Think Globally, Act Locally . . . Petaluma Style

Once again, I apologize for sometimes being Petaluma-centric.  I truly try to maintain a North Bay focus, but there is so much stuff going on under my nose here in Petaluma that I can’t ignore it.  Today will be a blow-out of Petaluma updates.

Fairgrounds Re-Use: Here is my long-promised update about the efforts by Petaluma Urban Chat on the Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds.  As a recap for newcomers, the Fairgrounds are owned by the City and leased to the Sonoma Marin Fair Board.  The current lease will expire in 2023 and the City has expressed an interest in continuing to have a Fair, but also in reclaiming a portion of the site for other economic uses.

In support of the City direction and to ensure that the new site uses incorporate the urbanist direction in which Petaluma should be heading, Urban Chat has prepared an independent plan for re-use of a portion of the Fairgrounds.  The plan was prepared over a course of several months and involved at one time or another up to forty members of the community.

It’s a good plan and there’s much to commend in it.  However, a two-dimensional depiction of colored blocks isn’t always the best tool to fire the enthusiasm of those not accustomed to reading land-use plans.

So, the Urban Chat Fairgrounds group has decided to develop renderings of the plan, presenting three-dimensional perspectives for presentation to the general public.

But renderings are a major endeavor.  We’ve located design professionals who are also excited by the vision for the Fairgrounds site and who are willing to work cheap, but not for free, to prepare renderings.

To fund the effort, we’re establishing a fundraising effort on IOBY, a Kickstarter-type organization which works exclusively on non-profit land-use, public place, and community involvement efforts that focus on the betterment of cities and towns.  (For those who enjoy a good acronym, IOBY stands for “In Our Backyard”, an alternative to the frequent urbanist NIMBY “Not in Our Backyard” foes.)

We’re still working on the IOBY paperwork, so the Fairgrounds efforts isn’t yet posted on the IOBY site, but I suggest taking a look at the projects now on IOBY to learn of some of the great ideas being pursued elsewhere.  Then, hopefully by early next week, you can return to participate in the tax-deductible fundraising for the Fairgrounds re-use renderings.

Food Trucks: In another update related to Petaluma Urban Chat, we had a good May meeting on the idea of food truck parks.  Not everyone was convinced that the concept was an unalloyed good, but all agreed that the conversation should continue.  And City of Petaluma staff has asked to be kept apprised of our thinking as they try to find an official City position on food trucks.

The tentative plan is to arrange an Urban Chat outing or two to food truck parks.  At present, no outings have been scheduled, but stay tuned for updates.

Petaluma Urban Chat: Looking ahead at Urban Chat, the next regular meeting will be Tuesday, June 9, 5:30pm at the regular meeting place, the Aqus Café at 2nd and H Streets in Petaluma.  I’ll suggest we convene for a discussion of the Fairgrounds effort and perhaps also a chat about urban destinations for summer travel.  (Personally, I’ll be visiting New Orleans for the first time and will be eager to observe the urbanist lessons that came from the redevelopment after Katrina.)

But I’ll suggest that the meeting on the 9th stay casual and short because I have an idea for a second Urban Chat meeting in June.

If Urban Chat is going to offer thoughts on the future of the Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds, we really should be attending the Fair to ensure that our understanding of the role of the Fair is up-to-date.

I suggest an Urban Chat outing to the Sonoma Marin Fair on Wednesday, June 24.  The musical group that evening is Tower of Power, the most urban of the acts booked for the Fair.  (Plus, I’m a sucker for a rocking brass section.)

Furthermore, because the Urban Chat plan for the Fairgrounds calls for a strengthened transit connection between the Fairgrounds and downtown, I’ll suggest that the Urban Chat group assemble downtown and ride Petaluma Transit to the Fairgrounds.

We can discuss details at the June 9th meeting.

Fair Street: As a result of the City Repair conversation about 18 months ago, the residents along Fair Street in front of Petaluma High School have put out a questionnaire about Fair Street traffic.  (I also played a small role.)  They will use the results to formulate a possible City Repair project.

If you drive Fair Street often or just want to see what a neighborhood traffic survey might ask, check out the survey here.

And keep an eye on this effort.  It may become a template for other civic activism.

Municipal Committees: Every year about this time, the Petaluma City Council appoints new members to commissions and committees, from the Planning Commission to the Animal Services Advisory Committee.  I suspect other North Bay cities have similar processes.

If you’re excited by the urbanist thinking in this blog, but are unsure where to direct your new enthusiasm, several of the bodies may offer an opportunity.

