achieved despite the institutional biases against urbanism.  The growth of urbanism would certainly have even faster if gasoline prices had reflected the true economic and geopolitical cost of oil, if the construction liability laws had been revised to make multi-family development less troublesome, and if mortgage lending standards had ceased favoring single-family homes.

So I suspect that the Santa Rosa City Council got the New Railroad Square decision correct.  I don’t have all of the data that they did, but if their decision was based on the expectation that urbanism would continue to grow, giving the opportunity in a few years for a project that would meet all of the initial goals, it was likely a good decision.

And I hope that the City Council reaches a similar decision on the AT&T building.  Adding residents to downtown is too important to let an opportunity slip away.

In both cases, I feel sympathy for the developer and the development team.  I’ve been on teams that didn’t receive approvals.  It’s not an enjoyable experience.  But the long-term good of the community is what ultimately matters.

However, I must close with a note of caution.  Although I believe that putting a finger on the scale to tilt land-use decisions toward urbanism is correct, it must still be a balance.  Urbanists who would deny every project until it achieves their perfect vision of urbanism are equally in the wrong with those who would approve every project in the name of economic activity.  Good public service requires considering all factors, including one’s beliefs about where land use is going, and then making solid, balanced decisions.

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