To be clear, it’s not like any of the bodies have specifically urbanist goals, but there are opportunities to push urbanist perspectives.  On the Transit Committee, I’ve continually advocated for awareness of the opportunities that SMART will provide.  I’m also pushing for an ad hoc committee of Transit and Pedestrian/Bicycle members to look at pedestrian connectivity to bus stops.

But not every urbanist concept is readily accepted.  My suggestion as a member of the Recreation, Music, and Parks Commission that we consider selling portions of a few parks to fund improvements needed to make the parks more popular fell completely flat.

If those kinds of opportunities intrigue, and you’re willing to deal with disappointment of the occasional rebuff, you should look at the appointment possibilities.  Further information can be found here.

Transit Coordination: My last post was on the need for constant attention to regional transit coordination while also maintaining strong intra-city transit service.  Only hours after publishing that post, I heard good news on the regional coordination front.

Working under their Transit Sustainability Project, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission has selected a team of consultants to work with the transit agencies of Marin and Sonoma Counties to develop a coordinated strategy for the coming SMART commuter rail.

One might argue the transit agencies should be able to sort out coordination issues without the need of an outside consulting team.   But one could also argue that couples should be able to make relationships work without a need for marriage counselors.  Sometimes outside observers are necessary to break down walls and to provide new perspectives.  And, by my count, the SMART corridor coordination is a six-agency marriage.  And six unique agency perspectives likely have a greater need for intervention than the two perspectives in a marriage.

The transportation firm Nelson\Nygaard will be part of the consulting team.  The firm is well-known for their cutting edge thinking on modern transportation systems.   I became acquainted with several members of the firm during their work on the Petaluma Station Area master plan and I’m pleased that they’ll be involved in this effort.

I’m excited by the MTC effort and will be eagerly observing as it proceeds.

Measure A: To close with more of a North Bay note, this blog encourages a Yes vote on Sonoma County’s pending Measure A, a five-year quarter cent sales tax increment with proceeds targeted for transportation projects.

In part, my endorsement is the result of many cities pledging 10 percent of any proceeds for transit.  But more important is my continued belief that if we built roads, we need to maintain them.  I still believe we need a parallel conversation about whether we should be changing our approach to new infrastructure because of our frequent unwillingness or inability to fund the upkeep.   But regard of when that conversation begins and where it leads, we should maintain the stuff we already have.

In my next post, I’ll begin a multi-post assessment of a situation that is developing around the two proposed SMART stations in Petaluma.  But before anyone grumbles about the continuing Petaluma-centricity, let me say that the Petaluma situation is only a lens to look at how communities should grow, a subject that has regional and national importance.

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

Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds: Looking Forward Through the Fog

With my last couple of posts, I’ve been sucked back into the subject of possible reuse of the Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds.  First, I recounted my inadvertent quashing of youthful creativity.  And then I explained why, as worthwhile and insightful as the Petaluma Urban Chat conceptual design effort has been, there’s a good chance that the eventual redevelopment will differ significantly from the Urban Chat plan.

Today, I’ll finish the hat trick by trying to peer through the fog of land use to anticipate the path that the Fairgrounds will likely take from today until the last resident moves in, perhaps two decades hence.

I should emphasize that I’m not relying on any inside information to write this post.  No one inside of City Hall or anywhere else is feeding me confidential insights.  I’m writing based solely on nearly four decades of observing public process and land use, in Petaluma and elsewhere.

As of today, this is what my crystal ball is telling me to expect.

Legalities and Politics: The next year, or perhaps two years, will be consumed with legal and political questions mostly outside of the land use issues.  There’s little doubt that Petaluma would be better served if a portion of the Fairgrounds were converted to a more vibrant daily use.  But the Fair Board, City Council, and others will need to wrestle with the legalities of ending the current lease, adopting a new lease, and judging the effects of state statutes and precedents on the process.  These are subjects on which I have little or no knowledge and can’t predict how they will play out.

However, let me insert a thought at this point.  When I talk about Petaluma having a better future with a smaller Fairgrounds, I’m not dismissing the value of the Sonoma Marin Fair.  The Fair has been a valuable element of Petaluma’s past and can hopefully serve a similar role in the future.

And I think the Fair can play a key role in the life experiences of young Petalumans.  I can track my own childhood by the fairs in the California towns where I lived.

The Orange Show in San Bernardino was where I first saw the spectacle of a fair.  I found it especially thrilling to youthful eyes.

The old State Fair in Sacramento was where I first saw a fair as a community meeting place, stopping by the booth where my father was representing the California Highway Department in conversations with the general public.

The Walnut Festival in Walnut Creek was one of the first places where I experienced the world outside of parental oversight, haunting the midway with school friends and hoping, or fearing, to bump into girls from our school.

Back in Sacramento, the new Cal Expo in Sacramento was where I quit scheming to bump into girls, but instead brought my own dates.

Each of those experiences was valuable and I wish to preserve similar experiences for future youths, while also making Petaluma an economically vibrant place that meet the needs of youth during the other 51 weeks of the year.   This is the difficult balancing act.

Technical and Public Input: With the politics resolved, hopefully in favor of some extent of redevelopment, the City will likely spend at least a couple of years considering redevelopment options.   This effort will probably involve at least three elements, hiring a consultant team to assess opportunities and constraints, such as hazardous material cleanup, and to prepare redevelopment options, using City staff to assess the technical constraints on the site, such as water and sewer capacity, and assembling a citizens’ advisory committee to channel public input.

 It’s this last element toward which the Urban Chat effort has been targeted, creating a group of citizens who are educated about and motivated by the Fairgrounds opportunity and who are eager to bring the Urban Chat concepts forward while also allowing those concepts to evolve as new information is uncovered and new ideas offered.  I hope and expect that several Urban Chat alumni would be appointed by the City Council to a citizens’ advisory committee.

However, I should note that citizens’ committees can easily become ineffective.  Both consultants and City staff will have their own agendas and a stronger place at the decision table.  For citizens to be effective, consistent and forceful advocacy is essential.  Stating a perspective and wandering away is a recipe for irrelevance.

I’ve served on citizens’ committees that quickly became self-marginalizing.  One recent committee began its work with nineteen members and finished with four.  But I’ve also watched as citizens’ committees fought against dismissive attitudes and accomplished great things.

I suspect that having a citizens’ committee willing to roll up sleeves, to get dirty, and not to depart until success is achieved is one of two key steps in getting to a good plan.

The eventual result of this stage will be the preparation of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) through which the City will seek a developer to undertake the redevelopment.

(For land use geeks, there is a key decision point here about whether the City would act as the master developer or would give that role to a private developer.  Because of the greater control and financial upside, I’d support the City assuming the master developer role, but understand that the world has mostly moved on from that model because most cities don’t have the capacity to cover the financial obligations and risks, so expect the master developer role to go to a private developer.)

Developer Input: This is the second critical point in the process.  Whether from developers vying to be chosen to redevelop the site or from the selected developer upon further review of the site, the day will come when the City is asked to erode the vision.

The argument might that the developer can’t secure financing or that the marketing folks don’t think they can sell the units.  The argument might be self-serving or it might be legitimate.  But a developer will ask to reduce the public amenities, to revert to more conventional architecture forms, or to reuse building plans they’ve constructed elsewhere.  It’ll be essential that the City Council, Planning Commission, and City staff push back consistently to preserve as much of the vision as possible.

If there is one task in which all citizens can assist in the Fairgrounds process, it is assuring that we have elected leaders in place at this critical stage who will support urbanism and who will appoint and hire folks who will support urbanism.  The ballot box will matter.

Design and Construction: Lastly, there is the execution of the concept.  Ongoing efforts to prevent the erosion of the adopted plan may be required, but hopefully the plan is well accepted by this point.

However, it should be noted that big projects don’t rise out of the ground overnight.  Instead, developers and financiers can only build projects as quickly as the product can be absorbed by the marketplace.  It’s likely that a decade or more will be required to bring the Fairground redevelopment to completion. 

With the current Fairgrounds lease expiring in 2023, a couple of years necessary for hazardous material cleanup, and another decade for construction, the final residents may not move into their new homes until 2035 or later.

During my recent work with a group of teenagers on the Fairgrounds, one student advocated for a teen center and said she knew of a band which could be booked.  I held my tongue, but was tempted to note that the band had better be in good health or might otherwise be using walkers by the time the teen center was complete.  And that it was more likely that the student’s daughter would be the one dancing to the music.

Even if my crystal ball is imperfect, it’ll be a long time from today to completion.  But I hope many of you are motivated to buckle up for the ride and to do your part to ensure that the Fairgrounds redevelopment will serve Petaluma well.

For my next post, I’ll leave the Fairgrounds behind, but not very far behind.  Above, I wrote about how changing the direction of public policy requires continual effort by involved citizens.  As if on cue, a fine example of my point appeared in a local newspaper.  I’ll explain when I next write.

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

Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds: A Chess Primer

I’ve written often about Petaluma Urban Chat’s development of a plan for reuse of the Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds.  This effort, in which I‘ve played a role, anticipates the possibility that lease negotiations between the City of Petaluma and the Sonoma Marin Fair Board will result in some or all of the Fairgrounds being freed for redevelopment.  In early January, I summarized the path Urban Chat had followed and where we would be heading.

Since that summary, the Urban Chat process has made good progress.  A five-person design committee is now meeting weekly to explore alternatives to the conceptual site plan that was adopted by the larger group, to hammer out compromises, and to judge whether the evolving plan seems to adequately meet the needs of all parties.

I’m pleased with the progress and look forward to sharing the plan with readers and with the Petaluma community over the next few weeks and months.  (Also, I’ll be seeking assistance in presenting the plan in the best possible light, assistance that I’ll discuss in an upcoming post.)

But today I want to write about will happen after the plan has been fully introduced.

I’m often asked about to best ensure that the City adopts the Urban Chat plan.  The query is based on an underlying assumption that I don’t accept.  You see, I don’t think the City should adopt the plan.

Before you splutter too much onto your screen, let me explain.

In order to proceed with their site planning effort, the Urban Chat participants had to make a great many assumptions about the redevelopment parameters.  Among the questions to which we assumed answers were the following:

Will the City Council decide that it’s politically acceptable to reclaim a portion of the Fairgrounds for redevelopment?

How much of the Fairgrounds site should be reclaimed?  Twenty acres, forty acres, or all of it?

Will the state, which has the oversight responsibility of local fair boards, intervene to limit the City options?

If reduced to a lesser area, can the Fair Board muster the funds for new construction to function on the smaller site?

Is there the political will to do away with speedway?

Will more than 75 years of environmental contamination limit the redevelopment options?

Will some of the existing structures be judged worthy of historic preservation, thereby restricting redevelopment options?

This list barely begins to scratch the surface of the uncertainties around the Fairgrounds.  In order to move ahead, Urban Chat assumed answers to these questions, good, reasonable assumptions, but still assumptions.

And like most assumptions, they’re likely to be undermined by future events. The chance of all the Urban Chat assumptions being correct is miniscule. 

But that doesn’t mean the Urban Chat participants have been wasting their time.  On the contrary, we’ve been becoming intimately familiar with the variables that will affect the eventual Fairgrounds decisions, the adjacency issues, the transportation opportunities, the zoning code alternatives, and many more constraints.  And in doing so, we’ve created local citizens well-primed to participate in the coming decisions and to effectively respond with valid alternatives as the assumptions change.

Let me offer an analogy.  Let’s say that you’re a complete chess novice, but will be forced to play a game, with a wager attached, against an experienced chess player.  However, you’ll be allowed to select one person to assist you.  Furthermore, you know that your opponent will be playing the Sicilian Defense opening, one of a number of well-established chess strategies.

You have two choices for your assistant, someone who understands the basic moves of chess but hasn’t studied any particular chess strategy.  Or someone who has deeply studied the Ruy Lopez opening, another of the well-known strategies, and has a solid grasp of how to assess the strategic values of the variations from the Ruy Lopez opening.  Who do you choose?

Obviously, you choose the Ruy Lopez expert.  It’s better to have someone who has studied the game deeply, even if that study is in a different variant of the game, than someone who hasn’t done any deep study at all.

And I’ll argue that what the Urban Chat process has created for Petaluma is a group of people who are intimately familiar with the Ruy Lopez variation of the Fairgrounds question.   Even if the Fairgrounds reuse is eventually played along the lines of the Sicilian Defense or some other chess strategy, having Ruy Lopez experts is still a good thing.

So what Urban Chat has been creating isn’t so much a land-use plan, although that plan is very much worth sharing for the enthusiasm and creative juices that it should trigger, but a group of folks who have a good grasp of the Fairgrounds opportunities and constraints and also an eagerness to be a part of finding the best future.

And, as any civic organizer will confirm, having an enthusiastic and educated group of citizens is better than having a good plan any day.

In my next post, I’ll peer deeply into my hazy crystal ball and take some guesses about how the Fairgrounds process will go forward, not the decisions that will be made, but the organizational processes that will be followed and the key decisions points that will occur.

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

King of the Killjoys

Tomorrow’s Leaders Today (TLT) is a national program that teaches high school students about becoming community leaders.  In the scope of the year-long classes, TLT has much in common with the Leadership classes offered for adults by many Chambers of Commerce.  (I was a member of 2002-03 class of Leadership Petaluma and learned many things that I still apply.)

I was recently invited to participate in the land-use education day for Petaluma’s 2014-15 TLT class.  The focus of the day was to be the Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds.  With my frequent writings on the opportunities at the Fairgrounds, most recently here, and my efforts with Petaluma Urban Chat to develop a plan for possible Fairgrounds reuse, it was a welcome invitation which I promptly accepted.

But I wasn’t going into the day as a TLT novice.  I had an earlier experience that had given me a perspective on the TLT process that I hoped to apply.

Several years ago, I took part in a similar TLT exercise for the land adjoining the future SMART station near downtown Petaluma.  At the time, the City planning effort that was to lead to the Station Area Master Plan was in its initial stages, so it seemed a good time for the members of that TLT class to provide their thoughts on where the land-use planning should go.

But that wasn’t exactly how it played out, at least to my way of thinking.  Little was said during the morning session about the city goals for the site: residential units for train commuters, train parking for those who lived elsewhere in the community, transit stops for train riders who arrive by bus, offices for those who would arrive by train to work in Petaluma, and a strong pedestrian connection to downtown Petaluma.

Absent an understanding of those civic goals and needs, the students put forth plans of flower gardens, scenic ponds, and teen centers, all of which may have a place in Petaluma, but not on a site that offered such great potential for improving the function and financial health of the community.  As a result, the thoughts of the students were forgotten as soon as the day concluded.

This time around, I was determined to ensure that the students would understand that stakes of the game, that the Fairgrounds site is probably the most valuable single asset owned by the City and the best opportunity of our lifetime to redirect the future of the City.

And so, in my comments to the group after lunch and in the facilitation of the conceptual design team assigned to me, I hammered on the need for financial return and municipal function.

But, except for those in my group who couldn’t ignore me, my exhortations fell on mostly deaf ears.  When the other groups presented their thoughts for the site, features such as a water park, miniature golf course, and drive-in theatre were prominent.  It was only my group that had a plan including elements such as a hotel, performing arts center, and low-income housing. 

As I listened to the other groups make their presentations, it occurred to me that perhaps I’d been overzealous in my arguments about the need for financial return, that perhaps youth was the time to dream, even if the dreams ran beyond the current expectations of feasibility, and that perhaps I nipped off some great ideas that might change the world.

As we began to break down the room after the last presentation, I offered a quiet apology to my group for having perhaps tamped down their creativity.  They replied that they were quite happy with my facilitation and were proud to have the only plan that was somewhat based in reality.  I’m still not sure if I believe them.

In the unlikely event that I’m ever again invited to take part in a TLT land-use day, I’ll try to find a middle road, encouraging dreams and trying to point out possible ways to make the dreams financially feasible.

That’s the message that probably would have best resonated with me when I was seventeen.

Having returned to the subject of the Fairgrounds, my next post will give an update on the Urban Chat conceptual design effort.  A site plan is taking shape and fundraising to do an architectural rendering or two will soon kick off.  Consistent with my thoughts above about balancing fun and business, the current plan has a hotel, retail space, and residential, but also a recreational velodrome.  So adults can also be imaginative and think outside of the box.

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

Checking Up on Sprawl

Sprawl largely stopped dead during the recession, leaving analysts pondering whether the development paradigm had truly changed or if the slowdown was solely the result of a lack of demand in a stalled economy.

Today, I remain skeptical about the long-term strength of the economy, fearing that more bumps will come our way from the accumulated debt of our failed dalliance with suburbia.  However, with the economy showing at least temporary signs of life, it’s worth checking to see if sprawl is making a comeback.

There’s much evidence that the past momentum of sprawl has been reversed.  Driven by the lifestyle choices of younger demographic segments, the outflow of jobs from urban centers has reversed and jobs are returning downtown in most markets.

Also, the sprawling and half-completed subdivisions that were stranded throughout the west by the recession remain enough of a phenomenon that the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy has prepared a position paper on “zombie subdivisions”, suggesting strategies for resolving the current half-defunct subdivisions and proposing policies to preventing another generation of failed subdivisions during future economic hard times.

But these indications that sprawl is truly dying are somewhat balanced by a story out of Las Vegas in which a stalled subdivision outside of the city is being rebooted after a change in architecture from a more dense, alley-based urbanist style to more stand-alone suburban-style homes.

(There is another question implicit in the Las Vegas project, which is whether an urban-appearing project that is remains largely remote from urban amenities and requires a car for most trips is truly urbanist or only an architectural conceit?  Michael Lewyn tackles the question with regard to a dense but car-oriented project outside of Boston.

Lewyn concludes that the Boston project isn’t bad, although part of his reasoning involves a Burger King a mile away, a distance that is generally beyond the regular walking range of most folks and definitely beyond the walking range for all but the most intrepid during the Boston winter of 2015.

I hold a more firmly negative attitude toward the Boston project, believing that, until walkability and transit serve the project, it is no better than car-oriented suburbia.  The only reason to prefer it to low-density suburbia is the possibility that it can someday be served by walkability and transit.)

However, the Las Vegas situation controversy pivots on a different point, which is the argument of the developers that suburban-style McMansions are what people want and the response of urbanists that developers were too quick to abandon the more-urbanist model when the slow sales were more likely the result of the economy and not the housing configuration.

Personally, I make a different argument, which is that the issue is solely about economics and pricing the alternatives accurately.

If chocolate ice cream and vanilla ice cream had the same price, there might be a fifty-fifty split between those who would choose one and those who would choose the other.  But if chocolate was suddenly three times more expensive, then the split would move sharply in favor of vanilla.  Heck, I’m frugal enough that I’d be one of those making the switch.

Given of a choice of a Ford or a Porsche at the same price, most folks would go for the Porsche.   But if they had to write a check for the actual market price, the Ford would become the overwhelming choice.

It’s the way markets work and they should be celebrated for the way they create wealth while balancing supply and demand.

But when we get to land use, we subvert the signals.  We don’t tax gasoline to account for the environmental or geopolitical costs, so effectively subsidize driving to remote subdivisions.  We charge a flat rate property tax instead of putting higher taxes on folks who need more roads for their daily life.

We then assume that that the split between suburban and urban sales reflects a true lifestyle preference, when all it’s really doing is bouncing back rational financial responses to distorted economic incentives.

The argument then goes further down the rabbit hole when fringe political groups, who claim to champion the free market system, describe urbanism as collectivism and argue for a continuation of the current system of subsidizing suburbia.  It’s enough to make one’s head hurt.

We’ve gone so far down this path of flawed economic signals that backing our way out will be difficult.  But in my next post, I’ll continue the discussion with a thought experiment. 

Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds: In a local update, Petaluma Urban Chat met a few days ago to review three alternative conceptual plans for reuse of the Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds.  The consensus was that all three plans offered good ideas, but that one of plans was a half-step ahead, so would become the base onto which the good ideas from the other plans would be grafted.

The key element of primary plan is a park of perhaps four acres, angling away from the intersection of Payran and D Streets, framed by mid-rise residential buildings on both sides and terminating in a taller mixed-use building, with residential above a public market.

A team of five Urban Chat members was selected to continue the conceptual design effort at weekly meetings.  (Note: This aggressive meeting schedule will require cancelling the general Urban Chat meeting for March to avoid over-commitments.)

Also, it was decided that efforts to mold public opinion with the completed conceptual design would require better graphics than could be accomplished using the tools available to the Urban Chat members.  Thus, the idea was hatched to attempt a Kickstarter campaign to raise funds for presentation graphics, with the further hope that the funds could be stretched by identifying design professionals willing to work at reduced rates.

If anyone is willing to champion a Kickstarter effort, please let me know.

And if anyone not at the most recent meeting would like to see the three plans, also let me know.  I’m available many evenings to chat about the process, the status, and the design concepts.  I’d prefer to chat over a beer at a downtown pub.

It’s been a fun and exciting process thus far, and neither the fun nor the excitement is yet over.

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

Fairgrounds and Block Parties (It must be the summer-like weather)

Fairgrounds: Regular readers don’t need to be reminded about the on-going Petaluma Urban Chat study on possible re-use of the Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds.  (Occasional readers can catch up here.)

The conceptual design efforts are nearing conclusion.  The three teams are putting finishing touches on their designs and will present the plans at the Urban Chat meeting on Tuesday, February 24.  Everyone is welcome, indeed encouraged, to join us at 5:30pm at Taps, 54 E. Washington Street.  And also encouraged to bring a friend or two.  Even if you’ve never attended an Urban Chat meeting, if you have an interest in the future of Petaluma you’re likely to find something of interest in the meeting.

For those who haven’t been part of the process thus far, I should explain something about the intended level of the conceptual plans.  The plans wouldn’t include detailed building footprints or architectural sketches.  To proceed to that level, especially given our non-existent budget, would have been a waste of resources and a short-circuiting of the process.

Instead, the teams will present maps showing allocations of land use and proposed routes of connectivity.  In land-use planning parlance, these are called bubble diagrams and are a key step in the planning process.

My goal for Tuesday evening is to settle on a single design concept, either one of the team concepts or a combination of the best elements of multiple concepts, allowing us to more fully develop that concept for public presentation.  (In the past, I’ve been subtle with this request.  Today, subtlety is dropped.  If you have some graphical presentation tools and skills, and are willing to donate a few hours, you can help Urban Chat share their vision with the community.  And you would earn my gratitude.)

Before leaving the Fairgrounds subject, I’ll recount a recent conversation with one of the conceptual design participants.  He wondered if the next step in the process might be assessing the business attraction needs of the city and focusing the design effort toward that goal.

In response, I shared the StrongTowns philosophy of job creation.  To paraphrase the words of StrongTowns founder Chuck Marohn, we often make political decisions as if a strong economy will be the result of job creation.  But it’s the reverse that we should be following, having job creation be the result of a strong economy.  If we focus on job creation, we run the risk of subsidizing businesses that keep people busy without creating the goods and services that we truly need and want.

The application of this principal to town planning is that we should be creating cool places to live and letting job creation follow.

A great example in our region is the South of Market neighborhood (SOMA) in San Francisco.  Twitter and others didn’t set out to remake SOMA as their corporate setting.  Nor did the City of San Francisco get the ball rolling by trying to attract Twitter and others.  Instead, a younger generation, including many who Richard Florida calls “the creatives”, was attracted to the SOMA as cool place to live.  (Unlike earlier generations, the coming generations are more willing to move without having a job.  They often prioritize life style over employment.  And employment usually finds them.)

Noting the accumulation of talent in SOMA, Twitters and other expressed an interest in locating there, the City provided key financial encouragement, and the rebirth of SOMA was fully underway.

Although on a smaller scale, I think the Fairgrounds can provide a similar function in Petaluma, attracting folks who like the North Bay, but who want to live in a walkable, convivial setting.  And once they’ve found their way to Petaluma, businesses who want to employ people with that mindset will note the accumulation of talent and follow them to Petaluma.

Of course, there would still be the challenge of finding places for the new businesses to locate, but that’s a great problem to have.  (Personally, I remain intrigued by the possibilities of the under-utilized industrial area in the triangle bounded by E. Washington Street, Lakeville Street, and the Petaluma River. And the vision for the Fairgrounds also includes agriculturally-related industrial space and locally-focused retail.)

That’s my vision of the role of the Fairgrounds in Petaluma’s future.  If you share it, or if you have your own ideas to test out, please join us on Tuesday the 24th.

Block Parties: Another subject that regular readers should recognize as a frequent topic is block parties, particularly how the Petaluma Municipal Code is surprisingly unfriendly to block parties compared to other North Bay cities.

When I last touched upon the subject, the Petaluma Police Chief and City Council had indicated their support for block parties, tossing the Municipal Code question back to City staff.  I’ve since communicated with City Hall, offering my thoughts about a block party process that seems reasonable to me.

While I await a response, I came across an exchange on the Quora website that illustrates what can be good about block parties.  I recommend reading the story, but for those who don’t, a police officer on foot patrol at a block party in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood of Brooklyn asked to borrow a skateboard.  To the surprise of the young skateboarders at the party, he proved his ability to still do a few moves, perhaps forever changing the perceptions of some about the police department.

There’s no place in the North Bay like Bed-Stuy, but I can still hope for the equivalent of this type of public-police interaction at North Bay block parties.

Data will be the subject of my next post.  I recently attended a meeting on the advanced use of demographic data for land use planning.  The conclusions didn’t surprise me, but the clarity that the data brought to the subject was startling.

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

Change Happens, but Takes Continual Effort

I’ve occasionally written of a large land-use project in Oregon with which I was involved many years ago.  (The photo was taken on the site, many years later.)  The original concept had a strong urbanist component.  Indeed, it was where I was introduced to the idea that urbanism was possible in the modern world.

But the initial plan was waylaid by a reluctant planning commission, or perhaps by my inability to educate a reluctant planning commission, and then truly ended by a forest fire that roared through much of the site.  (The land adjoined the city limits but was beyond the limits of the municipal fire fighting system.)

From the ashes, a smaller, more focused project arose.  There were still urbanist elements to the new plan, but they were less dramatic than in the earlier plan and needed more nurturing to reach full flower.

It was during the entitlement process on this second, smaller project that I truly became engrossed in the details of land-use permitting.  As the only member of the team who worked locally, with all of the partners and other consultants about three hours away in Portland, I had the day-to-day task of assembling the applications, of writing the utility master plans, and of coordinating with the local agencies.  I was smitten.

But my role was still limited to the engineering and entitlement tasks.  As the project moved through the hearings and approval seemed imminent, the partners began to look for someone to act as president of the local construction and sales efforts.  They soon found a candidate they liked.  After several days of interviews in Portland, they offered him the job and sent him over the mountains to tour the site.

I’ve long forgotten his name.  All I remember is that he was then working in Richmond, Virginia.  And that I immediately enjoyed his company.

We spent much of the afternoon touring the 500-acre site and the town.  We then settled into a dinner that, with post-dinner libations, extended far into the evening.  The prospective president and I shared many of the same perspectives on land use.  This evening was over twenty years ago, so neither of us yet had the working language of urbanism that would come later, but we had the same thoughts of on-site retail, of a clubhouse that would serve as the living room for the community, of a strong network of bicycle/pedestrian paths, and of allowing electric golf carts for on-site travel in place of cars.

 By the time the evening was over, I was excited by the prospect of working with him for the next several years.  I believed we’d be a fine team, good for the project and good for the community.

Thus, it was with surprise and chagrin when I learned a week later that he had declined the job.  The reason, as reported to me, was that he believed the plan was too far advanced for him to have much effect on how the project developed.  He preferred to find a position where he could be involved at an earlier stage.

In his place, the partners settled on a married couple to serve as the local president and vice president.  I enjoyed both of them and learned much from them.  But the urbanist opportunities withered away during their tenure, many despite my efforts.

The hotel that would have complemented the private homes was lost because the opposition from early homeowners was under-estimated.  On-site housing for lower income staff fell to the same fate.  On-site retail was lost due to a marketing gaffe.  And golf carts were relegated to the bicycle/pedestrian paths, undermining all modal options except cars.  Even the water conservation goals were undermined.  It was still a fine project, but the prospects of it being transformational had been wasted.

As my project involvement wound to a close a decade later, I could look at where the project stood compared to the vision at the time of entitlement and could tick off the vast range of changes that had been wrought, most of them away from urbanist ideals.  And I could realize how wrong the prospective president had been when he declined the job offer because there were too few remaining options to shape the project.

I mention this story because it pertains to thinking I’ve been hearing about the efforts of Petaluma Urban Chat on the Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds.

Some think that a deal has already been reached between the City and a master developer, making our efforts moot.  Other fear that no one will care about the Urban Chat effort.  Still more believe that offering a good plan will be adequate and that no further effort will be required except showing up for the grand opening.

All are wrong.  I doubt any deals have yet been struck.   And even if they have, there will be many, many changes that occur between today and the groundbreaking.  Also, the public can always move the wheel.  But the wheel doesn’t move unless shoulders are kept consistently to the wheel, with feet churning.

Petaluma Urban Chat can make a difference on the Fairgrounds, but only if we work like Marshawn Lynch and keep pounding at the pile.  (And if the coach in a moment of weakness doesn’t call for a pass from the one-yard line.)

There are always a surprisingly number of opportunities to make land uses better serve our needs.  But those beneficial changes only happen if folks work diligently for the changes. 

Having forgotten his name, I have no way to check on the man who declined the chance to work with me those many years ago.  But, based on my initial impressions, I like to think that he had a long and successful career.

I also like to think that he learned a lot about how land uses can change slowly but surely if people of good will and continual effort want it to change.  Which means that he probably looked back at some point and regretted passing on the Oregon job offer.

Petaluma Urban Chat

The next meeting of Petaluma Urban Chat will be Tuesday, February 10.  However, the agenda for the meeting has been changed from what I previously reported.  Given the difficulty of sorting through the options for re-use of the Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds, the conceptual design teams will need another couple of weeks before presenting their proposed plans at an Urban Chat meeting on Tuesday, February 24.

Instead, the meeting on the 10th will be devoted to the teams honing their ideas.  Everyone is welcome, but those not on a team will likely find themselves looking over shoulders or chatting on the sidelines.

However, the doors will be wide open and all vigorously invited on Tuesday, February 24 when the three visions are presented and opened to comment.

Both meetings will be at Taps, 54 E. Washington Street and will begin at 5:30pm.

Next time, I’ll bring my New Year’s “Intro to Urbanism” to a close, with a summing up and suggestions for further study.

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)